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

[Derideo_Te]

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

Would they receive 8.8 times the benefit?

What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax

LOL! That's funny.

Why would they need 8.8 times the benefit?

I didn't say they need it, but if you're taxing them 8.8 times as much as you're taxing them now, are you saying their maximum benefit would be unchanged?

Personally I don't have a problem adjusting the maximum benefit but the actuarial formula involved is not a simple extrapolation.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Social Security is a government run INSURANCE program. When it was initially signed into law the acronym FICA stood for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

There are dozens of private Insurance companies that insure healthcare, autos, homes, life, and any number of other things. I got a letter today offering to insure the water line from the street to my house against breakage for $4.95 a month.

Most of these insurance companies are profitable and adjust their rates and coverage as required to stay in business. And, the premiums are not charged according to the buyers income.

Apparently the government is not capable of managing an old age insurance program that has been tampered with by adding SSDI, survivors payments and other unrelated payments far beyond what was intended.

The very thought of this same government managing the health care for all citizens and non-citizens should scare any one with more than half a brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Raise the retirement age and add longevity testing, means test benefits, and eliminate the exemptions for local and state workers. If this doesn't end the funding gap I would support an across the board increase and the elimination of the cap.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

I would say no.

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

g5000, the rich do need to pay more than what they are, and you can count on that happening within the next decade: no way around that.

If we are ever going to pay down the $16 trillion debt, everyone is going to have to pay more. As we used to say when I was on active duty when things got really bad, "It's a big shit sandwich, and everybody has to take a bite."

You are also right that SS should be adjusted to live expectancy and working longevity.

The retirement age can be extend logically and fairly.

It should be indexed to 9 percent of the population. That's what percentage were above the age of 65 when Medicare was enacted. When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4 percent were over 65.

Today, 13 pecent are over 65. This is clearly unsustainable.

Raise the eligibility age to 70, then index to 9 percent going forward.

That wouldn't work.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Social Security is a government run INSURANCE program. When it was initially signed into law the acronym FICA stood for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

There are dozens of private Insurance companies that insure healthcare, autos, homes, life, and any number of other things. I got a letter today offering to insure the water line from the street to my house against breakage for $4.95 a month.

Most of these insurance companies are profitable and adjust their rates and coverage as required to stay in business. And, the premiums are not charged according to the buyers income.

Apparently the government is not capable of managing an old age insurance program that has been tampered with by adding SSDI, survivors payments and other unrelated payments far beyond what was intended.

The very thought of this same government managing the health care for all citizens and non-citizens should scare any one with more than half a brain.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Social Security is a government run INSURANCE program. When it was initially signed into law the acronym FICA stood for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

There are dozens of private Insurance companies that insure healthcare, autos, homes, life, and any number of other things. I got a letter today offering to insure the water line from the street to my house against breakage for $4.95 a month.

Most of these insurance companies are profitable and adjust their rates and coverage as required to stay in business. And, the premiums are not charged according to the buyers income.

Apparently the government is not capable of managing an old age insurance program that has been tampered with by adding SSDI, survivors payments and other unrelated payments far beyond what was intended.

Is that any better?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

I would say no.

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

The Constitution is the social contract we have embraced and taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If you prefer that the elderly be reduced to begging paupers in the street once they can no longer work then there are plenty of places like that in the world to choose from. However in this nation the Constitution and the laws we live under say that is an unacceptable for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Social Security is a government run INSURANCE program. When it was initially signed into law the acronym FICA stood for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

There are dozens of private Insurance companies that insure healthcare, autos, homes, life, and any number of other things. I got a letter today offering to insure the water line from the street to my house against breakage for $4.95 a month.

Most of these insurance companies are profitable and adjust their rates and coverage as required to stay in business. And, the premiums are not charged according to the buyers income.

Apparently the government is not capable of managing an old age insurance program that has been tampered with by adding SSDI, survivors payments and other unrelated payments far beyond what was intended.

Is that any better?

Marginally. You are still making an erroneous assumption about insurance premiums. SS is income replacement insurance. You won't be charged the same flat rate to replace an income of $50k and $500k in the private sector.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

The Constitution is the social contract we have embraced and taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If you prefer that the elderly be reduced to begging paupers in the street once they can no longer work then there are plenty of places like that in the world to choose from. However in this nation the Constitution and the laws we live under say that is an unacceptable for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

So you're going with social contract theory and hyperbole. Problem: When did you or I sign this alleged social contract? Never. So trying to enforce a contract I never signed is simply another act of aggression, just as you are advocating aggression against people who make a lot of money.

 

[TooTall]

Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

I would say no.

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions by individuals for investment into the market had not been blocked by Democrats?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

The Constitution is the social contract we have embraced and taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If you prefer that the elderly be reduced to begging paupers in the street once they can no longer work then there are plenty of places like that in the world to choose from. However in this nation the Constitution and the laws we live under say that is an unacceptable for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

So you're going with social contract theory and hyperbole. Problem: When did you or I sign this alleged social contract? Never. So trying to enforce a contract I never signed is simply another act of aggression, just as you are advocating aggression against people who make a lot of money.

Accepting the benefits that you derive on a daily basis is an implicit acceptance of this social contract.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

 

[Trajan]

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?

I read the article.


my initial response's are;

1) we need to realize that there is a cap on monthly benefits.....I think its $2500 at 65?
see my point?

2) inflation has been relatively low, what happened to the chained CPI debate?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution is the social contract we have embraced and taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If you prefer that the elderly be reduced to begging paupers in the street once they can no longer work then there are plenty of places like that in the world to choose from. However in this nation the Constitution and the laws we live under say that is an unacceptable for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

So you're going with social contract theory and hyperbole. Problem: When did you or I sign this alleged social contract? Never. So trying to enforce a contract I never signed is simply another act of aggression, just as you are advocating aggression against people who make a lot of money.

Accepting the benefits that you derive on a daily basis is an implicit acceptance of this social contract.

The fact that I am forced to adhere to the so-called social contract on the basis of the threat of violence against me if I do not does not constitute implicit acceptance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would they need 8.8 times the benefit?

I didn't say they need it, but if you're taxing them 8.8 times as much as you're taxing them now, are you saying their maximum benefit would be unchanged?

Personally I don't have a problem adjusting the maximum benefit but the actuarial formula involved is not a simple extrapolation.

Obviously. Of course if 8.8 times the tax gives 8.8 times the benefit, you've solved nothing.

 

[Trajan]

The Constitution is the social contract we have embraced and taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If you prefer that the elderly be reduced to begging paupers in the street once they can no longer work then there are plenty of places like that in the world to choose from. However in this nation the Constitution and the laws we live under say that is an unacceptable for the wealthiest nation on the planet.

So you're going with social contract theory and hyperbole. Problem: When did you or I sign this alleged social contract? Never. So trying to enforce a contract I never signed is simply another act of aggression, just as you are advocating aggression against people who make a lot of money.

Accepting the benefits that you derive on a daily basis is an implicit acceptance of this social contract.

unless you earn less than say 30K, get EIC where in you may be paying NO federal taxes and getting money back, in effect wiping out your fica contribution......

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Just because someone makes a million dollars a year doesn't mean he/she has any more disposable income than someone who makes $30k a year.

Really??? I'm amazed that you even know how to spell disposable income, because you sure as hell don't know what it is after that comment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

Why would a 66 year old have their entire portfolio in stocks?

 

[TooTall]

Does the Constitution automatically make something right?

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

It would have made very little difference since SS is paid out monthly. 90% of the 'portfolio' was not in the market and the remaining 10% invested would have grown over the last 5 years.