Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

Why should anybody get anything free? We all use the tax system for our advantage so we should all pay.

Currently, nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. Yet when we need more money, we don't go to those people. We go to the people that are already paying most all of the taxes.

they pay with federal gas taxes, gvt fees, federal tobacco taxes, and pay the corporation's income taxes through their higher priced purchases to cover the corp's income tax bill etc etc etc....

they also pay the bulk of federal payroll taxes, and all of their surplus social security taxes have been used to pay for the federal budget....sure the gvt borrowed the money from them, but the gvt doesn't want to and can't afford to pay it back....

so, the idea that people who pay little to no federal income tax are not being taxed by the federal gvt, or are not paying for our federal gvt and don't have a stake in the game, is ludicrous.

So where do you think the money comes from that funds our military, gives all those government workers a comfy retirement and health benefits, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, HUD..............

It all comes from our federal income tax that half of the people don't pay into.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

Let me ask, was DumBama concerned about the poor when he first took office and instituted a sin tax; a tax that mostly effects the poor? When DumBama closed down all those coal fired power plants to save the planet, was he concerned about the poor who will have to pay higher energy prices?

The same thing is happening here where I live. We have a consumption tax of nearly 8% on all purchases. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax. The liberals who instituted these taxes didn't question if the poor could pay them or not. They just put them there and tough crap.

A consumption tax ... you said you support that. In my state food and clothes are exempt.

And no, I don't support everything Obama does. You still haven't said what you want my payroll tax increased to.

As for taking from the rich, yeah I'll take their money to an extent. I support a progressive income tax. Those who enjoy more of the bounty can share more of the burden. But I'll fight tooth and nail against 75%, 85%, 95% top marginal tax rates. That's asking too much and would harm the economy. 40% on anything beyond a million is fair.

So fair to you is taking the property of somebody else to give to you? That's fair?

I already said that if we want these social programs, we should pay for them. If you want Social Security, then we have to fund it--not the rich. So we increase SS contributions by 25% or whatever it takes to keep the program going.

Oh, but that's not fair. I shouldn't have to give my hard earned money to support a program I'm going to take advantage of. Tax the rich! Let them support the programs I depend on.

So, yeah, my 20% figure was right, then.

So you're okay with me paying 31% of my salary in flat tax plus payroll deduction, while the fat cat making 2 million pays only 16%. That's fair to you.

If you tax anybody it's taking away their money. So let's mark you down as supporting eliminating tax and shutting down all government functions. Let the corporations raise their armies and we revert to feudal Europe.

I support progressive tax because the rich enjoy more of the bounty of America, so yeah, they can pay more of the burden. And don't worry. A man who makes 2,000,000 is going to be okay taking home 1.4 million instead of 1.8 million. He won't even notice it.

How do you know what he will notice?

If you ask a person making 20K a year, he would tell you that the person making 50 K a year is making too much and needs to be taxed.

If you ask a person making 50K a year, he would tell you that the person making 80K is making too much.

If you ask the person making 80K a year, he would tell you the guy making 130K is making too much.

Money is property, and when you take property away from somebody against their will, it's called theft. Granted we all need to support this massive government society we created, but we should to so evenly instead of by how much work and investment others have made that we didn't.

The biggest problem we have today is that people want this and want that, but don't care how it's paid for as long as it's not them paying. That's why we have 18 trillion dollars in debt today. Perhaps if we all paid a little more, maybe people would pay attention to what their government is spending money on and the outcome of all these social programs.

 

[Freewill]

I am going to point out two things. First SS, RIGHT NOW, is not in trouble and expenditures are less then receipts. I provided the data there is no argument. But SS keeps coming up as something that has to be cut. Receipts are up, assets are up I am not sure where in lies the problem. Although many are right that some people will out live the amount they put into the system those people are "moving on" and will not be part of the system soon.

Might I also point out that reciepts to the general fund are higher then ever?

 

[Freewill]

Think about it. The general fund receipts are higher then ever what an opportunity for Congress and the President. They didn't need to cut anything only maintain spending levels and they would have had a balanced budget.

But no they do exactly the opposite the pathetic liars. They pass a two year budget that removes the debt limit. Which actually means they removed the problem of them voting on raising the debt limit every 6 months. They are also free from doing their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget every year. They did it so we the voters would forget about it and not realize what is happening. Not that they cared anyway but I am thinking they just got tired of being told they were spending too much.

Every dog that voted for the BS should be seeked out to be removed from office through the vote. They do not deserve to sit in high places.

EDIT: I realize that just maintaining spending levels would not be enough to balance the budget in one year. We are doomed, if my wife spent our money like Congress spends money there would be some major fighting.

But let's argue about cutting the self-sufficient SS, that is easy and requires no real thought.

 

[Old Rocks]

Make the SS and Medicare taxes on all income, and raise the level to $500,000. Problem solved.

 

[Freewill]

Make the SS and Medicare taxes on all income, and raise the level to $500,000. Problem solved.

What problem are you solving? According to the SS administration, at least for now, SS is not in trouble. They will be in trouble when the US government defaults but that is another story.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

Who told you life was fair? And why demand that life be fair for you and millionaires, but not for those who are needy, a result of the accident of birth, their own personal failures or denied opportunities?

Buying financial instruments, by your silly definition, is a Ponzi scheme, since money you earned is kept by the broker/salesperson. At the very least some of our tax money is spent for the common good of all. Keep in mind, a Ponzi Scheme is illegal; the jobs of brokers is legal though not always honest/ethical.

BTW, the political ideology you espouse is little different than slavery, both provide meager sustenance for too many while the wealth of the nation is disproportionately distributed to the few.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

65.3 percent of the wealth is held by those other then the 1 percent. Why is that surprising to you and why do you think that not fair?

Steve Jobs, made a fortune, how much wealth should he have held compared to a broom pusher at Walmart?

Once again I must remind others of this sage remark:

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"

 

[Wry Catcher]

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

LOL:

Stealing is against the law, taxes are passed and legally imposed.

Your idea of fairness is ridiculous, a horse race, a handicap in golf and a progressive tax system are examples of things which each seek fairness.

A bank charges double digit interest and pays less than 1% interest and charges those with small balances a fee, while providing loans at a lesser rate to those with large accounts and paying a higher rate of interest isn't fair, and is an example of legal institutional discrimination.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

In few words such a plan is doctrinaire, impractical and foolish. Push it out and factor in an abolition of the 'death' tax and in a generation or less we will become a third world Plutocracy. A course set already by the power elite who hold nothing but disdain for the vision for America framed in the Preamble to the COTUS and these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[g5000]

Why should anybody get anything free? We all use the tax system for our advantage so we should all pay.

I will let Thomas Jefferson respond:

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

 

[g5000]

I am going to point out two things. First SS, RIGHT NOW, is not in trouble and expenditures are less then receipts.

Key words: Right now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now if we really want to solve the debt problem, we first must get the annual deficit under control. Here's a high hurdle, but one which has a higher likelihood of success than anything else I've read on this forum:

• Amend COTUS and provide POTUS the line-item veto***
• Amend COTUS and limit POTUS to one six year term
• Amend COTUS and require a voice vote on every spending bill, tax increase and tax cut put to The Congress
• Amend COTUS and have the People decide to renew the contract of each Justice (including the Chief) Every Ten Years
• Amend COTUS and allow the Congress the authority to limit the power of money used to influence elections.

***Congress will retain the power to override each item vetoed by POTUS under the same rules for any other veto

 

[g5000]

The budget could not only be balanced, but could run a giant surplus, very easily. With just one piece of legislation less than a single page long.

Ban all tax expenditures.

Benefits of such a move:

1. We would immediately net an $800 billion budget surplus.

2. People earning identical incomes would pay identical taxes.

3. Your tax form would be half a page.

4. Tax rates for EVERYONE could be lowered.

5. Campaign cash donations would plummet.


There is a lot of smoke and mirrors and theater for the rubes to deflect from the biggest government gift program in the history of the Universe. No one even talks about it. Not a peep, even though it is costing us $1.2 trillion a year.

That's amazing, when you think about it. How is possible a $1.2 trillion annual boondoggle doesn't get even three seconds of air time ever?

Instead, we're pissing and moaning about peanuts. Rubes.

 

[g5000]

Think about it. If you didn't get a child tax credit, would you stop fucking? Would the human race die out?

Nope.

It's bullshit. Completely unnecessary. And yet we somehow actually believe this bullshit that we need a child tax credit to incentivize people to breed!!!

It's all like that. We pretend to be conservatives but actually DEMAND government intervention in every aspect of our lives! Gay marriage wouldn't even be a political issue if the government wasn't gifting the shit out of us just for being married. As if we would stop getting married if we didn't get tax breaks and other gifts.

Hypocrisy.

Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Then when we have high debt, who do we blame? That guy over there. God forbid we look in the mirror at the real culprit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

If you are born after 1946, you have no option for the extended benefits by waiting until 70. Full retirement age is extended anyway. Many will be looking at 67 for full retirement.

I thought you were making a point that the cap is 2025 which is only partially true.

For most people, the cap is $2663.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

If you are born after 1946, you have no option for the extended benefits by waiting until 70. Full retirement age is extended anyway. Many will be looking at 67 for full retirement.

I thought you were making a point that the cap is 2025 which is only partially true.

For most people, the cap is $2663.

Not for government employees who paid in Social Security; government retirements cap SS benefits at a much lower percentage.

See: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v46n2/v46n2p39.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

Give the baby boomers tax incentives for voluntary early departures.

You Communists, always wanting to slaughter millions.

Ghouls and fiends, every one of you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct TV has 6mbps Internet

Cable has 300mbps Internet

Hi, I'm Barack Obama & I'm stupid as a post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why would we do that ?

Leftists are filled with blood lust.

He wants to butcher hundreds of millions of people. Genocide is what the left always does. Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Castro, Ortega, Kim, Haznonuts - they all want to murder their fellow man.

In the end, leftism is the expression of a contempt for life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not for government employees who paid in Social Security; government retirements cap SS benefits at a much lower percentage.

See: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v46n2/v46n2p39.pdf

It's not 1979 sparky.

Do you think you're being clever?