Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[Derideo_Te]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Would they receive 8.8 times the benefit?

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax

LOL! That's funny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is a flat tax.

Sure, it makes sense, and the WP is wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Would they receive 8.8 times the benefit?

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax

LOL! That's funny.

Why would they need 8.8 times the benefit?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes force them to give up $57,000.

No make it $67,000 what another 10,000 among millionaires right ?

 

[Mr Natural]

$58,700?

That's like a new BMW 5 Series going unsold.

 

[g5000]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

 

[Ragnar]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

As already pointed out to you, that is patently false.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes.

So what are you waiting for?

Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

It's already a flat tax.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

It's not a knee jerk reaction to be opposed to robbing someone of the wealth they rightfully earned. It's simple morality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

g5000, the rich do need to pay more than what they are, and you can count on that happening within the next decade: no way around that.

You are also right that SS should be adjusted to live expectancy and working longevity.

The retirement age can be extend logically and fairly.

 

[Defiant1]

Just because someone makes a million dollars a year doesn't mean he/she has any more disposable income than someone who makes $30k a year.

 

[g5000]

g5000, the rich do need to pay more than what they are, and you can count on that happening within the next decade: no way around that.

If we are ever going to pay down the $16 trillion debt, everyone is going to have to pay more. As we used to say when I was on active duty when things got really bad, "It's a big shit sandwich, and everybody has to take a bite."

You are also right that SS should be adjusted to live expectancy and working longevity.

The retirement age can be extend logically and fairly.

It should be indexed to 9 percent of the population. That's what percentage were above the age of 65 when Medicare was enacted. When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4 percent were over 65.

Today, 13 pecent are over 65. This is clearly unsustainable.

Raise the eligibility age to 70, then index to 9 percent going forward.

 

[g5000]

The last guy in the picture is taking the money from Social Security to buy more tanks, planes, and ships.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post



The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Would they receive 8.8 times the benefit?

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax

LOL! That's funny.

Why would they need 8.8 times the benefit?

I didn't say they need it, but if you're taxing them 8.8 times as much as you're taxing them now, are you saying their maximum benefit would be unchanged?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

I would say no.

 

[whitehall]

Can someone making a million dollars a year afford to have his house burglarized or his car stolen or to be mugged for the money in his pocket? Sure he can.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

Can someone making $1000 a year afford it? Of course he can, should he have to pay it simply because he can afford it? No.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

Since you raised the question of "fair" why must everyone else subsidize the social security of those who patently don't need it? And you also raised the question of the differences between when it was originally started and now. So why hasn't the cap been raised to keep up with the increase in the income of the wealthy?

The percentage of earnings covered by the tax max has fallen since the early 1980s because earnings among above-max earners have grown faster than earnings among the rest of the working population.

The Evolution of Social Security's Taxable Maximum

Perhaps "fair" is only for the wealthy according to your rationale.

 

[Derideo_Te]

g5000, the rich do need to pay more than what they are, and you can count on that happening within the next decade: no way around that.

If we are ever going to pay down the $16 trillion debt, everyone is going to have to pay more. As we used to say when I was on active duty when things got really bad, "It's a big shit sandwich, and everybody has to take a bite."

You are also right that SS should be adjusted to live expectancy and working longevity.

The retirement age can be extend logically and fairly.

It should be indexed to 9 percent of the population. That's what percentage were above the age of 65 when Medicare was enacted. When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4 percent were over 65.

Today, 13 pecent are over 65. This is clearly unsustainable.

Raise the eligibility age to 70, then index to 9 percent going forward.

But heaven forbid that anyone dare suggest indexing the max rate to earnings!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

I would say no.

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.