Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[leftwinger]

OH, I see. What is this magic MAX PAYOUT per month? I have not seen this figure if it exists now.

$2,663.

What is the maximum Social Security retirement benefit payable?

Thanks. This question was solved few postings back. There is a MAX. So they could keep pulling from high earners and it would increase the fund.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,663. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,025. If you retire at age 70 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $3,501.

If you are born after 1946, you have no option for the extended benefits by waiting until 70. Full retirement age is extended anyway. Many will be looking at 67 for full retirement.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks. This question was solved few postings back. There is a MAX. So they could keep pulling from high earners and it would increase the fund.

They could just hold people up at gun point too; amounts to the same thing.

 

[danielpalos]

I think we need to end our extra-Constitutional and non-specifically enumerated, war on drugs.

Yep, another big bloated GOVT program that does not work well. Lots of employees, big budget, running around the world spending OUR money w/o much oversight. Do we get any say?

maybe we can ask the right why they don't mind that much socialism; do the least wealthy get "screwed over" enough?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Its actually larger than that. If you look at where you were twenty years ago vs where you are today you probably get alot less. Used to be annual increases were the norm, now they are rare. Health insurance was a throw in from your employer. You may have gotten a pension of some kind

Those days are gone. Employee pay and benefits have been cut to the bone. It might have made sense if profits were down, but they are not. The share of the pie allocated to the workers has shrunk......meanwhile, you continue to protect the wealthy

Can't argue with that.
I am lucky enough to have 24 years of accumulation in a traditional pension. That plan was discontinued about 6-7 years ago.
In the 1980's I paid something like $24 a week for insurance, so $96 /mo.
I received annual raises for 21 years straight, have only received one since 2008. Like most people.
Corporatism in America has been shifting wealth away from the people into the hands of a tiny-tiny-tiny number of elite people...all with the help of our government.
Welcome to the plutocracy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. **** the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Bull

There is $84 trillion in household wealth in the US. Here is how it is distributed

Do you even realize how much one trillion dollars is? We don't have one trillionaire in the entire USA.

There is not 84 trillion in the United States. Get better sources.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. **** the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

Its actually larger than that. If you look at where you were twenty years ago vs where you are today you probably get alot less. Used to be annual increases were the norm, now they are rare. Health insurance was a throw in from your employer. You may have gotten a pension of some kind

Those days are gone. Employee pay and benefits have been cut to the bone. It might have made sense if profits were down, but they are not. The share of the pie allocated to the workers has shrunk......meanwhile, you continue to protect the wealthy

Businesses don't operate by how much they have. Businesses operate by how much their growth is.

Companies heavily rely on investors to conduct business. Not many will invest in a company that has a 2% growth but treats their employees great.

The American consumer refuses to support good paying American jobs. Those are the real deciders when it comes to who gets paid what.

 

[Davros]

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

 

[Freewill]

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,663. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $2,025. If you retire at age 70 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $3,501.

If you are born after 1946, you have no option for the extended benefits by waiting until 70. Full retirement age is extended anyway. Many will be looking at 67 for full retirement.

I thought you were making a point that the cap is 2025 which is only partially true.

 

[Freewill]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. **** the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Bull

There is $84 trillion in household wealth in the US. Here is how it is distributed

65.3 percent of the wealth is held by those other then the 1 percent. Why is that surprising to you and why do you think that not fair?

Steve Jobs, made a fortune, how much wealth should he have held compared to a broom pusher at Walmart?

 

[hazlnut]

Yes, we raise the retirement age.

We don't cut benefits at the bottom.

We means test people off the top.

We then add some additional taxes for people who make over 1 million.

And we prosecute the hell out of anyone scamming the system.

The last has to happen. It's not fun to watch Granny and Grandpa go off to jail, but they must be accountable.

Give the baby boomers tax incentives for voluntary early departures.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we raise the retirement age.

We don't cut benefits at the bottom.

We means test people off the top.

We then add some additional taxes for people who make over 1 million.

And we prosecute the hell out of anyone scamming the system.

The last has to happen. It's not fun to watch Granny and Grandpa go off to jail, but they must be accountable.

Give the baby boomers tax incentives for voluntary early departures.

Why would we do that ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

 

[Davros]

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

 

[BluesLegend]

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

 

[Davros]

Suppose there's a 15% flat tax with a 15,000 deduction.
Suppose there's a 20% payroll tax on the first 100,000.

I did the math. Someone making 60,000 pays 31.25% of their income to flat tax plus payroll deduction.
Someone making 2,000,000 pays 15.8% of their income to flat tax plus payroll deduction.

That is a regressive tax benefiting people who don't need any help, and it's bullshit.

 

[Davros]

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the ******* top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's ******* bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

I'm just saying a flat tax plus an increase in social security to give Mr. Cleveland every penny he's owed while I'll get nothing back is a regressive tax and it's bullshit. It sure as hell won't help the American economy. Maybe Europe where the fat cats vacation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

I'm just saying a flat tax plus an increase in social security to give Mr. Cleveland every penny he's owed while I'll get nothing back is a regressive tax and it's bullshit. It sure as hell won't help the American economy. Maybe Europe where the fat cats vacation.

Actually I think we need to convert our entire tax system to a progressive consumption tax. You pay based on what you buy. For necessary items, the tax is lower perhaps 1 to 3%. As you move up the ladder to non-necessary items, you pay a 5 to 15% tax. On luxury items, you pay a 25 to 40% tax.

There is nothing fair about a tax system where one pays and the other one gets. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.