 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
remove income cap on the amount taxed... currently, the highest amount people are taxed on SS is $87,000 or so... that means... someone making $10,000,000 gets taxed as if they made $87,000.
That is terribly regressive and not fair. 
|
And you're a moron. Not only is the benefit capped in addition to the tax being capped, but if you continue to earn income at any decent amount, your SS benefit is reduced accordingly, regardless of what you contribute.
quote:
Oh wait, but it's more important that rich people making hundreds of millions have an extra million dollars rather than millions of people having a decent government retirement. |
Actually, it is, since those "millions of people" generally don't have a decent government retirement even at current taxing and spending levels. So **** it, the system doesn't work, let's do something else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And that's not what social security is. SS is a tax on current workers to keep the elderly from living in poverty. Ponzi schemes also are fraudulent. The nature of the crime must be kept from those who by in or they'll lose faith in the system. With social security, there has been a concerted effort on the part of some to lie about the system in order to make it fail. |
A tax i.e. a compulsory payment under authority of law, rather than the effort involved in convincing people to give up their money voluntarily. Oh, and Ponzi scheme investors can stop investing and at least cut future losses, whereas with a tax, you are mandated to pay.
The manner in which SS has been sold to the taxpayer is fraudulent - my grandparents were all relatively late in their earning years when it was introduced, and you'll still find a huge number of people who have no concept how the system works, but buy into the sacred cow concept of goverment taking care of them in their old age, because you sure can't trust anyone else.
People may lie, but numbers don't. The amount of tax, the benefits, population demographics are all hard numbers, and they all demonstrate one thing: the current system is bound to fail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
Here is exact testimony. He was talking about a number of government programs, including Medicaid.
"In view of this upward ratchet in government programs and the enormous uncertainty about the upper bounds of future demands for medical care, I believe that a thorough review of our spending commitments--and at least some adjustment in those commitments--is necessary for prudent policy. I also believe that we have an obligation to those in and near retirement to honor what has been promised to them. If changes need to be made, they should be made soon enough so that future retirees have time to adjust their plans for retirement spending and to make sure that their personal resources, along with what they expect to receive from the government, will be sufficient to meet their retirement needs.
I certainly agree that the same scrutiny needs to be applied to taxes. However, tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base. The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/board...225/default.htm
Clearly he did not advocate anything that would pull the rug out from the soon-to-be-retired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Stuie, che isn't interested in a fair plan, he's interested in a wealth transfer plan - transfering wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't. |
inherited wealth is UNEARNED!!!
plus, capitalism is wealth transfer... buying something is wealth transfer... so your silly little argument is, well, silly. 
progressive taxation is the fairest form of taxation... those who CAN afford to be taxed are... and those who can't afford to be taxed are provided social services.
Sorry, we're not going to return to the 19th century policies you love so much.
quote:
And you're a moron. |
right back at you... but at least I don't pretend to be some kind of internet know-it-all I'm open about my moronity 
quote:
Actually, it is, since those "millions of people" generally don't have a decent government retirement even at current taxing and spending levels. So **** it, the system doesn't work, let's do something else. |
SS used to be a decent program until the tax cut happy corporatists started destroying it... we should strengthen and improve the program. Plus you live in Mexico, so don't worry about what goes on here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
--"SS is a tax on current workers to keep the elderly from living in poverty."
So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the only reason you object to SS being called a Ponzi scheme is because it's being run by the government.
Sorry, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck even if the government puts a "platypus" sticker on it.
--"Ponzi schemes also are fraudulent. "
Have you been listening to campaign speeches and State of the Union addresses lately (like, in the last decade)? All this talk of "Social Security Trust Fund" or "Lock box"... sounds fraudulent to me.
Of course, MTG beat me to it, but I had to say it again anyway.
--"I really don't want to have to retire to a foreign country to enjoymy retireement."
I maintain my  at anyone who hasn't retired yet who is actually counting on SS funds.
But only because there isn't a good "Ha ha!" (A la Nelson) smiley.
Wraith
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Maestro of Chutzpah
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 2, 2004
The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.
Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue — the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 — he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.
Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.
But wait — it gets worse.
You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits — and never did run much of a surplus — the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.
The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.
Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.
The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly — "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" — voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.
There are three lessons in this tale.
First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position — as an unelected official who wields immense power — carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.
|
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
Wow! Krugman didn't have kind words for Greenspan in his book, "The Great Unraveling". I can't say Krugman is wrong. Social Security is being gutted. I agree that personal retirement accounts might be a good idea, but to make sure benefits aren't cut (because they don't need to be) we should remove (or adjust) the cap on taxable income so we can pay for the accounts without disrupting current benefits. Personal accounts are good for the long term, but would do nothing to improve the system for the short term. Because SS is a pay-as-you go system, taking any money out of it (say for retirement accounts) would mean reduced benefit payouts.
But back to the point, I must admit I've suspected Greenspan to be either incompetent or working for the Bushies; because as Krugman points out, SS is NOT in trouble. It is taking in more money than it is paying out and is healthy until 2042... barring any more sabotage from the Bushies.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2004 18:09
|