Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Why don't you get honest, pick up a gun, and start robbing people that you are jealous of?

It's what you're suggesting anyway. You just want the state to be your muscle.

 

[Uncensored2008]

consumption taxes are primarily supported by conservatives...like, the Fair Tax, no?

Sales/consumption taxes are very regressive, I agree... so are flat taxes, they hurt the poor most.

and to balance taxes on a Totality Level, the State taxes hit the poor MORE....State taxes are known to be regressive,

and Federal taxes are progressive,

between the two gvt. tax entities, it balances out a tad better.

Yes, because consumption taxes would mean that Hollywood fat cats, well connected looters, and even Hilliary would have to start paying taxes.

You of the left want to ensure that taxes are levied against ONLY the little people, those who survive on wages.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

We already have higher taxes on greater parcels of property, Comrade.

What is it you think Jefferson was saying?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

 

[Freewill]

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.

By the SS statistics it does not appear in trouble or will be in the near future. It seems to me that they are picking on SS because it is easy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

consumption taxes are primarily supported by conservatives...like, the Fair Tax, no?

Sales/consumption taxes are very regressive, I agree... so are flat taxes, they hurt the poor most.

and to balance taxes on a Totality Level, the State taxes hit the poor MORE....State taxes are known to be regressive,

and Federal taxes are progressive,

between the two gvt. tax entities, it balances out a tad better.

Yes, because consumption taxes would mean that Hollywood fat cats, well connected looters, and even Hilliary would have to start paying taxes.

You of the left want to ensure that taxes are levied against ONLY the little people, those who survive on wages.

Thoughtless ^^^ response of the month.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Actually SS reports that 62 is the average retirement age so that number would be 2025.

 

[Mac1958]

Incrementally increase retirement age and increase the salary cap, and I suspect we'll be fine without decreasing benefits.

Then, once the Baby Boomer population passes through the system we'll probably be able to decrease that tax.

Much ado about not much.
.

 

[Freewill]

Incrementally increase retirement age and increase the salary cap, and I suspect we'll be fine without decreasing benefits.

Then, once the Baby Boomer population passes through the system we'll probably be able to decrease that tax.

Much ado about not much.
.

Do what they have been doing, increase the cap on wages. That is if SS were actually in trouble.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually SS reports that 62 is the average retirement age so that number would be 2025.

Average is not the cap.

 

[Freewill]

Actually SS reports that 62 is the average retirement age so that number would be 2025.

Average is not the cap.

Let me rephrase, most retire at 62

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

I don't believe that is quite true. The offset applies to government employees who did not pay into Social Security and had other careers wear they did pay into SS.

I think that is contigent upon whether as part of your government employee job you paid into Social Security. If not, then there are issues. However just because you were a government employee does not mean that SS is automatically reduced.

A Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits? No Way



As a member of the military drawing retirement, I paid into SS during my active duty career, I will receive SS based on those payments with no reduction -->> Retirement Planner: Military Service

Now as a state employee I pay into both SS and about 16% of my compensation into a State retirement system, since I'm paying into SS there is no impact on my SS annuity -->> Retirement Planner: State and Local Government Employment



>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

I don't believe that is quite true. The offset applies to government employees who did not pay into Social Security and had other careers wear they did pay into SS.

I think that is contigent upon whether as part of your government employee job you paid into Social Security. If not, then there are issues. However just because you were a government employee does not mean that SS is automatically reduced.

A Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits? No Way



As a member of the military drawing retirement, I paid into SS during my active duty career, I will receive SS based on those payments with no reduction -->> Retirement Planner: Military Service

Now as a state employee I pay into both SS and about 16% of my compensation into a State retirement system, since I'm paying into SS there is no impact on my SS annuity -->> Retirement Planner: State and Local Government Employment



>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

I don't believe that is quite true. The offset applies to government employees who did not pay into Social Security and had other careers wear they did pay into SS.

I think that is contigent upon whether as part of your government employee job you paid into Social Security. If not, then there are issues. However just because you were a government employee does not mean that SS is automatically reduced.

A Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits? No Way



As a member of the military drawing retirement, I paid into SS during my active duty career, I will receive SS based on those payments with no reduction -->> Retirement Planner: Military Service

Now as a state employee I pay into both SS and about 16% of my compensation into a State retirement system, since I'm paying into SS there is no impact on my SS annuity -->> Retirement Planner: State and Local Government Employment



>>>>

You stated, "I don't believe that is quite true. The offset applies to government employees who did not pay into Social Security and had other careers wear they did pay into SS.'

That is true, I had more than 40 quarters in before I was hired as a law enforcement officer, my SS was offset upon my retirement, as was my wife's SS though, she never had a job wherein she didn't have payroll taxes deducted.

Maybe retirement is Safety, and that is quite different from other tiers of the retirement system.

 

[SAYIT]

Buying financial instruments, by your silly definition, is a Ponzi scheme, since money you earned is kept by the broker/salesperson...

What a crock of loony leftist "thinking."

Money spent on financial instruments is kept by the broker/salesperson?

Whew! You win the Most Ignorant Post of the Week award again (and it's only Wednesday).

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"

Parse it as you will, the truth is the truth and the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our federal gov't - regardless of any "nobel" intent - by any other name is still stealing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

I never said that public employees were only paid two-bits.

You tried to lie about the poor government workers by posting dollar figures for 1979. The figures are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nor is it 1779, The fact remains those who retire today as government employees who have paid into SS have a reduced benefit.

I never said that public employees were only paid two-bits.

You tried to lie about the poor government workers by posting dollar figures for 1979. The figures are irrelevant to the discussion.

The figures may be that, but the fact remains as I stated it. Calling me a liar is childish and based on your inability to read and comprehend.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Incrementally increase retirement age and increase the salary cap, and I suspect we'll be fine without decreasing benefits.

Then, once the Baby Boomer population passes through the system we'll probably be able to decrease that tax.

Much ado about not much.
.

Oh yea, and how many times has a tax been reduced in our country once it's in place?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The difference is you can choose which bank to deal with or not deal with them at all.
I remember the foreigners in our neighborhood that just came off the boat. They didn't believe in saving at a bank or borrowing anything. Their motto was if you don't absolutely have to have it now, then don't buy it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Distributed to a few? Who is distributing it? I don't remember standing in a government line somewhere and missed being wealthy by one person because the guy in front of me was chosen to be rich and they chose me to be a worker.

Nobody is "in need" because they didn't have the opportunity to crawl out of their own personal failures or had opportunities denied to them. Who are these people?

When you have personal failures, you learn from them and try harder. What is learned when you fail and your neighbors are forced to save your silly ass? Why would you not fear failure again?

When you reward irresponsibility and penalize responsibility, don't be too surprised when you create more irresponsible people.