Obamacare

[59 Dano]

I think a better solution would be to tax all income but have a maximum monthly payout. And maybe not tax all of it at the same rate. For example Social Security tax is levied on the first $100k or so, maybe add a 3% tax to all income above that without an employer match. Or more, or require the employer matches too.

If I'm making over the current limit and get hit with that new 6% tax, I'd better be getting a proper increase in benefits to go along with it. Otherwise, if it's practical, I'm going to opt for better benefits in lieu of the money that would be taxed.

 

[vantexan]

I believe you people voted for decades. Repeatedly. For people who over and over spent your money. You need to take responsibility.

You have no right to force young people to pay for your failures.

How is raising taxes above the current limit forcing the young to pay for it? Current tax rates would remain the same, just taxing all income instead of up to a certain point. Do most young adults make over $100k? And guess what, we paid those same taxes all these years too.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

How is raising taxes above the current limit forcing the young to pay for it? Current tax rates would remain the same, just taxing all income instead of up to a certain point. Do most young adults make over $100k? And guess what, we paid those same taxes all these years too.

No you didn't pay the same taxes you're proposing young people pay.

You want to tax me more, and pay out less to me. No thanks. You made your bed, time to die in it.

 

[vantexan]

No you didn't pay the same taxes you're proposing young people pay.

You want to tax me more, and pay out less to me. No thanks. You made your bed, time to die in it.

I'm talking about keeping it solvent for future generations. I'm perfectly fine if they only pay us what they collect from payroll and employer match. But as I said, the only increase would be above the current limit, and anyone paying that would get the maximum monthly payment. You don't seem concerned about everyone being forced to pay higher premiums, etc in order to subsidize low paid individuals in healthcare.

 

[Fred's Myth]

DIDO needs a Participation Trophy to make him feel better about himself.

Never mind that he's benefitting from the shared sacrifices of the preceding generations.

 

[floridays]

If I'm making over the current limit and get hit with that new 6% tax, I'd better be getting a proper increase in benefits to go along with it. Otherwise, if it's practical, I'm going to opt for better benefits in lieu of the money that would be taxed.

Change the limit, is that posssible? Raise for years of inflation? I'm sure you are against the amt? If so why? Don't really think you were high enough in the fedex food chain to negotiate compensation. I stand to be corrected, correct me.

 

[floridays]

No you didn't pay the same taxes you're proposing young people pay.

You want to tax me more, and pay out less to me. No thanks. You made your bed, time to die in it.

And you think Van is how old? He was born in the bed. You love socialism, your time comes to pay up and support it.
Donald J Trump is your President, my subtle reminder to you.

 

[floridays]

DIDO needs a Participation Trophy to make him feel better about himself.

Never mind that he's benefitting from the shared sacrifices of the preceding generations.

Mr. Myth, that's the only trophy DIDO will get.

 

[dmac1]

Unless you work in an exempt industry, you ARE forced to participate in Social Security, through employer required withholding and match, or self-employed income reporting. Welcome to the actual discussion.

Your second post ascribed a scenario that, too, had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. What was actually described was taxing someone via FICA/SECA and applying a means test to determine eligibility. That would be illegal taxation. Social Security money is yours, placed in a trust, until you qualify to withdraw it. Try reading slower, it might help.

Social Security is INSURANCE meant to provide you with a minimal amount of security in your old age. The wealthy already have 'social security'

And yes, just like Obamacare, you can be taxed to promote the general welfare. You obviously couldn't see the connection. Social Security IS a tax just like the penalty on not having health insurance. And no one 'forces' you to work. There are millions living on the streets who have never worked. But if you choose to work, you will be taxed. You are free to not work, or work, as YOU decide. Claiming that Obamacare, or Social Security is stupid because any demands you face based on living in a society is by definition 'socialist.'

AND you seem awful intent on making it appear that my reply was not relevant when it was in direct reply to a post claiming being forced to buy insurance. I really think it is you who needs to try hard to keep up with the conversation, since making comments like your's proves that you comment without even thinking, or even looking at and reading the original post in context. All of that makes you appear either very slow, or just willfully ignorant, and a hothead.

You are aware that posts go to the end of the page, and not necessarily in the place the post is replying to, aren't you? Or were you ignorant of that as well??????

 

[dmac1]

Revenues went up every year of the Reagan administration...

EDIT: Except one.

Revenues went up because he raised taxes and spent more money and raised the debt. If the government spends $1.5 trillion, of course when that money is spent and someone gets more in income, revenue will increase. But revenues won't increase as much as the deficit amount spent.

Under Reagan massive amounts were spent on boondoggle defense projects, and when contractor are paid, of course some of what they get paid goes back in taxes. IF you think that adding willy-nilly to the debt just to raise revenue makes sense, it means you are a republican. If you think that adding targeted spending to the debt to gradually decrease the debt, it means you are a republican. These untargeted tax cuts being proposed now will only increase profits and stock values, a gift to the wealthy. If instead they took $1.5 trillion and built new roads, repaired infrastructure, modernized the electric grid, etc, etc, it would GUARANTEE more hiring. The repub plan is just HOPING that business does something good with their added profit, while infrastructure spending ACTUALLY accomplishes something good.

 

[dmac1]

So give you yours, and raise taxes on the young to make sure you get it.

Me me me.
Baby boomers are the worst.

You seem to think that raising taxes on workers is the only way to make Social Security solvent. IF social security insurance is actually treated like insurance, wealthy people who are already 'socially secure' wouldn't get a dime even if they paid in all their lives. You don't get to collect on fire insurance if you don't have a fire. Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan for the wealthy.

There are two simple ways to make social security solvent- first, either raise or eliminate the cap on income taxed. Next would be means testing.

Means testing would make SS real insurance, and since the wealthy benefit so greatly from living in our society, more than anyone else, all of their income should be taxed, just like the the teacher, or police officer, or coal miner, or delivery driver has every cent that he/she earns taxed.

And social security is not a fund you contribute to that builds up, that you collect from later. Otherwise, when people died, the amount paid in would go to the estate.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You don't seem concerned about everyone being forced to pay higher premiums, etc in order to subsidize low paid individuals in healthcare.

Typical liberal deflection. I am actually.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

DIDO needs a Participation Trophy to make him feel better about himself.

Never mind that he's benefitting from the shared sacrifices of the preceding generations.

Hahaha. Shared sacrifices lmao. You're delusional.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You seem to think that raising taxes on workers is the only way to make Social Security solvent. IF social security insurance is actually treated like insurance, wealthy people who are already 'socially secure' wouldn't get a dime even if they paid in all their lives. You don't get to collect on fire insurance if you don't have a fire. Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan for the wealthy.

There are two simple ways to make social security solvent- first, either raise or eliminate the cap on income taxed. Next would be means testing.

Means testing would make SS real insurance, and since the wealthy benefit so greatly from living in our society, more than anyone else, all of their income should be taxed, just like the the teacher, or police officer, or coal miner, or delivery driver has every cent that he/she earns taxed.

And social security is not a fund you contribute to that builds up, that you collect from later. Otherwise, when people died, the amount paid in would go to the estate.

We fundamentally disagree on the role of government. I'm against social security altogether in case you didn't notice.

 

[Meat]

We fundamentally disagree on the role of government. I'm against social security altogether in case you didn't notice.

What is your current net-worth?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

What is your current net-worth?

None of your business.

 

[Meat]

None of your business.

Well, should you divulge, it may-or-may-not give credence to your SSA position.

Would you say your at least upper-middle-class?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Well, should you divulge, it may-or-may-not give credence to your SSA position.

Would you say your at least upper-middle-class?

If ssa is to be used as insurance, that's fine, but the federal government has no business running it. They've proven that. My worth and income are irrelevant.

 

[bbsam]

Sounds like you believe Social Security taxes are charitable donations, and not monies placed in trust for those whose wages were reduced by those taxes. Are you a Marxist by any chance?

Where is that trust located?

 

[Meat]

If ssa is to be used as insurance, that's fine, but the federal government has no business running it. They've proven that. My worth and income are irrelevant.

I’m not interested enough in this post to see why you would consider an SSA benefit as insurance, or why the government shouldn’t be running said “insurance” - please provide a synopsis.