Older retirees may not save Social Security

archer wrote: Any civilized country is based to some extent on wealth distribution....it's just a fact. Without it we have a feudal society......well, maybe that is what you conservatives are hoping for.

You are confusing feudal society with extortion-ism for retiree RV travelling society.

residenttroll CA wrote:

archer wrote: Any civilized country is based to some extent on wealth distribution....it's just a fact. Without it we have a feudal society......well, maybe that is what you conservatives are hoping for.

You are confusing feudal society with extortion-ism for retiree RV travelling society.

jealous?

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, of course, the "compassionate conservative" answer to anything and everything is to "cut it."

I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

(And, trust me, this would probably affect ME more than any of you...) But that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, instead of the "Me first--screw you" society you envision.

So your solution is to add an additional tax on all income above the current cap-Increasing the taxes on those by 12.4%? Is that correct? Do you realize taxes change economic activity?

Yep... Is there some part of that you don't understand?... It WOULD fix the problem...

Hell, I might even go so far as to say, "keep the cap" at it's current limit for EMPLOYER'S contributions ONLY...($106,800), but all income above that for the employee, there would be no cap. I think people earning more than $106,800 can afford to pay more. (I would!)

LadyJazzer wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, of course, the "compassionate conservative" answer to anything and everything is to "cut it."

I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

(And, trust me, this would probably affect ME more than any of you...) But that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, instead of the "Me first--screw you" society you envision.

So your solution is to add an additional tax on all income above the current cap-Increasing the taxes on those by 12.4%? Is that correct? Do you realize taxes change economic activity?

Yep... Is there some part of that you don't understand?... It WOULD fix the problem...

Hell, I might even go so far as to say, "keep the cap" at it's current limit for EMPLOYER'S contributions ONLY...($106,800), but all income above that for the employee, there would be no cap. I think people earning more than $106,800 can afford to pay more. (I would!)

Then pay more. You can voluntarily do so. Drives me nuts when you people who make a ton of dough want others to pay, but won't do so themselves. It's kind of like charity. Give if you think it is important.

Raising the cap without allowing those who pay it to receive more is just another income redistribution plan, and a plain old tax. Quit pretending it isn't. So with a 39% fed tax, 6.2% SS, 1.45% Med, plus state tax of 4.63%...that makes 52.73% of a persons income going to taxes. That is absurd. If they made an additional $10,000, they would take home only $4,727 of it. If they bought something, and had to pay 8% sales tax, their purchasing power is only approx $4,375. Why work 80 hrs weeks, or be gone from your family to only have $4400 out of 10k to spend....

Taxes change habits....

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, of course, the "compassionate conservative" answer to anything and everything is to "cut it."

I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

(And, trust me, this would probably affect ME more than any of you...) But that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, instead of the "Me first--screw you" society you envision.

So your solution is to add an additional tax on all income above the current cap-Increasing the taxes on those by 12.4%? Is that correct? Do you realize taxes change economic activity?

Yep... Is there some part of that you don't understand?... It WOULD fix the problem...

Hell, I might even go so far as to say, "keep the cap" at it's current limit for EMPLOYER'S contributions ONLY...($106,800), but all income above that for the employee, there would be no cap. I think people earning more than $106,800 can afford to pay more. (I would!)

If you took every penny from the rich, we would still have a deficit. You can't solve the spending problem with tax increases. You must reduce spending, and the growth of spending. You don't think adding another large tax on the rich won't drive more overseas? They DON'T have to stay here!

Then pay more. You can voluntarily do so. Drives me nuts when you people who make a ton of dough want others to pay, but won't do so themselves. It's kind of like charity. Give if you think it is important.

Raising the cap without allowing those who pay it to receive more is just another income redistribution plan, and a plain old tax. Quit pretending it isn't. So with a 39% fed tax, 6.2% SS, 1.45% Med, plus state tax of 4.63%...that makes 52.73% of a persons income going to taxes. That is absurd. If they made an additional $10,000, they would take home only $4,727 of it. If they bought something, and had to pay 8% sales tax, their purchasing power is only approx $4,375. Why work 80 hrs weeks, or be gone from your family to only have $4400 out of 10k to spend....

Taxes change habits....

Uh, $106,800 is NOT in the "39% tax-bracket"--( it's in the 25% bracket ) You work more and make more because most people, except for the "compassionate conservatives", are happy with the 60-75% of the additional money they get to keep. Since most people do not make $106,800/year, they never see their withholding amount change for an entire year, and therefore the take-home really doesn't change for the year. For those people who DO make over that amount, yes, they get a little "bump" at the end of the year, but if they continued to have the same amount withheld, they would be just like the rest of the middle-class...

If you make less than $106,800, nobody is asking you to pay ONE CENT MORE than you already do. (You want some cheese with that whine?) Yes, it IS a "tax". I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's what Social Security is--a tax.

Again, you're assuming that the tax-rates of the highest tier apply to ALL of the dollars made...They don't... You pay the highest tax amount on the amount over the break in the tax-bracket.

You cannot balance the budget using only cuts & reductions. It is not possible. You must also increase revenue. Increasing the SS-withholding on those making over $106,800 is a fair way to do it, and keeps the system solvent.

Oh, I forgot...You don't give a rat's-patoot about those people who need it, and paid into it. My bad.

LadyJazzer wrote: Uh, $106,800 is NOT in the "39% tax-bracket"--( it's in the 25% bracket ) You work more and make more because most people, except for the "compassionate conservatives", are happy with the 60-75% of the additional money they get to keep. Since most people do not make $106,800/year, they never see their withholding amount change for an entire year, and therefore the take-home really doesn't change for the year. For those people who DO make over that amount, yes, they get a little "bump" at the end of the year, but if they continued to have the same amount withheld, they would be just like the rest of the middle-class...

If you make less than $106,800, nobody is asking you to pay ONE CENT MORE than you already do. (You want some cheese with that whine?) Yes, it IS a "tax". I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's what Social Security is--a tax.

Again, you're assuming that the tax-rates of the highest tier apply to ALL of the dollars made...They don't... You pay the highest tax amount on the amount over the break in the tax-bracket.

You cannot balance the budget using only cuts & reductions. It is not possible. You must also increase revenue. Increasing the SS-withholding on those making over $106,800 is a fair way to do it, and keeps the system solvent.

Oh, I forgot...You don't give a rat's-patoot about those people who need it, and paid into it. My bad.

Regarding the proposals to raise the retirement age...they don't take full effect till 2070, correct? Everyone will have plenty of time to plan for it. People are living longer..the system was never designed to live 30 yrs on SS.

You bet you can balance the budget by cutting spending. Our tax capacity to have a thriving economy is around 20% of GDP....we are rapidly approaching 28% of GDP. You must cut spending down, so our taxes are around that 20%.

Yes, we will have to cut things like the military too...but the military is a very small portion of total spending. There can be no sacred cows.

I prefer private charities to take care of those in need. Govt bureaucracy does a horrible job.

By the way, I was referring to the top rate in my example. Taking over 50% of someone's income is theft, plain and simple.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Uh, $106,800 is NOT in the "39% tax-bracket"--( it's in the 25% bracket ) You work more and make more because most people, except for the "compassionate conservatives", are happy with the 60-75% of the additional money they get to keep. Since most people do not make $106,800/year, they never see their withholding amount change for an entire year, and therefore the take-home really doesn't change for the year. For those people who DO make over that amount, yes, they get a little "bump" at the end of the year, but if they continued to have the same amount withheld, they would be just like the rest of the middle-class...

If you make less than $106,800, nobody is asking you to pay ONE CENT MORE than you already do. (You want some cheese with that whine?) Yes, it IS a "tax". I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's what Social Security is--a tax.

Again, you're assuming that the tax-rates of the highest tier apply to ALL of the dollars made...They don't... You pay the highest tax amount on the amount over the break in the tax-bracket.

You cannot balance the budget using only cuts & reductions. It is not possible. You must also increase revenue. Increasing the SS-withholding on those making over $106,800 is a fair way to do it, and keeps the system solvent.

Oh, I forgot...You don't give a rat's-patoot about those people who need it, and paid into it. My bad.

Regarding the proposals to raise the retirement age...they don't take full effect till 2070, correct? Everyone will have plenty of time to plan for it. People are living longer..the system was never designed to live 30 yrs on SS.

You bet you can balance the budget by cutting spending. Our tax capacity to have a thriving economy is around 20% of GDP....we are rapidly approaching 28% of GDP. You must cut spending down, so our taxes are around that 20%.

Yes, we will have to cut things like the military too...but the military is a very small portion of total spending. There can be no sacred cows.

I prefer private charities to take care of those in need. Govt bureaucracy does a horrible job.

By the way, I was referring to the top rate in my example. Taking over 50% of someone's income is theft, plain and simple.

No, you can not balance the budget by only cutting spending.

The military is NOT "a very small portion" of total spending... It is 24%..which is more than "Welfare", "Health", "Pensions" and "Other."

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

I don't care if you were "referring to the top rate" in your example...Your example has nothing to do with the solution I proposed...But thanks for playing. I also don't care if you prefer private charities. The entire adult population of the US has been paying into the system, and will continue paying into the system, and they don't want "charity"--they want the benefits they have been paying for. That's your "compassionate conservatism"??? Charity for those who've already paid into the system?

God, the more I know you TeaBagger types, the more I appreciate my dog.

LadyJazzer wrote: God, the more I know you TeaBagger types, the more I appreciate my dog.