social security

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Simple fix, like the other simple fixes that have happened over the years:

Raise the cap to $200,000 or $250,000

Social security will then be funded at full benefits (heck could even increase benefits with that) into perpetuity based upon expected population and length of life.

Yes it's that simple.

Sure punish success.....Capitalism at its best!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Sure punish success.....Capitalism at its best!

Not really. Has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "success". You're defining "success" backwards, based upon where the cap is now. That's not very logical. The vast majority of people pay out of every dollar they earn. The cap is arbitrary. No reason not to move it up a little.

Move it up a little, especially on people that will hardly notice it, versus people where it will make a life-impacting change, and everyone - including them - benefits greatly.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not really. Has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "success". You're defining "success" backwards, based upon where the cap is now. That's not very logical. The vast majority of people pay out of every dollar they earn..

Look I consider success (at least financially) in dollars made not dollars paid in taxes.

I know Dems would love to see virtually every shortfall covered by the (vast minority as you'd call them) in fact that is the essence of them being called socialistic.

BTW Dems who are currently in support of the overpaid fat and happy public workers don't seem the least concerned with the 'vast majority' being forced to pay despite barely making it.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Look I consider success (at least financially) in dollars made not dollars paid in taxes.

I know Dems would love to see virtually every shortfall covered by the (vast minority as you'd call them) in fact that is the essence of them being called socialistic.

BTW Dems who are currently in support of the overpaid fat and happy public workers don't seem the least concerned with the 'vast majority' being forced to pay despite barely making it.

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

[jms62]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

Social Security was fixed in the mid-80's but our forward thinking presidents took the money and left a bunch of IOU's. All of them Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

On another note if you are not pissed off enough I highly recommend

http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Mach...9521214&sr=8-1

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

Every time there is a shortfall in the government, it's always the rich people's fault; it's never the government's spend too much fault.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans!

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

When an argument is put forward that first highlights how much more should go to the poor, and then asserts that the rich don't "need" as much because they have so much left over, you can be sure that the principle espoused is a socialist one.

5% of people paying 54% of the bill isn't "fair"? Are you kidding? How much is enough???

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

How about addressing the real problem. That the unfunded commitment we have for future SS and Medicare obligations is in the $90 trillion dollar range. And why in the world did Obama cut the SS tax this year if the program is in trouble? Is it that spending our way out of bankruptcy theory again?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

When the top 5% "the rich" pay a far lower end tax rate than 95% of the rest of the population, pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the country, then "fair share" needs to be discussed.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

When the top 5% "the rich" pay a far lower end tax rate than 95% of the rest of the population, pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the country, then "fair share" needs to be discussed.

Here you go again with new math. A single filer over $373K after deductions pays 35%. Oddly enough when you do the math he/she pays 35% of their income. 130.5K/yr (in dollars 74.5K more (percentage wise)

Conversely a single filer making 34K after deductions is taxed at 15% and again lightning strikes twice and the percentage of income paid is 15%. $5.1K/yr (in dollars $6.8K less in percentage)

Of course this does not include investment income that has already been taxed and is repeating for the umpteenth time.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.

This thread is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

Obama better get ready because everything is coming to a head in the next few weeks.

The Saudi Day of Rage is nearly upon us.

[clyde]

So simple even the government will wake up to the answer.




Kill everyone receiving ss.

God,...it's them---right?

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

like i said, if you only pay it back to those who 'deserve' it, it's no longer what it was set up to be. if we aren't paying enough to keep it solvent, raise the withholding-don't lower it like what was done for this year! and don't let the gov 'borrow' from it, then we have to pay that back as well.