Seriously? Is there economic reasons why you get a 6% savings on taxes once you start making “real” money?
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? (no SS tax for the first 50K, then 6% from there out)
Thoughts?
Or maybe institute a gap? from 100K to 250K you’re exempt then after than the 6% kicks back in. It just baffles me that the CEOs and Movie Stars pulling in 20M yr don’t have kick in what would be (based on $20M) about $1M to SS. That would surely save the programs for the baby boomers.
it is a double edged sword.
if you do that, then in all fairness we should all be flat taxed.
i imagine their reasoning behind it is that wealthy people will never actually collect SS so why should they have to pay into it.
but the actual reason probably has more to do with the fact that wealthy people get politicians elected, so politicians are just scratching their backs.
Because it would be the largest tax increase in history, levied mostly at small businesses and the middle to middle-upper class, and would only increase the solvency of SS by about 7 years.
According to the Cato institute anyway.
We try to pretend to not support socialist ideals like the redistribution of wealth.
Now where the fuck is my “stimulate-the-economy” check?!
I’ve read Cato and Heritage foundation, who are generally against taxes anyway. I was looking for an argument other than “I don’t like taxes”
And your personal thoughts on why the wealthiest Americans don’t have to contribute as much % wise as the middle-class…“I am my brother’s keeper” afterall
Like I said, put a gap in from 100K to 250K that would remove the “burden on Middle and Upper Middle class”; how would that effect small-business? I suppose you could put in a further exemption if you have “phantom” income from a C-corp or whatever, that would take care of the small-business owners
I suppose on that same point, is there a fundamental difference in the view of what America means these days? Is it that you either believe it’s dog-eat-dog, look out for #1 or you believe that it’s your duty to lift up those less fortunate with your own prosperity?
My personal feelings? We already tax the rich too much and people like you only want to tax them more to support people who are lazy. I’m much more Darwinian in my ideals; let the strong survive.
And until we are allowed to invest our SS money in private accounts I see no reason to invest MORE money into a failed system. My retirement plans are not counting on SS and nor should anyone elses from my generation. It just pisses me off that I can’t take the money the government is forcing me to dump into a system with almost zero return and invest it, even in a low risk fund.
I’d be willing to bet that your average working poor person works harder than your average rich person. Maybe they didn’t in school, and their work is most likely less intellectually involved, but the quantity of work and lack of freedom to do their jobs the way they want to are far from promoting laziness. Particularly if they have to take more than one job because they can only land ones that pay dick.
Ding ding ding… tell him what he’s won Chuck!
High school is free, and college, at least state college, is easily attainable with a part time job and loans. I don’t buy the excuse of, “I’m poor because I couldn’t get an education”. No, you’re poor because you didn’t want to get an education. I’m all for helping the person who’s down on their luck because their company closed or they were downsized. But we have far too many people in this country who are professional leeches that the Democrats have no problem continuing to feed despite the fact that these people do nothing to lift themselves from the conditions they are in.
<===No complaints from this guy. LOL
X…
I agree with JayS, why put more money into a program that at this point, is failing miserably and showing absolutely no chance of resurrecting itself…
and yes, most people that acquire a large wealth while alive have the brains to not go broke in the future. Flat taxing Americans on this is only going to create people bitching, “I made $20k and he made $100mill, why do we pay the same amount for SS this is bullshit!”
oh and I cant wait for my $600.
But what happens once they don’t? Assuming that they didn’t go to college and don’t have financial support means like living with parents, by like age 25 most people need to work a full time job to support themselves. Chaining them to one forever blocks them from ever being able to get out of it. I wouldn’t mind letting them collect welfare/unemployment to enroll in a full-time accredited program to get them out of the dregs. In fact, I’d like to see it be a requirement that if you’re collecting benefits for more than a month or so, that you enroll in either higher or vocational education, and pass said classes, so that you don’t have an excuse to not find a job when you’re done.
If you haven’t got an education by 25 you have two choices:
Go to night school while working full time, or continue working a shit job the rest of your life. It shouldn’t be the taxpayers responsibility to put you on public assistance because you spent your youth goofing off while you should have been getting an education.
I managed to go through school without collecting welfare. I had about $1500 to my name when I started. :shrug:
JOE you are my homie but thats crazy talk and you know it. In this day and age eveyone is able to go to school. Even if they need to work full time there are plenty of programs made just for people in that situation to take advantage of. For example i personally go to school through Empire Sate which is a SUNY school and im not even in the damn counrty. The type of person you are actually talking about is the type of person who lacks the want, will, or ambition to do anything to better themself that requires real work and effort. Anyone who wants to do better things bad enough will do better things.
But you have a work ethic, something people like the Joe’s want to reward you for by taxing your success to support people looking for handouts.
it’s the whole “teach a man to fish” thing. They’re not going anywhere. The social programs in place already aren’t going anywhere. We can keep forcing them to work for a shitty wage and no benefits, mooch off of us for medicaid et al because they don’t make any money, and support them when they are frequently out of work since their jobs are a dime a dozen. Or, we can make a one time investment in them, with them having no excuse to not have their shit together at the end of it, or remorse if they don’t. Some people are stupid in their youth and by the time they wisen up, they’re no longer in the situation to do anything about it. It costs us more to back them up for a lifetime than it does to get them on their feet once.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for helping people. It’s just that success can’t be given, it has to be taken. You can’t help people to stop taking things for free, you have to stop giving it to them.
The opportunies are already there for them to learn to fish. But as long as you keep feeding them the incentive isn’t there.
The difference in our views is quite simple. You believe there is a large percentage of the poor that are only poor because they haven’t been given enough opportunities, while I believe that large percentage is poor because they simply lack the motivation to improve their situation. My issue with your proposals is they always revolve around giving them even less incentive to work hard.
Go to school and we’ll pay you welfare. Sounds like a great plan. I can quit my job and party at school for four years while the taxpayer pays me not to work.
Here’s a better plan. Show us you’re serious about school by paying for it yourself and maintaining a 3.0 GPA and we’ll give you a big tax break to help pay back your loan. Get a 3.5 or better and the tax break increases. That gives the reward to those who are willing to work. This way you help those who really do want to help themselves and you avoid giving a bunch of free money to lazy people just looking for a free ride.