We must not cut Medicare and Social Security to individuals who have been paying into these systems for decades. For those of us who have been paying into Sociall Security and Medicare since our first paid jobs as teenagers, with the expectation that we have the right to expect that we will have a modest and continuing source of income after we have stopped working as well as access to affordable medical services. If we do not have access to these benefits due to a combination of misuse of the funds collected from us, and an imposition of an income ceiling, above which no funds are collected for the Social Security and Medicare funds. These individuals with incomes above $100,000 are most able to afford to contribute the funds now needed to pay expected benefits to everyone who is eligible to receive them. These contributions have become necessary because of the perennial raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the Federal budget. All American workers, except for those working for certain state governmnts which have opted to provide retirement income to their employees outside the Federal system, have essentially contracted with the Federal government to pay us, and if now, the rules are changed for us, many millions of hardworking Americans will be instantly thrown into poverty and with no access to the health care we have been paying for in advancce, for many decades. My proposed solutions: 1. Abandon the contribution ceiling for paying into the Social Security system. Everyone with income, no matter how high, should be required to pay into the system, at the same percentage rate as everyone else. Alternatively, we could re-engineer the financial and regulatory basis of boh systems, by creating a new progressive payment scheme in which a percentage of income would be paid into Social Security and Medicare prior to retirement by everyone, with no ceiling on the amount of income subjected to "the payroll tax" and with the percentage of income paid be "progressive," with progressively higher blocks of income subjected to progressively higher social security tax rates, in an effort to levelize the economic burden of the amounts paid into the system by the various socio-economic income groups that exist among American workers and those who derive all or substantial portions of the if incomes from investments. The other component of this proposal is that a firm separation be made between the funds collected for the Social Security and Medicare systems, and the federal budget. The time is long overdue to take this step in the management of the Sociql Security and Medicare trust funds. I would go so far as recommendinv that any members of Congress or the Administrative branches of government who would make any serious effort to raid Social Security or Medicare funds for the purpose of balancing the Federal budget should be subject to automatic impeachment. I would also propose that an independent board be established to determine how those funds should be invested to produce a steady increase in the value of the funds collected over and above the cumulative value of the collected funds themselves. To implement these two remedies would assure that neither Social Security nor Medicare is ever again in a position of collecting less that it is curently paying out, thus becoming just one more burden to be paid for of the federal budget, and that we are never again faced with any realistic forecast of when the trust funds themselves will be depleted in their entirety.

Corporations whose business decisions and international trade actions are detrimental to the economy of the United States should not be "rewarded" for such actions. Thus, the protections afforded to a corporation by its status as an American corporation should be earned and deserved. Thus, we can simply grant or take away IRS tax benefits based upon the following: 1) The measurement of jobs created, lost or maintained; 2) Whether the USA is the location of the largest percentage greater than a threshhold of say 60% of the company's employees; 3) Benefits afforded to employers for each non-H1B employee; 4) Thresshold established and deduction for manufacturing a product here in the USA, not just assembling its last couple of screws.

Rich corporations and politicians call it protectionism; unemployed and working class Americans call it survival.

If we had a flat tax that started at 5% and ended a 35% with those making over a million and count all inheritance as income. give business that stay at home a different rate than those that do have a least 85% of there business here. leave the soc and medicare rate as is. Make the states that have taxes rate no higher than 2.5% and the cities that have taxes at no more that 1,5%. no deduction no returns. You can only spend what you collect. All excess taxes are to accumulate and let the voters at the next presidential election decide on the ear mark.

The United States has a high corperate tax rate of around 35%. What if we give businesses tax breaks of up to 10% but for them to qualify they have to use 5% of the tax break to hire new workers. Companies that have billions in profits could end up using some of that money to hire more people and gain more profit. I think this would encourage business to take the tax break because they get more workers that could increase quality and more profit could increase more investment which would also increase the economy. In reality the 10% tax break wouldnt really be 10% because the 5% they would use to hire new workers would now pay into the system instead of the system(government) paying into them. This would increase tax revenue and could have a snowball effect.

THE SAD PART OF THE WAY YOU LIBERALS ATTACK THE RICH FOR NOT PAYING THEIR “FAIR SHARE” OF TAXES BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T RAISE THE RATE TO 39% AND USING BILLIONAIRES AS THE REASON, IS THAT IT IS DISTORTED. USE BUFFET AS A GOOD EXAMPLE. YOUR RIGHT, HE DOESN’T PAY HIS FAIR SHARE. HOWEVER, HE ONLY PAYS A LITTLE OVER 10% NOW. RAISING THE RATE WOULDN’T AFFECT HIM, OR THE OTHERS WITH GREAT WEALTH, BECAUSE THE MORE MONEY YOU HAVE, THE LESS % YOU PAY DUE TO THEM BEING ABLE TO YOU USE ALL THE TAX LOOPHOLES. THE FACT IS, THAT THE WHOLE TAX CODE NEEDS TO BE REVISED, NOT THE TAX RATES. WHY DON’T YOU GO ON A CRUSADE ON THIS FACT INSTEAD OF DISTORTING THE REAL FACTS? THE POLITICIANS USE ALL THESE TAX LOOPHOLES TO “BUY VOTES” AND CREATE THE LARGE NUMBER OF LOBBYISTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. MAYBE IT’S TIME TO PUSH FOR A “FLAT TAX”, “NATIONAL SALES TAX”, OR SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE. THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES AND WOULD DO AWAY WITH MANY OF THE LOBBYISTS. AND JUST MAYBE, THE POLITICIANS WOULD THEN DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE.
CHUCK W.

THE SAD PART OF THE WAY YOU LIBERALS ATTACK THE RICH FOR NOT PAYING THEIR “FAIR SHARE” OF TAXES BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T RAISE THE RATE TO 39% AND USING BILLIONAIRES AS THE REASON, IS THAT IT IS DISTORTED. USE BUFFET AS A GOOD EXAMPLE. YOUR RIGHT, HE DOESN’T PAY HIS FAIR SHARE. HOWEVER, HE ONLY PAYS A LITTLE OVER 10% NOW. RAISING THE RATE WOULDN’T AFFECT HIM, OR THE OTHERS WITH GREAT WEALTH, BECAUSE THE MORE MONEY YOU HAVE, THE LESS % YOU PAY DUE TO THEM BEING ABLE TO YOU USE ALL THE TAX LOOPHOLES. THE FACT IS, THAT THE WHOLE TAX CODE NEEDS TO BE REVISED, NOT THE TAX RATES. WHY DON’T YOU GO ON A CRUSADE ON THIS FACT INSTEAD OF DISTORTING THE REAL FACTS? THE POLITICIANS USE ALL THESE TAX LOOPHOLES TO “BUY VOTES” AND CREATE THE LARGE NUMBER OF LOBBYISTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. MAYBE IT’S TIME TO PUSH FOR A “FLAT TAX”, “NATIONAL SALES TAX”, OR SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE. THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES AND WOULD DO AWAY WITH MANY OF THE LOBBYISTS. AND JUST MAYBE, THE POLITICIANS WOULD THEN DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE.
CHUCK W.

Tax land, not buildings, earnings or wealth. All land - no exceptions whatsoever.
Easy to collect - no-one can take land to a tax haven.
Collect taxes on the rental value of land (high in Manhattan, low on grazing land) - no payroll or income taxes of any kind - no more undeserved rewards for land owners for the infrastructure evryone else pays for. If you get wealthy you (or your heirs) stay wealthy for as long as you or they can make either make more efficient use of the land or can afford to compensate the commonwealth for the opportunities denied to other members of it.
Say goodbye to real estate bubbles and all the problems that come with that and all other forms of economic rent.
This would lead to a system where effort is rewarded and social mobility more possible.
See Ricardo, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Henry George etc.
This is a tax system which has worked to rejuvenate economies wherever it has been tried - crucially it collects only unearned gains - and is, consequently, unpopular with those who would have great wealth without effort.
This is a free market solution for a democracy which really is ruled by the governed and not a small portion of them.

The comments on both these articles are illuminating:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/25/land-value-taxation-lvt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper