Recent tax increase on the 2 percent

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

I want to get back to this ridiculous assertion.

You sure are protesting. Maybe a little too much? But you are the one who wants to change the rules and the rule changes you've proposed would amount to 'stealing' from people who have paid into SS all their adult lives. Now you want to tell them they don't need it so they aren't going to get it.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by bakaduin

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/bu...lies.html?_r=0

It was posted once but here it is again as I see you didn't comment on it yet.

Thoughts?

I know I was shocked to find out that Obama would lie to the people to get elected again...

My thoughts are that your link doesn't work.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

You sure are protesting. Maybe a little too much? But you are the one who wants to change the rules and the rule changes you've proposed would amount to 'stealing' from people who have paid into SS all their adult lives. Now you want to tell them they don't need it so they aren't going to get it.

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)

How old are you?

[QGator2414]

I get peoples frustration with the reality of the situation. It stinks our government implemented a disasterous program that has stolen from younger generations since inception. It is obvious people define success through the lens of ME and not what reality is in this case as well.

I just want everyone to sacrifice to leave our kids something respectful instead of a burden. Sadly we are too selfish to do that.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

How old are you?

32

[QGator2414]

And you?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

More nonsense. Not everyone gets a pay out. If you die before reaching retirement age, you get nothing. If you die soon after reaching retirement age, you get way less than you put in. If you die 40 years after you retire, you get way more than you put in. It's a public insurance policy, not only for individuals, but for our country as a whole. We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors. It's not a 401k and it isn't intended to be.

It's "insurance" for old age. Every senior for all intents and purposes get it's. Old age is NOT tail risk. Getting insurance that will pay your family if you die young is what insurance is, it protects against tail risk. Insurance does not protect against normalcy.

You again are messing up definitions. You said, and I quote, "We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors". That is a retirement account. I'm not saying it should be your only retirement account. But your own words defines what a retirement account is.

Again you have not answered my question. Why do you prefer SS over some sort of a real retirement account that invests in securities? You mentioned SS "ensures" (not true btw) a basic quality of life. Well my counter is any system that invests in securities is GUARANTEED to produce a higher return.

So if your goal is to ensure seniors have a basic quality of life, wouldn't you want them to have a little more?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

It's "insurance" for old age. Every senior for all intents and purposes get it's. Old age is NOT tail risk. Getting insurance that will pay your family if you die young is what insurance is, it protects against tail risk. Insurance does not protect against normalcy.

You again are messing up definitions. You said, and I quote, "We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors". That is a retirement account. I'm not saying it should be your only retirement account. But your own words defines what a retirement account is.

Again you have not answered my question. Why do you prefer SS over some sort of a real retirement account that invests in securities? You mentioned SS "ensures" (not true btw) a basic quality of life. Well my counter is any system that invests in securities is GUARANTEED to produce a higher return.

So if your goal is to ensure seniors have a basic quality of life, wouldn't you want them to have a little more?

Because the younger generations are "needed" to fund the government "promises" and people do not want to sacrifice.

***this includes younger generations many of whom have no clue about what is going on

[llm85]

Originally Posted by philip214

Hysterical. Got awfully quiet after you posted this link.

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN. Obama does no wrong. SPIN SPIN. Obama doesn't lie. SPIN SPIN It's all Bush's fault, Congress fault, Obama had a cold that day and was on decongestants.

And then, as President, he doubled down, stood before congress and told us: "But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...on-of-Congress

[philobeddoe]

................ I'm still trying to figure out why an increase in taxes ...... is not a tax increase? I guess it's the "reversal of a decrease" ..... which would be an increase, no??

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

32

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. Everyone else is selfish.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. Everyone else is selfish.

Obviously you do not understand what I have called for and are using the example I gave as what I think should happen...

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)



I put the bolded in there on purpose as I was trying to prove a point and not putting forth my ideas on SS

[108]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You mean like the Bush tax cuts. Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

I have said before, and I will say it again; any liberal that is intellectually honest will rally for an end to ALL the Bush tax cuts. That will expand the tax base, which means more people will be on the tax roles.

Another thing to do will be to insist that government spending go back to that when the Bush tax cuts were first implemented. Including military spending.

Problem solved, just that simple.

i agreed with raising the whole damn thing, but I also know we are in a fragile economy right now and raising the bottom half ones would hurt demand too much

the payroll one isn't significant enough

[QGator2414]

We need everyone to sacrifice. I would love to get back everything I have paid in. I would love to be able to leave the program and I would let e government keep everything they confiscated so far. But those are unfortunately not possible.

So instead I call for creating a true "safety net" where dangolegators, I and everyone else on here continues to contribute if we are working. Benefits are reduced for current seniors and everyone approaching there time to receive them. If you are younger than 40-45 you should expect to receive nothing unless you cannot provide food or shelter for yourself (then you get the "safety net"). In doing so we can slowly reduce the rate and max taxable for everyone over time.

It will take years to implement as well.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Obviously you do not understand what I have called for and are using the example I gave as what I think should happen...

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)



I put the bolded in there on purpose as I was trying to prove a point and not putting forth my ideas on SS

No, I'm not flipping kidding you. The one solution you have presented calls for others to sacrifice way more than you would. But you are calling everyone else selfish and holding yourself up as someone who is willing to make the tough choices and sacrifice.

I'd guess the trust fund would run out in 3 or 4 years if the federal government were to stop collecting SS taxes.

[malligator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. The boomers are selfish.

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by malligator

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

I do? How do you know this?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No, I'm not flipping kidding you. The one solution you have presented calls for others to sacrifice way more than you would. But you are calling everyone else selfish and holding yourself up as someone who is willing to make the tough choices and sacrifice.

I'd guess the trust fund would run out in 3 or 4 years if the federal government were to stop collecting SS taxes.

So do you now understand people cannot get back what the government "promised" unless it takes from younger generations?

That is redistribution for an ENTITLEMENT!

And assuming we passed what I called for in 8 years my guess of how long it would take I would be 40 right at the age of receiving nothing. I WANT TO BE THE GENERATION THAT IS SCREWED THE MOST SO THOSE BEHIND MINE ARE NOT!

Please explain how others are being asked to sacrifice more. I will happily adjust to make mine the most screwed if we can turn this thing into an actual "safety net"!

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by malligator

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

Exactly. And I just want to do something to stem the tide so my generation is not leaving our greed plus others greed to my kids and grandkids generation.