Here you go again with new math. A single filer over $373K after deductions pays 35%. Oddly enough when you do the math he/she pays 35% of their income. 130.5K/yr (in dollars 74.5K more (percentage wise)

Conversely a single filer making 34K after deductions is taxed at 15% and again lightning strikes twice and the percentage of income paid is 15%. $5.1K/yr (in dollars $6.8K less in percentage)

Of course this does not include investment income that has already been taxed and is repeating for the umpteenth time.

that'll work!:rolleyes:

I can't go for that (no can do) ... oops ... BANG!!!!

Let's make this simple: Whatever you want to call the "system" where the top 5% paying over 54% of the bill is NOT ENOUGH, I am opposed to it.

like i said, if you only pay it back to those who 'deserve' it, it's no longer what it was set up to be. if we aren't paying enough to keep it solvent, raise the withholding-don't lower it like what was done for this year! and don't let the gov 'borrow' from it, then we have to pay that back as well.

By the way, everywhere but in political discourse, "fair" is pretty interchangeable with "proportional".

Larry, Moe, and Curly go out to lunch. Larry has one hamburger, Moe has two, and Curly, he's hungry, he has three. The "fair" breakdown of the bill is Larry paying 1/6 of the bill, Moe paying 1/3 of the bill (twice as much as Larry), and Curly paying 1/2 the bill (3 times as much as Larry and 1.5 times as much as Moe).

If we told Curly that he should pay more, since he ate more of the "resources" and he should supplement Larry and Moe, then we'd have what the left considers "more fair" but certainly not proportional.

It's "more fair" because until rich man Curly pays for the whole lunch, plus the lunches of the rest of the restaurant patrons, and a premium on top of that to the government, and a massive tip to the staff, it won't be "completely fair". See how little math it takes to come up with the liberal Democrat definition of fair?

Really, I didn't realize that I was living in the US. Who are "we"? It's interesting that you can define Socialism in such simplistic terms. Sounds like something directly from the era of Joe McCarthy,

You missed the point and misunderstood. Read it again.

Do you realize that about 400 people own half the wealth in this country?

Do you realize that our top ten corporations pay no corporate income tax?

Do you realize that while you are paying 28% of your income in federal taxes, those earning thousands more than you are paying a far lesser percentage?

And some want them to pay even less. You are the one that has to make up that deficit. As seen, for example, in Wisconsin: Walker gives immediate tax credits for corporations, immediate approx 8% decrease in income for librarians, prison guards, teachers, etc.

Want to solve financial problems and the deficits in this country? Stop the tax loopholes and credits and gifts to those persons and corporations that make six figures and more. Don't make them pay more - just stop the special gifts that enable them to pay less than everyone else. If that were done, everyone could then pay less. And we would all enjoy fully-funded social security, medicare, etc.

The Koch brothers, a Tea Party member and a teacher were sitting around a table with a plate of 12 cookies. The Koch brothers took 11 cookies for themselves, then told the Tea Party member, "That teacher wants some of your cookie".

Make one tax rate -- flat tax. That is proportional, and the mathematically closest to "fair" that you will come up with.

and Joe McCarthy was right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031004683.html


Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - Social Security is the most solvable.

Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need.

The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration's Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.


well, now isn't that awesome. politics as usual. obama doesn't want him or his party to be the 'bad guy' and make changes some won't find palatable...a hot button issue, so let's avoid it altogether. ignore it, it won't go away. but let's just stick our heads in the sand, and let someone worry about it down the road. keep hearing how it's such an easy fix, but....if it's so effing easy, why isn't it being done?

Sooner or later, social security and medicare will need adjustments...no way to balance the budget without that. The question will be, do we attack the poor with cuts they cannot afford or do we make adjustments to the money the rich receive. Raising the retirement age would help some but eventually it will come down to that simple question...

well, it sure would be nice if those we elected to change the current way of doing things would actually...oh, i don't know...do some changing. but no, business as usual. borrow today, spend yesterday, worry about the debt in another generation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...w9dk_blog.html


Harry Reid says no to Social Security reform
By Jennifer Rubin
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has consistently denied there is an immediate Social Security crisis, and, therefore, he says won’t consider Social Security reform. He was at it again yesterday:

“Two decades from now, I’m willing to take a look at it,” said Reid, 71, in an interview to air Wednesday evening on MSNBC. “But I’m not willing to take a look at it right now.”




The Social Security fund’s own actuary explained in a 2010 report that if action isn’t taken sooner rather than later, “then changes necessary to make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations.” That would entail such measures as increasing the payroll tax to about 16.1 percent in 2037 and roughly 16.7 percent in 2084. Benefit cuts “would be reduced 22 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2037, with reductions reaching 25 percent in 2084.”

Entitlement spending and payment on the debt now are about 70 percent of our federal spending. Without reform, we’ll continue to rack up more and more debt and crowd out available funds for every discretionary program.

Harry Reid is an fing idiot. they all are.

okay, ignore the problem because who knows maybe it could hurt your election. but put the burdon on the future generations.

that's The American Way

Just raise the ceiling a be done with it! Trouble is, the House has to originate finance bills, and they won't do this. The Senate would. I don't think that change could originate in the Senate.

I think Reid is being a hard ass as majority leader deliberately, to point out that Social Security isn't really the emergency deficit buster some imply (which even Paul Ryan admitted to yesterday, speaking to a conservative group about Reids' remarks)