Raise Taxes If It Saves Social Security, Americans Say

Thank you for making my point... Raising revenues on the 2% is NOT going to affect the other 98%.

We just went through a Recession/downturn that nearly destroyed us; and yes, median income has taken a major hit, and the games the bankers played with the stock markets and the capital, have destroyed trillions in American's wealth. (Interesting that you should point out that the period under consideration runs from 1999 - 2011...) I won't point out whose administration covered that period, and the TWO certified recessions that happened during that 2000-2008 period.

But without trying to make this too political...(yeah, I know)...Instead of consistently talking about how to cut the program, how about talking about how to fund it to make sure it will be there for the next 100 years...It CAN be done if they were willing to drop the max-limit on the Medicare, ($106,800/year), and raising revenue on those making over $250,000, (and then only taking an extra 4.9% of the amount OVER the $250,000)... The argument that it would kill the economy because it would hit the "job-creators" has been debunked, so many times by so many think-tanks and economists (on BOTH sides of the spectrum), that nobody seriously believes that any more.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Thank you for making my point... Raising revenues on the 2% is NOT going to affect the other 98%.

We just went through a Recession/downturn that nearly destroyed us; and yes, median income has taken a major hit, and the games the bankers played with the stock markets and the capital, have destroyed trillions in American's wealth. (Interesting that you should point out that the period under consideration runs from 1999 - 2011...) I won't point out whose administration covered that period, and the TWO certified recessions that happened during that 2000-2008 period.

But without trying to make this too political...(yeah, I know)...Instead of consistently talking about how to cut the program, how about talking about how to fund it to make sure it will be there for the next 100 years...It CAN be done if they were willing to drop the max-limit on the Medicare, ($106,800/year), and raising revenue on those making over $250,000, (and then only taking an extra 4.9% of the amount OVER the $250,000)... The argument that it would kill the economy because it would hit the "job-creators" has been debunked, so many times by so many think-tanks and economists (on BOTH sides of the spectrum), that nobody seriously believes that any more.

What if we were to look at the problem from a different angle though? What if we focused on programs that would make ALL Americans wealthier? Like sending more people back to work. How can we get more American's back to work?

Seems to me if more people were working and making a better wage, on average, then more people would be paying taxes at the current rates. Federal taxes, FICA, state taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, taxes on purchases like cars and on and on and on.

If more people were working and therer was more good work out there...wouldn't everyone win?

Of course the more people working the more revenue the government takes in. We know now that cutting taxes does not create jobs, so maybe it's time for congresses to get a little more creative on stimulating the economy, maybe even pass the jobs bill.

lionshead2010 wrote: What if we were to look at the problem from a different angle though? What if we focused on programs that would make ALL Americans wealthier? Like sending more people back to work. How can we get more American's back to work?

Seems to me if more people were working and making a better wage, on average, then more people would be paying taxes at the current rates. Federal taxes, FICA, state taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, taxes on purchases like cars and on and on and on.

If more people were working and therer was more good work out there...wouldn't everyone win?

I agree with you... "If more people were working and making a better wage" we would all be better off. The fantasy that letting the uber-rich keep more will somehow "trickle-down" in the form of more jobs doesn't work any more...(and it never did)...

I know this is a basic difference of philosophy between us, but without trying to just sling talking-points back and forth, job-creators don't create jobs because they got to keep more of their taxes. They create more jobs in response to consumer demand. If more people have disposable income, (read: more people employed; better wages), then more jobs are added to meet the demand. "Supply-side economics" is a myth, and it doesn't "trickle-down." How do we get more disposable income into the economy? We let the middle-class keep a bit more, and stop worrying about the rich getting to keep more. We create jobs, like infrastructure jobs, that rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; We offer tax-breaks to small-business owners who DO hire more employees and keep them for a guaranteed minimum period of time... (All of these ideas are part of the jobs bills that are being blockaded for no other reason than political advantage.)

What does RMoney offer? Well, "We create jobs by removing regulations" (a laughably small percentage of jobs have ANYTHING to do with regulations); "We create jobs by letting the job-creators keep more..." That red-herring has been debunked to the point that nobody except the extreme ideologues buys it any more.

You know one of the areas that Obama is moving ahead on?...TAXES. That's the mantra/creed/oath of the GOTP, right? The public is starting to UNDERSTAND that Obama's plan is to tax the rich a bit more, and give the middle-class a break. Unfortunately, for RMoney, the public is starting to UNDERSTAND his plan: Give the rich more tax-breaks (that NOONE thinks will trickle-down), and screw the middle-class. The GOTP is losing on almost every front because people are starting to understand what the parties are running on; RMoney REFUSES to tell anyone what "loopholes" he will close...("If we tell you that, we'll lose.") So, is everyone ready to surrender their mortgage-interest deduction? State/Local taxes deductions? Charitable gifts loopholes? That's the ONLY way he's going to come even close to making his tax-cuts-for-the-rich work...

I'm really not trying to "attack" here...I'm trying to state my case for why picking RMoney is a bad choice, and why he is sinking lower and lower in the polls.

All of the hysterics around "the trillions in national debt" and trying to scare people, ignores the fact that as you put more people back to work, the taxes they pay offset the expenditures. The more disposable income in the economy you have, the more it generates business and more jobs, (and yes, that includes extending unemployment benefits and temporarily, food-stamps...Best estimate is that for every $1 of food-stamps/unemployment, it generates $1.73 in economic benefit). If that's the rough definition of "Keynesian", then so be it. The supply-side/trickle-down fantasy doesn't work. You CAN NOT get to a working economy through cuts alone.

Raise the limit on Social Security? Do that and renamed the program. Income Tax Round II! Stop the pretense that it is a savings plan since they spend it faster than it comes in. Add means testing so the top earners and savers are denied benefits.

Yes, I WOULD add means-testing for the top 1%...

Already the earners nowdays are going to be paid less than they put in but LJ wants to screw the people who are paying more than anyone else.

I want to see the 1% pay something close to their fair share... If that's regarded as "screwing" the wealthy, then so be it. They get every conceivable break, and play by a different set of rules than everybody else. It doesn't bother me a bit.

The only reason the "earners would be paid less than what they put in" is because the teabaggers want to screw them instead of adequately funding the program.

Democracy4Sale wrote: ..It CAN be done if they were willing to drop the max-limit on the Medicare, ($106,800/year),...

Just one correction for you, I don't believe there is a 106K limit on the medicare payroll tax. The limit applies to SS only. (and I think the 4.9% is actually 4.6%, just to keep it accurate

Otherwise your posts on this thread are good, nice to see you make your argument without being nasty and calling names. Carry on.

You are right about 4.6%...And the SS vs. Medicare limit. My bad... I tend to confuse those...