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

The problems with Social Security demonstrates that liberal policies are unsustainable. People were forced into participating in SS, though initially that wasn't going to be the case. Many might have preferred to save for their own retirement. First, they made everyone pay. Then they steadily increased the amount everyone paid in. Then they started borrowing from the account. Then they started taxing the SS checks. They started giving it to people who never contributed to the fund.

The government programs have encouraged more and more people to depend on government. Now there are not enough tax payers to share the burden, so the amount each person is now responsible for is huge and it's still growing.

What if liberals hadn't come up with the idea of SS in the first place or if they had kept the promise to make it voluntary? Maybe so many wouldn't be dependent on it right now and we wouldn't be in this mess. I know the word "privatization" is considered evil to the left, but many have done far better on their own instead of automatically counting on government for their retirement. I think people stopped trying so hard to build their own nest egg when they knew there was a safety net. Never mind that government cannot handle money responsibly and that politicians are known for lying and making promises they never intend to keep, people had no choice but to pay in and had less money to invest on their own.

Look at the amount taken from your paycheck for SS and other taxes. It's disgusting that government continues to increase the amount they rob from us and all that happens is that problems get worse, causing them to keep taking more and more. We need to break this cycle.

People would faint at the thought of someone ending social security payments because the government successfully got people hooked on the idea that there is no other choice. The pathetic little amount each person gets doesn't go far and the person never gets back the same amount that they and their employer paid in. How much better would it have been for them to put the same amount they paid for SS in a retirement account? Of course, liberal balk at the idea of people actually being responsible enough to fend for themselves. The liberals know that if they can collect money from the workers under the premise of taking care of everyone, they'll get enough money to add non-contributing people to the doles and more money will be spent on those who never paid a dime. It's both wealth redistribution and a Ponzi scheme. It will come crashing down eventually. Too bad that the foolish people who started it were unable to understand the long term effects of their feel good policies.

Of course, everyone on the left will say that a 5.87% on the wealthy isn't just fair, but quite generous because the government will still allow people to keep most of their income. We all know that government is anything but generous and all about grabbing and holding onto power and control. But, once everyone agrees that it's necessary for politicians to reach their grubby paws further into peoples' pockets to keep their lofty ideas afloat, then we will continue to see the taxes rise at regular intervals. Even if the government were to take 100% of peoples' earnings, their programs would still be unsustainable, but that won't stop them from continuing to confiscate wealth and keep feeding their big mistakes until the resources run out. Before the left creates more laws citing their false claims of saving the planet, they might want to consider repealing some laws and adding common sense legislation to save the tax payers and wealth creators. We are the most endangered species right now.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
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? :lol:

"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.

Working longer is a great idea.............if there were jobs.
 
Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

Why would a 66 year old have their entire portfolio in stocks?

They wouldn't! The drama queen just made that up after I mentioned a Bush proposal to allow individuals to invest 10% of their SS into the market.
 
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? :lol:

"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.

this>
There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age.

keeping it at 65 while making the 'rich' pony up mores sounds unfair to me, its already means tested too.
 
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.

Really??? I'm amazed that you even know how to spell disposable income, because you sure as hell don't know what it is after that comment.


You are correct. I should have said disposable cash to make it perfectly clear.
 
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?

So your theory of taxation is that government should soak people for as much as they can pay without starving, right?
 
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.

Really??? I'm amazed that you even know how to spell disposable income, because you sure as hell don't know what it is after that comment.


You are correct. I should have said disposable cash to make it perfectly clear.

Is disposable cash the kind of money you can throw away? Or is that income? I'm still not clear
 
I don't know how you people don't yet understand marginal tax brackets.

An increase in the highest bracket does not mean one will pay that same increase for 100% of his income.

Don't assume I am for higher taxes. I'm not. But can we at least have accuracy in tax discussions?
 
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?

And that doesn't bother you does it? You think you are simply entitled to dip your hands into someone elses pockets simply because YOU deem them rich.

Sickening
 
Maybe taxation should be voluntary on the part of the tax payer.

to a certain degree, it can be. there are forms that your can file to reduce your tax contributions (ie... FICA) , in return you give up being able to make any claims for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.... There is still a small deduction for the portion of the SS program that goes toward orphans, indigents, etc....
 
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?
It isn't the amount that is at stake in the argument.
 
$58,700?

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

and that BMW being unsold reduces the income of all sorts of people.

The salesperson who didnt get a commission
the dealer who didnt get his profit from it
the mechanics who would have been working on it
the car wash where its washed


and the list goes on. Instead it goes into the government buracracy, where the government takes its cut, and the $$ goes to some other people.
 
Social security is no longer an individual retirement savings account. It is now a tax where by those working pay for the retirement of those who have lived long enough to retire.

As a tax, it should be collected on all income.

Problem solved, Next.
 
Social security is no longer an individual retirement savings account. It is now a tax where by those working pay for the retirement of those who have lived long enough to retire.

As a tax, it should be collected on all income.

Problem solved, Next.

That was not the bill of goods that was sold all those years ago. The reason for the cap on contributions was your benefits were capped.

If you remove the cap on one and dont remove the cap on the other the purpose of the law written to create social security is changed in a basic and total way.
 
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.

Tell that to a masons helper,or a pipe fitter or any of the other of trades that work with their backs. Adding on almost 5 years isn't going to work for many.
 

Forum List

Back
Top