Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[BluesLegend]

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

 

[BluesLegend]

So is envy...

I'd bet I pay more in taxes in a year, than you gross in the same year.

Maybe so, It's different every year for me... I never know till January.

So what's your point??

Wow, you're really dumb. You claimed I was envious, I'm not, I'm retired with an income of six figures, I own two late model vehicles, and two homes in the SF Bay Area, one outright, the other with a small mortgage which is rented. A third I own with my sister, a large home situated 10 minutes from SFO, 10 minutes to BART and CALTrain, 10 minutes to 101 and ten minutes to 280 (midway between San Francisco and Silicon Valley).

I thought you were a liberal?

You honestly think every liberal is on welfare?

No, I was just trying to determine if I needed to mock the poster for being a liberal hypocrite.

 

[Davros]

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

 

[BluesLegend]

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

 

[Davros]

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

If taxes don't have to be raised, good. I even said I might agree with SAYIT's less progressive scheme. I think simplification of the tax code with lower rates and fewer loop holes is something I might be able to support.

But if push comes to shove and more revenue is needed, the rich is where it's going to have to come from.

The idea,that the rich are suffering in this country is ludicrous if not insane. The rich deeply enjoy the bounty that is America. It doesn't hurt them to pay more of the burden. Believe me, they wouldn't rather be on welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since it is not your government, why not get the hell out of our country? Take your money and assets and move, you won't be missed.

Why don't you? If you think cradle-to-grave government is the solution to our problems, why not move to where it already exists? Move to Cuba. Everybody is equal there--equally poor. And the best thing is that no citizens have firearms and socialized medical care like you libs want to do here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We can milk those socialist entitlement programs along for a few more years, an opt in or opt out choice would be fair and reasonable...

Don't you understand that allowing workers to opt out of this black hole would only send it into a nose dive.

Imagine if 850 billion dollars per year in social security outlays, soon to top 1 trillion, we're not funded by the payroll tax.

Our country would quickly go down the toilet.

Your plan would lead to disaster.

Which is why liberals love these social programs. Once you open them up, you can't get out.

I call this the raccoon theory: You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you give him a nice meaty stake bone to gnaw on. The raccoon chews on the bone you gave him in delight. Now try taking that bone away from him and see what happens.

The raccoon doesn't care where the bone came from. All he cares about it that it's rightfully his. It doesn't matter that you paid for it. It doesn't matter that you cooked it. It doesn't matter that you generously gave it to him. Once it's in his possession, you have no right to remove it from him.

After all, you have the ability to buy that stake where the bone came from--the raccoon doesn't.

 

[Rustic]

We can milk those socialist entitlement programs along for a few more years, an opt in or opt out choice would be fair and reasonable...

Don't you understand that allowing workers to opt out of this black hole would only send it into a nose dive.

Imagine if 850 billion dollars per year in social security outlays, soon to top 1 trillion, we're not funded by the payroll tax.

Our country would quickly go down the toilet.

Your plan would lead to disaster.

Which is why liberals love these social programs. Once you open them up, you can't get out.

I call this the raccoon theory: You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you give him a nice meaty stake bone to gnaw on. The raccoon chews on the bone you gave him in delight. Now try taking that bone away from him and see what happens.

The raccoon doesn't care where the bone came from. All he cares about it that it's rightfully his. It doesn't matter that you paid for it. It doesn't matter that you cooked it. It doesn't matter that you generously gave it to him. Once it's in his possession, you have no right to remove it from him.

After all, you have the ability to buy that stake where the bone came from--the raccoon doesn't.

Ya, it sucks I will pay into these foolish socialist entitlement programs all my life, then To will never use them.
Huge waste of my money, and being forced into these sh!tty programs sucks to no end...

 

[BluesLegend]

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

If taxes don't have to be raised, good. I even said I might agree with SAYIT's less progressive scheme. I think simplification of the tax code with lower rates and fewer loop holes is something I might be able to support.

But if push comes to shove and more revenue is needed, the rich is where it's going to have to come from.

The idea,that the rich are suffering in this country is ludicrous if not insane. The rich deeply enjoy the bounty that is America. It doesn't hurt them to pay more of the burden. Believe me, they wouldn't rather be on welfare.

You don't give a crack whore more crack, I'm obviously referring to the Washington establishment and state and local government. It should not take 50% of every damn dollar earned to govern a country enough is enough.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

 

[BluesLegend]

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

Medicare already is single payer. How would expanding single payer to everybody cut healthcare costs? It would allow the government to dictate what it will pay, but that would cause all kinds of healthcare availability problems. Now, it's available but expensive. Under single payer, there are long wait lists for critical care.

Only in your mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Facts seem to confuse you. Greed is a deadly sin,

So is envy...

I'd bet I pay more in taxes in a year, than you gross in the same year.

Maybe so, It's different every year for me... I never know till January.

So what's your point??

Wow, you're really dumb. You claimed I was envious, I'm not, I'm retired with an income of six figures, I own two late model vehicles, and two homes in the SF Bay Area, one outright, the other with a small mortgage which is rented. A third I own with my sister, a large home situated 10 minutes from SFO, 10 minutes to BART and CALTrain, 10 minutes to 101 and ten minutes to 280 (midway between San Francisco and Silicon Valley).

I thought you were a liberal?

I am on most issues, liberty and equal protection of the laws for example; I'm also fiscally responsible and pragmatic, something Congress has never been, no matter which party is in the majority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since these turds in government spent all our Social Security contributions I wonder what the real income tax rate is, Social Security alone is a whopping 15.3%, add payroll and Medicare and federal alone is close to or over 50% of every dollar earned.

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

\
You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

If taxes don't have to be raised, good. I even said I might agree with SAYIT's less progressive scheme. I think simplification of the tax code with lower rates and fewer loop holes is something I might be able to support.

But if push comes to shove and more revenue is needed, the rich is where it's going to have to come from.

The idea,that the rich are suffering in this country is ludicrous if not insane. The rich deeply enjoy the bounty that is America. It doesn't hurt them to pay more of the burden. Believe me, they wouldn't rather be on welfare.

It's obvious that the rich have been doing well for a long time, and have benefited from a biddable Congress easily manipulated under the threat of being displaced from their job by another more friendly to the power elite / special interests.

Anyone who disbelieves this is a fool.

Anyone who believes the Five Members of the Supreme Court who voted to repeal the FEC bills limiting the amount of money in politics was to protect free speech is a retarded fool.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now you're catching on. Since Social Security's 15% is only on the first $118 thousand, it hits the middle class and poor especially hard. While we add that percentage to our income tax rate to get out total percentage paid before we take home anything, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their gross earnings on Social Security.

For the rich and the middle class to pay the same percentage of their earnings in total, the rich must pay a higher income tax rate.

So if you have a flat tax, the rich actually pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings.

Now ... what you get back from Social Security depends on what you put in, we supposedly get a larger percentage of what we put in back. But many of us will die before we get a substantial portion back, and people my generation don't plan on getting anything back from Social Security. We believe the Ponzi scheme will blow up before we retire.

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

LOL, are you suggesting the money we as individuals pay into real estate, sales, state income and excise taxes, auto license and registration fees, parking fees and fees for special districts - sewer, water, schools, etc. - are a fiction and all those are only paid for by corporations?

Roads, tunnels and bridges came first, paid for by We The People; corporations have 15,000+ loop holes to exploit reducing their tax burden.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since it is not your government, why not get the hell out of our country? Take your money and assets and move, you won't be missed.

Why don't you? If you think cradle-to-grave government is the solution to our problems, why not move to where it already exists? Move to Cuba. Everybody is equal there--equally poor. And the best thing is that no citizens have firearms and socialized medical care like you libs want to do here.

Hear this moron, you are the one who claimed the government of the US and lessor political subdivisions are not yours. So get the fuck out of my country and seek some authoritarian mecca best suited to your needs. I'm sure with your mouth it wouldn't be long until you were put in a cage for seditious rhetoric,

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.