FYI almost everyone will see a tax increase.

[FerrelGeek]

I don't think our friendly liberals here on P&N had any idea that a $25,000 wage earner was going to pay more taxes.

They rarely think about wage earners, except on how to tax them more.

-John

The bolded part pretty much sums up the libs on here. They can't see past their own ideology that they're incapable of seeing its consequences.

 

[dawheat]

The bolded part pretty much sums up the libs on here. They can't see past their own ideology that they're incapable of seeing its consequences.

Don't be obtuse - this was always going to expire with the full backing of the R and D parties. Income tax changes are something else altogether.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The cap should be completely removed. Solves 95% of the problems with social security.

And making the temporary payroll tax reduction permanent would have only made the problems with SS and Medicare many many times worse that they already are.

Disagree. SS and Medicare are both benefits that FICA covers for YOU when you reach retirement age. You are basically just paying into an account to be spent for yourself. There are payout limits, which would make a cap removal basically a wealth transfer instead of a real benefit.

Then again, I'm of the mindset that these things shouldn't be the responsibility of the federal government. People should save their own money for retirement. If the government needs to be involved at all, it's to ensure that cost effective insurance is available to seniors, as it can get cost prohibitive with age, if not received through an employer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Disagree. SS and Medicare are both benefits that FICA covers for YOU when you reach retirement age. You are basically just paying into an account to be spent for yourself. There are payout limits, which would make a cap removal basically a wealth transfer instead of a real benefit.

Then again, I'm of the mindset that these things shouldn't be the responsibility of the federal government. People should save their own money for retirement. If the government needs to be involved at all, it's to ensure that cost effective insurance is available to seniors, as it can get cost prohibitive with age, if not received through an employer.

The problem is that healthcare for seniors is not affordable no matter how you approach it. They are getting older, developing chronic diseases, and dying. You can't insure a group of people with those characteristics in an affordable way.

 

[Chris A]

SS taxes are matched by employer correct?

 

[michal1980]

SS taxes are matched by employer correct?

the employer match was never cut.

so employers continued to pay the ~6% tax, the employee paid ~4% for the past 2 years.

 

[Chris A]

the employer match was never cut.

so employers continued to pay the ~6% tax, the employee paid ~4% for the past 2 years.

Thanks.

 

[Acanthus]

Social Security needs to be eliminated, not remain solvent.
I'll take my 6.2% and invest it into my own private account, where i will get my own return... not dontate it to someone else.

Yeah, that would've been great for your if you retired in 2008.

 

[Acanthus]

It's ironic that you called yourself out before issuing talking points. "Reform" is just another buzzword that means "change." If all reforms were good by virtue of being reforms, then Obama's Hope and Change motto would have been all good too. The problem is that not all change is created equal and the brand that he peddles is like a massive air compressor to blow up big government. Unfortunately, those of us who can do math at an eighth grade level know damn well that it's impossible to pay for his desired level of government.

It is impossible to pay for while policing the world. Yes.

Cut our military and espionage budgets back down to reasonable, and by proxy stop 1/4 of the earth from hating us, and suddenly you have lots of room.

 

[WackyDan]

The payroll tax cut that is around 3% total has expired. It has not been renewed and affects nearly everyone. So the majority of Americans will see tax increase, and substantial one at that.

This is the one I don't care about. It should have never been cut to begin with and never extended.

I don't view it as an increase at all - more of a return to what it should be. Note that I do not like the Social Security program at all, but cutting a program's revenues when it is facing massive shortages seemed pretty stupid at the time... and still is.

 

[WackyDan]

The cap should be completely removed. Solves 95% of the problems with social security.

And making the temporary payroll tax reduction permanent would have only made the problems with SS and Medicare many many times worse that they already are.

I make more than the cap. I'd be fine with the cap being lifted or eliminated but if you are going to tax me more in SS taxes then I will be putting less into my own private retirement savings... So you should also have an increase in max SS monthly payments(at age) to reflect that for those that can and should pay more.

 

[DCal430]

Disagree. SS and Medicare are both benefits that FICA covers for YOU when you reach retirement age. You are basically just paying into an account to be spent for yourself. There are payout limits, which would make a cap removal basically a wealth transfer instead of a real benefit.

Then again, I'm of the mindset that these things shouldn't be the responsibility of the federal government. People should save their own money for retirement. If the government needs to be involved at all, it's to ensure that cost effective insurance is available to seniors, as it can get cost prohibitive with age, if not received through an employer.

This is false you do not pay into ss just for you. Everyone pays for everyonw. Higher income individuals subsidize lower income ones. If everone just paid for them self then the benefits would be proportional to contributions and it isn't.

 

[CycloWizard]

It is impossible to pay for while policing the world. Yes.

Cut our military and espionage budgets back down to reasonable, and by proxy stop 1/4 of the earth from hating us, and suddenly you have lots of room.

It's impossible to pay for. Period. Until the zombies among us realize that everyone dies regardless of how much money you throw at their medical care, we can never have a remotely sane discussion about how to fix the current mess. "Death panels" and "rationing" are essential parts of any healthcare system. The only things that will change is what they are called, who is on the panel, and on what basis healthcare is rationed. These are facts. I'm sorry if they do not comport with your opinion but that's your problem not mine.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is false you do not pay into ss just for you. Everyone pays for everyonw. Higher income individuals subsidize lower income ones. If everone just paid for them self then the benefits would be proportional to contributions and it isn't.

Actually, benefits are proportional to contributions, at least for the great majority. I don't have details handy, but your SS benefit varies according to how much you paid. I believe it's based on the top five years, but can't remember for sure. In any case, there is a formula and generally those who paid the most get the most.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's impossible to pay for. Period. Until the zombies among us realize that everyone dies regardless of how much money you throw at their medical care, we can never have a remotely sane discussion about how to fix the current mess. "Death panels" and "rationing" are essential parts of any healthcare system. The only things that will change is what they are called, who is on the panel, and on what basis healthcare is rationed. These are facts. I'm sorry if they do not comport with your opinion but that's your problem not mine.

You're arguing a straw man. Your initial claim was "healthcare for seniors is not affordable no matter how you approach it". Acanthus simply pointed out (correctly) that we could afford it if we wasted less on our grossly over-sized military. He said not a single word suggesting we could provide infinite care.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're arguing a straw man. Your initial claim was "healthcare for seniors is not affordable no matter how you approach it". Acanthus simply pointed out (correctly) that we could afford it if we wasted less on our grossly over-sized military. He said not a single word suggesting we could provide infinite care.

We CANNOT afford it. Seniors will die by virtue of being old. How much money do you have that can prevent it from happening? If you spent the entire GDP of the US on it, they would all still die. I really don't see why this is remotely difficult to comprehend yet people here rail against this obvious fact like it is the curtain hiding the house of cards which is their entire platform.

 

[Ausm]

Good everyone needs to pay more taxes. You vote for big government, pay for it.

Are you insinuating that the Republicons shrink Gubermint? LMFAO 😱D::whiste:

 

[Bowfinger]

We CANNOT afford it. Seniors will die by virtue of being old. How much money do you have that can prevent it from happening? If you spent the entire GDP of the US on it, they would all still die. I really don't see why this is remotely difficult to comprehend yet people here rail against this obvious fact like it is the curtain hiding the house of cards which is their entire platform.

You continue thrashing the same straw man. Nobody has suggested seniors can live forever. It's a completely bogus argument you've invented, apparently to avoid acknowledging your original statement is incorrect. Everybody (but you, apparently) understands the difference between health care and immortality.

 

[CycloWizard]

You continue thrashing the same straw man. Nobody has suggested seniors can live forever. It's a completely bogus argument you've invented, apparently to avoid acknowledging your original statement is incorrect. Everybody (but you, apparently) understands the difference between health care and immortality.

No, the problem is that you don't understand what healthcare is, how it works, or how related costs arise. The vast majority of healthcare costs (>80%) are due to chronic conditions in the last five years of a patient's life. How can you offer an insurance plan that can possibly break even when those covered by the plan are or will soon be in the last five years of their life?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fine by me, they never should have cut it to begin with

That's easy to say, but with people having problems now in today's world, how does decreasing income help them?

 

[Gunslinger08]

This is false you do not pay into ss just for you. Everyone pays for everyonw. Higher income individuals subsidize lower income ones. If everone just paid for them self then the benefits would be proportional to contributions and it isn't.

Uh.. SS benefits are based on your lifetime earnings - and therefore your total contributions.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, the problem is that you don't understand what healthcare is, how it works, or how related costs arise. The vast majority of healthcare costs (>80%) are due to chronic conditions in the last five years of a patient's life. How can you offer an insurance plan that can possibly break even when those covered by the plan are or will soon be in the last five years of their life?

Huff! Puff! Damn, you have a lot of straw. Get back to me when you can address anything I actually stated instead of dishonestly attacking things I didn't. Providing credible data to support your position might be helpful too, rather than simply waving your hands and insisting you know it's impossible. Until then, all you have is opinion, no matter how hard you blow.

Toodles,

 

[DCal430]

Uh.. SS benefits are based on your lifetime earnings - and therefore your total contributions.

Yes, but it is NOT proportional to your contributions. Someone who made 20,000 a year vs someone who made 40,000 a year adjusted for inflation. The person who made 40,000 would have put in twice as much, but will only get back 1500 vs the 1000 the 20,000 person would get, around 1.5 times as much only. In fact someone who makes 60,000 and contributed 3 times as much as someone who makes 20,000 would only get twice as much back and not 3 times.

 

[CycloWizard]

Huff! Puff! Damn, you have a lot of straw. Get back to me when you can address anything I actually stated instead of dishonestly attacking things I didn't. Providing credible data to support your position might be helpful too, rather than simply waving your hands and insisting you know it's impossible. Until then, all you have is opinion, no matter how hard you blow.

Toodles,

What's the annual cost of healthcare for a senior? This is a question involving facts and hard numbers instead of feelings and hand-wringing so I don't really expect an answer.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's easy to say, but with people having problems now in today's world, how does decreasing income help them?

That's unfortunately the real concern here. I agree we should not have made the withholding cut in the first place. Simply bad policy, IMO. Unfortunately, the Obama administration did, and workers have become accustomed to those extra dollars in their paychecks. Given that the economy is still fragile, and recovery is tepid, we need people to keep spending. I'm concerned that suddenly smaller checks will cause people to cut way back and disproportionately hurt the economy.

Of course, that's the no-win corner we've painted ourselves into. Our middle class jobs are now overseas, but we continued the illusion of prosperity by handing out borrowed money. That cannot continue indefinitely, but nobody wants to face the reality of paying our bills. Sooner or later we're screwed without a dramatic influx of good jobs.