10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto

[Lagboltz]

Of course the politicians would claim this isn't a tax,...

Of course the conservative constitutional view is thus: Social Security is unconstitutional, ....

What I don't get is why your surprised government stole the money? .....

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) earmarked $3 million for "The First Tee" in the defense appropriations bill. He spent $3 million on a golf program, in a bill to fund the military. You trust these people with your retirement? Why? There were over $17 Billion in pork spending in 2008 alone. Why do you think Bush and conservatives supported privatization of social security?

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't claiming Social Security was immune from politics, that it was constitutional, that I was surprised by government, or anything about stupid earmarks. I was simply saying that today, irrespective of what anyone thinks about it's history, Social security is a regressive tax because the $6 trillion was taken out of money where lower wage earners contributed the largest share. It was put into a general fund for the benefit of all, including high wage earners. That is what makes it a very regressive tax.

 

[GenSeneca]

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't claiming Social Security was immune from politics, that it was constitutional, that I was surprised by government, or anything about stupid earmarks. I was simply saying that today, irrespective of what anyone thinks about it's history, Social security is a regressive tax because the $6 trillion was taken out of money where lower wage earners contributed the largest share. It was put into a general fund for the benefit of all, including high wage earners. That is what makes it a very regressive tax.

Are you for or against removing the SS wage cap? I think its at $90k right now, and no matter how much you make over 90k, you don't have to contribute to SS.

 

[Lagboltz]

Are you for or against removing the SS wage cap? I think its at $90k right now, and no matter how much you make over 90k, you don't have to contribute to SS.

All I was claiming is that it is a highly regressive tax. However, now that you mention it, I would go further to say that if people want a flat federal tax on earnings, they should also talk of removing the $90K base. (I thought it was over $100K now.) The SS tax benefits everyone, including higher earners.

 

[Andy]

All I was claiming is that it is a highly regressive tax. However, now that you mention it, I would go further to say that if people want a flat federal tax on earnings, they should also talk of removing the $90K base. (I thought it was over $100K now.) The SS tax benefits everyone, including higher earners.

I was under the impression that people earning over a specific amount were excluded from receiving benefits.

That said, I would be ok with SS provided there was an opt-out ability. To force someone, anyone, to give funds for a system they don't believe is, is tyranny.

We all know that SS will not be there for us when we are to retire. SS has been "fixed" several times, and each time, benefits are reduced, while taxes are increased. By the time my children retire, the retirement age will be greater than the average life span, by many years. Even if by chance they do live long enough to collect SS, the benefits will have been reduced by so much, as to make it barely worth getting.

 

[Lagboltz]

I was under the impression that people earning over a specific amount were excluded from receiving benefits.

Earning restrictions apply only if you try for an early withdraw. At the full retirement age, there are no limits.

That said, I would be ok with SS provided there was an opt-out ability. To force someone, anyone, to give funds for a system they don't believe is, is tyranny.

Your view may have been valid before 1965. In principle SS still remains a trust fund filled with $6 trillion of IOUs. After 1965 the government was allowed to rob the trust fund, so now it is in practice, just another tax like the wage tax. So, at this point, it doesn't seem that a tyranny description is any more applicable for SS than it is for the usual fed tax.

We all know that SS will not be there for us when we are to retire. SS has been "fixed" several times, and each time, benefits are reduced, while taxes are increased. By the time my children retire, the retirement age will be greater than the average life span, by many years. Even if by chance they do live long enough to collect SS, the benefits will have been reduced by so much, as to make it barely worth getting.

It has been computed that if the trust fund status was kept intact, and if it earned a nominal interest since it's inception in 1935, we would not have the problem we are having now and in the future. We got screwed by both parties.

 

[Andy]

Earning restrictions apply only if you try for an early withdraw. At the full retirement age, there are no limits.

Your view may have been valid before 1965. In principle SS still remains a trust fund filled with $6 trillion of IOUs. After 1965 the government was allowed to rob the trust fund, so now it is in practice, just another tax like the wage tax. So, at this point, it doesn't seem that a tyranny description is any more applicable for SS than it is for the usual fed tax.

It has been computed that if the trust fund status was kept intact, and if it earned a nominal interest since it's inception in 1935, we would not have the problem we are having now and in the future. We got screwed by both parties.

Hmm... I have heard that, and at the same time, the reverse of that. What I find interesting is that the social security systems of other nations, regardless of what they are called, have all ended up broke like ours.

Although many claim it 'could have worked', from Social Security's inception, it's been a wasteful program. Ida May Fuller, the very first social security recipient, collected $22,889 from the system, even though she paid a total of $24.75 into it.

I still suggest that in a land supposedly for the 'free', we should have a choice to pay into a system. I for one, will opt-out in a heart beat. In a nation where the government is for the people, by the people, it should be our choice to be involved in a program not constitutionally part of the federal governments mandate.

 

[Andy]

All I was claiming is that it is a highly regressive tax. However, now that you mention it, I would go further to say that if people want a flat federal tax on earnings, they should also talk of removing the $90K base. (I thought it was over $100K now.) The SS tax benefits everyone, including higher earners.

Absolutely. Flat tax, should be flat. No caps. I would support a base pay level though. Say... $15,000? But after your first $15K, everything should have a flat tax. I'd prefer Russia's 12% rate myself. Of course we'd have to have government that spent money within the limits of whatever it collected. (har har) Not with Overspend Obama, Bail-out Barack. Not with this congress. That's for sure.

 

[Lagboltz]

Although many claim it 'could have worked', from Social Security's inception, it's been a wasteful program. Ida May Fuller, the very first social security recipient, collected $22,889 from the system, even though she paid a total of $24.75 into it.

Yes, she only paid 3 years worth of SS taxes, and lived till 100. Some pay all their life and die shortly before retirement without receiving anything. It is like insurance.

 

[Andy]

Yes, she only paid 3 years worth of SS taxes, and lived till 100. Some pay all their life and die shortly before retirement without receiving anything. It is like insurance.

Whoa whoa... it's NOTHING like insurance! lol

First, insurance would never agree to insure someone who paid $25 dollars and then retired to collect $22,889 over the rest of their lives. I would be hard pressed to find one example of that anywhere in the insurance industry.

Further, insurance companies use the cash paid in, to invest. Thus even if the money paid out is more than the money paid in, the returns on investments pays for policy.

Finely, insurance never raises the rates on all the other policy holders, in order to pay for prior policies. Unlike Social Security which dumps ever higher taxes on the public to pay for prior commitments.

And a side note, insurance is an option. Social Security is not. Forced enrollment is no longer insurance, but just another oppressive government program.

 

[Lagboltz]

Whoa whoa... it's NOTHING like insurance! lol

Whoa whoa.... I didn't say it was insurance; I meant that it was like insurance in that the concept is based on probabilities of longevity and used actuarial tables to determine the cost and benefits. Of course that is all out the window since SS has not been a trust fund for decades.

So if Ida May pays 25 bucks and gets 23K bucks back, on the average, someone else, for example will pay 23K bucks and get nothing back because of death.

 

[Gipper]

Today, in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first published The Communist Manifesto. Sigh.

No more murderous philosophy was ever invented...

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” Thomas Sowell

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It seems we are heading that way and were even before obama.... I am sure it will be much worse after he gets his hands on things.

Not to worry.

Your Lobbyi$t-bud$ (for the banking-industry) are keeping him at-bay!!​

 

[dogtowner]

Today, in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first published The Communist Manifesto. Sigh.

No more murderous philosophy was ever invented...

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” Thomas Sowell

thats just a plus for libs. but something the rest of us need to know. thanks

 

[Yo Daddy!]

This looks like an interesting topic.

 

[Boris Norris]

It seems we are heading that way and were even before obama.... I am sure it will be much worse after he gets his hands on things.

its sad, our Founders would be sad with what we have done as a nation

Rubbish. You're problem is you hate democrats so fabricate ridiculous scenarios to denigrate them. This kids stuff. Grow up.