social security

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans!

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

When an argument is put forward that first highlights how much more should go to the poor, and then asserts that the rich don't "need" as much because they have so much left over, you can be sure that the principle espoused is a socialist one.

5% of people paying 54% of the bill isn't "fair"? Are you kidding? How much is enough???

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When an argument is put forward that first highlights how much more should go to the poor, and then asserts that the rich don't "need" as much because they have so much left over, you can be sure that the principle espoused is a socialist one.

Joey, go read up on the definition of "socialism". It's not what you apparently think it is at all.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

How about addressing the real problem. That the unfunded commitment we have for future SS and Medicare obligations is in the $90 trillion dollar range. And why in the world did Obama cut the SS tax this year if the program is in trouble? Is it that spending our way out of bankruptcy theory again?

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

Oh Jesus!

[clyde]

You're tough to please.



Nuke Chicago.....how's that one?

[clyde]

I'll throw in the music people you mentioned.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

that'll work!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

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.

[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)