Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Callous conservatism has downsides, something callous conservatives simply can't seem to understand. Cutting SS and medicare puts more economic pressure on state and local governments, it solves noting, would increase unemployment and make the misery index rise.

The solution to SS is simple, raise the artificial ceiling; provide universal preventative health care to every citizen from cradle to grave and put doctors and other health care providers who cheat into prison, and take away their license to practice medicine.

Sounds great. Can government buy us all a vacation home on an Island and provide us with a new car every three years too?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Increase the top bracket to 40% as part of a balanced deficit cutting deal, that is much heavier on the spending cutting side. The rich will not suffer with that, believe me.

40%. And then when you add city, county and state tax, they'd be paying something like 60 to 75% of their income to the various governments.

If our federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If our federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No...as in Fuck No.
There are 100 reasons not to raise the age...
1) Less employment opportunities for the young
2) Who the f*ck wants to work till they damn near drop dead??
3) Employers will let most of them go before they reach age because so many will no longer be able to perform their duties.
I could go on.
It is a dumbass idea

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

Slash defense before slashing anything else. Or at least admit we're planning to take over the world that we spend so much.

The defense of this country is outlined in the Constitution. Our founders thought it most important that we do. They mentioned nothing about food stamps, housing or WIC.

Lot of defense spending is simply waste. Dead projects that still get funded because the money's going into secret bank accounts and the like. Would love a massive top to bottom audit of all government spending. Could reduce the budget a lot just killing the money going into black hole type projects.

 

[rightwinger]

it ain't that easy is it? IF you contribute more........then that person gets bigger payout, right? So if someone pays in up to 1mil.........they get 10K/mo? is there any savings? If the guy get nothing out of it then this is a TAX increase on the wealthy. right?

Maybe they need a MAX payout per month?

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

Its actually larger than that. If you look at where you were twenty years ago vs where you are today you probably get alot less. Used to be annual increases were the norm, now they are rare. Health insurance was a throw in from your employer. You may have gotten a pension of some kind

Those days are gone. Employee pay and benefits have been cut to the bone. It might have made sense if profits were down, but they are not. The share of the pie allocated to the workers has shrunk......meanwhile, you continue to protect the wealthy

 

[rightwinger]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

Slash defense before slashing anything else. Or at least admit we're planning to take over the world that we spend so much.

The defense of this country is outlined in the Constitution. Our founders thought it most important that we do. They mentioned nothing about food stamps, housing or WIC.

Lot of defense spending is simply waste. Dead projects that still get funded because the money's going into secret bank accounts and the like. Would love a massive top to bottom audit of all government spending. Could reduce the budget a lot just killing the money going into black hole type projects.

There are no secret bank accounts. What there is, is pork. Defense projects are funded because of whose districts they are in. Spread enough money around to the right districts and you can ensure that the money will keep flowing

Nobody wants to explain to their constituents why that big defense plant was shut down

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

Slash defense before slashing anything else. Or at least admit we're planning to take over the world that we spend so much.

The defense of this country is outlined in the Constitution. Our founders thought it most important that we do. They mentioned nothing about food stamps, housing or WIC.

Lot of defense spending is simply waste. Dead projects that still get funded because the money's going into secret bank accounts and the like. Would love a massive top to bottom audit of all government spending. Could reduce the budget a lot just killing the money going into black hole type projects.

There are no secret bank accounts. What there is, is pork. Defense projects are funded because of whose districts they are in. Spread enough money around to the right districts and you can ensure that the money will keep flowing

Nobody wants to explain to their constituents why that big defense plant was shut down

Made a thread in Congress about duplicative spending. Over $6 billion wasted just by spending money twice for one project. Since we're not getting double the results, but the money's still going somewhere, the reasonable conclusion is it's being embezzled.

 

[rightwinger]

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Bull

There is $84 trillion in household wealth in the US. Here is how it is distributed

 

[Davros]

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

 

[danielpalos]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

I think we need to end our extra-Constitutional and non-specifically enumerated, war on drugs.

 

[Davros]

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Also, I'm not planning to receive ANY money from Social Security. I'm planning on it blowing up by then. So, you're welcome.

 

[leftwinger]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Bull

There is $84 trillion in household wealth in the US. Here is how it is distributed

You are showing Wealth from 2010. I believe it has already been run through the TAX mill.

 

[leftwinger]

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement.

NO. AND $2K/mo after 40-50 years work is hardly living "high on hog". The GOVT screwed it up. In fact they screw up almost everything. Yet last two elections people voted for "more" of it. Nothing is fixed, example healthcare now screwed up more. SSI is not fixed. Military not fixed. Medicare.. on and on. The only thing they do well is COLLECT money thru IRS and Military?

GOVT gets big salaries, big lifetime pensions and everything is screwed up. This thread was SSI, now it is TAX rates, what should GOVT do.

I don't want you to pay more than 10%. All pay 10%. CUT GOVT to bare, fix it, clean it. Many threads have ideas and fixes for GOVT. They are paid GOLD PLATED to solve problems. They are not doing their ONLY job.

We did not do it to you. When THEY spend other peoples money, well you see what happens.

 

[leftwinger]

I think we need to end our extra-Constitutional and non-specifically enumerated, war on drugs.

Yep, another big bloated GOVT program that does not work well. Lots of employees, big budget, running around the world spending OUR money w/o much oversight. Do we get any say?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think we need to end our extra-Constitutional and non-specifically enumerated, war on drugs.

Yep, another big bloated GOVT program that does not work well. Lots of employees, big budget, running around the world spending OUR money w/o much oversight. Do we get any say?

Of course if you voted you got your say. In a democracy we don't always get our way, if I had mine we would never have gone into Iraq, and never suffered through a lost decade under the GWB Administration.

The War on Drugs is a failure, that we know. What I wonder is why those who would be POTUS are not asked why we continue to do the same thing year after year and expect one day to achieve success?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

As is the annuity.

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Not correct. Monthly payout is apportioned as an annuity - which is capped at a maximum of $2,663 per month. No matter how long you pay in, that is the most you will get.

 

[Uncensored2008]

OH, I see. What is this magic MAX PAYOUT per month? I have not seen this figure if it exists now.

$2,663.

What is the maximum Social Security retirement benefit payable?

 

[leftwinger]

I think we need to end our extra-Constitutional and non-specifically enumerated, war on drugs.

Yep, another big bloated GOVT program that does not work well. Lots of employees, big budget, running around the world spending OUR money w/o much oversight. Do we get any say?

Of course if you voted you got your say. In a democracy we don't always get our way, if I had mine we would never have gone into Iraq, and never suffered through a lost decade under the GWB Administration.

The War on Drugs is a failure, that we know. What I wonder is why those who would be POTUS are not asked why we continue to do the same thing year after year and expect one day to achieve success?

1.) the "media" is wasting time on Gotcha questions? (did you call Rosie fat pig 8 years ago?)
2.) War on drugs is way low on Pareto of screwed up costly GOVT crap? not sure?
3.) Insanity of nation? same thing over and over.......just look through this board. Talking points.
4.) Like tossing money at Education willy-nilly without meaningful results? Insanity with our money.

I admit I do learn things in here. After sifting through mountains of gibberish.

 

[Freewill]

OH, I see. What is this magic MAX PAYOUT per month? I have not seen this figure if it exists now.

$2,663.

What is the maximum Social Security retirement benefit payable?

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,663. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,025. If you retire at age 70 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $3,501.