social security has been working since the 1950s and it is WORKING AS WE SPEAK. what the fuck...nothing works when these goddamn GOP come into power under the guise of doing Jesus' work.. These pigs starting with GWBush and his congress have ruined us, sanks us into a Great Recession...they all ought to have been hanged, if only we American idiots woke up to the reality. I can't believe the South and Midwest are such staunch supporters of the GOP...were you guys all fucken imbred?
@informationrevolt If you had invested your social security in the stock market, what would your private fund look like following the last stock market crash?
@kaysandesses I dont invest in stocks. I invest in private savings accounts, IRAs, 401k, Gold, bonds, CDS. Hell I should even be able to spend my social security money if I choose. I should be able to put that money towards a house or other assets or invest it in starting a business. I should be able to choose to invest it in a healthcare savings account, or to pay down debt so that I can free up income from bills to invest.
Stand up 4 your RIGHTS Americans.~The REPUBLICANS have been FOOLING YOU for the last 30 yrs. SOCIAL SECURITY*, (SS) , is NOT an entitlement! SS HAS A $2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS. SS CAN pay every claim at least until 2030.~ SS DOES NOT increase the federal budget by one cent! Tell the REPUBLICAN GANGSTERS & THEIR WALLSTREET BANDIT FRIENDS that you will FIGHT any PRIVATIZATION OF your SS pension.~You will FIGHT ANY REDUCTION IN BENEFITS. YOU will FIGHT any change in AGE REQUIREMENT FOR SS BENEFITS!
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. You really do sound paraniod here. It is system that if used right everyone pays into but everyone gets to utlize at some point. Heaven forbid you should ever become disabled or elderly. Some people live paycheck to paycheck. It is not about being smart with money. If a person has $10 at the end of the month then they save up something goes wrong with their car. They need to fix it. Do you understand what I mean?
Social security and medicare should be separate accounts and not used to cover the holes we blow in the federal budget. We can shut down all the unnecessary military bases all over the world, put limits on what defense contractors can do, pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and focus our efforts on infrastructure. Also a real single-payer health care plan would save us money but hey don't listen to facts lets freak out over propaganda such "death panels" and call everything unconstitutional.
So the idea here is to gamble social security and if we win we make some money if we lose millions lose their retirement against their will? Brilliant plan GOP, sign me up.
Besides. What part of "supplemental" do people not understand? Social Security was never meant to be a full-blown retirement package. Wake up people. You have to take care of yourself.
A recent poll asked, As you may know, there is a current proposal that would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in retirement accounts of their choice, which might include stocks, bonds or mutual funds, and provide either a lower or higher benefit than Social Security does now. Generally, do you favor or oppose this proposal?" 58% said they favor this.
Let's not privatize social security. I don't want *MY* retirement money being subject to greedy Wall Street bankers. Social security is one of the most efficient government programs, and has been proven time and time again to be better than any private industry managed fund. Social security has a surplus, but Pres. Bush spent that surplus on two wars, and tax cuts to billionaires.
I am disgusted by this, and you should be to. This is OUR retirement money.
the government is more greedy than wall street or anyone! Let everyone save their money and use it when they retire. Enough of this government ponzi scheme!
The last eleven years has made it difficult for me to keep faith in "the markets.," but, that aside, it seems illogical that we will all become wealthy by investing in the same relatively few corporations by being in the same defined conribution plan.
@JerryGing Agreed. This is just another way for the GOP to funnel money to the private banks and investment firms that buy their Congressional seats. Research has proven that social security is one of the most efficient programs in government with 0.9% administrative fees, and a $2.5 TRILLION surplus (before it was raided for two wars and tax cuts).
We need to lower, not raise the retirement age. As an emergency stimulus to open up jobs for young people who desparately need jobs, accelerate the start of benefits by one, two or three years. Scheduled to take early retirement at 62? It would be bumped up to 61. Scheduled to take full SS at 66? Moves up to 65. When corporations need to eliminate jobs first thing they always do is ask senior employees to take early retirement. Just as valid for the fed.
Americans don't save. They need to own the newest and the best. Bush told people to spend and so does TV ads.
Social Security my be the only thing they have left when they're too old to work.
The average outstanding credit card debt for households that have a credit card was $10,679 at the end of 2008. One year earlier, that average was $10,637. (Source: Nilson Report, April 2009)
So your solution to Americans not saving is an unfunded govt ponzi scheme? Inflationary monetary policy incentivizes spending over savings. Why save when you're going to get taxed on savings and inflation's going to take another chunk out? Why not just spend it when you get it? That's the problem. Reform the Fed and require tight ranges on inflation. End all taxes on savings, investment, and income and tax consumption instead. Way better solution than a ponzi scheme.
Tax all consumption (yes food and drugs) at one rate. Very simple system. To address regressivity, provide a standard rebate of taxes to every man, woman, and child for spending up to a certain limit. Progressive, simple, revenue-neutral.
People making 10M in unearned income will pay taxes when they buy yachts and mansions. If they instead reinvest, they will pay no taxes and the economy will churn out more jobs as a result. Incentivize investment, discourage excess consumption.
Consumption tax.... so someone making 25k a year should pay what, 15 or 20 percent extra for the food they buy or drugs they need but the guy making one million on investments should pay zero on that income.
Thats only without a rebate. You need one tax on all consumption for simplicity. Make the tax progressive by providing 1 standard rebate to every man, woman, child for taxes on spending up to certain amount (say poverty limit, negotiable).
Rich guy buying a $10M house will pay taxes on $10M of consumption and will get the same standard rebate as the guy making $25k. Rich guy reinvests all his money, he pays no taxes, but also realizes no added wealth, just creates more jobs for the mid class.
You'd have to show me the numbers on how the Government would have enough money to run on. I think the rich would avoid taxes by buying off-shore and there would be a huge "black-market".
If I invest $1 in X and I sell it for $10, I pay no tax? So then I reinvest the $10 and still not pay any tax?
So the Fair Tax is one such example of a revenue-neutral, progressive sales tax. I like the Fair Tax, but I too am concerned about the black market. I'd prefer to see FICA taxes remain as is to keep the entitlements separate. This would also keep the tax rate (and cheating) down.
Yes, no taxes for unrealized capital gains. You only pay tax when you spend. Having a lot of money invested in a business is not something we should punish.
I believe the DeMint proposal was an 8% fed sales tax, which would be on top of any state sales taxes. Not sure I see where you get 80 - 100% tax from ~10% fed sales, plus 10% state sales, plus 7.65% FICA income? What am I missing?
The mistake I think youre making is to assume that a tax on business is a tax on rich people. Recall that businesses set prices for their products based on the market. If they pay more tax, they just pass the cost onto consumers. Business taxes are VERY regressive.
I said that wrong.... what I meant was that 80 - 100% of the earnings (less your free rebate part) of lower or middle income would wind up being taxed because they spend it all just to live. Whereas someone making millions may only spend 20% of a years pay plus they make a lot on unearned income. I would be in favor of larger taxes on unearned income. I've always been in favor of estate taxes too after a certain level, get rid of some of the useless Paris Hiltons of the world.
OK, now I get the point above. Yes, in that the rich dont spend all their money, they wouldnt pay taxes on what they reinvest. Again, you're assuming that taxes on business income are paid for by the business owners. The check may be written by the owners, but the money to pay the bill comes largely from increased prices. Since consumption is regressive, business taxes are poor taxes without a standard rebate. Do you think businesses just roll over when they get taxed? They pass it on.
Are you saying Corps wouldn't pay any consumption tax? Would they pay on parts they buy to make products? I guess I don't understand how you wanna treat business.
How would your plan be different than Business that pay tax on profits now? Wages, expenses, are not taxable now.
Only if they bought retail goods. The tax would only apply to retail transactions, not business to business. The B2B part is more like a VAT, which is a massive money maker for govt and is quite regressive in that it raises prices big time (e.g. Europe). When I was in Spain last summer, my wife and I went to look for cheap food one night, so we went to this Chinese place. We ended up spending 35 Euro (like $50) on what was pretty lackluster food. That meal would've been $20 - $25 in the US.
Does Bush's spending spree justify continuing FDR's spending spree? Of course we shouldn't have done Medicare D. Of course we didn't need another bureaucracy. Of course the Congress doesn't need more pay raises. So are you implying all this justifies doing nothing on entitlements. The one thing Matthews said that really makes sense is that these discretionary expenditures are just one relatively small part of the budget. To balance the budget you're going to have to cut everywhere.
@herbs814 Privitization of social security Is EVIL ! privitization of healthcare is EVIL ! Patents on seeds are EVIL ! I was not put on this earth to serve someone else's greed. WereYou?
Privatization is a moral IMPERATIVE. It is evil to oppose privatization. The government has no right to NOT privatize Socialist Insecurity or Mediscare. Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare are nothing but pyramid schemes; they are more evil than anything Bernie Madoff could ever do.
I was not put on earth to serve the GOVERNMENT's greed. Therefore privatization of socialist insecurity and mediScare is not just preferred, but morally required of a just society.`
Well let's see we've pretty killed the rest of the infrastructure, the elderly make GREAT targets. The Greedy Old Party never ceases to amaze with their greed driven apathy towards the people.
Grow up. Do you really think it makes sense to keep paying the same benefits starting at age 65 when people are now living to 100+. The reason SS has run surpluses for decades is because the retirement age was the same when it was founded as it is now. People retired at 65 and died at 67. Of course we need to reduce benefits to fix the future deficit. What do you propose?
You said reduce benefits..... I'm saying if we didn't do that, the other option would be to withhold more for SS later.
The real reason SS has had a surplus is all the Baby Boomers paying in with fewer people drawing out..... that's close to being reversed which will be a huge problem.
This is very interesting. Conservatives are willing to fix SS as long as it's not through tax increases and my impression is that liberals are also willing to fix SS as long as it's not through benefit cuts. Quite an impasse. Is that your read? Would you support benefit cuts for the higher income earners? This would be akin to raising the payroll tax cap and could definitely get support from some Republicans. We could do this relatively simply by adjusting the initial benefits calculation.
Raise the cap by the inflation rate and benefit reduction for high income people. You're saying income they are receiving AFTER they turn 65? Not income they make during working years. IRA's wouldn't be counted nor at least part of a defined benefit package. The heavy lift is still getting though us baby boomers. That's one reason we need the Estate Tax...get some of the benefits back from the richest of the breed.
However, I'm not sure that your flat tax would bring in enough revenue
Payroll tax cap is already adjusted for inflation. You need to do a one time bump in addition to inflation to fix. This is so strange to me, because Dems could get a number of Reps to go along with cutting benefits for the highest earners (during working years) as a means of making the system solvent. Instead, Dems seem set on raising taxes rather than an equivalent benefit cut for the wealthy which would work the same for solvency and be born by the wealthiest. The estate tax is a red herring.
What kind of retirement would the baby boomers have if that moron bush put peoples money into wall st? None period. When are the idiots in this country going to understand?the conservaturd party wants to take all your money, and savings, and retirement, and give it to wall st so they can steal are money and make America a third world country. The neo cons has had this planed sense Reagan and they put it into motion in the last 8 years.
why do people think they need to give the government thier money to save for the future??? maybe because they are to stupid to think of thier own future or they have been brainwashed to live in the here and now.... I say... if your stupid...its your fault!!!
Chris Mathews is a fucking idiot, medicare/social security are fucked, and we all know it, and mathews is trying to make him look like the bad guy. We have to raise the age level, or restrict the benefits, simple as that. If i was president id just get rid of it gradually, and let people just opt out. Seriously i wish i could, all those hundreds each year i could put in gold/silver or the bank or wherever I want.
i love how mathews says how he is wording his answer to not screw himself, yet mathews worded the question to corner him :
"so your going to cut the benefits for them''
Yea you have to if you want this ponzi scheme to continue, wish someone had the balls to get rid of this and tell people 'hey save your money your future is your future'
i hate when people like this chris faggot try to make people sound like idiots especially when he agrees with them. Nobody is going to get social security anyways. its all fucked over by obama. no not just because hes a democrat.its because he is spending way too damn much and taking cuts out of social security to spread to welfare so he gets more votes
We spend $607 billion dollars on our defense budget. The next closest country spends $85 billion. Why don't we cut our military budget for a while. You don't have to spend 6 times as much as other countries just to be the best, it's ridiculous.
I think the other countries should pay our military for services rendered(unless Congress ACTUALLY Declares War). Ex: When Saddam attacked Kuwait the other Arab nations should have handled it (took out Saddam and sacrificed their ppl and their money). Instead we went in, spent our money, lost our ppl. If they want us to do the dirty work then they should finance the operations. Otherwise we stay home. But since our "Leaders" think we should police the world at any cost things will never change.
We can cut the defense budget, but does that imply we can just leave SS and Medicare alone? Those 2 make a bigger share of the pie than defense. People are simply going to have to learn that they can't live 35 years on govt retirement and healthcare and still live in a country where the federal budget is balanced. If the Dems don't want any part of a privatized system, then there's no other option but cutting benefits. Retirement age, growth rate, bend points/rates, something has to give.
How conceded do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand a word like re-engineer. Matthews is one of the biggest pieces of shit on TV.
How irrational do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand this man is a lying Bush Republican clone proposing one of George's old failed policy idea that only serves Wall Street with new business & has average American's gambling with retirement...
He is saying he will cut benefits, & let people handle their own retirement with Wall Street firms. As someone pointed out below, imagine if it passed with whole financial crisis what things would be like?
You said "How conceded do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand a word like re-engineer"
The Republican Jeb is using buzz words like "re-engineer," when Chris is asking him "you mean cut benefits don't you"...
The man was avoiding saying "I will cut benefits & hand the entire program over to Wall Street". If you think SS or Medicare should be handed over to Wall Street, we total disagree. Imagine the financial crisis if everyone's retirement tanked. We'd be dead
its not a buzz word. Its a simply a more accurate way of describing his intent. His plan isn't simply to reduce benefits if it was Matthews would be right, however his intent is obviously a little more involved than that. What your doing is akin to calling the health care plan the rape of medicare.
Its called a gotchya question not a buzzword answer.
If a TV executive says "We're retooling a show" most insiders understand that means either A) doing away with the show or B) Keep the show but changing the cast & overall concept. "Re-tooling" is a more gentile buzzword to soften what they intend to do
Jeb plans on "cutting Social Security benefits for people". This interview is clipped. In the part you didn't hear, he said it, then quickly backed away from it because it's both unpopular, & not good policy
SS isn't retirement, it's insurance. No wait, it'd be better if we call it retirement in this instance, oh okay, it's retirement then. SS is a panacea for some folks and I just don't get it.
Yeah, Jeb walked into that punch and he probably should've just said yes, we're going to have to change how benefits are calculated for some or else we're going to go broke. Chris was certainly trying to smear him, but he could've saved face by being completely honest. What's your solution anyway?
It doesn't work, because once the boomers start to draw, it's going to start running a deficit. People may like getting money that doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it works. SS is popular, but not that popular. You don't need to make up numbers on the fly, especially when they're ridiculous.
I stated the 3 bullet points at least twice here. Please see them...
To anyone complaining about Social Security I ask this, "If you disagree with it, why are you drawing from it? Why are your parents/friends/spouses/relatives? Why don't you tell them to stop drawing on it & see how that flies why you still are?"
I saw your points; just replying to your specific comment here.
I would gladly give up every penny of benefits I have earned in 10 yrs of working to just stop paying FICA taxes path forward. Is that what you're offering??
PLEASE READ! READ! I listed 3 different ways to achieve SS solvency. NONE OF THEM HAVE CUTTING THE WEALTHY'S BENEFITS. NONE. NO CUTTING OF ANY BENEFITS FOR ANYONE. NO CUTTING. NO CUTTING. It is RAISING THE CAP ON EARNINGS about 10-12% for all income.
I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID! Knock off the "you didn't read" BS. I (and half US) oppose all tax increases, including reinstating the estate tax and payroll tax cap hikes, so your #1 and #2 are no gos. #3 doesn't make sense, because the current SS surplus already displaces other govt borrowing, so to the extent your idea makes more money than displacing borrowing, it's okay, but the treasury could do that now with the SS trust fund, they just choose to displace borrowing instead.
"I (and half US) oppose all tax increases, including reinstating the estate tax and payroll tax cap hikes, so your #1 & #2 are no gos"
That's simply NOT true. A lie. 95% of American who don't have a 3.5 million estates are FINE taxing em. And since when do you decide what are "no gos"? I told you how to fix the problem w/o cutting benefits. You don't like that. Ironic, you & I are one of the 83% paying SS payroll tax our checks, yet you want to protect 17% from paying their share? Insane
It doesn't matter if 95% of Americans don't have $3.5M estates, about half do not believe death is a taxable offense. Its not about your or me, were merely representative of the population. I'm telling you any tax increase, regardless of who is impacted will not fly with about half the population. If you argue that your half of the country's principle is no benefit cuts, then I guess were doomed to bankruptcy. If instead, your principle is no tax hike or benefit cut on poor, then we can talk.
Now that I've directly addressed your points, get a grip and focus. Your concept (not what you literally said, but your principle) is that the rich should bear the burden of solvency. Yes or no?? If yes, then you can make the rich bear the burden of solvency by raising the payroll tax cap OR by cutting high income benefits. I suggest making the last % above the 2nd bend point for calculating SS initial benefits (if you have a clue what that is) to -15%. Your thoughts?
"The rich should bear the burden of solvency" is a distortion, lie, & utter manipulation. NO! You can't read
1) Everyone pay their fair share. If 83% of normal workers(us) are paying a SS tax in our checks, why do the other 17% get to skip out? This is aimed at ALL workers, employees, businesses, NOT RICH people
2) This is aimed at the 3% of the wealthy estates priced at 3.5 million or higher. Rich people
3) This has nothing to do with rich people. It's using new sound investment policy
1) Who is not paying SS taxes on earned income? You can only get to tax more of the earned income by raising the payroll tax cap, which I oppose.
2) Right, so ultimately you do want the rich to bear a disproportionate amount of the burden to increase solvency. No value judgment, just saying the only connection between estate taxes and SS is it's a way to get money.
3) Fine. I have no major objection, but the trust fund is already used to displace borrowing.
1) Increase the amount of earnings subject to payroll tax. Today, 83% of covered earnings fall below the taxable maximum-level of earnings below which the payroll tax applies ($87,900 in 2004). The proposal would increases the taxable maximum until 93% of earnings are taxable; CBO says this would require a 28% increase in the taxable maximum.
Don't care if you oppose it, it makes SS solvent. It works
2) Yes, that's the $ of success
3) Not built for ROI lending $ at 2-3%. They should be
I hate to break it to you, but raising taxes disproportionately on the rich has the same net effect has disproportionately lowering benefits for the rich. Raising taxes has the added negative of causing changes in behavior that could send income to other jurisdictions, whereas cutting benefits does not have that effect. Cutting rich benefits is an equivalent way of getting exactly what youre trying to get (solvency at the rich's expense) in a more politically palable way. Guess you dont care.
You don't care whether I oppose it, fine. Just recognize then that you don't care if this ever becomes law. You're just speaking hypothetically then. Increasing the payroll tax cap is as tired an idea as privatization. It won't pass, period.
They don't need any more insurance above $106.8k/yr. No more insurance means no additional taxes and no additional benefits on additional income. If it were welfare, then you could make that argument, but it's insurance, remember?
I do want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Fortunately they are, because SS is redistributive. I define fair share by benefit derived, but evidently you define it by ability to pay. Agree to disagree.
First off, if you actually knew anything about SS, you'd know $97k is not the payroll tax cap. It was $106.8k in 2009. SS is insurance, not the soak the rich program. Call it welfare and your point stands.
CBO are not the voters, silly. Voters don't want tax increases.
I do thanks. Look farther below, I stated it to another person ;)
Incorrect. They are not paying SS on ALL their income, yet the guy who makes $97,000 is. AGAIN, explain this? BTW, the "their" is "me too" which I'd have to pay & be happy to do so. We disagree
Insulting me with "if you actually knew anything about SS" after demonstrating a full understanding. Neat.
Congressional Budget Office knows far more than you. You have proven you do not. Good day...
If you define "fair" by benefit derived, then you have to concede that the higher incomes already pay their fair share, because they get a lower ROI on their FICA taxes. By that definition, actually, the poor aren't paying their fair share.
I'm insulting you much like you insulted me for not conceding to your points. Grow thicker skin and read up on SS. You don't understand the tax cap and how benefits are calculated. You're just talking in populist generalities.
"I do want the wealthy to pay their fair share"...
No you simply don't. Why are you lying?
Then you go on to incorrectly state "Fortunately they are"
Incorrect. You STILL haven't answered why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million isn't?
You can not. You've also been exposed as a GOP/Neo-con spam account by answering under BOTH oterj0 AND jhamm999. You've dipped, ducked, ignored, mocked me, & never addressed it. This is over.
Think whatever you like. I did answer your question about the payroll tax cap. It's insurance, not welfare. If it's insurance, why do we need to insure incomes above the cap? People do get benefits for what they pay in. Does it make sense for people to have $10k/mo in SS benefits? Unnecessary.
Grow up. I'm jhamm999 too because we have similar ideas?? I'm not the only conservative out there, believe it or not. If this is over, why didn't you just not reply? If it's over, don't reply.
You answered me in 1st person when I replied to jhamm999. Spam so much you lost track.
You DIDN'T answer the question b/c you don't want the wealthy taxed. Check. We're still facing a solvency problem, so it's cut benefits. Check. You want an "opt out of SS" trigger which would destroy it. Check. Then you tried to change SS from a SOCIAL INSURANCE contract with government to basic insurance. BIG differences: Equity vs Adequacy, Voluntary vs Mandatory, Contractual vs Statutory Rights, Funding
So is it spam when you disagree with the person? You have as many posts as me on this video, so I guess those in glass houses...
My point here is that SS is a scam. It's a Ponzi scheme designed to buy votes for Dems. Even so, I acknowledge it's incredibly popular and that it's insolvency threatens us. So, my premise is that if we must have SS in the short run, we have to make it solvent and I'd rather cut benefits than raise taxes. We can cut rich benefits preferentially.
social security was not susposed to be given to as many people as it is today.
in 1935 the average life span was 58 and guess what age u collect social security at? 65....
we dont need to priviative, but aldeast we need to cutt benifites because we CANNOT AFFORD IT. and we will break the next generation with all the debt we are collecting from this. With the baby boomers starting to retire NOW is the time to do some reform before we ARE broke
Agreed, reform is important. We need to create solvency. Cutting benefits is not the solution.
*Raise the cap on earnings covered by SS so that once again 93% of all income is taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983. SS taxes are now being applied to only 83%
*Revise the estate tax to funnel into SS beginning in 2012. Reduce the estate tax so that by 2011, only estates above $3.5 million pay it
*Improve return on SS funds by investing in secure equities.
I like some of it I just think its funny that when the republican says "re- engineer" you attack it as a buzzword and Matthews thinks people don't understand what the word re- engineer means because he elitist snob. Then you turn around and say that "reform is important". I guess he should have just substituted re- engineer with reform so you liberals could understand it properly.
That's not what Chris did. It's not that people didn't understand the words definition, it's Jeb's intentional misuse of it when he means, "I want to cut SS benefits for people"...
It's like asking someone, "Will you cut benefits?", & the person responds "We need to evaluate our options" when the answer is YES. That's the problem...
People who use terms like "elitist snob", or "you liberals" appear to the Sarah Palin tribe. It's their talking points...
"It's not that people didn't understand the words definition, it's Jeb's intentional misuse of it when he means, "I want to cut SS benefits for people"...
This statement shows very clearly how partisan your being. You yourself said that cuts needed to be made but somehow you've gotten it into your head that just because he didn't want to answer Chris's gotchya question and because hes a republican that he wants to cut ss just for the sake of cutting ss and not as part of a bigger reform.
there are some benefits that could be cut. Millionaires don't need ss. It wouldn't be a horrible idea let younger people out of the system. To say that the mere mention of the word cut constitutes a horrible idea when talking about ss is a fallacy you seem quite intent on perpetuating and Chris Matthews seem intent on taking advantage of to derail healthy debate on the subject by demonizing his enemy. You have some interesting bedfellows.
If you want to soak the rich, why not just cut benefits for the highest income earners? Raising taxes on them runs the risk of sending them away to a less taxing jurisdiction. If we cut their benefits, it has the same effect of taking from them so the lower incomes can keep current benefits. This would be more palatable than raising the income cap. Would you support?
I do not support anything that cuts benefits. My suggestions to fix it are:
*Raise the cap on earnings covered by SS so that once again 93% of all income is taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983. SS taxes are now being applied to only 83%
*Revise the estate tax to funnel into SS beginning in 2012. Reduce the estate tax so that by 2011, only estates above $3.5 million pay it
*Improve return on SS funds by investing in secure equities.
Not even cutting benefits for the rich with NO benefit cuts for the poor? If that's the case, then the country's at impasse. I (and half the country) will not support any payroll tax increases. If you (and the other half) wont support any benefit cuts, then nothing gets done.
Think about your position. You dont want anything to change for the poor, but you're happy to take more $ from the rich and give them less of it back to improve solvency. That's equivalent to cutting the rich's benefits.
Learn to read or I'll no longer be responding to your intentionally irresponsible posts.
Never said "Cut benefits" to anyone. Not ONCE. What I said, for the 3rd time, gain the 10% payroll tax/even raise it to 95%. That's amazingly significant for solvency. The estate tax should be fixed & funneled into SS. Now take our $ & INVEST it. You GOP'ers are about the "free market". Getting a 7-10% ROI for the amount of $ will help businesses, more than address the BB, & keep us solvent
I got your point, relax! I'm suggesting that your idea is equivalent to cutting benefits for the rich, no value judgment. If you want to raise the tax cap, you want to get more $ from the rich, knowing that they won't get back $ for $, thus making SS more solvent. You want to decrease the rich's ROI while leaving the low and mid incomes' ROI unchanged. Okay, I can agree with that principle, but not if we get there by raising taxes. Leave the income cap alone, but cap rich benefits. Same result.
"I'm suggesting that your idea is equivalent to cutting benefits for the rich"
Incorrect! It's intentionally misleading. Not "raising the Tax cap to get more $ from the rich". AGAIN, try #6. Only 83% of business/companies/LLC's etc are currently PAYING SS PAYROLL TAXES TODAY. That's not acceptable. If you & I have to pay in, why are the other 17% not? I'd say 100%, no exemptions, but 93% was the threshold set by Congress in 1983, so it's doable. 10% more people paying into the system is HUGE
bolgernow. the real threat to the ss system is that there are not enough workers to retiree ratio to sustain it. simply put it has become nothing short of a ponzi scheme.
True, that is a serious issue oterj0 brought up as well with the BB retiring. Please see my posts explaining 3 solutions. Adding 10-17% of the work force currently NOT paying SS Payroll tax can be one step in making it always solvent.
It's not a ponzi scheme. Are you a fan of Ayn Rand by chance?
i have read some of her works. i'm not quite that libertarian. tell me though,i dont think your point that 17% of the workforce doesn't pay fica. now there is a cap on wages i believe of which is around 100k. anything above that they don't pay,and i'm open for discussion on that. what i would really like to see is we do what chile did in 1983 and let the young people opt out if they wish. it does not as some like to deride it force a person to enter the stock market. that is up to them.
Currently SS taxes are only being applied to 83% of earnings. That's messed up. Why do some pay, & other do not. Fair is fair. Raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 93% of all income would be taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983, the last time it considered this issue. I would say 95-100% but that's just me. That accounts for a massive amount.
okay, i don't understand. which 17% of people who draw a paycheck do not pay ss tax. i have alwaiys understood that say you made 150k you paid fica on the first 100k,and not the other 50k.
The Social Security tax rate for 2010 is 15.3% on self-employment income up to $106,800. If your net earnings exceed $106,800, you continue to pay only the Medicare portion of the Social Security
tax, which is 2.9%, on the rest of your earnings today. Raise that rate by 28-34%. Let's say taxable on the 1st $250,000. That would handle any short fall. Remember, why should the person making $87,000 get all of it taxed, but not the guy making 1/4 of million?
okay it's not that they don't pay any tax just you think they need to pay more? the problem i see with that is especially in this down economy you stand a chance of driving unemployment up. but what do you say of a compromise. i give you your tax increase if you give me the opt out option?
Understood & I agree. That's why it wouldn't kick in until 2012 or 2014 when the economy is back on it's feet...
How about no...
Your idea makes no sense. If the goal is to "fix Social Security", now offering an option to "dismantle it to the free market" totally destroys that concept...
You don't want/like/need SS, got that. Well I want a car made of diamonds. We don't always get what we want
it's not that i have anything against ss,so please don't put words in my mouth. it depends on your goal is. if it is securing a better retirement with more wealth then you would allow workers under 45 to opt out and invest that portion in whatever they want. some will, some won't. i read in a wsj article some ten years ago i think that if you had say a 20 yr old making 20k a year until he retires at 65,you gave him the 6.2% he is paying to ss and invested in a savings acct. he would twice money.
Um, you called it "a ponzi scheme". You want to see an "opt out of Social Security" tool thereby "killing it". That clearly puts you in the "SS=bad" camp.
Guess you're the last to find out your own views...
Again, why should the person making $87,000 be getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million doesn't? Explain.
yes i called it a ponzi scheme because that what it is. you do understand the way it is now that every penny workers are putting in now go to the general fund and are paid out to cfurrent retirees right? so in other words if you were lucky enough to be born at a certain time then you are getting paid way more than you put in. that is a ponzi. as far as taxing element of your plan it will not even come close to meeting future obligations. at best it is a stop gap measure. 67 trillion unfunded.
in other words you can't logically refute my assertions so you get snippy and say since you dont agree with me im done. nice. besides letting people decide what to do with their money would not kill the program. chile did it in the eighties and they are doing just fine. just taxing the higher income folks more will not fix the problem. we have 67 trillion in unfunded mandates due to entitlements. how much money would your plan generate? so if anything you would destroy ss.
You state: "in other words you can't logically refute my assertions so you get snippy". Simply not true. A lie.
I did. I explained 3 ways to fix SS/MM & make it solvent. You ignored & rejected them. You don't WANT SS/MM when you ask for "opt out of it" option. You want to KILL IT.
I have been more than patent with you, but stating that SS "it's a ponzi scheme", "people should be able to opt out", & "the taxing in your plan will not even come close" are lies
notice you did not answer the question about how much the tax will raise. also about the 67 trillion in unfunded mandates? your three ways will help temporarily,but not long term,or benefit people to the fullest if you don't give them control of their money. study the example of chile that i laid out for you. then tell me they can do it but we can't. p.s. if you do let people opt out and a few generations from now no one is in the ss system,what does that tell you about the system to start with?
According to CBO, these 3 adjustments will eliminate the 75-year projected shortfall. There are 2 others that will contribute to a SS surplus. 1st, accurate consumer price index recently developed by the BLS. 2nd cover all new state & local employees under SS. With all adjustments, the system will generate a surplus over the 75 years. Can finally answer why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million isn't? Explain
SS is insurance. FICA taxes are one's own payment for social insurance from the govt. No one needs to have their income insured above a certain level. Do rich people really need to get SS benefits of $10k/mo to be insured? Your argument only makes sense if the purpose of SS is not social insurance, but welfare. If it's welfare, then fair enough, why should all their income be taxed. Since it's insurance, there's no need to insure income that high.
The one that starts "Hear, hear!"? I wasn't talking to you, I was talking about you to jhamm999. Think whatever you like, but I thought "this [was] over"? Why do you keep replying if you're done?
Oh, okay, I see it. The one about the car of diamonds. I'm sorry that you're so paranoid that you think someone jumping in on your discussion with someone else means the two are one in the same.
Is this how you debate? Accusing peole of being spammers? I hope our discussion(s) is(are) of value to someone trying to learn something about different ideas on SS. I'm sorry it has to end with you freaking out and calling me a spammer, but I'm sorry to disappoint, I'm not. I can have some harsh words for your ideas and understanding of SS, but I'm not going to try and defame all your posts by calling you a spammer or whatever. You win, you're the bigger jerk, I guess.
like i said before i'm agnostic when it comes to your point about taxes. for the cpi index or tying the cola to the price of inflation. you realize state and local employees have the opt provision right?. btw did you check out the example of chile?
i did answer. i said i'm agnostic ,meaning i could care less one way or the other. but i must say your partisanship is showing. why not raise it on everyone regardless of income and uncap it totally? btw why won't you answer my point of what chile did with letting their people opt out? is that because you would find out it worked? also i don't make the laws so i don't know why there is a cap. i would appreciate though you answering my point on chile.
Saying "I don't care" doesn't answer a basic question. It totally AVOIDS it because you can not. It's what children do when they don't want to eat their veggies...
I've politely answered ALL your questions. How does one answer "a point about Chile"? AGAIN, please answer. Thanks
well i guess i could say i'm for it or against it,but i would be lying if i did. you did want an honest answer right? you know what i meant about chile. i explained it to you before. in 1983 they were facing the same problems with their ss system as we are. they let the young people opt out if they wished. some did some didn't. now they are very solvent. so it kind of shoots down your theory of if we do it here then the system would blow up. so what are you saying. chile can do it but not us?
"well i guess i could say i'm for it or against it,but i would be lying if i did."
I have my answer. You don't WANT to tax the 2nd man for his full income. You simply don't. We not only disagree. You believe with additional $ comes additional privileges to be exempt from. I believe everyone, EVERYONE should pay his or her fair share.
Why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy making 1/4 of a million isn't?
if i didn't want to tax them i would have said so ,kreskin,o.k. again you have this bad habit of trying to read people's minds when u just can't. so am i to deduce that you have ignored my point about chile successfully offering an opt out program that it is either you are afraid that i'm right,or you are ignorant to the fact,or you just don't think we americans are up to it like chile was?
American is not Chile. In our current horrible political climate, with lobbyist pressure & marketing it would die.
I have asked you a specific question. The answer is vital. You refuse to answer saying, "don't care". Well if you "don't care" then let's agree to raise the cap having 93% SS payroll tax on all income then. Fine. Done. We agree
Why is it that raising the payroll tax cap increases solvency? In SS, benefits are related to income subject to tax, so increasing income subject to tax for the rich, just increases their benefits. So how does it improve solvency? Because SS has a redistributive benefits calculation. Basically, the payroll tax cap increase makes the system solvent by making the system more redistributive. Be careful what you do here. If you make it a soak the rich program, they'll stop supporting it.
Why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy making 1/4 of a million isn't?
Asking people to pay what they owe is fair. What you call "soaking the rich", is paying what you owe...
As they say, that's the $ of success. Since you reject it, feel free to move to a more unfair dictatorship cast system based on oppressing the middle class
america is not chile. yes. we are supposed to be better. i refuse to accept that our country who helped win two world wars,defeat communism,nazism,the freest country the world has known cannot do what chile did. thats absurd, so go ahead with the tax raises but we will be back before you know it because you won't get the money you need because the rich will shelter their money. we tried this in the eighties and it did not work out. the sys tem is fundamentally flawed.
Yes, but with a car of diamonds, you can have it, it would just take a lot of money. However, with SS, my choices are pay SS or go to jail. Not much of a choice.
Hear, hear! I think Bolgernow recognizes he was intentionally confounding the issue about the payroll tax cap to imply that 17% of people were simply not part of SS. Of course, that's not true, it's just that the payroll tax cap leaves 17% of income (not people, income) untaxed. Why? People making above those incomes simply don't need to buy any more social insurance. Why tax them on the higher income only to give it back to them when they retire. It's insurance, not retirement.
oterjo.ss is sold as a retirement supplement. i'm sure that you get your statement every year that says how much you get according to when you retire. then at the bottom it states that by 2037 due to the shortage of workers your benefits will decrease by25%.?
I get those statements, but I trash them immediately. I know that by the time I retire, after 2037, I'll be fortunate to get any benefits at all. I'm banking on paying SS taxes all my life to get $0 back. Probably explains a lot about why I'd prefer an opt out or some benefit cuts now. I'm not stupid. I know intergenerational theft when I see it.
well i'm twice your age and i understand completely. so if i retire at 70 i would get full benefits for 11 years. you are familiar with what chile did right? and yes it is theft. but too many pols are afraid to do the right thing because older people vote and younger ones not so much.
I'm only familiar with what I've read about the Chilean system, but it sounds like what Bush had proposed back in '05. I guess the biggest thing about their system that appeals is the idea that your money can be tracked unlike the paygo (ahem Ponzi scheme) system we have.
You're right that as long as young people don't vote and older people do, intergenerational theft is a good way to buy votes. Not sure it'd be any better if the youngsters started voting, though; college brainwashes them.
"...has average Americans gambling with retirement."
But I thought SS wasn't retirement, but insurance? This drives me crazy. SS is insurance when someone points out its redistributive nature, it's retirement when someone suggests privatizing it, it's whatever serves the political interest of maintaining status quo, isn't it? Entitlements make up the largest share of our federal budget. It's going to be reformed eventually either through Congress or revolution. Take your pick.
You wish to cut successful program that 90-95% of Americans like & been in place since 1935?
Good luck selling your insane irrational claims
Your claim of "Entitlements make up the largest share of our federal budget" is incorrect & a lie. They make up 39% of the overall budget.
The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan make up 57% of our federal budget. The other 4% is TARP. Please educate yourself on the facts. If you're using "revolution" as a threat, bring it ace. The army will put you down
People like getting money, no argument, but if that money doesn't exist, then we're infeasible and something has to give. Your math is patently false. 39(entitle)+57(war)+4(TARP)=100. So where is everything else in the budget? I guess there's no discretionary spending whatsoever? Even if your bogus #s were true, what happens when the wars end and their spend becomes negligible? SS/Medi must be reformed. With what money will the govt buy guns to fight off insurrection if entitlements bankrupt us?
Look up the budget #'ers yourself. They're on-line.
Defense=23%, SS=20%, MM=19%(20+19=39%), Other Mandatory=17%(93% for rising war cost/additional defense/HLS/Security agencies keeping us safe, ect), Other Discretionary=12%(95% for reconstruction in Iraq & Afghanistan & infrastructure)
The Department of Defense (DoD) separates war funding from base funding. They triple dip. 2 wars, blowing stuff up, then rebuilding it all costs serious $. OUR OWN US infrastructure only got 4% in TARP
social security has been working since the 1950s and it is WORKING AS WE SPEAK. what the fuck...nothing works when these goddamn GOP come into power under the guise of doing Jesus' work.. These pigs starting with GWBush and his congress have ruined us, sanks us into a Great Recession...they all ought to have been hanged, if only we American idiots woke up to the reality. I can't believe the South and Midwest are such staunch supporters of the GOP...were you guys all fucken imbred?
dalecampbl8 11 months ago
I wish I could invest social security how I want
informationrevolt 1 year ago
@informationrevolt If you had invested your social security in the stock market, what would your private fund look like following the last stock market crash?
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses I dont invest in stocks. I invest in private savings accounts, IRAs, 401k, Gold, bonds, CDS. Hell I should even be able to spend my social security money if I choose. I should be able to put that money towards a house or other assets or invest it in starting a business. I should be able to choose to invest it in a healthcare savings account, or to pay down debt so that I can free up income from bills to invest.
informationrevolt 1 year ago
Stand up 4 your RIGHTS Americans.~The REPUBLICANS have been FOOLING YOU for the last 30 yrs. SOCIAL SECURITY*, (SS) , is NOT an entitlement! SS HAS A $2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS. SS CAN pay every claim at least until 2030.~ SS DOES NOT increase the federal budget by one cent! Tell the REPUBLICAN GANGSTERS & THEIR WALLSTREET BANDIT FRIENDS that you will FIGHT any PRIVATIZATION OF your SS pension.~You will FIGHT ANY REDUCTION IN BENEFITS. YOU will FIGHT any change in AGE REQUIREMENT FOR SS BENEFITS!
poindexterwitkowsky 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
poindexterwitkowsky 1 year ago
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. You really do sound paraniod here. It is system that if used right everyone pays into but everyone gets to utlize at some point. Heaven forbid you should ever become disabled or elderly. Some people live paycheck to paycheck. It is not about being smart with money. If a person has $10 at the end of the month then they save up something goes wrong with their car. They need to fix it. Do you understand what I mean?
InspiredMuse74 1 year ago 3
Social security and medicare should be separate accounts and not used to cover the holes we blow in the federal budget. We can shut down all the unnecessary military bases all over the world, put limits on what defense contractors can do, pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and focus our efforts on infrastructure. Also a real single-payer health care plan would save us money but hey don't listen to facts lets freak out over propaganda such "death panels" and call everything unconstitutional.
jigglypuff3 1 year ago
So the idea here is to gamble social security and if we win we make some money if we lose millions lose their retirement against their will? Brilliant plan GOP, sign me up.
Sevenfold120 1 year ago
Besides. What part of "supplemental" do people not understand? Social Security was never meant to be a full-blown retirement package. Wake up people. You have to take care of yourself.
YouAmYeknur 1 year ago
@YouAmYeknur How do people do that if they live paycheck to paycheck? There is no money at the end of the month to save.
InspiredMuse74 1 year ago
people should be smarter with their money. I dont want the government stealing money from me and giving it to them!
KripDrip 1 year ago
How in the hell do people believe that it costs the government to NOT take money from individual workers?
YouAmYeknur 1 year ago
A recent poll asked, As you may know, there is a current proposal that would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in retirement accounts of their choice, which might include stocks, bonds or mutual funds, and provide either a lower or higher benefit than Social Security does now. Generally, do you favor or oppose this proposal?" 58% said they favor this.
electricguitarplayr 1 year ago
Let's not privatize social security. I don't want *MY* retirement money being subject to greedy Wall Street bankers. Social security is one of the most efficient government programs, and has been proven time and time again to be better than any private industry managed fund. Social security has a surplus, but Pres. Bush spent that surplus on two wars, and tax cuts to billionaires.
I am disgusted by this, and you should be to. This is OUR retirement money.
cstrosser 1 year ago
the government is more greedy than wall street or anyone! Let everyone save their money and use it when they retire. Enough of this government ponzi scheme!
KripDrip 1 year ago
The last eleven years has made it difficult for me to keep faith in "the markets.," but, that aside, it seems illogical that we will all become wealthy by investing in the same relatively few corporations by being in the same defined conribution plan.
JerryGing 1 year ago
@JerryGing Agreed. This is just another way for the GOP to funnel money to the private banks and investment firms that buy their Congressional seats. Research has proven that social security is one of the most efficient programs in government with 0.9% administrative fees, and a $2.5 TRILLION surplus (before it was raided for two wars and tax cuts).
cstrosser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need to lower, not raise the retirement age. As an emergency stimulus to open up jobs for young people who desparately need jobs, accelerate the start of benefits by one, two or three years. Scheduled to take early retirement at 62? It would be bumped up to 61. Scheduled to take full SS at 66? Moves up to 65. When corporations need to eliminate jobs first thing they always do is ask senior employees to take early retirement. Just as valid for the fed.
MartinGist 1 year ago
The real message: Your retirement income will be cut.
rcguy47 1 year ago
Lets start by cutting pay in Congress, Then drop there health insurance since they seem to think buying it is "no problem".
By all mean end their huge retirement pensions..... most companies dropped them years ago for the rest of us.
TERM LIMITS NOW
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Americans don't save. They need to own the newest and the best. Bush told people to spend and so does TV ads.
Social Security my be the only thing they have left when they're too old to work.
The average outstanding credit card debt for households that have a credit card was $10,679 at the end of 2008. One year earlier, that average was $10,637. (Source: Nilson Report, April 2009)
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
So your solution to Americans not saving is an unfunded govt ponzi scheme? Inflationary monetary policy incentivizes spending over savings. Why save when you're going to get taxed on savings and inflation's going to take another chunk out? Why not just spend it when you get it? That's the problem. Reform the Fed and require tight ranges on inflation. End all taxes on savings, investment, and income and tax consumption instead. Way better solution than a ponzi scheme.
oterj0 2 years ago
How about taxing on investment income over say 1 million a year to cut the deficit.
Tax consumption? On food, and drugs too?
So you don't think that a person making 10 million a year UNEARNED income should pay any taxes on it?
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Tax all consumption (yes food and drugs) at one rate. Very simple system. To address regressivity, provide a standard rebate of taxes to every man, woman, and child for spending up to a certain limit. Progressive, simple, revenue-neutral.
People making 10M in unearned income will pay taxes when they buy yachts and mansions. If they instead reinvest, they will pay no taxes and the economy will churn out more jobs as a result. Incentivize investment, discourage excess consumption.
oterj0 2 years ago
Consumption tax.... so someone making 25k a year should pay what, 15 or 20 percent extra for the food they buy or drugs they need but the guy making one million on investments should pay zero on that income.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Thats only without a rebate. You need one tax on all consumption for simplicity. Make the tax progressive by providing 1 standard rebate to every man, woman, child for taxes on spending up to certain amount (say poverty limit, negotiable).
Rich guy buying a $10M house will pay taxes on $10M of consumption and will get the same standard rebate as the guy making $25k. Rich guy reinvests all his money, he pays no taxes, but also realizes no added wealth, just creates more jobs for the mid class.
oterj0 2 years ago
You'd have to show me the numbers on how the Government would have enough money to run on. I think the rich would avoid taxes by buying off-shore and there would be a huge "black-market".
If I invest $1 in X and I sell it for $10, I pay no tax? So then I reinvest the $10 and still not pay any tax?
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
So the Fair Tax is one such example of a revenue-neutral, progressive sales tax. I like the Fair Tax, but I too am concerned about the black market. I'd prefer to see FICA taxes remain as is to keep the entitlements separate. This would also keep the tax rate (and cheating) down.
Yes, no taxes for unrealized capital gains. You only pay tax when you spend. Having a lot of money invested in a business is not something we should punish.
oterj0 2 years ago
What would you envision that Fair Tax rate to be...... is that on top of the 9% sales tax I already pay?
I see this as poorer and most middle-class people paying 80-100% tax on what they earn and the rich paying 15%.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
I believe the DeMint proposal was an 8% fed sales tax, which would be on top of any state sales taxes. Not sure I see where you get 80 - 100% tax from ~10% fed sales, plus 10% state sales, plus 7.65% FICA income? What am I missing?
The mistake I think youre making is to assume that a tax on business is a tax on rich people. Recall that businesses set prices for their products based on the market. If they pay more tax, they just pass the cost onto consumers. Business taxes are VERY regressive.
oterj0 2 years ago
I said that wrong.... what I meant was that 80 - 100% of the earnings (less your free rebate part) of lower or middle income would wind up being taxed because they spend it all just to live. Whereas someone making millions may only spend 20% of a years pay plus they make a lot on unearned income. I would be in favor of larger taxes on unearned income. I've always been in favor of estate taxes too after a certain level, get rid of some of the useless Paris Hiltons of the world.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
OK, now I get the point above. Yes, in that the rich dont spend all their money, they wouldnt pay taxes on what they reinvest. Again, you're assuming that taxes on business income are paid for by the business owners. The check may be written by the owners, but the money to pay the bill comes largely from increased prices. Since consumption is regressive, business taxes are poor taxes without a standard rebate. Do you think businesses just roll over when they get taxed? They pass it on.
oterj0 2 years ago
Are you saying Corps wouldn't pay any consumption tax? Would they pay on parts they buy to make products? I guess I don't understand how you wanna treat business.
How would your plan be different than Business that pay tax on profits now? Wages, expenses, are not taxable now.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Only if they bought retail goods. The tax would only apply to retail transactions, not business to business. The B2B part is more like a VAT, which is a massive money maker for govt and is quite regressive in that it raises prices big time (e.g. Europe). When I was in Spain last summer, my wife and I went to look for cheap food one night, so we went to this Chinese place. We ended up spending 35 Euro (like $50) on what was pretty lackluster food. That meal would've been $20 - $25 in the US.
oterj0 2 years ago
GOP GOAL: To continue to be IRRELEVANT in National Govt & NEVER discuss the 58 Senate & House Seats they LOST over the last 2 elections.
RepubliCONs: Endangered Species Dumb-shits!
GOP = GUNS OIL POVERTY....GREEDY OLD PERVS
mavrek47 2 years ago
Fuck the idiotic republicans! They voted for bush and Palin, that in itself speaks volume about what a republican's opinion is worth!
Their motto is lie and bullshit your way through!
nuage7777 2 years ago
Does Bush's spending spree justify continuing FDR's spending spree? Of course we shouldn't have done Medicare D. Of course we didn't need another bureaucracy. Of course the Congress doesn't need more pay raises. So are you implying all this justifies doing nothing on entitlements. The one thing Matthews said that really makes sense is that these discretionary expenditures are just one relatively small part of the budget. To balance the budget you're going to have to cut everywhere.
oterj0 2 years ago
this is what was the turning point in bush's administration and we all know what happened in 2006
rs09985 2 years ago
Privatizing Social Security is a moral imperative. It is EVIL to NOT privatize Social Security.
herbs814 2 years ago 2
@herbs814 Privitization of social security Is EVIL ! privitization of healthcare is EVIL ! Patents on seeds are EVIL ! I was not put on this earth to serve someone else's greed. WereYou?
candicaner 2 years ago
@candicaner
Privatization is a moral IMPERATIVE. It is evil to oppose privatization. The government has no right to NOT privatize Socialist Insecurity or Mediscare. Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare are nothing but pyramid schemes; they are more evil than anything Bernie Madoff could ever do.
I was not put on earth to serve the GOVERNMENT's greed. Therefore privatization of socialist insecurity and mediScare is not just preferred, but morally required of a just society.`
herbs814 2 years ago
Well let's see we've pretty killed the rest of the infrastructure, the elderly make GREAT targets. The Greedy Old Party never ceases to amaze with their greed driven apathy towards the people.
Swordsquire 2 years ago 10
Grow up. Do you really think it makes sense to keep paying the same benefits starting at age 65 when people are now living to 100+. The reason SS has run surpluses for decades is because the retirement age was the same when it was founded as it is now. People retired at 65 and died at 67. Of course we need to reduce benefits to fix the future deficit. What do you propose?
oterj0 2 years ago
Or increase deductions based on how long people live.
You would think IRA's help but most lower earning people don't even put any into them even when the employer matches it 100%.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Increase deductions of what? Sorry, just missed the connection here.
oterj0 2 years ago
You said reduce benefits..... I'm saying if we didn't do that, the other option would be to withhold more for SS later.
The real reason SS has had a surplus is all the Baby Boomers paying in with fewer people drawing out..... that's close to being reversed which will be a huge problem.
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
This is very interesting. Conservatives are willing to fix SS as long as it's not through tax increases and my impression is that liberals are also willing to fix SS as long as it's not through benefit cuts. Quite an impasse. Is that your read? Would you support benefit cuts for the higher income earners? This would be akin to raising the payroll tax cap and could definitely get support from some Republicans. We could do this relatively simply by adjusting the initial benefits calculation.
oterj0 2 years ago
Raise the cap by the inflation rate and benefit reduction for high income people. You're saying income they are receiving AFTER they turn 65? Not income they make during working years. IRA's wouldn't be counted nor at least part of a defined benefit package. The heavy lift is still getting though us baby boomers. That's one reason we need the Estate Tax...get some of the benefits back from the richest of the breed.
However, I'm not sure that your flat tax would bring in enough revenue
TheAerialbomb 2 years ago
Payroll tax cap is already adjusted for inflation. You need to do a one time bump in addition to inflation to fix. This is so strange to me, because Dems could get a number of Reps to go along with cutting benefits for the highest earners (during working years) as a means of making the system solvent. Instead, Dems seem set on raising taxes rather than an equivalent benefit cut for the wealthy which would work the same for solvency and be born by the wealthiest. The estate tax is a red herring.
oterj0 2 years ago
What kind of retirement would the baby boomers have if that moron bush put peoples money into wall st? None period. When are the idiots in this country going to understand?the conservaturd party wants to take all your money, and savings, and retirement, and give it to wall st so they can steal are money and make America a third world country. The neo cons has had this planed sense Reagan and they put it into motion in the last 8 years.
disturbed341 2 years ago 5
Privatizing social security??????????????
WOW...
completely foolish.
treid100182 2 years ago 2
Name your poison, privatize the system or cut benefits. Which do you prefer?
oterj0 2 years ago
why do people think they need to give the government thier money to save for the future??? maybe because they are to stupid to think of thier own future or they have been brainwashed to live in the here and now.... I say... if your stupid...its your fault!!!
milkmantx 2 years ago
Chris Mathews is a fucking idiot, medicare/social security are fucked, and we all know it, and mathews is trying to make him look like the bad guy. We have to raise the age level, or restrict the benefits, simple as that. If i was president id just get rid of it gradually, and let people just opt out. Seriously i wish i could, all those hundreds each year i could put in gold/silver or the bank or wherever I want.
jwka2001 2 years ago
i love how mathews says how he is wording his answer to not screw himself, yet mathews worded the question to corner him :
"so your going to cut the benefits for them''
Yea you have to if you want this ponzi scheme to continue, wish someone had the balls to get rid of this and tell people 'hey save your money your future is your future'
jwka2001 2 years ago
i hate when people like this chris faggot try to make people sound like idiots especially when he agrees with them. Nobody is going to get social security anyways. its all fucked over by obama. no not just because hes a democrat.its because he is spending way too damn much and taking cuts out of social security to spread to welfare so he gets more votes
wasup23tube 2 years ago
We spend $607 billion dollars on our defense budget. The next closest country spends $85 billion. Why don't we cut our military budget for a while. You don't have to spend 6 times as much as other countries just to be the best, it's ridiculous.
Painsandwich 2 years ago
I think the other countries should pay our military for services rendered(unless Congress ACTUALLY Declares War). Ex: When Saddam attacked Kuwait the other Arab nations should have handled it (took out Saddam and sacrificed their ppl and their money). Instead we went in, spent our money, lost our ppl. If they want us to do the dirty work then they should finance the operations. Otherwise we stay home. But since our "Leaders" think we should police the world at any cost things will never change.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
We can cut the defense budget, but does that imply we can just leave SS and Medicare alone? Those 2 make a bigger share of the pie than defense. People are simply going to have to learn that they can't live 35 years on govt retirement and healthcare and still live in a country where the federal budget is balanced. If the Dems don't want any part of a privatized system, then there's no other option but cutting benefits. Retirement age, growth rate, bend points/rates, something has to give.
oterj0 2 years ago
How conceded do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand a word like re-engineer. Matthews is one of the biggest pieces of shit on TV.
hozehd 2 years ago
How irrational do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand this man is a lying Bush Republican clone proposing one of George's old failed policy idea that only serves Wall Street with new business & has average American's gambling with retirement...
He is saying he will cut benefits, & let people handle their own retirement with Wall Street firms. As someone pointed out below, imagine if it passed with whole financial crisis what things would be like?
Bolgernow 2 years ago 4
I didn't need it re explained to me, but thanks.
hozehd 2 years ago
From your 1st post, clearly you did. Be well!
Bolgernow 2 years ago
sit and spin, you didn't even address the comment you were replying too. FAIL
hozehd 2 years ago
You said "How conceded do you have to be to think that regular people don't understand a word like re-engineer"
The Republican Jeb is using buzz words like "re-engineer," when Chris is asking him "you mean cut benefits don't you"...
The man was avoiding saying "I will cut benefits & hand the entire program over to Wall Street". If you think SS or Medicare should be handed over to Wall Street, we total disagree. Imagine the financial crisis if everyone's retirement tanked. We'd be dead
Bolgernow 2 years ago
its not a buzz word. Its a simply a more accurate way of describing his intent. His plan isn't simply to reduce benefits if it was Matthews would be right, however his intent is obviously a little more involved than that. What your doing is akin to calling the health care plan the rape of medicare.
Its called a gotchya question not a buzzword answer.
hozehd 2 years ago
Then we totally disagree. Example:
If a TV executive says "We're retooling a show" most insiders understand that means either A) doing away with the show or B) Keep the show but changing the cast & overall concept. "Re-tooling" is a more gentile buzzword to soften what they intend to do
Jeb plans on "cutting Social Security benefits for people". This interview is clipped. In the part you didn't hear, he said it, then quickly backed away from it because it's both unpopular, & not good policy
Bolgernow 2 years ago
SS isn't retirement, it's insurance. No wait, it'd be better if we call it retirement in this instance, oh okay, it's retirement then. SS is a panacea for some folks and I just don't get it.
Yeah, Jeb walked into that punch and he probably should've just said yes, we're going to have to change how benefits are calculated for some or else we're going to go broke. Chris was certainly trying to smear him, but he could've saved face by being completely honest. What's your solution anyway?
oterj0 2 years ago
You don't "get" that SS works, people are happy with it, & people like it?
When 90-95% use & like a program that's been in place since 1935, you're in the 5-10%. Fair enough...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
It doesn't work, because once the boomers start to draw, it's going to start running a deficit. People may like getting money that doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it works. SS is popular, but not that popular. You don't need to make up numbers on the fly, especially when they're ridiculous.
What is your solution? Bankruptcy for the US?
oterj0 2 years ago
Is it a "reading comprehension" thing?
I stated the 3 bullet points at least twice here. Please see them...
To anyone complaining about Social Security I ask this, "If you disagree with it, why are you drawing from it? Why are your parents/friends/spouses/relatives? Why don't you tell them to stop drawing on it & see how that flies why you still are?"
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I saw your points; just replying to your specific comment here.
I would gladly give up every penny of benefits I have earned in 10 yrs of working to just stop paying FICA taxes path forward. Is that what you're offering??
oterj0 2 years ago
*Slaps hand to forehead*
PLEASE READ! READ! I listed 3 different ways to achieve SS solvency. NONE OF THEM HAVE CUTTING THE WEALTHY'S BENEFITS. NONE. NO CUTTING OF ANY BENEFITS FOR ANYONE. NO CUTTING. NO CUTTING. It is RAISING THE CAP ON EARNINGS about 10-12% for all income.
Is that clear?
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID! Knock off the "you didn't read" BS. I (and half US) oppose all tax increases, including reinstating the estate tax and payroll tax cap hikes, so your #1 and #2 are no gos. #3 doesn't make sense, because the current SS surplus already displaces other govt borrowing, so to the extent your idea makes more money than displacing borrowing, it's okay, but the treasury could do that now with the SS trust fund, they just choose to displace borrowing instead.
oterj0 2 years ago
"I (and half US) oppose all tax increases, including reinstating the estate tax and payroll tax cap hikes, so your #1 & #2 are no gos"
That's simply NOT true. A lie. 95% of American who don't have a 3.5 million estates are FINE taxing em. And since when do you decide what are "no gos"? I told you how to fix the problem w/o cutting benefits. You don't like that. Ironic, you & I are one of the 83% paying SS payroll tax our checks, yet you want to protect 17% from paying their share? Insane
Bolgernow 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if 95% of Americans don't have $3.5M estates, about half do not believe death is a taxable offense. Its not about your or me, were merely representative of the population. I'm telling you any tax increase, regardless of who is impacted will not fly with about half the population. If you argue that your half of the country's principle is no benefit cuts, then I guess were doomed to bankruptcy. If instead, your principle is no tax hike or benefit cut on poor, then we can talk.
oterj0 2 years ago
Now that I've directly addressed your points, get a grip and focus. Your concept (not what you literally said, but your principle) is that the rich should bear the burden of solvency. Yes or no?? If yes, then you can make the rich bear the burden of solvency by raising the payroll tax cap OR by cutting high income benefits. I suggest making the last % above the 2nd bend point for calculating SS initial benefits (if you have a clue what that is) to -15%. Your thoughts?
oterj0 2 years ago
"The rich should bear the burden of solvency" is a distortion, lie, & utter manipulation. NO! You can't read
1) Everyone pay their fair share. If 83% of normal workers(us) are paying a SS tax in our checks, why do the other 17% get to skip out? This is aimed at ALL workers, employees, businesses, NOT RICH people
2) This is aimed at the 3% of the wealthy estates priced at 3.5 million or higher. Rich people
3) This has nothing to do with rich people. It's using new sound investment policy
Bolgernow 2 years ago
1) Who is not paying SS taxes on earned income? You can only get to tax more of the earned income by raising the payroll tax cap, which I oppose.
2) Right, so ultimately you do want the rich to bear a disproportionate amount of the burden to increase solvency. No value judgment, just saying the only connection between estate taxes and SS is it's a way to get money.
3) Fine. I have no major objection, but the trust fund is already used to displace borrowing.
oterj0 2 years ago
1) Increase the amount of earnings subject to payroll tax. Today, 83% of covered earnings fall below the taxable maximum-level of earnings below which the payroll tax applies ($87,900 in 2004). The proposal would increases the taxable maximum until 93% of earnings are taxable; CBO says this would require a 28% increase in the taxable maximum.
Don't care if you oppose it, it makes SS solvent. It works
2) Yes, that's the $ of success
3) Not built for ROI lending $ at 2-3%. They should be
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I hate to break it to you, but raising taxes disproportionately on the rich has the same net effect has disproportionately lowering benefits for the rich. Raising taxes has the added negative of causing changes in behavior that could send income to other jurisdictions, whereas cutting benefits does not have that effect. Cutting rich benefits is an equivalent way of getting exactly what youre trying to get (solvency at the rich's expense) in a more politically palable way. Guess you dont care.
oterj0 2 years ago
Funny, most call it "paying their fair share"...
Again, I honestly don't care you oppose it. It makes SS solvent, it works, & it's fair.
AGAIN, why should the person making $97,000 get all of their $ taxed, but not the guy making 1/4 of million shouldn't?
That's not fair...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
You don't care whether I oppose it, fine. Just recognize then that you don't care if this ever becomes law. You're just speaking hypothetically then. Increasing the payroll tax cap is as tired an idea as privatization. It won't pass, period.
They don't need any more insurance above $106.8k/yr. No more insurance means no additional taxes and no additional benefits on additional income. If it were welfare, then you could make that argument, but it's insurance, remember?
oterj0 2 years ago
I noticed you didn't answer this question. You don't want the wealthy fairly taxed. Check...
AGAIN, why should the person making $97,000 get all of their $ taxed, but not the guy making 1/4 of million shouldn't?
And yes it can pass. It will since it's the CBO's recommendation. If you don't like it, there's the door...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I do want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Fortunately they are, because SS is redistributive. I define fair share by benefit derived, but evidently you define it by ability to pay. Agree to disagree.
First off, if you actually knew anything about SS, you'd know $97k is not the payroll tax cap. It was $106.8k in 2009. SS is insurance, not the soak the rich program. Call it welfare and your point stands.
CBO are not the voters, silly. Voters don't want tax increases.
oterj0 2 years ago
I do thanks. Look farther below, I stated it to another person ;)
Incorrect. They are not paying SS on ALL their income, yet the guy who makes $97,000 is. AGAIN, explain this? BTW, the "their" is "me too" which I'd have to pay & be happy to do so. We disagree
Insulting me with "if you actually knew anything about SS" after demonstrating a full understanding. Neat.
Congressional Budget Office knows far more than you. You have proven you do not. Good day...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
If you define "fair" by benefit derived, then you have to concede that the higher incomes already pay their fair share, because they get a lower ROI on their FICA taxes. By that definition, actually, the poor aren't paying their fair share.
I'm insulting you much like you insulted me for not conceding to your points. Grow thicker skin and read up on SS. You don't understand the tax cap and how benefits are calculated. You're just talking in populist generalities.
oterj0 2 years ago
"I do want the wealthy to pay their fair share"...
No you simply don't. Why are you lying?
Then you go on to incorrectly state "Fortunately they are"
Incorrect. You STILL haven't answered why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million isn't?
You can not. You've also been exposed as a GOP/Neo-con spam account by answering under BOTH oterj0 AND jhamm999. You've dipped, ducked, ignored, mocked me, & never addressed it. This is over.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
Think whatever you like. I did answer your question about the payroll tax cap. It's insurance, not welfare. If it's insurance, why do we need to insure incomes above the cap? People do get benefits for what they pay in. Does it make sense for people to have $10k/mo in SS benefits? Unnecessary.
Grow up. I'm jhamm999 too because we have similar ideas?? I'm not the only conservative out there, believe it or not. If this is over, why didn't you just not reply? If it's over, don't reply.
oterj0 2 years ago
You answered me in 1st person when I replied to jhamm999. Spam so much you lost track.
You DIDN'T answer the question b/c you don't want the wealthy taxed. Check. We're still facing a solvency problem, so it's cut benefits. Check. You want an "opt out of SS" trigger which would destroy it. Check. Then you tried to change SS from a SOCIAL INSURANCE contract with government to basic insurance. BIG differences: Equity vs Adequacy, Voluntary vs Mandatory, Contractual vs Statutory Rights, Funding
Bolgernow 2 years ago
So is it spam when you disagree with the person? You have as many posts as me on this video, so I guess those in glass houses...
My point here is that SS is a scam. It's a Ponzi scheme designed to buy votes for Dems. Even so, I acknowledge it's incredibly popular and that it's insolvency threatens us. So, my premise is that if we must have SS in the short run, we have to make it solvent and I'd rather cut benefits than raise taxes. We can cut rich benefits preferentially.
oterj0 2 years ago
@Bolgernow
why do we need social security? cant people plan their own futures out instead?
if ur dumb and cant manage ur own retirement o well work till you die
GodAthie 2 years ago
Are you asking me why we need a successful program that 90% of Americans like & been in place since 1935?
Are you also asking me why we shouldn't do something that 73% disapproved of Bush/this guys plan of privatizing it in 2007?
Good luck selling your wild claims...
Bolgernow 2 years ago 2
@Bolgernow
social security was not susposed to be given to as many people as it is today.
in 1935 the average life span was 58 and guess what age u collect social security at? 65....
we dont need to priviative, but aldeast we need to cutt benifites because we CANNOT AFFORD IT. and we will break the next generation with all the debt we are collecting from this. With the baby boomers starting to retire NOW is the time to do some reform before we ARE broke
GodAthie 2 years ago
Agreed, reform is important. We need to create solvency. Cutting benefits is not the solution.
*Raise the cap on earnings covered by SS so that once again 93% of all income is taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983. SS taxes are now being applied to only 83%
*Revise the estate tax to funnel into SS beginning in 2012. Reduce the estate tax so that by 2011, only estates above $3.5 million pay it
*Improve return on SS funds by investing in secure equities.
Bolgernow 2 years ago 4
sounds like a lot of re-engineering
hozehd 2 years ago
Sounds like being fiscally responsible to me. I'd assume you'd like that...
I noticed you didn't really address any specifics, just a snide comment reffing to Jeb's buzzword. Nice...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I like some of it I just think its funny that when the republican says "re- engineer" you attack it as a buzzword and Matthews thinks people don't understand what the word re- engineer means because he elitist snob. Then you turn around and say that "reform is important". I guess he should have just substituted re- engineer with reform so you liberals could understand it properly.
hozehd 2 years ago
When you use words like "elitist snob", "so you liberals could understand it properly" makes you appear as a neo-con partisan Republican. Sad...
I'm an independent, but you're so focused on Red team vs. Blue team it's hard to have an honest conversation.
When one understands Jeb is playing politics with words to intentionally misslead voters, that's a problem for me.
If elected he'll cut SS spending plain & simple. Why can't he say it? Because it won't get him elected.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I use the word elitist snob because its an accurate description. Furthermore I'm no neo- con I'm more of an anarcho-libertarian.
"When one understands Jeb is playing politics with words to intentionally misslead voters, that's a problem for me."
Its still elitist snob thinking that people don't understand a word like re engineer no matter what your political ideology.
hozehd 2 years ago
That's not what Chris did. It's not that people didn't understand the words definition, it's Jeb's intentional misuse of it when he means, "I want to cut SS benefits for people"...
It's like asking someone, "Will you cut benefits?", & the person responds "We need to evaluate our options" when the answer is YES. That's the problem...
People who use terms like "elitist snob", or "you liberals" appear to the Sarah Palin tribe. It's their talking points...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
"It's not that people didn't understand the words definition, it's Jeb's intentional misuse of it when he means, "I want to cut SS benefits for people"...
This statement shows very clearly how partisan your being. You yourself said that cuts needed to be made but somehow you've gotten it into your head that just because he didn't want to answer Chris's gotchya question and because hes a republican that he wants to cut ss just for the sake of cutting ss and not as part of a bigger reform.
hozehd 2 years ago
Incorrect! I never stated, "Cuts to SS benefits". That was Jeb who said that, then ran away from it with re-engineering. I never did...
In fact, I said the exact opposite with "Agreed, reform is important. We need to create solvency. Cutting benefits is NOT the solution"
Is it a basic reading comprehension thing?
Bolgernow 2 years ago
there are some benefits that could be cut. Millionaires don't need ss. It wouldn't be a horrible idea let younger people out of the system. To say that the mere mention of the word cut constitutes a horrible idea when talking about ss is a fallacy you seem quite intent on perpetuating and Chris Matthews seem intent on taking advantage of to derail healthy debate on the subject by demonizing his enemy. You have some interesting bedfellows.
hozehd 2 years ago
You don't listen, you can't read, you choose to ignore the specific content of my posts when I bring up credited solutions, & now were back here.
It's called a circular argument...
Every circle needs a jerk. I'm done...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
"Now were back here."
Back where? You, ignoring specifics of my posts, I think so.
It is a circle jerk, Ill get your mom a towl.
hozehd 2 years ago
"People who use terms like "elitist snob", or "you liberals" appear to the Sarah Palin tribe. It's their talking points... "
Yes every one who uses the terms, elitist, liberal, or snob is obviously Palin fan. Your so insightful.
hozehd 2 years ago
If you want to soak the rich, why not just cut benefits for the highest income earners? Raising taxes on them runs the risk of sending them away to a less taxing jurisdiction. If we cut their benefits, it has the same effect of taking from them so the lower incomes can keep current benefits. This would be more palatable than raising the income cap. Would you support?
oterj0 2 years ago
I do not support anything that cuts benefits. My suggestions to fix it are:
*Raise the cap on earnings covered by SS so that once again 93% of all income is taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983. SS taxes are now being applied to only 83%
*Revise the estate tax to funnel into SS beginning in 2012. Reduce the estate tax so that by 2011, only estates above $3.5 million pay it
*Improve return on SS funds by investing in secure equities.
Bolgernow 2 years ago 2
Not even cutting benefits for the rich with NO benefit cuts for the poor? If that's the case, then the country's at impasse. I (and half the country) will not support any payroll tax increases. If you (and the other half) wont support any benefit cuts, then nothing gets done.
Think about your position. You dont want anything to change for the poor, but you're happy to take more $ from the rich and give them less of it back to improve solvency. That's equivalent to cutting the rich's benefits.
oterj0 2 years ago
Learn to read or I'll no longer be responding to your intentionally irresponsible posts.
Never said "Cut benefits" to anyone. Not ONCE. What I said, for the 3rd time, gain the 10% payroll tax/even raise it to 95%. That's amazingly significant for solvency. The estate tax should be fixed & funneled into SS. Now take our $ & INVEST it. You GOP'ers are about the "free market". Getting a 7-10% ROI for the amount of $ will help businesses, more than address the BB, & keep us solvent
Bolgernow 2 years ago
I got your point, relax! I'm suggesting that your idea is equivalent to cutting benefits for the rich, no value judgment. If you want to raise the tax cap, you want to get more $ from the rich, knowing that they won't get back $ for $, thus making SS more solvent. You want to decrease the rich's ROI while leaving the low and mid incomes' ROI unchanged. Okay, I can agree with that principle, but not if we get there by raising taxes. Leave the income cap alone, but cap rich benefits. Same result.
oterj0 2 years ago
"I'm suggesting that your idea is equivalent to cutting benefits for the rich"
Incorrect! It's intentionally misleading. Not "raising the Tax cap to get more $ from the rich". AGAIN, try #6. Only 83% of business/companies/LLC's etc are currently PAYING SS PAYROLL TAXES TODAY. That's not acceptable. If you & I have to pay in, why are the other 17% not? I'd say 100%, no exemptions, but 93% was the threshold set by Congress in 1983, so it's doable. 10% more people paying into the system is HUGE
Bolgernow 2 years ago
bolgernow. the real threat to the ss system is that there are not enough workers to retiree ratio to sustain it. simply put it has become nothing short of a ponzi scheme.
jhamm999 2 years ago
True, that is a serious issue oterj0 brought up as well with the BB retiring. Please see my posts explaining 3 solutions. Adding 10-17% of the work force currently NOT paying SS Payroll tax can be one step in making it always solvent.
It's not a ponzi scheme. Are you a fan of Ayn Rand by chance?
Bolgernow 2 years ago
i have read some of her works. i'm not quite that libertarian. tell me though,i dont think your point that 17% of the workforce doesn't pay fica. now there is a cap on wages i believe of which is around 100k. anything above that they don't pay,and i'm open for discussion on that. what i would really like to see is we do what chile did in 1983 and let the young people opt out if they wish. it does not as some like to deride it force a person to enter the stock market. that is up to them.
jhamm999 2 years ago
No, I don't think you understand...
Currently SS taxes are only being applied to 83% of earnings. That's messed up. Why do some pay, & other do not. Fair is fair. Raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 93% of all income would be taxed & counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress in 1983, the last time it considered this issue. I would say 95-100% but that's just me. That accounts for a massive amount.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
okay, i don't understand. which 17% of people who draw a paycheck do not pay ss tax. i have alwaiys understood that say you made 150k you paid fica on the first 100k,and not the other 50k.
jhamm999 2 years ago
The Social Security tax rate for 2010 is 15.3% on self-employment income up to $106,800. If your net earnings exceed $106,800, you continue to pay only the Medicare portion of the Social Security
tax, which is 2.9%, on the rest of your earnings today. Raise that rate by 28-34%. Let's say taxable on the 1st $250,000. That would handle any short fall. Remember, why should the person making $87,000 get all of it taxed, but not the guy making 1/4 of million?
Bolgernow 2 years ago
okay it's not that they don't pay any tax just you think they need to pay more? the problem i see with that is especially in this down economy you stand a chance of driving unemployment up. but what do you say of a compromise. i give you your tax increase if you give me the opt out option?
jhamm999 2 years ago
Understood & I agree. That's why it wouldn't kick in until 2012 or 2014 when the economy is back on it's feet...
How about no...
Your idea makes no sense. If the goal is to "fix Social Security", now offering an option to "dismantle it to the free market" totally destroys that concept...
You don't want/like/need SS, got that. Well I want a car made of diamonds. We don't always get what we want
Bolgernow 2 years ago
it's not that i have anything against ss,so please don't put words in my mouth. it depends on your goal is. if it is securing a better retirement with more wealth then you would allow workers under 45 to opt out and invest that portion in whatever they want. some will, some won't. i read in a wsj article some ten years ago i think that if you had say a 20 yr old making 20k a year until he retires at 65,you gave him the 6.2% he is paying to ss and invested in a savings acct. he would twice money.
jhamm999 2 years ago
Um, you called it "a ponzi scheme". You want to see an "opt out of Social Security" tool thereby "killing it". That clearly puts you in the "SS=bad" camp.
Guess you're the last to find out your own views...
Again, why should the person making $87,000 be getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million doesn't? Explain.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
yes i called it a ponzi scheme because that what it is. you do understand the way it is now that every penny workers are putting in now go to the general fund and are paid out to cfurrent retirees right? so in other words if you were lucky enough to be born at a certain time then you are getting paid way more than you put in. that is a ponzi. as far as taxing element of your plan it will not even come close to meeting future obligations. at best it is a stop gap measure. 67 trillion unfunded.
jhamm999 2 years ago
You=flatly against SS, & wish to kill it with an "opt out option"
Yet lack the courage to state what you've already basically stated in your views. You don't like it.
You're confusing "ponzi" with "pyramid scheme". Aside from that, SS is neither. You're acting ignorant now stating things that are totally false.
You know the 3 things I suggested to fix SS/MM, but now you wish to either reject, or ignore them.
This is ignorant & has become a circular with no point. I'm done...
Bolgernow 2 years ago
in other words you can't logically refute my assertions so you get snippy and say since you dont agree with me im done. nice. besides letting people decide what to do with their money would not kill the program. chile did it in the eighties and they are doing just fine. just taxing the higher income folks more will not fix the problem. we have 67 trillion in unfunded mandates due to entitlements. how much money would your plan generate? so if anything you would destroy ss.
jhamm999 2 years ago
You state: "in other words you can't logically refute my assertions so you get snippy". Simply not true. A lie.
I did. I explained 3 ways to fix SS/MM & make it solvent. You ignored & rejected them. You don't WANT SS/MM when you ask for "opt out of it" option. You want to KILL IT.
I have been more than patent with you, but stating that SS "it's a ponzi scheme", "people should be able to opt out", & "the taxing in your plan will not even come close" are lies
The CBO rejects your views
Bolgernow 2 years ago
notice you did not answer the question about how much the tax will raise. also about the 67 trillion in unfunded mandates? your three ways will help temporarily,but not long term,or benefit people to the fullest if you don't give them control of their money. study the example of chile that i laid out for you. then tell me they can do it but we can't. p.s. if you do let people opt out and a few generations from now no one is in the ss system,what does that tell you about the system to start with?
jhamm999 2 years ago
Happy too...
According to CBO, these 3 adjustments will eliminate the 75-year projected shortfall. There are 2 others that will contribute to a SS surplus. 1st, accurate consumer price index recently developed by the BLS. 2nd cover all new state & local employees under SS. With all adjustments, the system will generate a surplus over the 75 years. Can finally answer why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million isn't? Explain
Bolgernow 2 years ago
SS is insurance. FICA taxes are one's own payment for social insurance from the govt. No one needs to have their income insured above a certain level. Do rich people really need to get SS benefits of $10k/mo to be insured? Your argument only makes sense if the purpose of SS is not social insurance, but welfare. If it's welfare, then fair enough, why should all their income be taxed. Since it's insurance, there's no need to insure income that high.
oterj0 2 years ago
Um, you just responded to my to jhamm999 response in 1st person. GOP/Neo-con spam accounts, nothing more
Bolgernow 2 years ago
The one that starts "Hear, hear!"? I wasn't talking to you, I was talking about you to jhamm999. Think whatever you like, but I thought "this [was] over"? Why do you keep replying if you're done?
oterj0 2 years ago
Oh, okay, I see it. The one about the car of diamonds. I'm sorry that you're so paranoid that you think someone jumping in on your discussion with someone else means the two are one in the same.
oterj0 2 years ago
No you don't. You don't see much that people see though your lies, GOP bullshit spam.
jhamm999 said "notice you did not answer the question about how much the tax will raise"
I responded to him/you with: "Happy too..."
Then you/jhamm999 responded to mine in 1st person with: "SS is insurance. FICA taxes are one's own payment for social insurance from the govt"
Troll spammer. Nothing more
Bolgernow 2 years ago
Is this how you debate? Accusing peole of being spammers? I hope our discussion(s) is(are) of value to someone trying to learn something about different ideas on SS. I'm sorry it has to end with you freaking out and calling me a spammer, but I'm sorry to disappoint, I'm not. I can have some harsh words for your ideas and understanding of SS, but I'm not going to try and defame all your posts by calling you a spammer or whatever. You win, you're the bigger jerk, I guess.
oterj0 2 years ago
like i said before i'm agnostic when it comes to your point about taxes. for the cpi index or tying the cola to the price of inflation. you realize state and local employees have the opt provision right?. btw did you check out the example of chile?
jhamm999 2 years ago
Like I said, you won't/can't answer, "Why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy 1/4 of million isn't?"
It their $ more important to the overall solvency of SS? Explain
Bolgernow 2 years ago
i did answer. i said i'm agnostic ,meaning i could care less one way or the other. but i must say your partisanship is showing. why not raise it on everyone regardless of income and uncap it totally? btw why won't you answer my point of what chile did with letting their people opt out? is that because you would find out it worked? also i don't make the laws so i don't know why there is a cap. i would appreciate though you answering my point on chile.
jhamm999 2 years ago
Saying "I don't care" doesn't answer a basic question. It totally AVOIDS it because you can not. It's what children do when they don't want to eat their veggies...
I've politely answered ALL your questions. How does one answer "a point about Chile"? AGAIN, please answer. Thanks
Bolgernow 2 years ago
well i guess i could say i'm for it or against it,but i would be lying if i did. you did want an honest answer right? you know what i meant about chile. i explained it to you before. in 1983 they were facing the same problems with their ss system as we are. they let the young people opt out if they wished. some did some didn't. now they are very solvent. so it kind of shoots down your theory of if we do it here then the system would blow up. so what are you saying. chile can do it but not us?
jhamm999 2 years ago
"well i guess i could say i'm for it or against it,but i would be lying if i did."
I have my answer. You don't WANT to tax the 2nd man for his full income. You simply don't. We not only disagree. You believe with additional $ comes additional privileges to be exempt from. I believe everyone, EVERYONE should pay his or her fair share.
Why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy making 1/4 of a million isn't?
"Opt out" will kill it here. That's obvious.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
if i didn't want to tax them i would have said so ,kreskin,o.k. again you have this bad habit of trying to read people's minds when u just can't. so am i to deduce that you have ignored my point about chile successfully offering an opt out program that it is either you are afraid that i'm right,or you are ignorant to the fact,or you just don't think we americans are up to it like chile was?
jhamm999 2 years ago
American is not Chile. In our current horrible political climate, with lobbyist pressure & marketing it would die.
I have asked you a specific question. The answer is vital. You refuse to answer saying, "don't care". Well if you "don't care" then let's agree to raise the cap having 93% SS payroll tax on all income then. Fine. Done. We agree
Bolgernow 2 years ago
Why is it that raising the payroll tax cap increases solvency? In SS, benefits are related to income subject to tax, so increasing income subject to tax for the rich, just increases their benefits. So how does it improve solvency? Because SS has a redistributive benefits calculation. Basically, the payroll tax cap increase makes the system solvent by making the system more redistributive. Be careful what you do here. If you make it a soak the rich program, they'll stop supporting it.
oterj0 2 years ago
Why is the person making $87,000 getting fully taxed on their income, but the guy making 1/4 of a million isn't?
Asking people to pay what they owe is fair. What you call "soaking the rich", is paying what you owe...
As they say, that's the $ of success. Since you reject it, feel free to move to a more unfair dictatorship cast system based on oppressing the middle class
Bolgernow 2 years ago
america is not chile. yes. we are supposed to be better. i refuse to accept that our country who helped win two world wars,defeat communism,nazism,the freest country the world has known cannot do what chile did. thats absurd, so go ahead with the tax raises but we will be back before you know it because you won't get the money you need because the rich will shelter their money. we tried this in the eighties and it did not work out. the sys tem is fundamentally flawed.
jhamm999 2 years ago
Yes, but with a car of diamonds, you can have it, it would just take a lot of money. However, with SS, my choices are pay SS or go to jail. Not much of a choice.
oterj0 2 years ago
Hear, hear! I think Bolgernow recognizes he was intentionally confounding the issue about the payroll tax cap to imply that 17% of people were simply not part of SS. Of course, that's not true, it's just that the payroll tax cap leaves 17% of income (not people, income) untaxed. Why? People making above those incomes simply don't need to buy any more social insurance. Why tax them on the higher income only to give it back to them when they retire. It's insurance, not retirement.
oterj0 2 years ago
Hey, you took did read up on SS! Congrats!
oterj0 2 years ago
oterjo.ss is sold as a retirement supplement. i'm sure that you get your statement every year that says how much you get according to when you retire. then at the bottom it states that by 2037 due to the shortage of workers your benefits will decrease by25%.?
jhamm999 2 years ago
I get those statements, but I trash them immediately. I know that by the time I retire, after 2037, I'll be fortunate to get any benefits at all. I'm banking on paying SS taxes all my life to get $0 back. Probably explains a lot about why I'd prefer an opt out or some benefit cuts now. I'm not stupid. I know intergenerational theft when I see it.
oterj0 2 years ago
well i'm twice your age and i understand completely. so if i retire at 70 i would get full benefits for 11 years. you are familiar with what chile did right? and yes it is theft. but too many pols are afraid to do the right thing because older people vote and younger ones not so much.
jhamm999 2 years ago
I'm only familiar with what I've read about the Chilean system, but it sounds like what Bush had proposed back in '05. I guess the biggest thing about their system that appeals is the idea that your money can be tracked unlike the paygo (ahem Ponzi scheme) system we have.
You're right that as long as young people don't vote and older people do, intergenerational theft is a good way to buy votes. Not sure it'd be any better if the youngsters started voting, though; college brainwashes them.
oterj0 2 years ago
you're right. but chile let them opt out entirely while bush would let them take only a couple of points.
jhamm999 2 years ago
"...has average Americans gambling with retirement."
But I thought SS wasn't retirement, but insurance? This drives me crazy. SS is insurance when someone points out its redistributive nature, it's retirement when someone suggests privatizing it, it's whatever serves the political interest of maintaining status quo, isn't it? Entitlements make up the largest share of our federal budget. It's going to be reformed eventually either through Congress or revolution. Take your pick.
oterj0 2 years ago
You wish to cut successful program that 90-95% of Americans like & been in place since 1935?
Good luck selling your insane irrational claims
Your claim of "Entitlements make up the largest share of our federal budget" is incorrect & a lie. They make up 39% of the overall budget.
The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan make up 57% of our federal budget. The other 4% is TARP. Please educate yourself on the facts. If you're using "revolution" as a threat, bring it ace. The army will put you down
Bolgernow 2 years ago
People like getting money, no argument, but if that money doesn't exist, then we're infeasible and something has to give. Your math is patently false. 39(entitle)+57(war)+4(TARP)=100. So where is everything else in the budget? I guess there's no discretionary spending whatsoever? Even if your bogus #s were true, what happens when the wars end and their spend becomes negligible? SS/Medi must be reformed. With what money will the govt buy guns to fight off insurrection if entitlements bankrupt us?
oterj0 2 years ago
Look up the budget #'ers yourself. They're on-line.
Defense=23%, SS=20%, MM=19%(20+19=39%), Other Mandatory=17%(93% for rising war cost/additional defense/HLS/Security agencies keeping us safe, ect), Other Discretionary=12%(95% for reconstruction in Iraq & Afghanistan & infrastructure)
The Department of Defense (DoD) separates war funding from base funding. They triple dip. 2 wars, blowing stuff up, then rebuilding it all costs serious $. OUR OWN US infrastructure only got 4% in TARP
Bolgernow 2 years ago
"Even if your bogus #s were true, what happens when the wars end and their spend becomes negligible?"
Then you have what's commonly known as a "budget surplus". THAT'S why isn't important we wind down Iraq this August, then Afgan within a year.
I suggested 3 ways to reform SS/MM which have totally ignored, until you thoughtfully address them, we really have nothing to discuss.
Bolgernow 2 years ago
Oh My God - THIS REPRESENTATIVE IS DUMB AS DIRT.
DillonX 2 years ago