What if...

[MiranoPoncho]

Discuss.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Since I don't know what the tax cap for income at 95k is could you inform me (us). I have never made near that amount of money so I am currently ignorant to its fiscal ramifications both personally and nationally.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'm assuming you mean for SS? If that's what you mean, then the SS problem would be deferred a few years but would be even worse afterwards.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'm assuming you mean for SS? If that's what you mean, then the SS problem would be deferred a few years but would be even worse afterwards.

Yep.

Until we solve the systemic problems behind overspending and government waste, we will never pay off the obligations our government foisted on us.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'm assuming you mean for SS? If that's what you mean, then the SS problem would be deferred a few years but would be even worse afterwards.

Yep.

Until we solve the systemic problems behind overspending and government waste, we will never pay off the obligations our government foisted on us.

Well one problem is that the government's "obligations" are only until 2042 anyhow. That does nothing for me considering I'll be at retirement age in 2049. We really do need to at least partially privatize it like dozens of other countries have (including Sweden). I've still never heard a decent reason for partial privatization.

The only problem is that there is no way in hell we'll get partial privatization with our current overspending. The elderly want to know that they won't be left out in the cold and if we're running up huge deficits (partially paying it off with future SS), the elderly will never support privatization. When Chile pushed for privatization, they had to run fairly large surpluses and promise that the current retired population would be fully funded. I haven't heard any similar promises here like that.

 

[Craig234]

It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

The Democrats will do the same thing if they have control of both the Executive and Legislative branches. We need opposite parties in the two branches and a sizable outcry from those who will bear the weight of current excesses (my generation and my future childrens' generation).

And, yes, SS funds should be set off completely. Why this isn't done and hasn't been fixed in the last 30 years, I don't really know. Short-sighted bureaucrats and an ignorant populace, I guess.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

A few well put points, save the left wing rhetoric about Republicans...do you honestly think the Dem's are free and clear from stealing SS funds? You had better do a little reading my friend They're ALL crooks...

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

A few well put points, save the left wing rhetoric about Republicans...do you honestly think the Dem's are free and clear from stealing SS funds? You had better do a little reading my friend They're ALL crooks...

He said that both parties borrow from SS right in the middle of his post However, he pointed out that Al Gore wanted to stop the practice (maybe you only read that part?)

 

[spidey07]

If it were removed it would futher hamper and unfairly overtax high income earners. Preventing them from doing what they do best - invest and create jobs.

So in essence - it's a terrible idea.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If it were removed it would futher hamper and unfairly overtax high income earners. Preventing them from doing what they do best - invest and create jobs.

So in essence - it's a terrible idea.

The idea of trickle down economics being the primary motivator behind a strong economy is a load of crap. Yes, investments from high income earners is important, but placing the tax burden on the lower class has just as negative effects on the economy. The REAL solution is to lower taxes across the board, and implement a flatter tax that taxes ALL kinds of income.

 

[spidey07]

I'm all for a flatter tax. one that doesn't steal a substancial portion of high income eaners money. high wage earners are already raped (and pay the lions share of all taxes), last thing we need is to rape them even more.

espceially on the 95k ss limit given that they'll never see the disporportionate benefits of their overpayment.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07
If it were removed it would futher hamper and unfairly overtax high income earners. Preventing them from doing what they do best - invest and create jobs.

So in essence - it's a terrible idea.

The idea of trickle down economics being the primary motivator behind a strong economy is a load of crap. Yes, investments from high income earners is important, but placing the tax burden on the lower class has just as negative effects on the economy. The REAL solution is to lower taxes across the board, and implement a flatter tax that taxes ALL kinds of income.

Tax burden on the 'lower class'--- you are aware that the top 50% of earners payed 96.5% of federal income tax. That means the 'lower class' only pays 3.5%.

In 2003 the top 50% were people who made more than $29,000.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

If stopping the government from borrowing funds from SS is such a good idea then why didn't Gore bring this up during the 8 years he was Vice President? Sounds more like a campaign promise than sound policy.

If only democrats can save SS then where is their plan? We have all these "smart" democrats running around like Hillary and Kerrey and yet not one of them can come up with a good plan to save SS, either they aren't trying or there isn't a plan that will work, short of privatizing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:


- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.
q]

So if we don't let the government borrow the money from the SS fund what do we do with that money? Put it in the bank? Then the bank turns around and loans it to someone, perhaps the government, and charges a higher interest rate than they 'pay'.

At lease when the government 'borrows' the money they are doing it interest free.

The solution to the problem is to slowly convert the SS system from the government system we have now to a private system. We take money from the younger people and place it in their own little IRAs while we still pay the older people their SS funds. Eventually the people being payed by the government will die off and the system will go completely private.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

The Democrats will do the same thing if they have control of both the Executive and Legislative branches. We need opposite parties in the two branches and a sizable outcry from those who will bear the weight of current excesses (my generation and my future childrens' generation).

And, yes, SS funds should be set off completely. Why this isn't done and hasn't been fixed in the last 30 years, I don't really know. Short-sighted bureaucrats and an ignorant populace, I guess.

Nope, its called smart bureaucrats who knew in the 1930's they could make claims and pay for it, essentially as a state enforced loan without interest. To me, Social Security is just a giant pyramid scheme; someone will eventually have to take it in the ass to make someone else happy.

 

[piasabird]

In Alaska they had a large glut of tax money for a lot of years and they started something they called the permanent fund. They literally were giving away $800.00 to every person in Alaska when I lived up there, and that was just from the Interest. They use to compound some of the interest every year so it kept getting bigger.

If you just put that money in the bank it will always earn some interest. 2% is better than nothing. It is wrong to let the government just steal the money. As far as the cap on Social Security tax is concerned, I think that should be removed. People of moderate income do not get a break on their bills, so people who just happend to be able to make a little more, should not get a break on their tax.

 

[theeedude]

It's a great idea that is long overdue.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's a great idea that is long overdue.

It's a useless idea by itself. Without any reform we would just be pushing the problem back a few years which solves nothing. We need the government to stop from digging into surplus of SS and also move towards partial privatization. Without any reform we'd either eventually raise taxes (hurts the lower classes more) or cut benefits which hurt the elderly.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:

- Prevent the republican crooks from getting their hands on a cent of the SS money for 'privatization' which enriches their donors and raises administrative costs.

- Prevent the idealogues from getting their hands on the program, where they want to cripple it out of ideology against the government helping people, and democrats getting credit.

- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.

- Choose one of the many low-pain solutions for the SS program long term. It's a well run, low cost in administration program which is a great help to people.

- If there is to be any privatization, only democrats can create the changes which are good for the people and the country.

If only Nixon could go to China, only democrats can fix SS.

A few well put points, save the left wing rhetoric about Republicans...do you honestly think the Dem's are free and clear from stealing SS funds? You had better do a little reading my friend They're ALL crooks...

He said that both parties borrow from SS right in the middle of his post However, he pointed out that Al Gore wanted to stop the practice (maybe you only read that part?)

Of course I read it...but who did he call "crooks"?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty simple:


- Ban the government from borrowing the SS funds - over $100B a year - as both parties have done, as Al Gore promised to outlaw. It's trashing the US's fiscal health.
q]

So if we don't let the government borrow the money from the SS fund what do we do with that money? Put it in the bank? Then the bank turns around and loans it to someone, perhaps the government, and charges a higher interest rate than they 'pay'.

At lease when the government 'borrows' the money they are doing it interest free.

The solution to the problem is to slowly convert the SS system from the government system we have now to a private system. We take money from the younger people and place it in their own little IRAs while we still pay the older people their SS funds. Eventually the people being payed by the government will die off and the system will go completely private.

:thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: piasabird

If you just put that money in the bank it will always earn some interest. 2% is better than nothing. It is wrong to let the government just steal the money. As far as the cap on Social Security tax is concerned, I think that should be removed. People of moderate income do not get a break on their bills, so people who just happend to be able to make a little more, should not get a break on their tax.

You are aware that people that earn a higher wage pay a much higer percentage of their income in taxes right? They're not "getting a break" on their taxes.

why should somebody pay a disproportionate amount into the system? Especially since the benefits they would received are capped? So if the benefits are capped, then the contributions need to be as well.

OP needs to get back in the thread because the question was not very clear.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07
If it were removed it would futher hamper and unfairly overtax high income earners. Preventing them from doing what they do best - invest and create jobs.

So in essence - it's a terrible idea.

The idea of trickle down economics being the primary motivator behind a strong economy is a load of crap. Yes, investments from high income earners is important, but placing the tax burden on the lower class has just as negative effects on the economy. The REAL solution is to lower taxes across the board, and implement a flatter tax that taxes ALL kinds of income.

Tax burden on the 'lower class'--- you are aware that the top 50% of earners payed 96.5% of federal income tax. That means the 'lower class' only pays 3.5%.

In 2003 the top 50% were people who made more than $29,000.

It's a relative burden...and I'm not sure I'd say that people making $29,000 are not lower class.

But read what I said, IF (key word) rich people pay less in taxes, SOMEONE has to make up the difference. And while the trickle down theory suggests that cutting taxes for higher income earners can have some positive benefits (true, to some extent), increasing the burden for lower income earners hurts the economy at the same time.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I'm all for a flatter tax. one that doesn't steal a substancial portion of high income eaners money. high wage earners are already raped (and pay the lions share of all taxes), last thing we need is to rape them even more.

espceially on the 95k ss limit given that they'll never see the disporportionate benefits of their overpayment.

That's not really accurate...high income earners pay a lot of taxes on CERTAIN kinds of income. Other forms, such as capital gains and estate taxes, mean that a lot of the higher end forms of income that make up a lot of the income at the very top of the economic ladder are NOT paid in a fair way.

But here's my suggestion...treat all forms of income the same, and flatten out the tax rates...maybe to the point where truly poor people are the only ones who get a tax-rate break. This means Paris Hilton will have to pay taxes just like the rest of us, the tax on labor for the middle class can go down, thus encouraging more investment and spending from the middle class. The idea that rich people pay too much in taxes is bogus if you consider how they earn their money, it's really the middle class that's getting screwed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: piasabird

If you just put that money in the bank it will always earn some interest. 2% is better than nothing. It is wrong to let the government just steal the money. As far as the cap on Social Security tax is concerned, I think that should be removed. People of moderate income do not get a break on their bills, so people who just happend to be able to make a little more, should not get a break on their tax.

You are aware that people that earn a higher wage pay a much higer percentage of their income in taxes right? They're not "getting a break" on their taxes.

why should somebody pay a disproportionate amount into the system? Especially since the benefits they would received are capped? So if the benefits are capped, then the contributions need to be as well.

OP needs to get back in the thread because the question was not very clear.

The problem with a truly "fair" system is that taxes for things like road repair would dry up...after all, Bill Gates doesn't really put more wear and tear on the roads than I do, right?