Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Then why is it completely omitted in the U.S. Constitution? Oh, because you're full of shit. And a quote from the leftwing nut site Daily Kos quoting a couple people's thoughts on the matter isn't policy.

Knock it off.

Got it, US GOV'T POLICY didn't matter right Bubs? lol

 

[Maryland Patriot]

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

And most weren't. Most wealthy are self-made. But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter where or who you were born to. It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.

Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

so its ok as long as the majority are stealing from the minority?
I guess if I walk up to you with lets say, two other people and we decide that you should give us your money, that's ok? or would it have to be four other people.

as far as working hard, Im starting to think you never have, Otherwise you would understand what it means to have your income stolen.

You are SUPPOSED to outgrow that BS Ayn Rand crap by about 25 Bubs, what happened?

Got a job and watched my earned income taken from me and given to somebody that refused to get a job?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.

Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security

Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle


Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.


Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan

Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan


· Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested. Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory.



The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security

Galveston | Strengthen Social Security


"The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."

Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well


In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”


Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model

the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:

Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.

Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!

Weird, you start with a LIE?

"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."


The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY

Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.

“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.

The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”

Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan.

....The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.

Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0

In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Holy crap! You can get more than you made while you worked?
Does that ever happen under Social Security?

But at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits.

A worker in the private program, who only made $25,000 a year can get almost as much as the maximum payout in Social Security? WOW!!!
I can see why you'd prefer the lower benefit amount.
Because you're a moron.

 

[Dad2three]

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

There are millions of them. They are called IRA's.

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol

 

[Maryland Patriot]

There are millions of them. They are called IRA's.

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol

Hey, it was government policy, doesn't that matter to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.

Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system

Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan. Under the Galveston Plan, initial retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”


Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.



The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.

Oh you prefer welfare. Got it

Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.

Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!

Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.

I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.

 

[Dad2three]

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

And most weren't. Most wealthy are self-made. But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter where or who you were born to. It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.

Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

Well your link didn't come out. Not your fault, it's happened to me several times on this service.

But here is a Wall Street piece that says most of the wealthy did not inherit their wealth (if the link comes out):

The Decline of Inherited Money

It worked for me


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400. -


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

What's it to you? Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?

NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!

Waaaahh.
I'm sorry your parents weren't successful and that you inherited the same. Maybe you should whine some more?

 

[Dad2three]

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

What's it to you? Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?

NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!

Somebody in their family sure did.... they didn't pick it off a vine you little nitwit. How old are you?

Sam Walton built an empire... and now his kids own it. So fucking what? Grow up.

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?



Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.

Have you ever seen Thomas Jeffersons home? Hint it was no common worker shanty for the day.
evidently, good old TJ wanted to keep and spend what he earned. As would be the case for the rest of them too.
an equitable distribution has to be linked to an equally equitable distribution of effort. Nobody sat on their ass and got a free ride back in the day.

LOL, You Klowns and your lucky duckie welfare BS. Too funny

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

And most weren't. Most wealthy are self-made. But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter where or who you were born to. It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.

Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

Again, so what? We're asking you what justification you have for taking somebody's legally obtained property?

Envy doesn't count...

Envy doesn't count...

Does failure count?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh you prefer welfare. Got it

Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.

Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!

You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.

Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol

You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
what a welfare queen you must be.

Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING, you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

There are millions of them. They are called IRA's.

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS

The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are millions of them. They are called IRA's.

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,

Liar!

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Yep, GOP/CONservat

Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.

Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol

Hey, it was government policy, doesn't that matter to you?

Yep, GOP/CONservatives USUAL, bad Gov't policy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

There are millions of them. They are called IRA's.

Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program

Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not. SSI is a Ponzi scheme.

Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS

The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?

They do, and the last one will run out in 2034.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What is is infatuation with Reagan? The man;s been dead for what10 -11 years? I'm surprised he's not blaming the civil war on Reagan. Must be a public school grad... dumber than shit.

 

[Dad2three]

The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system

Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan. Under the Galveston Plan, initial retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”


Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.



The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.

Oh you prefer welfare. Got it

Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.

Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!

Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.

I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.

I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!

 

[Dad2three]

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'

What's it to you? Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?

NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!

Waaaahh.
I'm sorry your parents weren't successful and that you inherited the same. Maybe you should whine some more?

Stop projecting dummy

 

[boedicca]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!

What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.

I agree that people who put in more hours, money, headaches etc. often benefit more from our society...because they themselves DO more.

Unfortunately, those who benefit THE MOST from our current Big Government Cronyism system are the political parasites and the cronies who collude to privatize profit and socialiize risk. One can't say that they EARNED what they get, but they do play the game (according to the rules they themselves write). And it's at Our Expense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.

Oh you prefer welfare. Got it

Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.

Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!

Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.

I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.

I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!

Look at Venezuela and see how your Fabian Socialist wetdream is working...