Author Topic: Vote for us, we're going to raise your taxes. (Read 3773 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:21:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
Toad, yes it is possible, but not the norm. Stupid medical advancements.

Hardly the case. It's not caused by "stupid medical advancements." It's because benefits are far higher than planned for/covered by SS taxes.

Here:

Social Security: The Relationship of Taxes and Benefits for Past, Present, and Future Retirees

Quote

....Under the economic assumptions most commonly used by the Social Security Trustees and congressional policymakers, a worker who always earned an average wage, who retires at age 65 in 1998, and has a dependent spouse will recover the value of the retirement portion of his or her Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) taxes plus interest in 3.1 years; the payback times for a similar worker retiring in 2010, 2020, and 2030 are projected to be 4.3, 4.6, and 4.3 years, respectively....

It's a pretty complicated paper, with lots of factors to consider. However, it can be shown that a lot of the folks on SS get their money paidback in a relatively short time.

mietla · « **Reply #46 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:46:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears

Seems to me people this wealthy wouldn’t mind giving back a little to the country that made them rich.

Not only that you think you have a right to steal someone else's property, but you also presume to know that the victim won't mind?

Pretty arrogant and presumptuous if you ask me.

mietla · « **Reply #47 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:52:56 PM »

One more thing.

It's not "the country" which made them rich, it's their hard work and contributions to the society. Your pay is a certificate for services rendered.

If it was "the country" which makes people rich, everybody would be rich, even you. And then perhaps you would not be that quick on raising taxes "for the common good".

Nash · « **Reply #48 on:** June 30, 2004, 05:58:28 PM »

Not that I want to get all into the details because I suck at money.

But Mietla, this one question comes to mind.

The "rich" didn't make their millions in a vaccuum... It was within a context of personal/property/tax laws etc...

Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?

Steve · « **Reply #49 on:** June 30, 2004, 06:06:55 PM »

Quote

Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?

Well I know you didn't ask me but here's my $.02

Simple: The lower income people don't pay their share of taxes, or don't pay any taxes at all. They use all the same amenities that I do as far as the privilege of living in the U.S goes, have more kids on average(I have none) and many of them are a drain on the system via any number of govt give aways. Why is it unfair for someone to pay the same amount as me in the form of a % of their income? If I pay 32%, why shouldn't everyone, especially since I am less of a drain on Govt $$$ than most lower income people? if anything, they should have to pay HIGHER taxes as they often use more govt services.

Edit: The reason the "rich" get taxed is because there are more poor voters than wealthy. It's easy for a politician to raise taxes on the rich, the poor are happy to take the money from the rich.

I had a discussion about this in an earlier thread with someone. He just couldn't understand why the wealthy received a tax cut and not the lowest of income people. He just didn't get that it's hard to cut 0 taxes any further. Then, when he finally understood, he wanted the govt to tax the wealthy and since the poor couldn't have further tax cuts, he wanted to govt to GIVE money to the poor. Redistribution at its finest.

Eagler · « **Reply #50 on:** June 30, 2004, 07:12:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -MZ-
Damn blind kids. Why can't they just beg on the street like in Mexico?

more like the kid driving the bmw selling little bags of crack while claiming he's unemployed and can't find a job or his mom to busy popping out another sibling in between jerry springer shows for that monthly increase ....

these robbers take it from your "dam blind kids".
the program doesn't need more money thrown at it, it needs the holes in it plugged..which includes those that can work, do and put into the jar instead of taking out..

-MZ- · « **Reply #51 on:** June 30, 2004, 07:42:09 PM »

Blind people can get money from SS without paying in, which really doesn't have anything to do with your hysterical rant about welfare queens.

We are spending more than we take in. Our pork addicted Congress can't say no, farmers are getting their billions in welfare, and our President breaks countries that we end up having to buy.

Republicans control the federal government and they are not even trying anymore to balance the budget. After all, CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA will happily buy our paper debt. When foreigners finally stop buying it, our govt. will be competing with the private sector in the finance market looking for money.

Anyway, good luck balancing the budget with SS and medicare cuts, sounds like political suicide to me.

Tumor · « **Reply #52 on:** June 30, 2004, 08:56:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
If the money the government took from me to prop up a disastrous Social Security program had, instead, been placed in my teacher retirement program I could retire with three times the money that I will eventually get.

Social Security is NOT a voluntary program...you pay whether you think it is an unqualified failure or not. It should have been privatized thirty years ago. That will never happen in the U.S. because there are some who realize a lot of political capital from it, scaring the old folks during every national election year with "They gonna cut your benefits!"

Why can't they just be honest with them and say "Okay...if we continue down our current path...your grandchildren will never be able to draw Social Security but will be stuck paying high taxes to pay for benefits that were paid out thirty years ago. We HAVE to make some changes in the system."

Ya... I get irked every time I think about Grammy and Grampy enjoying MY dime knowing I'll probably never see it back.

mietla · « **Reply #53 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:13:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

The "rich" didn't make their millions in a vaccuum... It was within a context of personal/property/tax laws etc...

not sure what you are trying to say here. The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet.

People prosper despite the government, not because of it. Everybody has the same opportunities, some chose to take risks and work their bellybutton off for a potential filet mignon in a future, others prefer government provided bowl of rice. And those are the ones who whine when the see someone eating a filet.

Quote

Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?

no one is arguing for no taxation. Government has certain legitimate functions as well as obligations to the people, so it need funds, but...

1. everybody has to pay taxes.
2. the government is not allowed to give the funds collected from one group of people and redistribute it to others. Especially that the way it is right now, they take from the producers (thus discouraging hard work and punishing a success), and they give the funds away to those who choose not to produce (thus encouraging lack of initiative and dependency on others and rewarding failure).

"Blind Kids" is a bogus (but highly emotional) argument. And it has to be emotional, because you just can;t justify an income redistribution using reason, common sense and a fundamental morality.

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:19:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
And it has to be emotional, because you just can;t justify an income redistribution using reason, common sense and a fundamental morality.

Golly gee! How can they discuss anything with you if you set requirements like that?

Nash · « **Reply #55 on:** June 30, 2004, 09:43:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet.

Lets go back 200 years, and use the richest guy on earth as an example. How would Gates have fared, ridin' the range, so to speak?

Hows about now, if there weren't laws? How would Gates fare hand to hand against someone in Alphabet City?

Or... Lets put them both in a forest miles away from nowhere and see who can provide for their family.

It's un-questionable that the rich earn/inherit within a context of laws. (It also turns out that the rich actually write the laws).

Mietla (u the one looking for a gun to protect his family last year?), I'll go as far as to say that you'd prolly be dead by now if it weren't for the government. So I'd lay off the "take all the freedoms from us" bull*****.

"The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet. .." Patoohey

Nash · « **Reply #56 on:** June 30, 2004, 10:26:08 PM »

you a cheerleader now Toad?

Steve · « **Reply #57 on:** June 30, 2004, 10:47:00 PM »

Quote

Lets go back 200 years, and use the richest guy on earth as an example. How would Gates have fared, ridin' the range, so to speak?

Rediculous. There were business opportunities 200 years ago. He probably would have found success in mass goat shearing or something....maybe invented a better firearm or plow.

Quote

It's un-questionable that the rich earn/inherit within a context of laws. (It also turns out that the rich actually write the laws).

What's your point? The people that right laws are educated. Does it really seem like a coincidence that educated people tend to get "rich"?

I will not speak for Mietla but I DO feel that govt has burrowed too deeply into the personal lives of your average American.

Nash · « **Reply #58 on:** June 30, 2004, 10:51:02 PM »

Okay my bad.

Go back 2000 years.

Then whip on back here and tell me the government has hampered yer ability to make money.

Steve · « **Reply #59 on:** June 30, 2004, 10:54:27 PM »

Wait Nash, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying my govt is a hindrance to making money. I'm sorry about being vague.

Just differed on a couple of your points.

as I said, I do feel Govt has become too intrusive.

I also recognize that without laws and infrastructure govt provides, via my taxes, that I would not enjoy nearly the standard of living that I do today.

~~again, sorry about clouding the issue.~~