Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[pvsi]

Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

I believe the question itself is flawed - can a fat man afford insects to bite him? yes he can. some people take precautions though. if poor people are not insects, they should change their mentality: most of the billionaires who pretend to care about poverty are a bunch of hypocrites - drug lords in Colombia also always donate lots of money to charity, and I think we all know why. but the poor people do not need anything from the rich, they just need to be left alone and not oppressed by the rich - try to guess how they become rich in the first place instead of living with a mosquito mentality.

 

[auditor0007]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post

For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

SS is easily fixable, and yes it might include raising taxes a bit on the wealthy, but it should also include an increase in the retirement age.

 

[RKMBrown]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post



The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

SS is easily fixable, and yes it might include raising taxes a bit on the wealthy, but it should also include an increase in the retirement age.

Easily fixable... ROFL Yeah it's only has what 50Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

 

[bripat9643]

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

SS is easily fixable, and yes it might include raising taxes a bit on the wealthy, but it should also include an increase in the retirement age.

Easily fixable... ROFL Yeah it's only has what 50Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

Yeah, my financial statement would improve dramatically if I looted the property of the rich people in the neighborhood down the road.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

 

[TooTall]

1. I'd be happy to receive one million dollars in compensation and pay 10% off the top.

2. Means testing. Why should anyone receive SS if they are in the top 10% of retirement income?

3. The no tax, no way, never crowd will oppose any tax, any time for any purpose.

4. I support electing a no tax, no way candidate to fix our economy. Sure, the economy will tank, local governments will fail, tens of millions will be unemployed and business and industry will suffer for lack of customers. But sometimes it requires a person or an economy to hit bottom before they can make necessary changes.

The answer to number 2 is simple. The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. When anyone pays the premium on an insurance policy, they expect to get the return in accordance with the policy rules.

Using your logic, if a person pays the premiums for a $100,000 life insurance policy and dies, the insurance company could decide NOT to pay the benificiary based on their retirement income or net worth.

That ain't the way it works. SS premiums are mandatory on wages and salaries, and the payouts are written into the law.

 

[ShawnChris13]

1. I'd be happy to receive one million dollars in compensation and pay 10% off the top.



2. Means testing. Why should anyone receive SS if they are in the top 10% of retirement income?



3. The no tax, no way, never crowd will oppose any tax, any time for any purpose.



4. I support electing a no tax, no way candidate to fix our economy. Sure, the economy will tank, local governments will fail, tens of millions will be unemployed and business and industry will suffer for lack of customers. But sometimes it requires a person or an economy to hit bottom before they can make necessary changes.

The answer to number 2 is simple. The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. When anyone pays the premium on an insurance policy, they expect to get the return in accordance with the policy rules.



Using your logic, if a person pays the premiums for a $100,000 life insurance policy and dies, the insurance company could decide NOT to pay the benificiary based on their retirement income or net worth.



That ain't the way it works. SS premiums are mandatory on wages and salaries, and the payouts are written into the law.

The answer to 4 is simple, too. Intentionally calling for the collapse of the economy is frealing psycho. Let's just put guns in everybody's hands and say, "pull the trigger!"

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. I'd be happy to receive one million dollars in compensation and pay 10% off the top.



2. Means testing. Why should anyone receive SS if they are in the top 10% of retirement income?



3. The no tax, no way, never crowd will oppose any tax, any time for any purpose.



4. I support electing a no tax, no way candidate to fix our economy. Sure, the economy will tank, local governments will fail, tens of millions will be unemployed and business and industry will suffer for lack of customers. But sometimes it requires a person or an economy to hit bottom before they can make necessary changes.

The answer to number 2 is simple. The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. When anyone pays the premium on an insurance policy, they expect to get the return in accordance with the policy rules.



Using your logic, if a person pays the premiums for a $100,000 life insurance policy and dies, the insurance company could decide NOT to pay the benificiary based on their retirement income or net worth.



That ain't the way it works. SS premiums are mandatory on wages and salaries, and the payouts are written into the law.

The answer to 4 is simple, too. Intentionally calling for the collapse of the economy is frealing psycho. Let's just put guns in everybody's hands and say, "pull the trigger!"

If I recall correctly it was George Harrison who said that the solution to the problem with guns was for all of the owners to just shoot themselves. As with all simplistic solutions it ignores the practical realities that would arise in that eventuality no matter how far fetched.

The political spectrum is in the hands of We the People and nothing will unite We the People faster than an outside threat. Our problem is not an outside threat but one from within however, because it is from within, we are having a hard time identifying it. Each faction is accusing the other of being the threat within. Somewhere in the middle lies the solution where no faction "wins" because, like it or not, the Founding Fathers handed over a system that only works on COMPROMISE. We the People need to learn how to play nicely with each other or face the failure of this great experiment called America.

 

[bripat9643]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

"TAX INCREASE!" is your idea of a "thoughtful response."

 

[Redfish]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post



The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.

Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.

Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

SS is easily fixable, and yes it might include raising taxes a bit on the wealthy, but it should also include an increase in the retirement age.

the fix is real easy---collect SS tax on all income.

there is no reason to raise the retirement age, young people need jobs, let the old people retire and enjoy the years they have left.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are asking what a reasonable objection is to you demanding someone else pay more money?

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


You have a false dichotomy. You present the situation as either Social Security going insolvent or taxing the rich more.

There is at least one other alternative: Raise the eligibility age. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Can you afford to work 7 percent longer than your great-grandfather did? You are going to live 30 percent longer than he did.

I guess the word "fair" is nowhere in the picture for you when you are presented with these realities, eh?

See, for people like you the answer is always, "Tax the rich more." Need more roads and bridges? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more goodies from the government? Tax the rich a little bit more. Need more Social Security cash so you can retire at the same age your great-grandfather did? Tax the rich a little bit more.

And so on. It adds up.

SS is easily fixable, and yes it might include raising taxes a bit on the wealthy, but it should also include an increase in the retirement age.

the fix is real easy---collect SS tax on all income.

there is no reason to raise the retirement age, young people need jobs, let the old people retire and enjoy the years they have left.

The young do need jobs. Especially if you boost their Social Security taxes and now, expensive healthcare insurance that they don't need.

Come on young'uns, get working, grampa needs a new Caddie and directions to the nearest casino!

 

[JakeStarkey]

without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes

Spread the loan over fifty years.

one more time jake, for gods sakes....

So you don't understand European banking, do you?

Or the stability of reality there, do you?

My little buddy, you are so trapped in your ideology you can't critically think out of the box.



On the other hand, I guess you are into regulated housing as we have it now with the deductions, etc.

Who knew you into social market democracy.

 

[P@triot]

The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.

Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.

They don't pay their fair share? They pay what the law requires them. If the people don't determine what the fair share to pay is, who does? And it's still far more than we are required to pay.

Let's make it simple. Everyone pays exactly 9% of their income. Not a penny more. That's fair to everyone. Well actually it's a little on the high side for everyone, but everyone would be treated equally.

Cut defense by 70%...

That's what the Dumbocrats did under Clinton and 8 months later 3,000 Americans died in 9/11 - which created two wars costing hundreds of billions which Dumbocrats like fake jake cry about...

Defense is a Constitutional responsibility. Socialism handouts are not. All we need to do is make bums like jake provide for themselves and cut socialism by 100%. All problems solved!

 

[P@triot]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

Yeah [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], we should all think of the collective! Communism is so great.

People like Derideo_Te are so stupid, after 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy, they still haven't figured out that "thinking about the collective" is what created the problem. And you can't solve a problem by feeding the problem more of the problem...

 

[RKMBrown]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

Yeah [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], we should all think of the collective! Communism is so great.

People like Derideo_Te are so stupid, after 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy, they still haven't figured out that "thinking about the collective" is what created the problem. And you can't solve a problem by feeding the problem more of the problem...

Thinking they were never weened. Pretty odd to me that grown men can't take care of their families without govco handouts. Moochers would spend half the time working they spend begging they'd be rich.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

Yeah [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], we should all think of the collective! Communism is so great.

People like Derideo_Te are so stupid, after 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy, they still haven't figured out that "thinking about the collective" is what created the problem. And you can't solve a problem by feeding the problem more of the problem...

Thinking they were never weened. Pretty odd to me that grown men can't take care of their families without govco handouts. Moochers would spend half the time working they spend begging they'd be rich.

Zero substance, just ad hominems equals zero credibility.

 

[kaz]

Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

Can the people who get fired because the funding for their job went away afford it?

And that your victim can "afford" it makes it no less a crime.

 

[boedicca]

Zero substance, just ad hominems equals zero credibility.

Your self awareness is Surprisingly Refreshing!

 

[P@triot]

So the usual suspects responded with the same old kneejerks which was expected. Not one of them appears to be capable of thinking of anyone but themselves.

For the rest who provided thoughtful responses I appreciate your input and thank you for contributing to this thread!

Yeah [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], we should all think of the collective! Communism is so great.

People like Derideo_Te are so stupid, after 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy, they still haven't figured out that "thinking about the collective" is what created the problem. And you can't solve a problem by feeding the problem more of the problem...

Thinking they were never weened. Pretty odd to me that grown men can't take care of their families without govco handouts. Moochers would spend half the time working they spend begging they'd be rich.

Oh, they could take care of their families RMK. They choose not to. It's much easier to play the victim and be a lazy bum than to get up off your ass and work. It's much easier to hate successful people than to relentlessly work to achieve that same success.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], we should all think of the collective! Communism is so great.

People like Derideo_Te are so stupid, after 100 years of failed Dumbocrat policy, they still haven't figured out that "thinking about the collective" is what created the problem. And you can't solve a problem by feeding the problem more of the problem...

Thinking they were never weened. Pretty odd to me that grown men can't take care of their families without govco handouts. Moochers would spend half the time working they spend begging they'd be rich.

Zero substance, just ad hominems equals zero credibility.

You know what is "zero credibility"? The fact that you pose the same failed questions - which resulted in the same failed policies - of people like Hugo Chavez and places like Greece.

Dude - you're not an innovator. You're not pitching some wild and exciting new idea. This has all been done before and has been a spectacular failure. It's has collapsed nations around the world.

It's astounding that you choose live such a willfully ignorant existence in such a tight little bubble, that you don't even know this is the exact narrative used for about 65 years now by communists, socialists, and marxists around the world.