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

[RKMBrown]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.

Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.

What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

ROFL It's the exact opposite of what you just said. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of your lies.

 

[P@triot]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.

Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.

What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

Derideo_Te is so stupid, he needs a link to the glaringly obvious!

If you said the sun was hot, he would respond "where is your link"?

 

[P@triot]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.

Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.

What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

ROFL It's the exact opposite of what you just said. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of your lies.

He's not entirely wrong RMK - minimum wage workers pay into Social Security and millionaires draw out of it.

Social Security is literally (in every way) the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme and just another glaring example of failed Dumbocrat policy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone making $50,600.00 per year is already paying the full 7.65% of their income into SS.

OK great. We're talking only Social Security here. Right now, someone who has made about $100,000/year gets the maximum benefit when he reaches 65 Now, you want the guy that makes a million bucks to fork over 7.65% of the just under $900,000 that is now exempt. Yup THAT'S fair...

Justify paying for something he cannot receive.

The OP stated that this only about SS. Earlier in the thread the topic of adjusting the benefits cap was raised and yes, that can be done too using the appropriate actuarial formula.

If you multiply the benefit when you multiply the tax, you don't extend the life of the program. So why bother?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.



Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.



What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

ROFL It's the exact opposite of what you just said. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of your lies.

He's not entirely wrong RMK - minimum wage workers pay into Social Security and millionaires draw out of it.



Social Security is literally (in every way) the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme and just another glaring example of failed Dumbocrat policy.

It's only become so disparate after the income levels changed so dramatically over the past sixty years. When it stared, SS was a good idea. But for some reason they keep using SS to fund all kinds of other programs. The Republicans and the Democrats who have been passing laws are the ones to blame for the majority of issues surrounding SS. Supporting them only propagates them to further their closed door deals and screw the common man more drastically each decade.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK great. We're talking only Social Security here. Right now, someone who has made about $100,000/year gets the maximum benefit when he reaches 65 Now, you want the guy that makes a million bucks to fork over 7.65% of the just under $900,000 that is now exempt. Yup THAT'S fair...

Justify paying for something he cannot receive.

The OP stated that this only about SS. Earlier in the thread the topic of adjusting the benefits cap was raised and yes, that can be done too using the appropriate actuarial formula.

If you multiply the benefit when you multiply the tax, you don't extend the life of the program. So why bother?

We already had this discussion. The benefit has never been a straight line extrapolation. It is based upon an actuarial insurance formula.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.

Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.

What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

ROFL It's the exact opposite of what you just said. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of your lies.

He's not entirely wrong RMK - minimum wage workers pay into Social Security and millionaires draw out of it.

Social Security is literally (in every way) the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme and just another glaring example of failed Dumbocrat policy.

No he's entirely wrong.

In general, the millionaires put significantly more in than they get back, and the minimum wage workers get significantly more back than they put in.

Yes it's a ponzi, but not because the poor don't benefit from it. It's a ponzi because each subsequent generation pays double by % of income than the previous generation, that and the returns on your SS are from future deposits not based on any profit/interest earned from your deposits.

IOW it's a ponzi that disproportionately benefits the poor (significantly) and also disproportionately punishes future generations (significantly). A ponzi for the purpose of redistributing wealth from the rich and future generations.

 

[g5000]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

 

[RKMBrown]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

In the case of our politicians & CEOs who got rich from tax payer funded quid-pro quo I agree. They should all be arrested and jailed under RICO.

 

[g5000]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

In the case of our politicians & CEOs who got rich from tax payer funded quid-pro quo I agree. They should all be arrested and jailed under RICO.

Not every rich person whose wallet the OP writer would like to lift is a Wall Street CEO.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well i dont think anyone has to worry too much about all this since this idiotic proposal has no chance of passing -- NONE -- ZERO -- Zilch - Ninguno.

Plus the Post is right -- why do you need to increase a program that transfers wealth to the often affluent elderly? How many get a social security check so they can retain their paid up house woth hundreds of thousands or maybe a million or more so they can leave it to the kids -- all at the expense of the taxpayer.

What the left doesnt get is that on balance social security transfers money from a less affluent base of tax payers to a more affluent base of recipients -- on average.

At the expense of the taxpayer? Are you paying my fucking utilities? My taxes? Are you stopping by Saturdays to paint, do plumbing repairs?

Just what does my house cost you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

In the case of our politicians & CEOs who got rich from tax payer funded quid-pro quo I agree. They should all be arrested and jailed under RICO.

Not every rich person whose wallet the OP writer would like to lift is a Wall Street CEO.

Flame away if you can't provide anything of value but libelous insinuations will not be tolerated.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's been 30 pages. Let's summarize the OP to refresh our minds what this is about: "That guy over there looks like he has a fat wallet. He does not deserve that money! I think the government is totally justified in taking it from him."

Not at all. That is a fair description of the OP.

 

[Ernie S.]

In the case of our politicians & CEOs who got rich from tax payer funded quid-pro quo I agree. They should all be arrested and jailed under RICO.

Not every rich person whose wallet the OP writer would like to lift is a Wall Street CEO.

Flame away if you can't provide anything of value but libelous insinuations will not be tolerated.

By who? You? And you get to decide what is libelous?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not every rich person whose wallet the OP writer would like to lift is a Wall Street CEO.

Flame away if you can't provide anything of value but libelous insinuations will not be tolerated.

By who? You? And you get to decide what is libelous?

So you wouldn't have a problem if you were being falsely accused of stealing money from other people's homes?

li·bel

noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person.
"a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
a false and malicious statement about a person.
a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.

1.
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The OP stated that this only about SS. Earlier in the thread the topic of adjusting the benefits cap was raised and yes, that can be done too using the appropriate actuarial formula.

If you multiply the benefit when you multiply the tax, you don't extend the life of the program. So why bother?

We already had this discussion. The benefit has never been a straight line extrapolation. It is based upon an actuarial insurance formula.

The benefit has never been a straight line extrapolation.

The tax has never been open ended.
Are you saying a guy who pays triple the tax (say $350,000 income) doesn't get triple the benefit he'd get now?
Then how much would he get, "based upon an actuarial insurance formula"?

 

[Ernie S.]

Flame away if you can't provide anything of value but libelous insinuations will not be tolerated.

By who? You? And you get to decide what is libelous?

So you wouldn't have a problem if you were being falsely accused of stealing money from other people's homes?

li·bel

noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person.
"a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
a false and malicious statement about a person.
a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.

1.
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.

It's hyperbole, perhaps, but hardly libelous.

 

[Ernie S.]

If you multiply the benefit when you multiply the tax, you don't extend the life of the program. So why bother?

We already had this discussion. The benefit has never been a straight line extrapolation. It is based upon an actuarial insurance formula.

The benefit has never been a straight line extrapolation.

The tax has never been open ended.
Are you saying a guy who pays triple the tax (say $350,000 income) doesn't get triple the benefit he'd get now?
Then how much would he get, "based upon an actuarial insurance formula"?

The Dems have been talking about "means testing" for SS for years. They want to turn that into a dollars for votes scheme too.

 

[P@triot]

In the case of our politicians & CEOs who got rich from tax payer funded quid-pro quo I agree. They should all be arrested and jailed under RICO.

Not every rich person whose wallet the OP writer would like to lift is a Wall Street CEO.

Flame away if you can't provide anything of value but libelous insinuations will not be tolerated.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION] - did you see that this buffoon is threatening you? I say you dare him to bring "libelous" charges. Apparently this buffoon doesn't know that there cannot be libel for anonymous internet avatars

Yep, [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] really is that stupid!