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 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.
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.
true, but when LBJ merged the SS fund with the general fund, it ceased to be what it was set up to be, it became a tax by which working people pay retired people.
we need to face that reality and collect in on all income, or at least raise the max above the current 106K, maybe to 1 mil.
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.
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.
true, but when LBJ merged the SS fund with the general fund, it ceased to be what it was set up to be, it became a tax by which working people pay retired people.
we need to face that reality and collect in on all income, or at least raise the max above the current 106K, maybe to 1 mil.
Then we would need to lower all federal taxes by the corresponding amount.
The fed budget could use some trimming.
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."
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.
Then make the disability requirements lighter for the "back break" workers than the office and white collar folks.
The point is this: with good will from all sides, we can SS easily work in the future.
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.
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.
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.
They pay multiple increments of the average taxapayer, which subsidizes the rest of us.
How about this, for every increment over the average tax bill, they get one extra vote.
THAT would be FAIR.
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.
Maybe taxation should be voluntary on the part of the tax payer.
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.
They pay multiple increments of the average taxapayer, which subsidizes the rest of us.
How about this, for every increment over the average tax bill, they get one extra vote.
THAT would be FAIR.
No, it wouldn't, and Citizens will be overturned before 2024.
They are not paying enough, but instead of raising rates, just shut off loopholes.
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.
They pay multiple increments of the average taxapayer, which subsidizes the rest of us.
How about this, for every increment over the average tax bill, they get one extra vote.
THAT would be FAIR.
No, it wouldn't, and Citizens will be overturned before 2024.
They are not paying enough, but instead of raising rates, just shut off loopholes.
They pay multiple increments of the average taxapayer, which subsidizes the rest of us.
How about this, for every increment over the average tax bill, they get one extra vote.
THAT would be FAIR.
No, it wouldn't, and Citizens will be overturned before 2024.
They are not paying enough, but instead of raising rates, just shut off loopholes.
Who the fuck are you to say who is or is not paying enough?
You are a typical progressive statist, you want to play with other people's money, and you want the government to get it for you.
You dont have the honor or the decency to go out and rob it yourself.
and howabout we shut off the deductions YOU get, put your money where your mouth is you socialist fuckwad.
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!
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.
Does the Constitution automatically make something right?
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!
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?
No, it wouldn't, and Citizens will be overturned before 2024.
They are not paying enough, but instead of raising rates, just shut off loopholes.
Who the fuck are you to say who is or is not paying enough?
You are a typical progressive statist, you want to play with other people's money, and you want the government to get it for you.
You dont have the honor or the decency to go out and rob it yourself.
and howabout we shut off the deductions YOU get, put your money where your mouth is you socialist fuckwad.
don't let jake get to you, he/she/it is not a real person. he/she/it is a dem/lib talking point repeater.
