social security

[ArlJim78]

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. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.

This thread is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

Obama better get ready because everything is coming to a head in the next few weeks.

The Saudi Day of Rage is nearly upon us.

[clyde]

So simple even the government will wake up to the answer.




Kill everyone receiving ss.

God,...it's them---right?

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

[clyde]

Why not kill both groups?

No. I refuse to kill members of my family no matter how many times they've pissed on my toilet seat. I am not an animal.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

No. I refuse to kill members of my family no matter how many times they've pissed on my toilet seat. I am not an animal.

[clyde]

Well fine, but someone has to go.300 million plus people are just too many.Kill everyone in the retirement states...that's it.



You won't get all of them and some innocent will have to go,but it beats any other idea.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

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

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

Good lord, you don't have a clue what Socialism is. Or Communism. You're just spitting out words you've heard.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good lord, you don't have a clue what Socialism is. Or Communism. You're just spitting out words you've heard.

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.

[joeydb]

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

Huh? Only in the Republican imagination. Reality - not so much

Republican reality is: Curly is wealthier, so he pays 1/6, and he makes Moe pay 1/2, and Larry pay 1/2, and then Curly gets another 1/6 rebate.

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?

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".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

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,

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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,

and Joe McCarthy was right