Let's Tax the Rich More!

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah you said that already.

So your point is that the single mom making $15,000 to support her kid should pay 20% tax on the first dollar of her income?

15% is more than enough IMO.

No she'd be paying 12.5% not 7.5% because her employer pays half of her SS tax

Sorry, I should have said "effectively paying." She is already effectively paying 15% (including medicare taxes) since the employer's part comes out in the form of lower salary; so your point is she should pay effectively 20% tax on the first dollar she makes?

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person actually pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

 

[MaggieMae]

Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

 

[sealybobo]

Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Remarkable fothrightness by Rush.

His point explains why the GOP have fought so hard to reduce/eliminate things like investment and estate taxes.

Checkmate.

So now the righties can continue to argue for their masters, who in reality aren't even paying any taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

No she'd be paying 12.5% not 7.5% because her employer pays half of her SS tax

Sorry, I should have said "effectively paying." She is already effectively paying 15% (including medicare taxes) since the employer's part comes out in the form of lower salary; so your point is she should pay effectively 20% tax on the first dollar she makes?

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

to the contrary, I've cited twice now statements from the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation that most economist conclude that the employers' portion is really paid by the employee in terms of lower wages.
See post # 52.

You've cited nothing to the contrary.

The unchallenged conclusions of these organizations is good enough for me. I can understand why conservatives would want to minimize the taxes the poorer actually bear because if they pay "no taxes" then you have a better argument that they should be paying something and/or its not fair to tax the rich more.

But the evidence is otherwise.

 

[sealybobo]

remove the portion of military spending for fighting 2 wars we should not be fighting and what do you get?

Why would you remove the two wars? That's how the GOP/Haloburton/Blackwater/KBR and every other Dick Cheney subsidiary is making all their money. And this has a lot to do with our economy, budget, deficit, debt, etc.

You do know that, right?

Socialize the losses and privatize the profits. What a plan.

And you can say that the Afgan was wasn't Bush's fault, except for that it was his fault, because he got hit on 9-11. Can you imagine if a 9-11 happened to Obama? Would you be so kind to give Obama the free pass you gave Georgie? Fuck no.

I was going to say Iraq was his fault, but on second thought, both wars are.

because you idiot, i was never in favor of Iraq or Afghanistan and i thought you weren't either.

So you're in favor of unnecessary wars as long as it's a Dimocrat in charge right?

Bush and the GOP didn't need the two wars to break pork records:

In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills.

Where were you tea baggers then?

31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:

[O]ne of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks. … My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:

– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”

– Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY), “a target of Democrats in this year’s midterm elections,” secured “a $3.5 million research grant for a local surgical team. The funds came not from congressional earmarks but from Pentagon accounts, according to the report.”

– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.”

Bush may say he’s against pork, but in his six years as President, Bush has never once vetoed any of Congress’s pork-laden spending bills.

This was from 2006, before the Dems took over Congress. NOT ONE VETO when the GOP were breaking pork records. And don't blame Bush 100%, because it was Tom Delay's GOP and also Dennis Hastert.

Think Progress » 31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem

So can you see why we don't think you are being genuine? You are against pork when the Dems are in charge. You are against the social programs we like. Well, you lost the election, so we are cutting waste (the programs you like) and we are funding programs we like.

And did you see the part where Bush hid pork in Pentagon spending? Obama is transparent. At least a lot more than Bush was. Just like Clinton had a surplus. At least compared to the GOP Presidents he did.

 

[manu1959]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

The poor don't pay taxes.

if they buy anything they do..........

 

[Skull Pilot]

Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why would you remove the two wars? That's how the GOP/Haloburton/Blackwater/KBR and every other Dick Cheney subsidiary is making all their money. And this has a lot to do with our economy, budget, deficit, debt, etc.

You do know that, right?

Socialize the losses and privatize the profits. What a plan.

And you can say that the Afgan was wasn't Bush's fault, except for that it was his fault, because he got hit on 9-11. Can you imagine if a 9-11 happened to Obama? Would you be so kind to give Obama the free pass you gave Georgie? Fuck no.

I was going to say Iraq was his fault, but on second thought, both wars are.

because you idiot, i was never in favor of Iraq or Afghanistan and i thought you weren't either.

So you're in favor of unnecessary wars as long as it's a Dimocrat in charge right?

Bush and the GOP didn't need the two wars to break pork records:

In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills.

Where were you tea baggers then?

31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:

[O]ne of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks. … My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:

– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”

– Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY), “a target of Democrats in this year’s midterm elections,” secured “a $3.5 million research grant for a local surgical team. The funds came not from congressional earmarks but from Pentagon accounts, according to the report.”

– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.”

Bush may say he’s against pork, but in his six years as President, Bush has never once vetoed any of Congress’s pork-laden spending bills.

This was from 2006, before the Dems took over Congress. NOT ONE VETO when the GOP were breaking pork records. And don't blame Bush 100%, because it was Tom Delay's GOP and also Dennis Hastert.

Think Progress » 31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem

So can you see why we don't think you are being genuine? You are against pork when the Dems are in charge. You are against the social programs we like. Well, you lost the election, so we are cutting waste (the programs you like) and we are funding programs we like.

And did you see the part where Bush hid pork in Pentagon spending? Obama is transparent. At least a lot more than Bush was. Just like Clinton had a surplus. At least compared to the GOP Presidents he did.

And I never voted for Bush so what's your point?

 

[Care4all]

No she'd be paying 12.5% not 7.5% because her employer pays half of her SS tax

Sorry, I should have said "effectively paying." She is already effectively paying 15% (including medicare taxes) since the employer's part comes out in the form of lower salary; so your point is she should pay effectively 20% tax on the first dollar she makes?

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person actually pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

The corporations I had worked for acted like what they paid in social security for me was part of my salary/earnings and always included it in with my statement they sent me at the end of the year, describing what I earned and how it broke down, x amount in salary, x amount in bonus, x amount in social security, x amount in life insurance they paid for me, x amount in health insurance they paid, x amount in profit sharing, x amount to match my 401k etc.....

Maybe a small business would not pay the extra SS money to their employees if it were dropped as you imply, but that would be A DAMN SHAME and quite selfish and greedy of them imo....and gives reason to the gvt keeping it as a tax they have to pay, a benefit they have to pay....if small businesses or other companies decide to POCKET IT and leave their employees hanging, when it comes to their retirement then these companies can take their companies and shove it up where the sun don't shine...as far as I am concerned. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... and we wonder why we HAVE to have SS forced by our government? sheesh...

Care

 

[sealybobo]

remove the portion of military spending for fighting 2 wars we should not be fighting and what do you get?

Why would you remove the two wars? That's how the GOP/Haloburton/Blackwater/KBR and every other Dick Cheney subsidiary is making all their money. And this has a lot to do with our economy, budget, deficit, debt, etc.

You do know that, right?

Socialize the losses and privatize the profits. What a plan.

And you can say that the Afgan was wasn't Bush's fault, except for that it was his fault, because he got hit on 9-11. Can you imagine if a 9-11 happened to Obama? Would you be so kind to give Obama the free pass you gave Georgie? Fuck no.

I was going to say Iraq was his fault, but on second thought, both wars are.

because you idiot, i was never in favor of Iraq or Afghanistan and i thought you weren't either.

So you're in favor of unnecessary wars as long as it's a Dimocrat in charge right?

Earmarking has also been at the center of recent bribery scandals, including one that led to the imprisonment of former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican.

Lots of earmarks qualify under either criterion. Consider a $1 million water-free urinal conservation initiative obtained by Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., or a $500,000 grant for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska, slipped into a Pentagon spending bill by GOP Sen. Ted Stevens.

Some of these earmarks are more audacious than others. For example, last year there was a "bridge to nowhere," a $223 million project connecting Alaska's Gravina Island — population 50 — to the mainland. That project drew so much ridicule from the media that an irate public successfully demanded that the bridge be shelved.

Even though term limit rules have forced Stevens out as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, he still runs its defense subcommittee and managed to deliver $325 million to Alaska, according to the group's estimates. That comes to about $490 per man, woman and child in the state.

FOXNews.com - 'Pork Barrel' Spending Hit Record High in 2005, Watchdog Says - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

The nationwide average is $31 in pork per capita. That means larger states such as Georgia, Florida, Texas and Michigan are not getting an equal share compared with smaller states represented by veterans like Stevens.

Earmarks have blossomed under GOP control of Congress. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., advocated the practice to help cement GOP majorities.

Now, core GOP voters are restive over the party's record on spending.

The public is angered by scandals such as the bribery conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who took more than $2.4 million in using his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to obtain earmarks in behalf of defense contractors

Checkmate SKULL.

By far Red states take more pork than blue. And blue states pay more fed taxes than we take, and red states take more than they give.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry, I should have said "effectively paying." She is already effectively paying 15% (including medicare taxes) since the employer's part comes out in the form of lower salary; so your point is she should pay effectively 20% tax on the first dollar she makes?

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

to the contrary, I've cited twice now statements from the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation that most economist conclude that the employers' portion is really paid by the employee in terms of lower wages.
See post # 52.

You've cited nothing to the contrary.

The unchallenged conclusions of these organizations is good enough for me. I can understand why conservatives would want to minimize the taxes the poorer actually bear because if they pay "no taxes" then you have a better argument that they should be paying something and/or its not fair to tax the rich more.

But the evidence is otherwise.

an assumption by economists is not proof

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry, I should have said "effectively paying." She is already effectively paying 15% (including medicare taxes) since the employer's part comes out in the form of lower salary; so your point is she should pay effectively 20% tax on the first dollar she makes?

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person actually pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

The corporations I had worked for acted like what they paid in social security for me was part of my salary/earnings and always included it in with my statement they sent me at the end of the year, describing what I earned and how it broke down, x amount in salary, x amount in bonus, x amount in social security, x amount in life insurance they paid for me, x amount in health insurance they paid, x amount in profit sharing, x amount to match my 401k etc.....

Maybe a small business would not pay the extra SS money to their employees if it were dropped as you imply, but that would be A DAMN SHAME and quite selfish and greedy of them imo....and gives reason to the gvt keeping it as a tax they have to pay, a benefit they have to pay....if small businesses or other companies decide to POCKET IT and leave their employees hanging, when it comes to their retirement then these companies can take their companies and shove it up where the sun don't shine...as far as I am concerned. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... and we wonder why we HAVE to have SS forced by our government? sheesh...

Care

I already offer a retirement plan with a match for my employees so if I didn't have to pay that 7.5% of payroll for my employees i would keep some of it and i would use most of it to improve the business, expand, buy new equipment, hire more people yeah gee that's really greedy of me. Horrors, i would like to employ MORE people but because i have to pay into a corrupt Ponzi scheme i can't.

And really is it your employer's responsibility to make sure you save for retirement?

 

[edthecynic]

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

A Cynic could do better.
Start a Ministry, and pack your board with family members. You can then "donate" things to your "Ministry" and get a tax deduction for it. For instance, you donate said building to your ministry, you get a tax deduction for the APPRAISED value which you can spread over three years, but even better, when you go to pay your electric bill or heat, whatever, you donate the money and get a tax deduction for all your expenses. When you die, your wife or child becomes head of your Ministry and inherits CONTROL tax free because there are only taxes on what you "own" not on what you "control" and your tax free Ministry "owns" the building.
That's how the Blue-Bloods pass CONTROL of their wealth, tax free, from generation to generation.

 

[Care4all]

who are these blue bloods???

 

[manu1959]

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

A Cynic could do better.
Start a Ministry, and pack your board with family members. You can then "donate" things to your "Ministry" and get a tax deduction for it. For instance, you donate said building to your ministry, you get a tax deduction for the APPRAISED value which you can spread over three years, but even better, when you go to pay your electric bill or heat, whatever, you donate the money and get a tax deduction for all your expenses. When you die, your wife or child becomes head of your Ministry and inherits CONTROL tax free because there are only taxes on what you "own" not on what you "control" and your tax free Ministry "owns" the building.
That's how the Blue-Bloods pass CONTROL of their wealth, tax free, from generation to generation.

that isn't how we do it at all......

 

[edthecynic]

who are these blue bloods???

They are the 60 families who started phony charities, like The Rockefeller Foundation, etc., before the law was changed to prevent you and me from packing the board of a "charity" with family members.
But Pat Robertson found a loophole for Ministries, separation of Church and State prevents the government from saying who can and can't sit on a religious ministry's board.

 

[Care4all]

you have absolutely no evidence that if an employer didn't have to pay the 7.5% for SS that the employee would receive a higher income.

this is about what a person actually pays,not what a person "effectively" pays

The corporations I had worked for acted like what they paid in social security for me was part of my salary/earnings and always included it in with my statement they sent me at the end of the year, describing what I earned and how it broke down, x amount in salary, x amount in bonus, x amount in social security, x amount in life insurance they paid for me, x amount in health insurance they paid, x amount in profit sharing, x amount to match my 401k etc.....

Maybe a small business would not pay the extra SS money to their employees if it were dropped as you imply, but that would be A DAMN SHAME and quite selfish and greedy of them imo....and gives reason to the gvt keeping it as a tax they have to pay, a benefit they have to pay....if small businesses or other companies decide to POCKET IT and leave their employees hanging, when it comes to their retirement then these companies can take their companies and shove it up where the sun don't shine...as far as I am concerned. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... and we wonder why we HAVE to have SS forced by our government? sheesh...

Care

I already offer a retirement plan with a match for my employees so if I didn't have to pay that 7.5% of payroll for my employees i would keep some of it and i would use most of it to improve the business, expand, buy new equipment, hire more people yeah gee that's really greedy of me. Horrors, i would like to employ MORE people but because i have to pay into a corrupt Ponzi scheme i can't.

And really is it your employer's responsibility to make sure you save for retirement?

but you'd be taking away this portion of their social security retirement? If they had to now add to their own private retirement plan to supplement what they also were contributing to their 401k, and if you don't give them what you were paying in their name for their retirement thru SS, then they won't have this retirement money to live off of when old?

''Who gives a shit'' is NOT the moral or ethical answer imo skull, no matter how you sweeten it up...though i do understand where you are coming from to a degree....

thus the reason to keep it, where you are forced to care about your dedicated workers!

care

 

[Lycurgus]

'Let's Tax the Rich More!'


There ya go, tax me to death, yeah, yeah keep it coming, the more you take me, the more I layoff, the more I layoff, the more you tax me. Just remember, I have the option of cashing in and retiring and/or relocation, do your voters?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The corporations I had worked for acted like what they paid in social security for me was part of my salary/earnings and always included it in with my statement they sent me at the end of the year, describing what I earned and how it broke down, x amount in salary, x amount in bonus, x amount in social security, x amount in life insurance they paid for me, x amount in health insurance they paid, x amount in profit sharing, x amount to match my 401k etc.....

Maybe a small business would not pay the extra SS money to their employees if it were dropped as you imply, but that would be A DAMN SHAME and quite selfish and greedy of them imo....and gives reason to the gvt keeping it as a tax they have to pay, a benefit they have to pay....if small businesses or other companies decide to POCKET IT and leave their employees hanging, when it comes to their retirement then these companies can take their companies and shove it up where the sun don't shine...as far as I am concerned. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... and we wonder why we HAVE to have SS forced by our government? sheesh...

Care

I already offer a retirement plan with a match for my employees so if I didn't have to pay that 7.5% of payroll for my employees i would keep some of it and i would use most of it to improve the business, expand, buy new equipment, hire more people yeah gee that's really greedy of me. Horrors, i would like to employ MORE people but because i have to pay into a corrupt Ponzi scheme i can't.

And really is it your employer's responsibility to make sure you save for retirement?

but you'd be taking away this portion of their social security retirement? If they had to now add to their own private retirement plan to supplement what they also were contributing to their 401k, and if you don't give them what you were paying in their name for their retirement thru SS, then they won't have this retirement money to live off of when old?

''Who gives a shit'' is NOT the moral or ethical answer imo skull, no matter how you sweeten it up...though i do understand where you are coming from to a degree....

thus the reason to keep it, where you are forced to care about your dedicated workers!

care

you mean the SS that pays much less than if they saved that money themselves?
You mean the SS that uses the money confiscated from employees to cook the government's books?
You mean the SS that provides the worst disability protection on the planet?

That SS.

And you say you care about people.

if you truly did, you'd want to abolish that corrupt Ponzi scheme and vote for people to control their own money.

 

[Iriemon]

I already offer a retirement plan with a match for my employees so if I didn't have to pay that 7.5% of payroll for my employees i would keep some of it and i would use most of it to improve the business, expand, buy new equipment, hire more people yeah gee that's really greedy of me. Horrors, i would like to employ MORE people but because i have to pay into a corrupt Ponzi scheme i can't.

And really is it your employer's responsibility to make sure you save for retirement?

but you'd be taking away this portion of their social security retirement? If they had to now add to their own private retirement plan to supplement what they also were contributing to their 401k, and if you don't give them what you were paying in their name for their retirement thru SS, then they won't have this retirement money to live off of when old?

''Who gives a shit'' is NOT the moral or ethical answer imo skull, no matter how you sweeten it up...though i do understand where you are coming from to a degree....

thus the reason to keep it, where you are forced to care about your dedicated workers!

care

you mean the SS that pays much less than if they saved that money themselves?

That is not necessarily true. A person who lives a long life could very well end up with more SS benefits. Plus SS provides disability and death benefits.

You mean the SS that uses the money confiscated from employees to cook the government's books?

Yes! To finance income tax cut generated deficits. Tax the poor more to give tax cuts to the rich eh?

You mean the SS that provides the worst disability protection on the planet?

How is it worse than none?

That SS.

And you say you care about people.

if you truly did, you'd want to abolish that corrupt Ponzi scheme and vote for people to control their own money.

I kind of like living in a country where thanks to SS we don't have hordes of the disable, survivors or old folks living under freeways.