100% more porn than fightthesmears.com. .org has my vote!
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: DonaldC
How is he gonna pay for all the additional programs he is proposing if he cuts our tax burden?
Sounds too good to be true.
Amazing what not spending $100B/yr in Iraq can do
Originally posted by: mikelish
Cuda, the rich pay more % taxes. Coldkilla was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ax_brackets_in_the_USA
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
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.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
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.
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
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.
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.
Originally posted by: neodyn55
The saddest part is that in today's USA, a country guided by one of the most progressive and advanced political writings ever, calling someone a Muslim is a "smear".
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
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?
Originally posted by: ranmaniac
I guess this is in preparation for the rumored Michelle Obama "Take on Whitey" video.
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
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%.
Originally posted by: Chris27
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Average Tax Bill
Income: 112,000 - 161,000
McCain: -$2,614
Obama: -$1,204
I think I prefer McCain's plan then
Originally posted by: loup garou
100% more porn than fightthesmears.com. .org has my vote!