[talaniman]

LOL Tom, the prez has nothing do do with it. The righties are just too greedy. You know if they talk crazy on Fox News, imagine how they sound on CNN, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. How about the Washinton post? Even they think the right is NUTS.

[tomder55]

The Compost thinks the right is nuts... eh ? What else does the President have ? He can't run on his accomplishments besides the ridiculous and self delusional claim that he is the 4th best President ever. So he concocts this Trumanesque strategy about demonizing Congress. Well that would be true if they were in fact doing nothing. The truth is that they have passed a budget while the Dem dominated Senate has passed nothing of substance beyond short term extensions.

I need that 42 bucks!!

Then you must be in the 6 figure income level. That is the only way the reduction adds up to $42. In the President's hypothetical $50,000/year income the weekly reduction is $19 . Do the math.. It's a 2% payroll tax reduction from 6.2% to 4.2 % .
But the President used $40 a week in his demagogery and people accepted it without question. Would someone making $104,000 (the annual income of someone who actually gets that $40 week reduction) need it so they could not sacrifice the occasional pizza night ... or deny their kids a new pair of shoes? Of course not .

But what it does do is reduce the amt of money going towards Social Security .Despite the rhetoric ,the Dems aren't really concerned with keeping SS solvent .
But Speaker Bonehead is too timid to mention these obvious truths... or maybe he didn't do the math either .

By the way... for a $42 saving/week you need to make $109,200 /year .

You tell me you want a permanent 2% marginal tax cut I'm on board . These phoney targeted temporary tax adjustments do nothing .

[talaniman]

Lol, Tom, I said nothing of $42 a week. That would be great, But that 42 bucks is a month. And funny you cite SS being neglected, since they have not used a raise in the income ceiling, or means testing or any other tool from the box, and there are many, as possible offsets, or pay fors that the right can use. No, they go for the poor getting less, the rich getting more, like they always do.

SS is only in danger if the right gets there hands on it. A clean simple bill would be nice, I mean we can argue the kitchen sink later.

[tomder55]

I have no problem with bringing a means testing formula into it. At least we would know the extent of the welfare fraud called Social Security... instead of the lie that it's a self funding insurance plan.

[excon]

I have no problem with bringing a means testing formula into it.

Hello again, tom:

Of course, you don't. Means testing is the first step in eliminating it.. Right now, it's an ENTITLEMENT... Everybody paid. Everybody gets it. When you start means testing, it becomes program for the poor. In other words, welfare.. Welfare is much easier to get rid of than an entitlement program. Everybody hates welfare, don't they?

excon

[tomder55]

So you don't want means testing ? That's what all the SS reformers on the Left say should happen. They know what you and I know.. it's a fraud as advertised.

BTW .tal... when the President demagogued the payroll tax cut this week was the $40 he was talking about monthly ? Not sure if he was talking biweekly or weekly . I know it wasn't monthly .

[excon]

So you don't want means testing ? That's what all the SS reformers on the Left say should happen.

Hello again, tom:

Not only that, I'm for REMOVING the means testing that has the RICH paying a SMALLER percentage of their income in SS taxes than the poor. EVERYBODY should pay the SAME percentage of their income in SS taxes..

That sounds eminently FAIR to me, and that would take care of ANY shortfall - EVER. You could call it a FLAT tax. I thought you guys LIKED flat taxes.

excon

[tomder55]

The pay out is proportional to the pay in isn't it ? The rich have a cap in paying and a ceiling of how much they can take out. Otherwise it's just a take from the rich and give to the poor welfare system.

Face facts ;we were destined to be screwed upon conception of the scheme . The only ones who truly come out good are the parents of the WWII generation . But of course that was going to happen they knew they'd get much more than they'd put in . That was an easy sell for Roosevelt .

[excon]

Otherwise it's just a take from the rich and give to the poor welfare system.

Hello again, tom:

I guess you could categorize ANY progressive tax that way... And, you DO!

excon

[tomder55]

Yup... at least you call it a tax. Roosevelt knew he couldn't sell it if he said it was a tax. So he lied and called it insurance.

[talaniman]

Means testing is for disbursement not exemption for paying into it. Don't confuse it with raising the contribution ceiling, another mechanism for adding funds. Geez, don't you guys know how it works?

And the 40 bucks is per paycheck, typically every two weeks which poor and middle classes are subject to. That's why they call it a payroll tax cut, everybody who is employed by someone else pays this as they go. Making a bald face lie of the notion they pay NO taxes.

But the righties who hate welfare, or anything for the 99%, love corporate welfare, and want even more. But what do you expect from somebody that says greedy fat rich cats are job creators? Its still trickle down economics, old story, new terms, same thing.

SS has a variety of options, and combinations of options to fund it, has for decades.

[tomder55]

And the 40 bucks is per paycheck, typically every two weeks which poor and middle classes are subject to. That's why they call it a payroll tax cut, everybody who is employed by someone else pays this as they go. Making a bald face lie of the notion they pay NO taxes.

OK let's go with the biweekly scenario. That's in excess of $50,000 /year income. Not rich but certainly not poor.

SS has a variety of options, and combinations of options to fund it, has for decades.

Nope it's only payroll taxes that fund it .
Why can't you admit that your Dems and the President are raiding the Social Security trust fund... just like they are bankrupting Medicare... another "entitlement" ;by transferring it's funds to finance Obamacare .


Means testing =screwing people who have paid into the system by having the audacity to have self funded their own retirements beyond the pittence the government "gives them " in social security benefits. Raising the income ceiling is another means of screwing people by taking more of their money .
What you are saying is that you think Social Security is just another welfare plan... which doesn't surprise me since it was always in the back of the minds of the redistributionist Democrats/"progressives "..

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

[paraclete]

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

That's really easy where I come from they have a "reasonable benefit limit" based on your earnings so if your fund earns well or you sock too much away then everything above that limit gets taxed heavily, this can create a big tax bill for your estate. The government givith and the government taketh away. I don't know why you aren't more relaxed about tax, tax is so complex no one can understand it, so why worry

[talaniman]

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wait until they try to confiscate 401K plans .

Wait until the banks steal from it! Oh wait, they have already! How much did you lose, and how long will it take for you to get it back?

[smearcase]

FDR quote from ssa.gov/history:

"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

[tomder55]

I lost nothing . I went to a muni bond fund and that has performed well after a slight downturn .

Nonetheless... I'll take my chances running my own than having the government taking it out of my pocket and running it for me...

By the way...
I am serious about rumblings about the government confiscating it and depositing it into a "government managed " annuity program.

Look up the name Professor Theresa Ghillarducci of The New School and see what she has in mind for 401-K and IRA's . She has the Dem's ears .

... or you sock too much away

Very telling that the Aussies are sheeple who let the government decide how much of your money saved is "too much" .

[paraclete]

.

Very telling that the Aussies are sheeple who let the government decide how much of your money saved is "too much" .

The problem is the system is too damn complex for the average person and only the top earners are going to be trapped so no one cares. If you are in that position it is better to make your own investments and avoid these supposed tax protected schemes. That way you have full access to your money, capital gains protection and no investment rules to restrict you. You see such schemes are put in place by "socialist" goverments and are too complex to unravel, they always include a sting for the high end earner. The last liberal government unwound the problem a little by giving self funded retirees access to the pension scheme. As I said the government givith and the government taketh away. By doing it this way they buy the maximum number of votes. Anyway the losses of recent years have made the possibility of a sting very doubtful for most.

[talaniman]

You both have made my case for an informed electorate. Then we can hold our elected leaders to a higher standard, and make them accountable to the people. NOT THE MONEY!

Thanks guys.

[tomder55]

Well gee... we find something we agree about. I have to warn you.. an informed electorate is less likely to be dependent on the government .

[excon]

I have to warn you .. an informed electorate is less likely to be dependent on the government .

Hello again, tom:

AND, less likely to give up their rights.

excon