social security

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

When the top 5% "the rich" pay a far lower end tax rate than 95% of the rest of the population, pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the country, then "fair share" needs to be discussed.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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.

You missed the point and misunderstood. Read it again.

[Danzig]

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.

[Antitrust32]

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

[Riot]

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)