[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Chris Christie's big Presidential idea: torch Social Security
Source: LA Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/hil ... tial-idea-20150414-column.html
Published: Apr 14, 2015
Author: Michael Hiltzik
Post Date: 2015-04-14 18:56:23 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3129
Comments: 33

If there's any immutable rule in politics, it should be: beware of candidates who try to be "bold" merely for the sake of looking bold.

Chris Christie, trying desperately to keep his Presidential hopes alive, wants to look bold, and he's not above throwing millions of elderly Americans under his campaign bus to do so. That's the only conceivable explanation for the New Jersey Republican governor's misinformed and dangerous proposals to "fix" Social Security.

In his big campaign speech delivered Tuesday in New Hampshire, Christie showed that he doesn't understand what Social Security is for, why it exists, how it's funded, or who gets benefits and why.

His major proposals are to cut off Social Security for high-earning recipients, and to raise the retirement age. Neither would significantly improve Social Security's fiscal condition, and raising the retirement age might even be damaging.

More on that in a moment.

Click for Full Text!


Gov. Christie Fails to Report Income,
Avoids $152,000 in Taxes

Tuesday, 14 Apr 2015 06:04 PM
By Mark Lagerkvist, Watchdog.org

Gov. Chris Christie failed to report as income or pay taxes on $380,000 in expense allowances he received from the state, according to a New Jersey Watchdog examination of Treasury data and the governor’s tax returns.

By not declaring the allowances on their joint returns, Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, avoided roughly $152,000 in federal income taxes over four years.

Despite an exchange of emails, Christie’s press office did not offer comment.

In addition to his $175,000 a year salary, Christie gets a $95,000 a year expense account. In the state budget, it’s described as an "allowance to the governor of funds not otherwise appropriated, for official reception on behalf of the state, operations of an official residence, and other expenses."

The governor is not required to provide receipts, refund surpluses, or provide information to the state on how the money is used. But failure to report a "non-accountable" allowance to the Internal Revenue Service is a different matter.

Contrary to IRS rules, Christie did not declare the allowances as income on federal returns for 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. The 2014 return is due Wednesday, but Christie typically receives six-month filing extensions.

The allowance is a New Jersey tradition that began in the mid-1970s. The original purpose was to provide funds to the state’s chief executive to run the governor’s mansion, now at Drumthwacket in Princeton, and hold official events there.

Click for rest of story at NewsMax


Poster Comment:

As if the bridge scandal isn't bad enough, Governor LardAss is a tax cheat who thinks senior citizens should have to keep working past their retirement years.

What an asshat.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

" Governor LardAss is a tax cheat who thinks senior citizens should have to keep working past their retirement years. What an asshat. "

He wants everybody to keep working to keep him supplied with cheeseburgers, FFries, fried chicken, mashed potato's & gravy, and buckets of ice cream.

He is also a douche bag!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-14   19:06:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Willie Green (#0)

Want to save Social Security? Then tax all income with it. It goes into the general fund and is spent. So treat it as a general revenue raiser and hit dollar earned with it, a flat tax if there ever was one. Don't just hit wages below a certain level, and leave really massive wages without it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-14   20:05:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

" Want to save Social Security? "

Lets also do the following:

No pay in, no pay out

No use those funds for general use

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-14   20:57:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Willie Green (#0)

I'd guess this is the last we'll hear about Krispy Kreme Christie running for prez.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-15   0:56:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

Want to save Social Security? Then tax all income with it.

An idea I do agree with.

The investor class and tycoons in both parties would scream bloody murder.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-15   0:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#4)

Wrong. This will resonate with the working folks.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-04-15   1:00:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Stoner (#3)

Lets also do the following:

No pay in, no pay out

No use those funds for general use

I dislike accounting games - pretending that the Income Tax is different from Social Security is different from Medicare is different from gas excises...that money is "earmarked" for certain things.

All that does is create a lack of transparency which then allows politicians and government accountants to run riot.

I prefer replacing ALL taxes and gamesmanship about taxes with one simple flat gross wealth tax, at a fixed rate, with no exceptions for anything, not even one. Applied universally.

Put the money all in the general fund, and then apportion it to expenses without pretending that some money is different from other money. It's not. When they say it is, it's a lie and it always has to be a lie: money is utterly fungible. There is no such thing as a lockbox. It's a trick.

I dislike tricks.

We're not going to go to a flat gross wealth tax. But if Social Security and Medicare tax hit ALL income, it would cease being regressive, and is flat and has no deductions.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-15   11:27:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: TooConservative (#5)

"Want to save Social Security? Then tax all income with it.
An idea I do agree with."

Then you also agree that the more you pay into this federal quasi-retirement account the more you're paid each month after you retire?

Joe Blow gets his $1300 per month and Richie Rich gets $6500 per month?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-15   11:36:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

"with one simple flat gross wealth tax"

The tax on existing wealth has already been paid since that wealth was acquired with after-tax income.

Are you're saying that you want a tax on all new wealth? Think you can raise enough money?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-15   11:41:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#8)

Joe Blow gets his $1300 per month and Richie Rich gets $6500 per month?

If you structure it that way.

I would likely cap maximum payouts much lower than that.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-15   19:15:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TooConservative (#10)

"I would likely cap maximum payouts much lower than that."

Oh, I suppose we could go back and forth over the next 40-50 posts debating just what that amount should be.

Instead, can we agree that if the rich "contribute" a disproportionate share to Social Security they should receive a disproportionate share upon retirement?

Or do you want to drop the sham and just come out and say you favor taxing the rich more and means-test them when they retire?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-16   10:42:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#11)

Instead, can we agree that if the rich "contribute" a disproportionate share to Social Security they should receive a disproportionate share upon retirement?

It is Social Security, not Retirement Investment.

You seem to want to make it pay out like an investment would.

OTOH, I would look more into paying out of benefits up to the life expectancy of the recipients. So if you die at 65 and life expectancy is 74, it would continue paying out to your estate for an additional 9 years.

There are some pensions that do this, including some for the state of Texas.

There is something wrong with a system that gives you $0 dollars after you paid in for 44 years after starting work at 18 and working for 44 years before dropping dead. As it is, all of those S.S. premiums are stolen by the system with no payout at all.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-16   11:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#12)

"As it is, all of those S.S. premiums are stolen by the system with no payout at all."

Yep. Not only to you but to your surviving spouse/family.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-16   14:17:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#9)

The tax on existing wealth has already been paid since that wealth was acquired with after-tax income.

Are you're saying that you want a tax on all new wealth? Think you can raise enough money?

No. Tax EXISTING wealth. All of it. Old. New.

An income tax taxes NEW wealth. And is steep.

I do not think that work should be encouraged, and rapaciously taxed, while old stored up wealth is immune from taxes.

Tax ALL of it, at one low rate, and stop the nonsense of dozens of different taxes at different rates, all just to grab another piece of what somebody has.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-16   16:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)

"while old stored up wealth is immune from taxes."

And by "old, stored-up wealth" you mean savings and investments. You're saying that people who set aside money for the future or risked their money by investing it should be penalized.

Whereas the people who spent all of their income like drunken sailors with no regard for their future or the future of this country should get a pass.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-16   16:37:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15)

And by "old, stored-up wealth" you mean savings and investments. You're saying that people who set aside money for the future or risked their money by investing it should be penalized.

Penalized? No. Just taxed on it.

Right now, people who work and whose wealth is in the form of wages are penalized. But people who have accumulated wealth see it rise in wealth from year to year, without taxes, with taxation delayed.

Stop privileging old wealth over wages. Tax EVERYTHING, it's all wealth and a dollar is a dollar. Tax all of it at about 2%. Do away with the rest of the taxes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-16   16:59:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

Right now, people who work and whose wealth is in the form of wages are penalized. But people who have accumulated wealth see it rise in wealth from year to year, without taxes, with taxation delayed.

Stop privileging old wealth over wages. Tax EVERYTHING, it's all wealth and a dollar is a dollar. Tax all of it at about 2%. Do away with the rest of the taxes.

Let me get this straight...

You want to tax wealth which probably was taxed at some other time again because it is stored wealth. If it is taxed all at once, then you won't have to tax it again, correct.

If that is the case, then what if the GrubberMint spends up all of this "tax" money? Does it go through another round of 2% tax on all stored wealth? Also, this does give a pass to people who does not have stored wealth to tax. That means that the "wealth", or wages as you call it, belongs to the employers at the time, so the employers will be the ones to get taxed. Do the workers see this "tax" reflected on their paychecks?

Currently we have a system of "wealth transference" taxation, which means that taxes to not incur until money is transferred due to an economic transaction. Do we do away with economic transactional based taxes?

Help me out here, I am nowhere near the financial expert you are...

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-04-16   18:05:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: TooConservative (#4)

I wouldn't be too sure about that the establishment is pretty ignorant.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-04-16   18:17:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

"Penalized? No. Just taxed on it."

The were taxed on it. I say that a second tax is a penalty, imposed on certain people because they chose to save money and invest it while others pissed it away.

"But people who have accumulated wealth see it rise in wealth from year to year, without taxes, with taxation delayed."

You've described a typical savings account. You realize, don't you, that taxing an activity tends to discourage that activity?

"Tax all of it at about 2%. Do away with the rest of the taxes."

Fine. Do away with all taxes. Tax all newly created wealth at 2%.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-16   18:29:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: TheFireBert (#17)

"If it is taxed all at once, then you won't have to tax it again, correct."

Nope. He wants to tax your accumulated wealth at 2% every year. If your wealth is in fixed assets (home, car, boat, etc.), good luck finding the cash every year to pay your tax.

As with the inheritance (death) tax, you'll probably have to sell off your assets in order to come up with the money.

(They did a wealth tax in Europe and it failed miserably. And it was just a supplemental tax.)

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-16   18:39:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Willie Green (#0)

They can scrap it... It's a socialist idea anyway. Just give me every dollar I put in plus 25% interest, compounded , daily.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-16   18:45:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#20)

Nope. He wants to tax your accumulated wealth at 2% every year. If your wealth is in fixed assets (home, car, boat, etc.), good luck finding the cash every year to pay your tax.

Which is an idea dreamed up by Leftards during the Clinton administration.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-04-16   18:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: (#22)

You all DO realize that the property tax on your house is a wealth tax.

You pay taxes on your income. And then you pay taxes, every year, on your house. Year after year.

And taxes on houses average about 1.25%.

So therefore we should remove all property tax, because it's a tax on wealth, right?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-17   8:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)

"So therefore we should remove all property tax, because it's a tax on wealth, right?"

No. We should remove it because it's unfair. Why should property owners be singled out to pay all the costs for local education, police, fire, ambulance, community center, library, etc.?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-17   14:19:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#24)

Why should property owners be singled out to pay all the costs for local education, police, fire, ambulance, community center, library, etc.?

Perhaps because they receive the benefits?

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-17   14:41:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Jameson (#25)

"Perhaps because they receive the benefits?"

They're not the only ones who receive those benefits. Many people pay no property taxes yet receive the same benefits. Is that fair?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-17   15:27:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jameson (#25) (Edited)

Perhaps because they receive the benefits?

Is it considered proportional, or is it considered socially just?

Owning a house is not always a sign of wealth. It just means that the owners created a way to keep what they paid for, rather than to continue paying someone while retaining zero value in return.

In states where property tax is the only tax available, citizens who do not own property contribute a lot less to their own burden. I am not for causing more of a burden on those who do not have the same means, but at least they could contribute more that near-zero for their own benefit. I found it ridiculous that when I was making under $30K and married, I rarely paid enough tax, state or federal, to even say I was contributing. Without the state sales tax, it would have been closer to being paid to live. If I were using public transport and didn't own a vehicle, I know I would have been a leech on society, even though I was "paying taxes"...

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-04-17   17:06:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#26)

Many people pay no property taxes yet receive the same benefits.

Like whom?

Renters? They pay property taxes through their rent payments.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-20   7:51:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: TheFireBert (#27)

In states where property tax is the only tax available, citizens who do not own property contribute a lot less to their own burden.

"...citizens who do not own property contribute a lot less to their own burden..."

I would argue that their landlord collects their proportional share of his property tax...

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-20   8:01:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Jameson (#28)

"Renters? They pay property taxes through their rent payments."

When I moved in 1990, my property taxes were $12,000 per year. You're saying a renter pays that?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-20   9:12:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#30)

my property taxes were $12,000 per year. You're saying a renter pays that?

If a landlord doesn't cover his costs (including the taxes on the property), He should dump the property.

So, yes the renter pays the property tax to the landlord, it is part of the rent.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-20   9:19:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite (#30)

in 1990, my property taxes were $12,000 per year

Where did you live, Marin County?

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-20   9:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Jameson (#32)

"Where did you live, Marin County?"

I lived in a city where my property taxes had to pay for city services that all the renters used.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-20   9:26:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com