The truth about taxes

[P@triot]

Why lie, loser Con?

Exactly Dumbocrat asshole - why lie? Oh wait, that's right, because you have to considering your on the wrong side of the facts.

By every basic definition in the world, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and you fucking know it. It's sad that you have to lie and it proves that you are in the wrong side here.

Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty. Without Social Security, 21.4 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2011).

Oh...my...God. And you think it's the job of the federal government to make people wealthy? Or middle class? Or bump them up a class?

The fact that you made this outrageous statement proves what a bunch of asshole communists the lot of you are... take from someone who EARNED and hand it to someone who did not...

Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children. (See Table 1.) Depending on their design, reductions in Social Security benefits could significantly increase poverty, particularly among the elderly.

Social Security Keeps 21 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-by-State Analysis ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

If they are 65 and "elderly" then they've had a life time to work and have no fucking excuse for being broke other than reckless, irresponsible Dumbocrat spending on frivolous items (just like our federal government).

Well now that the weak case you made has thoroughly been destroyed by facts, would you like to try again?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

SS is not a ponzi scheme and has increased the standard of living among millions of Americans who helped made this country great.

It fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme to a 'T' and it has decreased the standard of living for Americans by siphoning off trillions of dollars that would have been invested in retirement funds and using it to payoff current retirees. SS single handedly reduced the growth of our economy by 2 percentage points, at least.

Why lie?

SS has been the number one program that has reduced poverty in this country and has provided a decent standard of living for the people who helped build this country.

Without SS, economic growth would be substantially lower and we would be living in a third world shithole of nation (i.e. a Conservative nation) without public safety nets.

All that for $1,230 a month or $307.50 a week. Add to that $3.38/gal gas, an 8.6% inflation rate since Obama took office, and I can see why SO many retirees are sitting comfortably planning all kinds of vacations instead of hanging out at their local Walmart.


Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

 

[Foxfyre]

It fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme to a 'T' and it has decreased the standard of living for Americans by siphoning off trillions of dollars that would have been invested in retirement funds and using it to payoff current retirees. SS single handedly reduced the growth of our economy by 2 percentage points, at least.

Why lie?

SS has been the number one program that has reduced poverty in this country and has provided a decent standard of living for the people who helped build this country.

Without SS, economic growth would be substantially lower and we would be living in a third world shithole of nation (i.e. a Conservative nation) without public safety nets.

All that for $1,230 a month or $307.50 a week. Add to that $3.38/gal gas, an 8.6% inflation rate since Obama took office, and I can see why SO many retirees are sitting comfortably planning all kinds of vacations instead of hanging out at their local Walmart.


Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Unless he or she has socked away a sizable nest egg for retirement,most social security recipients qualify for food stamps.

Some anti-poverty program.

At the same time, had those same people been given incentive to put their social security contributions into their own conservative and relatively safe investments, those who paid into it most of their adult lives would retire quite comfortably and enjoy the fruit of their labor.

And they would be able to pass the money on to their loved ones when they die which we can't do with social security.

And nobody would be able to take it away from them which Congress can do now with a simple majority vote.

And it wouldn't be costing all the rest of the people a single dime but what was spent would be a 100% stimulus to the economy. Every dollar of social security paid out in benefits takes a dollar out of the economy, PLUS the cost of an enormous government bureaucracy to do that, so the economic benefit is greatly reduced.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why lie?

SS has been the number one program that has reduced poverty in this country and has provided a decent standard of living for the people who helped build this country.

Without SS, economic growth would be substantially lower and we would be living in a third world shithole of nation (i.e. a Conservative nation) without public safety nets.

All that for $1,230 a month or $307.50 a week. Add to that $3.38/gal gas, an 8.6% inflation rate since Obama took office, and I can see why SO many retirees are sitting comfortably planning all kinds of vacations instead of hanging out at their local Walmart.


Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Unless he or she has socked away a sizable nest egg for retirement,most social security recipients qualify for food stamps.

Some anti-poverty program.

At the same time, had those same people been given incentive to put their social security contributions into their own conservative and relatively safe investments, those who paid into it most of their adult lives would retire quite comfortably and enjoy the fruit of their labor.

And they would be able to pass the money on to their loved ones when they die which we can't do with social security.

And nobody would be able to take it away from them which Congress can do now with a simple majority vote.

And it wouldn't be costing all the rest of the people a single dime but what was spent would be a 100% stimulus to the economy. Every dollar of social security paid out in benefits takes a dollar out of the economy, PLUS the cost of an enormous government bureaucracy to do that, so the economic benefit is greatly reduced.

Government overhead is right. With how much the government ends up dipping into your check throughout your entire working lifetime, and the sad amount of return you ACTUALLY end up with, you are far better doing it yourself with your OWN private IRA account. In fact you are likely to even fair better, seeing that you are "personally" more involved in how you choose to invest.

Of course that is unless you chose to invest part of your retirement in Chrysler or GMC, and someone like Obama steps in to reduce your future income to mere pennies on the dollar.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxes also pay for welfare. How is that good for the GENERAL WELFARE?

SS has been a success by every measure of the book.

Sorry kooks, but you lost.

^^ That

Go look up the reasons societies throughout history provided welfare and you tell me. This isn't a new concept and the reasons aren't new either. Crack open a book or at the least google it

No country provided welfare until the Roman Empire, and we all know what happened there.

 

[P@triot]

Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):

 

[P@triot]

Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):

How amazing is it that the Tea Party says the exact same thing today and is labeled by Dumbocrats as "radicals" for it. It really illustrates just how bat-shit crazy the Dumbocrats have become. They have slid so far to the left, even a radical marxist like Barack Obama isn't left enough for them.

 

[RightDown]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

 

[RightDown]

[/QUOTE]

Unless he or she has socked away a sizable nest egg for retirement,most social security recipients qualify for food stamps.

Some anti-poverty program.

At the same time, had those same people been given incentive to put their social security contributions into their own conservative and relatively safe investments, those who paid into it most of their adult lives would retire quite comfortably and enjoy the fruit of their labor.

And they would be able to pass the money on to their loved ones when they die which we can't do with social security.

And nobody would be able to take it away from them which Congress can do now with a simple majority vote.

And it wouldn't be costing all the rest of the people a single dime but what was spent would be a 100% stimulus to the economy. Every dollar of social security paid out in benefits takes a dollar out of the economy, PLUS the cost of an enormous government bureaucracy to do that, so the economic benefit is greatly reduced.[/QUOTE]You've never heard of the Social Security Survivor's benefit paid to widows and orphans of deceased SS participants?

What you propose was tried prior to Social Security and the US had abject poverty. Appealing to baser selfish instincts has an atomizing effect on the population at large. 'Every man for himself' is a dead end.

Social Security saves lives. What you propose does not.

 

[Spiderman]

Social security is forced dependence and forced poverty.

At least I don't have to feed that particular government pig anymore.

 

[JoeNormal]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

It's a strange phenomenon, isn't it. I think it's a reflection of the belief that rather than being middle class or lower, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Any day now, that ship is gonna come in. How they think that will happen, I have no idea. Most of these people are too stupid to come up with a new technology or even some half-assed invention. Maybe they play the lottery or something. Or could it be multi-level marketing? The only thing I disagree with you about is that they're 'labor'. I've never seen a group of people with more time on their hands.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

YAK, YAK, Yak.....If they are so taxed to death then HOW did this happen?
This chart was actually constructed in 2007 for the years 1917 - 2007. The disparity is much worse now since the Recession.


To see the actual numbers and details, go see the chart at this page: http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

 

[RightDown]

Social security is forced dependence and forced poverty.

At least I don't have to feed that particular government pig anymore.

Really? That bad?

Because I see a program that keeps an estimated 14-22 million (mostly elderly) above the poverty line (depending on whom you ask).

The program assists widows and their kids in making ends meet.

It helps the disabled survive.

You don't pay payroll taxes? You must be a state employee...a public school teacher covered by a collectively bargained retirement plan? Well done. Or you're part of the clergy. No disrespect Father.

 

[thereisnospoon]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

YAK, YAK, Yak.....If they are so taxed to death then HOW did this happen?
This chart was actually constructed in 2007 for the years 1917 - 2007. The disparity is much worse now since the Recession.


To see the actual numbers and details, go see the chart at this page: Plutocracy Reborn - Business Insider

Your pro high tax agenda has a major flaw.
Your side believes taxation should be used to punish people or this notion of leveling the paying field.
Neither of which are even close to the intended purpose of taxation.
As we have seen, growing government and increasing overall debt does not upwardly stimulate the economy.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

The great thing about this country is opportunity to educate, learn, and apply yourself to achieve a better way of life than the one you currently find yourself in. No one is stopping you from achieving a business degree, own your own company, and treating your employees to the benefits YOU feel they deserve. Why look to others to set the example, when you can step out with a little "initiative" and lead by example? Show the rest of the business owners in America, just how easy it is to run a company and leave your employees with a better way of life. There are two kinds of people in this world; the complainers who's only key role is to find blame while getting nothing done, and the achievers who set out to actually make a difference. Which are you?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Social security is forced dependence and forced poverty.

At least I don't have to feed that particular government pig anymore.

Really? That bad?

Because I see a program that keeps an estimated 14-22 million (mostly elderly) above the poverty line (depending on whom you ask).

The program assists widows and their kids in making ends meet.

It helps the disabled survive.

You don't pay payroll taxes? You must be a state employee...a public school teacher covered by a collectively bargained retirement plan? Well done. Or you're part of the clergy. No disrespect Father.

Starting in the year 2012, the average MONTHLY income for those retired and depending on social security is $1,230.00. When you consider the current gas prices, as well as the steadily increasing cost of food, does that sound like a substantial amount to live on? Does that really sound like a major accomplishment by our government? Then we wonder why we have seniors who are willing to work as greeters for your local Walmart.


SOURCE: Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

 

[RightDown]

I have never seen more unpaid cheerleaders for the wealthy than in this thread.

The rich are engaging in class warfare against you. And they are winning hands down.

They are rich. You are not.

"Rich" means the relative gap / disparity between their net worth and yours.

You are labor. Labor is to be controlled because that keeps the relative gap between what they have and you have operational and that keeps them in the driver's seat.

Labor is necessary to productivity. Not everyone can be the rich boss. Someone has to do the work. And doing that necessary work should not relegate the workforce to living paycheck to paycheck with no prospect or hint of security. Redistribution is what government does. Kick a little bit of that gravy to the working men and women.

Honestly, stop helping these guys that own you. They don't need your help.

You know who does need your help? People just like you: Labor.

The great thing about this country is opportunity to educate, learn, and apply yourself to achieve a better way of life than the one you currently find yourself in. No one is stopping you from achieving a business degree, own your own company, and treating your employees to the benefits YOU feel they deserve. Why look to others to set the example, when you can step out with a little "initiative" and lead by example? Show the rest of the business owners in America, just how easy it is to run a company and leave your employees with a better way of life. There are two kinds of people in this world; the complainers who's only key role is to find blame while getting nothing done, and the achievers who set out to actually make a difference. Which are you?

That's all terrific and those are words to live by. How does any of the things you've mentioned change the fact that the super-vast majority of people in the US are part of Labor and not part of the entreprenurial class?

You and I part ways on your reductionist closing. Complainers and Achievers? You do know that Labor does all of the productive work - the heavy lifting so to speak? Without Labor, you have empty factories, vacant restaurants, and practically every other economic pursuit under the sun is dead in the water. Your implicit shot at Labor (complainers) falls on deaf ears. Look at the numbers. The owners of this country have seen their wealth go through the roof over the decades. And Labor? 45 million of them can't even get a decent health insurance plan.

I shed no tears for the wealthy. They don't need me...except to do the work from which they prosper quite well.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

YAK, YAK, Yak.....If they are so taxed to death then HOW did this happen?
This chart was actually constructed in 2007 for the years 1917 - 2007. The disparity is much worse now since the Recession.


To see the actual numbers and details, go see the chart at this page: Plutocracy Reborn - Business Insider

Your pro high tax agenda has a major flaw.
Your side believes taxation should be used to punish people or this notion of leveling the paying field.
Neither of which are even close to the intended purpose of taxation.
As we have seen, growing government and increasing overall debt does not upwardly stimulate the economy.

The playing field hasn't been level since the 1960s. DId you examine the chart? No, didn't think so. The middle class fluorished 60 years ago. It's gone now.

And as we have seen, "growing govt and increasing overall debt" has put the Dow at 16,000...or is that not following your logic, too?

 

[RightDown]

Social security is forced dependence and forced poverty.

At least I don't have to feed that particular government pig anymore.

Really? That bad?

Because I see a program that keeps an estimated 14-22 million (mostly elderly) above the poverty line (depending on whom you ask).

The program assists widows and their kids in making ends meet.

It helps the disabled survive.

You don't pay payroll taxes? You must be a state employee...a public school teacher covered by a collectively bargained retirement plan? Well done. Or you're part of the clergy. No disrespect Father.

Starting in the year 2012, the average MONTHLY income for those retired and depending on social security is $1,230.00. When you consider the current gas prices, as well as the steadily increasing cost of food, does that sound like a substantial amount to live on? Does that really sound like a major accomplishment by our government? Then we wonder why we have seniors who are willing to work as greeters for your local Walmart.

Social Security should be expanded terrifically. We already have a system of private accounts for retirement. They are called IRAs and they are a poor replacement for social insurance.

Again, Social Security keeps millions and millions and millions of elderly out of poverty. I view your protests as either a disingenuous slap at the current program in the vein of privatizing it or you agree with me that benefits should be expanded greatly.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Dow is at 16000 because a corrupt and inept government has made the stock market the ONLY hedge most Americans have against runaway inflation--inflation that the government tries to hide by keeping interest rates artificially low and flat out lies about when it says runaway government spending is not creating negative inflationary pressures. Greece is the country that is currently experiencing the worst economy among developed countries in the world. But its stock market is doing just fine for the same reason ours is.