Retirement Age Adjustment

Originally posted by no1marauder
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Other contracts aren't with the government. Even a right wing loon like yourself should be able to distinguish between the party to an agreement unilaterally changing the conditions in its favor from a risk from a third party that both parties are aware of.

Every time you disagree with someone there a right wing nut.

You have no contract with the government. The government certainly has the ability to change the eligibility rights for Social Security and there is no reason why they should be more reluctant to change eligibility requirements than they are to raise taxes.

Originally posted by quackquack
Every time you disagree with someone there a right wing nut.

You have no contract with the government. The government certainly has the ability to change the eligibility rights for Social Security and there is no reason why they should be more reluctant to change eligibility requirements than they are to raise taxes.

I just gave you a reason; it's unjust for one party to unilaterally alter a contract to their advantage.

I suggest you review the definition of the term "contract" I provided. Are you claiming that the government could tomorrow abolish SS and pay those who contributed to it nothing if it so chooses? That is the logical end result of your argument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I just gave you a reason; it's unjust for one party to unilaterally alter a contract to their advantage.

I suggest you review the definition of the term "contract" I provided. Are you claiming that the government could tomorrow abolish SS and pay those who contributed to it nothing if it so chooses? That is the logical end result of your argument.

The government certainly could tax your Social Security benefits at any rate (perhaps 100% if they desired) as they could tax your income at any rate. They certainly can change the age at which you start to receive money or they could decide they could add a means based test to take away benefits from whomever they desire. In fact, I presume that I'll probably never get a penny back of my Social Security and I certainly wouldn't not be a party to the "contract" if I had the ability to opt out.

The idea that the government can't interfere with your Social Security benefits becuase they are a party to the contract is just flat out wrong.

Originally posted by quackquack
The government certainly could tax your Social Security benefits at any rate (perhaps 100% if they desired) as they could tax your income at any rate. They certainly can change the age at which you start to receive money or they could decide they could add a means based test to take away benefits from whomever they desire. In fact, I presume that I'll p ...[text shortened]... r Social Security benefits becuase they are a party to the contract is just flat out wrong.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the government has unlimited power in this area as you claim, that would not make such arbitrary changes "just".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the government has unlimited power in this area as you claim, that would not make such arbitrary changes "just".

I agree it would be unjust. I also think that the government's continual expansion and raising taxes to pay for it is unjust too.

Originally posted by quackquack
I agree it would be unjust. I also think that the government's continual expansion and raising taxes to pay for it is unjust too.

Amusingly, the government has been doing neither for the last 30 years or so. So your "thinking" is based on a fallacy.

This thread has me very confused because some of The Usual Suspects are advocating people paying into SS until they are almost dead, being Slaves To The State their entire lives, the exact sort of thing they rail against usually.
What's up with that?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Amusingly, the government has been doing neither for the last 30 years or so. So your "thinking" is based on a fallacy.

That isn't true either. Everything is taxed. State and city taxes are more than 10% of your income in places like NYC. Deductions have been severely limited. Then there are cigarette, gasoline, hotels, mass transit...

Originally posted by quackquack
That isn't true either. Everything is taxed. State and city taxes are more than 10% of your income in places like NYC. Deductions have been severely limited.

Taxes in NY have been cut over and over again in the last 20 years:

Since 1972, New York state has cut its top personal income tax rate by more than 50 percent - from 15.375 percent to 6.85 percent, with single taxpayers entering the top bracket once their income reaches $20,000.

In fact, while the wealthiest 1 percent of New Yorkers take home more than 28 percent of all income - much higher than the national average wealth distribution - 14 states have a higher top tax rate and 21 states have higher income brackets.

California and New York, which both face deficits this year of more than $15 billion, have drastically reduced the income tax rate on the wealthiest since the 1990s.

http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/newyorkteacher_12042.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Taxes in NY have been cut over and over again in the last 20 years:

Since 1972, New York state has cut its top personal income tax rate by more than 50 percent - from 15.375 percent to 6.85 percent, with single taxpayers entering the top bracket once their income reaches $20,000.

In fact, while the wealthiest 1 percent of New Yorkers take home more ...[text shortened]... iest since the 1990s.

http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/newyorkteacher_12042.htm

Thankfully, no one paid close to what those rates imply because of deductions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Other contracts aren't with the government. Even a right wing loon like yourself should be able to distinguish between the party to an agreement unilaterally changing the conditions in its favor from a risk from a third party that both parties are aware of.

If you're making a legal argument, it's already been decided by the courts and you're on the losing end.

If you're making a moral argument that there is something inherently wrong about what the government has decided it can do, then you might not be far from becoming a conservative.

Originally posted by quackquack
Thankfully, no one paid close to what those rates imply because of deductions.

Might want to check these charts to compare reality against the "taxes have increased" myth you believe in:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Might want to check these charts to compare reality against the "taxes have increased" myth you believe in:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html

I don't need to check charts. I am forced to write checks to the government and I know I pay more.

Originally posted by techsouth
If you're making a legal argument, it's already been decided by the courts and you're on the losing end.

If you're making a moral argument that there is something inherently wrong about what the government has decided it can do, then you might not be far from becoming a conservative.

If I was making a legal argument, I probably wouldn't say something is "unjust".

Saying that certain things a government might do is "unjust" is hardly the sole province of conservatives.

Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
This thread has me very confused because some of The Usual Suspects are advocating people paying into SS until they are almost dead, being Slaves To The State their entire lives, the exact sort of thing they rail against usually.
What's up with that?

My point was that the government set it up so that you'd pay into the system until you are almost dead.