social security

[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???

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

Joey, go read up on the definition of "socialism". It's not what you apparently think it is at all.

[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?

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

Oh Jesus!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

that'll work!

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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.

You missed the point and misunderstood. Read it again.

[Danzig]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...w9dk_blog.html


Harry Reid says no to Social Security reform
By Jennifer Rubin
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has consistently denied there is an immediate Social Security crisis, and, therefore, he says won’t consider Social Security reform. He was at it again yesterday:

“Two decades from now, I’m willing to take a look at it,” said Reid, 71, in an interview to air Wednesday evening on MSNBC. “But I’m not willing to take a look at it right now.”




The Social Security fund’s own actuary explained in a 2010 report that if action isn’t taken sooner rather than later, “then changes necessary to make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations.” That would entail such measures as increasing the payroll tax to about 16.1 percent in 2037 and roughly 16.7 percent in 2084. Benefit cuts “would be reduced 22 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2037, with reductions reaching 25 percent in 2084.”

Entitlement spending and payment on the debt now are about 70 percent of our federal spending. Without reform, we’ll continue to rack up more and more debt and crowd out available funds for every discretionary program.

[Antitrust32]

Harry Reid is an fing idiot. they all are.

okay, ignore the problem because who knows maybe it could hurt your election. but put the burdon on the future generations.

that's The American Way

[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?