GOP to Jobless: Drop Dead

[JJIII]

"Fair Tax" anyone?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by JJIII

"Fair Tax" anyone?

Page 2

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

...I'd love to see a much simplified tax system for that reason, and the "fair tax" you posted about yesterday is sounding better and better to me.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Page 2

I'll tell you what is not "fair" is the cap on FICA

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I'll tell you what is not "fair" is the cap on FICA

What?! There's no cap on FICA! You know there are people in this country paying 64.32% of their income just to fund Social Security! And it's all on the backs of the poor folks earning over $350,000 a year. Poor rich people. Military spending is just .0021%. Amazing how efficient it is. The health care bill is going to add another 145.213% to your tax bill. You'll actually owe your boss money for working. You'll have to pay him time and a half if you work overtime! How irresponsible is that!?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

What?! There's no cap on FICA! You know there are people in this country paying 64.32% of their income just to fund Social Security! And it's all on the backs of the poor folks earning over $350,000 a year. Poor rich people. Military spending is just .0021%. Amazing how efficient it is. The health care bill is going to add another 145.213% to your tax bill. You'll actually owe your boss money for working. You'll have to pay him time and a half if you work overtime! How irresponsible is that!?

oh, I see

you have been talking to whell

[piece-itpete]

SS was supposed to be a forced savings account, not a government funded liability.

So the cap.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

SS was supposed to be a forced savings account, not a government funded liability.

So the cap.

Pete

One of these days I'm going to look for a source that will trace the receipts of the Social security trust from the time when SS payments and receipts started being counted as part of the overall budget. If politicians had been forced to account for non-SS expenditures independently, we would have had a truer budget picture. To the extent that SS funds were used as part of the overall budget, shouldn't it they be receiving interest at the same rate as the Chinese? Wouldn't that improve the solvency picture for the funds?

That is why all of this screaming about entitlements really ticks me off. SS is only an entitlement because it was established as a quid pro quo - you invest in it during your working years and you receive benefits in your retirement years. Now those contributions are treated as if they are just another payment toward the federal budget deficit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

SS was supposed to be a forced savings account, not a government funded liability.

I don't think so Pete. Or at least that's not my understanding. Just a couple of thoughts- if it were a "forced saving account" then it would be, you know, an account. We'd have individual accounts and be able to track their progress and benefits paid relative to performance.

Second, if it were intended to be a saving account, then it wouldn’t pay out to anyone who had not paid into it. But benefits, I believe, started when the bill was passed. Clearly none of the first recipients had "paid in" to an "account".

Finally, the program was commonly called the "old age pension" when it was passed. I’m pretty sure it was modeled after similar programs, some passed by some individual states, using similar language, and at least in part by the Old Age Pension Act passed in the U.K. in the early 20th century.

A pension plan isn’t a saving plan, but a guaranteed annuity- a distinguishing characteristic and benefit being you cannot outlive benefits. Sure enough, this continues to be the case with Social Security today and, in fact, that's a big part of why we have an issue. People are living much longer and so drawing more out of the system.

That’s my understanding. If you have information to the contrary, as always, I’d be happy to look at it and see if I’m wrong.

[merrylander]

As it currently stands you must pay into SS for 40 months before you can get anything out. If you pay in for 39 months and stop they say thankee and keep your money.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

As it currently stands you must pay into SS for 40 months before you can get anything out. If you pay in for 39 months and stop they say thankee and keep your money.

That still speaks to my point Rob. Clearly, a little over three years "saving" would never secure significant life time benefits in any "saving plan". But that's how it is today. Pete was talking about what it was intended to be. Do you know (I don't, I made the assumption, I could be wrong) if benefits were paid to people when the bill was passed who never paid in?