Recent tax increase on the 2 percent

[philobeddoe]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

ROTFLMAO.

If a tax increases ... er, "goes up" .... it is not an "increase"?

[g8orbill]

For years the libs were able to demonize the pubs because they wanted to cut the built in increase caused by baseline budgeting - now when taxes go up it is mot an increase but merely an expiration of a previous cut

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

It is not a "safety net" it is an "entitlement" that has redistributed younger generations wealth to older ones since inception back in 1937.

If we turned it into a "safety net" we may actually leave our kids a program with liabilities in line with what ey were in 1937...

Unfortunately we are to selfish and each generation justifies screwing the younger ones because they were screwed. Sadly we have hit the point where future generations will not get back what they paid in and we are not able to fix that because people like you want to tweak (let me guess: increase retirement age aka reduce benefits for future generations and increase revenues by removing the already more than 3 times inflation max taxable income aka increase costs) the program so you can get yours...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

btw...Please define successful!

If you mean people find getting more than they paid is seen as success then I agree.

However when you face reality and realize no one gets to start working with a FICA rate of 1%, 2%, 3%,...anymore...We nail them for 6.2% now on a max taxable that is approaching 4 times inflation (using 3.24% from inception even though there was no increase in the max taxable for 14 yeaars).

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Please explain how we are leaving "success" to our kids and grandkids as we ask them to work longer and receive less while paying more.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

It is not a "safety net" it is an "entitlement" that has redistributed younger generations wealth to older ones since inception back in 1937.

If we turned it into a "safety net" we may actually leave our kids a program with liabilities in line with what ey were in 1937...

Unfortunately we are to selfish and each generation justifies screwing the younger ones because they were screwed. Sadly we have hit the point where future generations will not get back what they paid in and we are not able to fix that because people like you want to tweak (let me guess: increase retirement age aka reduce benefits for future generations and increase revenues by removing the already more than 3 times inflation max taxable income aka increase costs) the program so you can get yours...

SS is an insurance program. You were never guaranteed to get back what you paid in and that was never the intention of it. It's a good program that has made this a better country. Sorry you don't like it, but that's just how it goes in a democracy. Most of the country favors it, therefore we have it.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

SS is an insurance program. You were never guaranteed to get back what you paid in and that's was never the intention of it. It's a good program that has made this a better country. Sorry you don't like it, but that's just how it goes in a democracy. Most of the country favors it, therefore we have it.

Unfortunately you are right that a "democracy" will screw others. It is too bad we lost the "republic" in us...

[QGator2414]

So please explain how we have a good "insurance" program that cannot stay solvent without screwing younger generations continuously.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

[QGator2414]

The facts are right from the Social Security Administrations website dangolegators.

And a "safety net" as you try to claim this is does not provide benefits to those who can take care of themselves. An "entitlement" does. And we do so at our kids expense.

We are a selfish arrogant bunch. I just wish I could get more to see reality and accept what we are as a Nation or "democracy"...

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

So please explain how we have a good "insurance" program that cannot stay solvent without screwing younger generations continuously.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

SS is solvent and can remain so with some fairly minimal adjustments.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

The facts are right from the Social Security Administrations website dangolegators.

And a "safety net" as you try to claim this is does not provide benefits to those who can take care of themselves. An "entitlement" does. And we do so at our kids expense.

We are a selfish arrogant bunch. I just wish I could get more to see reality and accept what we are as a Nation or "democracy"...

Feel free to reject your SS checks then if you are well-off enough that you don't need them. That's one of those tweaks we could look at -- reducing payments to wealthy seniors who don't need it. I doubt your side would want that though.

SS is a safety net.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

SS is solvent and can remain so with some fairly minimal adjustments.

What adjustments?

The same ones enacted throughtout history since inception?!?!?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

The ones that burden younger generations more and reduce benefits?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Feel free to reject your SS checks then if you are well-off enough that you don't need them. That's one of those tweaks we could look at -- reducing payments to wealthy seniors who don't need it. I doubt your side would want that though.

SS is a safety net.

I don't disagree that both pubs and dems do not want to accept reality.

We are a greedy bunch. I don't blame people for taking the check. I blame them for not being willing to sacrifice and only dump burdens onto future generations.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

What adjustments?

The same ones enacted throughtout history since inception?!?!?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

The ones that burden younger generations more and reduce benefits?

Yeah, those ones. You either increase revenue or reduce spending by cutting benefits. I favor increasing revenue.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Yeah, those ones. You either increase revenue or reduce spending by cutting benefits. I favor increasing revenue.

Did you at least begin working after 1990?

And why are you opposed to turning it into an actual "safety net" that provides food and shelter for those who cannot regardless of age?

(my only beef then would be it should be done from the state or even more local level)

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

Is this a joke? How is it working well? You are loaning money to the US Govt at under a 1% rate. That is terrible.

If that is such a good deal why don't you give me some money, and ill straight up guarantee you 2% annualized in 50 years. How about that? What about 3%? 4%? Easy as pie over 50 years.

We are getting ripped off beyond belief.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

btw...Please define successful!

If you mean people find getting more than they paid is seen as success then I agree.

However when you face reality and realize no one gets to start working with a FICA rate of 1%, 2%, 3%,...anymore...We nail them for 6.2% now on a max taxable that is approaching 4 times inflation (using 3.24% from inception even though there was no increase in the max taxable for 14 yeaars).

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Please explain how we are leaving "success" to our kids and grandkids as we ask them to work longer and receive less while paying more.

People should get WAY more than what they pay in. It's effectively a 50 year loan.

The biggest error in the history of the United States was not starting SS with personal accounts. Our economy would probably be triple what it is today, and every older person would be pretty damn well off.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Is this a joke? How is it working well? You are loaning money to the US Govt at under a 1% rate. That is terrible.

If that is such a good deal why don't you give me some money, and ill straight up guarantee you 2% annualized in 50 years. How about that? What about 3%? 4%? Easy as pie over 50 years.

We are getting ripped off beyond belief.

No it's not a joke. And you aren't loaning money to the federal government. It's a tax. It's not meant to be your 401k.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Obama trying to take credit for the Bush tax cuts. The left demonized Bush for everything. What has Obama done differently. Gitmo still open, Bush tax cuts now save the economy, personal liberties are being trampled.. One change, the drone strikes have now killed 2500, how many were children, Obama?
Pay attention to what Obama does instead of what he says. I don't think he knows what he says day to day.

I find it appalling that Obama sees his main role as attacking Republicans and characterizing the successful as "bad," rather than acting as a president who brings Americans together.

I predict that Obama will never have a "fireside chat" when he addresses the American people in a straight forward and honest manner.

For someone who is so concerned about the judicial system (he taught constitutional law at Harvard), he seems to be more than happy to appoint "czars" without the advice and consent of the Senate, issue an "executive order" to control gun rights and continues to be the "Commander in Chief" conducting wars that he railed against. He so-called "transparent administration" is a fiction.

The Ego has landed.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No it's not a joke. And you aren't loaning money to the federal government. It's a tax. It's not meant to be your 401k.

Wow you don't understand how it works.

Yes it is a loan. They tricked you into thinking its a "tax" because even the most financially illiterate would then know its a terrible deal.

The govt takes in gobs of cash for SS, not in a lock box, that they spend today. They know in 30-50 years, depending on the person they will give them their contribution plus .75% annualized. Some admin fees and other safety net functions probably pushes the IRR to 1%

Take a look at the yield curve. The us govt can't sniff that with selling LT debt to the Chinese.

If we had a lockbox with the "tax" invested in domestic companies we'd be the richest. Strongest, least poor country in the world. 10x over really.

But the govt doesn't want a wealthy well off populace. They want one they can control. And of course they are so addicted to spending they'd make us all much much worse on purpose.

[sappanama]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

i'll give you that if you admit, that a spending increase of 3% instead of planned 4% is a spending increases and not a spending cut.
By the way, my lil bro, a hard core dem, sees the money taken out of his check as an increase, as do I. Makes no difference that it was a temp cut, or not, it is currently an increase in money taken out of everyone that works checks, party affiliation be damned. Lets say I was punching you in the face 10% of the time, and now I punch you 12% of the time, would you find solace in the fact that I was just returning to a previous rate of punching, or might you see that as a current 2% increase in the number of punches your face absorbs irregardless of what I did 3 years ago.