Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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?
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
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?
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
Everyone already pays payroll taxes up to the income cap. This includes the "47%". No one is exempt from SS deduction up to the income cap.
So that is already happening.
This is about removing the cap so all income is taxed and there is no "taxcut" for the wealthy when it comes to SS. Yes, this would mean an adjustment to the benefits cap based upon the actuarial insurance formulas.
If you want everyone to be taxed then that should include those that aren't paying taxes on their earnings while the 47% are doing so, right?
When was the last time we used our military to defend us? WWII?How about we bring them all home and set the goal to defend the country vs police the world.
The merits of any particular military operation is beside the point. The issue here is that the purpose of the military is to defend us and it has to be big enough to do the job. You cannot determine the size of the military budget by asking the quesiton: How much money should we spend/save? You need to ask FIRST how big the military must be and ONLY then do you determine that you will not spend more than is necessary.
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
Everyone already pays payroll taxes up to the income cap. This includes the "47%". No one is exempt from SS deduction up to the income cap.
So that is already happening.
This is about removing the cap so all income is taxed and there is no "taxcut" for the wealthy when it comes to SS. Yes, this would mean an adjustment to the benefits cap based upon the actuarial insurance formulas.
If you want everyone to be taxed then that should include those that aren't paying taxes on their earnings while the 47% are doing so, right?
In my opinion...everyone should pay the exact same thing..... the very same %. i dont care if you make 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars....
if they want 50% off your billion....then they better take 50% off of that one dollar
When was the last time we used our military to defend us? WWII?The merits of any particular military operation is beside the point. The issue here is that the purpose of the military is to defend us and it has to be big enough to do the job. You cannot determine the size of the military budget by asking the quesiton: How much money should we spend/save? You need to ask FIRST how big the military must be and ONLY then do you determine that you will not spend more than is necessary.
Try Al-queda following 9-11. You don't think that was a war of self defense?
Next you would be crying about means testing and claim that the guy who paid in 7.5% of his million dollar salary for 40 years is ineligible.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?
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
Everyone already pays payroll taxes up to the income cap. This includes the "47%". No one is exempt from SS deduction up to the income cap.
So that is already happening.
This is about removing the cap so all income is taxed and there is no "taxcut" for the wealthy when it comes to SS. Yes, this would mean an adjustment to the benefits cap based upon the actuarial insurance formulas.
If you want everyone to be taxed then that should include those that aren't paying taxes on their earnings while the 47% are doing so, right?
Next you would be crying about means testing and claim that the guy who paid in 7.5% of his million dollar salary for 40 years is ineligible.
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
Everyone already pays payroll taxes up to the income cap. This includes the "47%". No one is exempt from SS deduction up to the income cap.
So that is already happening.
This is about removing the cap so all income is taxed and there is no "taxcut" for the wealthy when it comes to SS. Yes, this would mean an adjustment to the benefits cap based upon the actuarial insurance formulas.
If you want everyone to be taxed then that should include those that aren't paying taxes on their earnings while the 47% are doing so, right?
It's a wealth transfer scheme. Privatize a portion of it and get government out of out bank accounts.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Why cut defense by 70%? Do you know how big the military has to be to adequately defend us? If you don't, how do you know that 70% is justified? I will agree with any cuts to save money but only after it can be shown that such cuts will not render our military inadequate to the task.
How about we bring them all home and set the goal to defend the country vs police the world.
Right... do you realize that after such a cut our military budget would still be twice that of China, our closest competition?
Do you realize that that cutting our military budget by 70% would mean royally fucking over the men and woman who served this nation so that people like you can reward crack-whores and herion-addicts who have done nothing but help destroy this nation? We don't take care of them as it is and you want to cut them 70%?!?
When you cut welfare, medicaid, food stamps, and Obamacare by 100%, we can talk about cutting defense. Until that time, you sound like an absolute fuck'n moron proposing something so asinine.
Well shit, let's start a couple more wars so we can keep the soldiers employed. Sorry, you're insane.
then i am for upping EVERYONE.... 5.87%..
that means the 50% or so of them out there who pay zip into the system.... will get 5.87% less back on their returns.......
and for the ones who have no deductions from a pay check or tax return...... 5.87% off of all of their entitlements cut and put into SS.
Everyone already pays payroll taxes up to the income cap. This includes the "47%". No one is exempt from SS deduction up to the income cap.
So that is already happening.
This is about removing the cap so all income is taxed and there is no "taxcut" for the wealthy when it comes to SS. Yes, this would mean an adjustment to the benefits cap based upon the actuarial insurance formulas.
If you want everyone to be taxed then that should include those that aren't paying taxes on their earnings while the 47% are doing so, right?
In my opinion...everyone should pay the exact same thing..... the very same %. i dont care if you make 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars....
if they want 50% off your billion....then they better take 50% off of that one dollar
When was the last time we used our military to defend us? WWII?
Try Al-queda following 9-11. You don't think that was a war of self defense?
Afghanistan might fit that definition but it was closer to retribution that self defense but the sake of argument I will give you that one. However Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 so that cannot be classified as "self defense" by any stretch of the imagination.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Why cut defense by 70%? Do you know how big the military has to be to adequately defend us? If you don't, how do you know that 70% is justified? I will agree with any cuts to save money but only after it can be shown that such cuts will not render our military inadequate to the task.
Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):
