Considering Obama wants to create new armies of PC police (expanded Justice Department
to locally enforce creepy things like the "Gender Expression" he wants protected. I am not sure deputizing web rumour police is going to look good in the end. I do think there have been too many trifling criticisms of Obama (like the flag pin etc) and not enough about his neo-Marxist training and teaching. He can hide Alinsky even less than his other loopy buddies.
to locally enforce creepy things like the "Gender Expression" he wants protected. I am not sure deputizing web rumour police is going to look good in the end. I do think there have been too many trifling criticisms of Obama (like the flag pin etc) and not enough about his neo-Marxist training and teaching. He can hide Alinsky even less than his other loopy buddies.
I wonder if anyone's done a cost analysis of prosecuting the war in Iraq versus just rebuilding major American architecture every couple years after Iraq becomes the next pre-invasion Afghanistan.
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
Initially I wasn't a big fan of increasing the taxes of the rich, as I don't believe they should be punished for being more successful. But after looking at the actual numbers, I'm actually for Obama's tax plan. I didn't realize the tax cap was at 98,000 at that those that make over that actually pay a lot less in percentage.
Cuda, the rich pay more % taxes. Coldkilla was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ax_brackets_in_the_USA
The Rich already pay the most taxes. Obama is just going to increase that and punish them for making $. He's going to take their $ and give it to the poor through UHC and other similar programs.
The Rich already pay the most taxes. Obama is just going to increase that and punish them for making $. He's going to take their $ and give it to the poor through UHC and other similar programs.
You are confusing tax brackets with effective tax rate. For example you only pay social security taxes on the first $100k of your earnings or so, afterwards your future earnings are exempt. Things like that.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
That's only for Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be a retirement insurance plan but it is essentially a government run ponzi scheme. No amount of tax increase is going to correct the fundamental problems with that program.
False, it just needs to be adjusted to fit in with changing demographics.
When it was implemented people didn't live much past 65 and very few people could do any effective work past that point. Both of those things have changed, and so should social security.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
And there were also far more people paying into the system than were receiving benefits. That has changed because of the baby boomers. There were 16 workers for every one social security recipient in the 1950s. There are only ~3.3 workers per social security recipient now.
The current benefits age for full SS benefits is 67 for those born after 1960. Minorities and the poor generally are the ones that don't live long enough to collect full benefits.
Good luck selling a raise in the retirement age and/or reducing benefits.
It's a "smear" because it's not true. It has nothing to do with free speech or progressive values or whatever you're trying to link it to.
What is sad is that so many sheep believe everything they hear from someone on the street or (more appropriate here, perhaps) every rumor that circulates around the net.
Well you can argue about the difficulties in readjusting the system to where it originally was, but that doesn't mean that there is some fundamental problem with the system that can't be fixed.
I was just curious. How does the introduction of individual retirement plans like the 401(K), IRAs etc. alter the picture? I mean, are there any studies on whether they will cushion the impact of lower/non-existent future Social Security payouts?
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
The fundamental problem is that it is a ponzi/pyramid scheme. Social Security requires that the money that people are taxed today get paid out immediately to current SS recipients. Anything collected over what is paid out is put into the general fund and spent by the feds.
There is no savings account. There is no trust fund. There is no lockbox. There is no guarantee of benefits.
People better be putting money in individual retirement accounts because you are going to get a poor return (if any) on that 15% that you and your employer put in combined.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Oh btw, part of the reason the McCain plan seems to be so favorable to those that make over $100k is because McCain wants to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is a tax that was only meant to hit around 150 taxpayers when it was first introduced in 1970. But, it was poorly written and continues to hit more and more taxpayers and is projected to hit 1 in 5 taxpayers by 2010 (CBO). Congress has only been passing one year patches instead of addressing it fully.
I haven't been able to find any specifics on what Obama wants to do with the AMT beyond "lessening the bite".
I haven't been able to find any specifics on what Obama wants to do with the AMT beyond "lessening the bite".
That's not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme involves a promise of investment on a lucrative business model that obscures the fact that the business doesn't exist by using new members to pay old ones. Social Security makes no such claims. Calling it a ponzi scheme is a dishonest attempt to apply a veneer of criminality to a program for your own ideological reasons. tsk tsk.
The fundamental problem with social security is that its original implementation was in a country with different demographics then we currently have, it needs to be adjusted to bring it back into alignment with its original demographic purpose.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
LMAO. You just described SS. There are no funds in Social Security. They don't exist. Everything that is paid in is paid out immediately. Anything leftover goes into the general fund to be spent. All the new workers are taxed in order to pay current retirees/beneficiaries.
Right. Now go learn what a ponzi scheme is.
If you take a minute to do so you'll see that the entire reason a ponzi scheme is illegal is that there is a deception about a business model that doesn't exist providing the money instead of other members. No such deception exists with SS, everyone knows what the deal is. I'm not sure who you got that idea from or if you got really witty and thought it up yourself, but it's dumb. I mean are you suddenly shocked that a system requires more people paying into it then it is paying out benefits to? Is this news?
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
What's dumb is that we have a retirement system that requires more people paying into it then is receiving benefits instead of having a system where people pay into a system and get what they paid out when they retire. Kind of like 401(k)s, IRAs, and pensions.
I am hardly suddenly shocked. I've never had any trust in Social Security since learning of how it was funded when I was a teenager 15+ years ago.
Well if you look into how and why social security was created you will have the answers to your questions. Social Security is a plan to reduce poverty among the elderly. Currently it changes the poverty rates among the elderly from about 50% to about 10%.
I don't really care what you think about Social Security, it's not going anywhere. I was just taking exception to you falsely characterizing it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter