Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-29-2011, 12:04 PM
bhunter's Avatar
bhunter bhunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
Consider the top marginal income tax rate, then subtract 7% from it to account for the social security discount that is provided to approximately 7% of incomes. (Ninety-three percent of incomes are less than $100K) Essentially, we are asking 93% of the people to protect the tax rate of the top 2%.

Regards,

D-Ray
Why should they pay more SS beyond the 100k limit. They will certainly not get that back out of the system. I remember SS being implemented merely as a supplement to income and not a retirement system. BTW, those paying at the 100k level are still paying more per person than the rest. Do you want to do anything about the bottom half that pays no federal income tax? What is a "fair share" and who determines this? What ought be the limit to government spending?
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2011, 12:23 PM
painter painter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
Reason Mag is a constant companion.. But they got something wrong there.

Obama's name shouldn't be on his Nobel Prize and it shouldn't be on the growing deficit.. He actually has not LED very much at all on ANY budget or legislative initiative.

Those big chunks of indebtedness should have Pelosi/Reid all over them..

In fact, they ought to dig a huge hole in the Washington Mall and build an inverted phallic structure INTO the hole to honor this historical feat..

Think we could take up a private fund for this memorial??

Ummmm....isn't one Weiner enough?
__________________
Gov. big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-29-2011, 12:40 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
What is being advocated is converting the money paid into social security into a de-facto tax - the most regressive tax imaginable.

Then they are opposing any increase in taxes on people who get a 7% tax break as soon as they reach the $106K income threshold.

They will not even consider tax changes that affect the highest income recipients, but will make cuts in social security to avoid repaying the debt owed to the funds made up of contributions from even the lowest income earners.

Consider the top marginal income tax rate, then subtract 7% from it to account for the social security discount that is provided to approximately 7% of incomes. (Ninety-three percent of incomes are less than $100K) Essentially, we are asking 93% of the people to protect the tax rate of the top 2%.

Regards,

D-Ray
Seems like I care more about the original promise and INTENT of Soc Sec than YOU do D-Ray..

Gotta follow this assertion carefully D-Ray - otherwise you're gonna think I just took a swipe at you.. The social MAGIC of Soc Sec was that it was a UNIVERSAL program that would benefit ALL surviving retirees. That it was gonna be an insurance program that EVERY US worker would appreciate. Promises were made that would NEVER exceed 3% of payroll income, never apply to more than XX% of your wages (can't remember the promise there) and would NEVER be taxed.. It wasn't JUST a tax -- Oh no -- it was personal investment in YOUR future and it was backed by the full faith/credit of the treasury..

ALL THAT bleeding heart crap goes downs the tube when you start RAISING the contribution cap to stratospheric heights. (or means-testing, or more progressive benefit schedule). You turn a sacred UNIVERSAL FED program into just another redistributionist welfare scheme.. It's ALREADY a progressive benefits schedule because ROI goes negative for most ALL participants except those who make less than about $30K/year.

Now heck -- that MIGHT not be a bad idea considering how many pledges and trusts have been broken on this UNIVERSAL plan in just 70 years or so. But if you turn it into something else NOW -- don't ever expect to fool the American people into ANOTHER UNIVERSAL something in the next couple generations..

I might even support calling it redistributionist welfare.. Just don't think I (or my prodgeny) are gonna get fooled again anytime soon... And that may be why you don't understand why you just can't impeach that silly 2% of the rich. Why the 98% don't just TAKE IT from them.. Because D-Ray buddy -- it's not about the money... It's about the principle of ethically running a UNIVERSAL program and being conscientious administrators of public trust in that program...

Last edited by flacaltenn; 07-29-2011 at 12:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2011, 12:43 PM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
Heck Chas you've got it nailed, when I lived in the hood it was 'my n!@@er' this and 'what's happenin nig' that. Or better, 'you crazy, nig-ar!' Hell you're not an honorary black man till you've been called one.

Some of the old rap songs I occasionally enjoy also, um, mention it. You do have to be careful in this land of milk and honey though...

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2011, 12:49 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by painter View Post
Ummmm....isn't one Weiner enough?
You have no idea how funny that actually is to me.. Someday -- I might share the humor...

But this would be an INVERTED weiner. Kinda symbolically humping the sacred ground of our blessed capitol...

Better idea -- we could grow it DOWNWARD as each debt ceiling increase gets passed...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2011, 02:24 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
Seems like I care more about the original promise and INTENT of Soc Sec than YOU do D-Ray..

Gotta follow this assertion carefully D-Ray - otherwise you're gonna think I just took a swipe at you.. The social MAGIC of Soc Sec was that it was a UNIVERSAL program that would benefit ALL surviving retirees. That it was gonna be an insurance program that EVERY US worker would appreciate. Promises were made that would NEVER exceed 3% of payroll income, never apply to more than XX% of your wages (can't remember the promise there) and would NEVER be taxed.. It wasn't JUST a tax -- Oh no -- it was personal investment in YOUR future and it was backed by the full faith/credit of the treasury..

ALL THAT bleeding heart crap goes downs the tube when you start RAISING the contribution cap to stratospheric heights. (or means-testing, or more progressive benefit schedule). You turn a sacred UNIVERSAL FED program into just another redistributionist welfare scheme.. It's ALREADY a progressive benefits schedule because ROI goes negative for most ALL participants except those who make less than about $30K/year.

Now heck -- that MIGHT not be a bad idea considering how many pledges and trusts have been broken on this UNIVERSAL plan in just 70 years or so. But if you turn it into something else NOW -- don't ever expect to fool the American people into ANOTHER UNIVERSAL something in the next couple generations..

I might even support calling it redistributionist welfare.. Just don't think I (or my prodgeny) are gonna get fooled again anytime soon... And that may be why you don't understand why you just can't impeach that silly 2% of the rich. Why the 98% don't just TAKE IT from them.. Because D-Ray buddy -- it's not about the money... It's about the principle of ethically running a UNIVERSAL program and being conscientious administrators of public trust in that program...
I think we are looking at the same issue and describing it differently. Social security contributions were to be held in trust to fund the plan. Instead, the trust fund has become a kitty into which we slip IOU's to fund other things like health care programs, military expenditures, tax cuts, homeland security, weapons systems, oil subsidies, agricultural subsidies, prescription drug programs, education programs. Ultimately the FICA contributions became part of the general budget.

Now that the fully funded Social Social security program is going to need some of those IOU's paid off, we suddenly have an entitlement crisis. Social Security has become a target for cuts because there is not enough money to pay the IOU's. In essence, then, the FICA contributions have been converted into an income tax - and a regressive one at that. Those bottom fifty percent that the right likes to highlight have been paying into Social Security just like everyone else. Therefore, it is BS to say that the well-to-do don't get a hefty tax break every time their income exceeds $106K.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2011, 03:11 PM
JCricket's Avatar
JCricket JCricket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
thought you folks might find this interesting. You probably know this, but just in case.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

MArk
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2011, 03:42 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
Where were YOU noone when the Dems listed $500Bill in cuts to Medicare in order to "pay for" the ObamaCare bill?
I was against Obama care.

Quote:
Where are you GONNA BE when they propose raising the retirement age for SS, and means testing?
I support both and at 58 raising the age would have a large impact on me.

Quote:
Soc Sec needs to be paid for. A difficult proposition because YOU already paid for it once, but the thieves on the HIll STOLE THAT MONEY and skimmed the profit.. The budget CANNOT absorb the liabilities we will see for that fund in the next decade unless we do what EVERYONE said would happen -- and that's to penalize CURRENT workers for the thefts that occurred to PAST workers..
Past workers did not steal it. The stolen monies need to be repaid by theses who stole it.


Quote:
NO MORE COMPROMISE on this shit.. Sorry -- ain't' gonna happen. The credit rating is screwed and the American people now know that 1 and 1/2 parties need to go away...

I am not sure what you mean by no more compromise but if you are suggesting that you support the misguided teabag notion of bowing to the rich we can fight in the streets about it and I am dead serious.


Quote:
That they aren't serious about the daily management of this country. They THINK it's some kind of elite reward for getting elected to pontificate and pander and lie.. I'm not gonna watch as the DEMs and McCain pow-wow to protect their asses from the coming retribution.. What we need right now is some plea bargains from the guilty on the Hill to prevent US the people from sacking their sorry asses...
indeed we agree

I was thinking that just this morning. Let the country default, enjoy a revolution and start anew. As things are now it's a rape game both parties take turns at.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-29-2011, 04:32 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
D-Ray:

Quote:
Now that the fully funded Social Social security program is going to need some of those IOU's paid off, we suddenly have an entitlement crisis. Social Security has become a target for cuts because there is not enough money to pay the IOU's. In essence, then, the FICA contributions have been converted into an income tax - and a regressive one at that. Those bottom fifty percent that the right likes to highlight have been paying into Social Security just like everyone else. Therefore, it is BS to say that the well-to-do don't get a hefty tax break every time their income exceeds $106K.
Once you buy off on the concept that payroll contributions designed to support SS OASI and MedCare are nothing but a "regressive" tax --- you've destroyed the original altruistic purpose of the programs. They no longer are UNIVERSAL. Because raising the salary cap for collecting them destroys the universal nature of it. In fact, that's already an illusion with the salary cap at $106K.

Don't talk to me about regressive taxes when the lower 49% are totally excused from income tax.. I'm not about to excuse them from "THEIR fair share" for funding UNIVERSAL programs.. If you want to dishonor all that f'in jazz about the "The New Deal" and FDR's wisdom -- have at it.. I've been betrayed and raped enough already..

Maybe we do all meet in the streets like NoOneReal wants.. Because I'm not looking to soak my Doctor or the Atlanta Braves for these thefts.. There are larger matters of principle involved..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-29-2011, 07:04 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
D-Ray:



Once you buy off on the concept that payroll contributions designed to support SS OASI and MedCare are nothing but a "regressive" tax --- you've destroyed the original altruistic purpose of the programs. They no longer are UNIVERSAL. Because raising the salary cap for collecting them destroys the universal nature of it. In fact, that's already an illusion with the salary cap at $106K.

Don't talk to me about regressive taxes when the lower 49% are totally excused from income tax.. I'm not about to excuse them from "THEIR fair share" for funding UNIVERSAL programs.. If you want to dishonor all that f'in jazz about the "The New Deal" and FDR's wisdom -- have at it.. I've been betrayed and raped enough already..

Maybe we do all meet in the streets like NoOneReal wants.. Because I'm not looking to soak my Doctor or the Atlanta Braves for these thefts.. There are larger matters of principle involved..
you are way confused dude

can you ansewer a quick question?

Are the poor lazy bums who don't deserve healthcare?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.