20 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree; but the system is not sustainable as it is. Real changes need to be made or the system will be out of money in 2.5 decades.
That's what they did before Social Security and most of the elderly lived in poverty (if they lived at all).
This system is better.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76(Shrug) So change it. Just ending the cap on wages subject to the tax would restore the program to solvency for the foreseeable future. Granted it would make it less of an insurance program, but people here dispute that it is that anyway.
I agree; but the system is not sustainable as it is. Real changes need to be made or the system will be out of money in 2.5 decades.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSocial Secuirty was design that you get based on what you put in. There is no reason why once you are above a level that you will get contributions back that you should continue paying. It is ridiculous that every "simple solution" is to just tax those who contribute the most.
(Shrug) So change it. Just ending the cap on wages subject to the tax would restore the program to solvency for the foreseeable future. Granted it would make it less of an insurance program, but people here dispute that it is that anyway.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackThinking that people just because they make more money "contribute the most" is the type of simple minded elitist claptrap you bring to the table. Taxes on the wealthy have been being reduced for more than 30 years and they have pirated a larger share of the nation's wealth while doing nothing more useful than they did in the past. And the growing income inequality has produced greater economic instability; it's no coincidence that income inequality in the US reached its highest level in 2008 since 1929 and that the economy crashed in both years. A capitalist economy relies on widespread consumer demand, not on a relative few amassing more and more and more wealth that they have little productive use for (which is why so much money in both years went to useless speculation).
Social Secuirty was design that you get based on what you put in. There is no reason why once you are above a level that you will get contributions back that you should continue paying. It is ridiculous that every "simple solution" is to just tax those who contribute the most.
Social Security was primarily designed as a program to reduce elderly poverty. It's done a good job doing so, but it need more revenue. So let's get the revenue from those who can afford it. Pretty simple.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackTrue, and for people who make A LOT of money Social Security isn't even worth their time.
Social Secuirty was design that you get based on what you put in. There is no reason why once you are above a level that you will get contributions back that you should continue paying. It is ridiculous that every "simple solution" is to just tax those who contribute the most.
If they put in for benefits at 65 but keep making money, SS takes away their monthly $ once they pass a certain amount of income, so they don't even bother with it.
But for us poor slobs it's OK.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganThe average benefit is $14,000 a year; the maximum $28,000. That's chickenfeed to the wealthy but the difference between poverty and a somewhat decent living for most of those receiving SS.
True, and for people who make A LOT of money Social Security isn't even worth their time.
If they put in for benefits at 65 but keep making money, SS takes away their monthly $ once they pass a certain amount of income, so they don't even bother with it.
But for us poor slobs it's OK.
QQ is a Randian, so he thinks if you're too old to work, you're just a parasite (unless, of course, you happen to be rich and then you're a DemiGod).
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just completely refuse to recognize that the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes in this country. The top 1% in wealth pay 40% of taxes. I think the problem is not that the contruibutors don't pay enough, the problem is others (like to bottom 50% who pay no income taxes) do not contribue anything at all.
Thinking that people just because they make more money "contribute the most" is the type of simple minded elitist claptrap you bring to the table. Taxes on the wealthy have been being reduced for more than 30 years and they have pirated a larger share of the nation's wealth while doing nothing more useful than they did in the past. And the growing income ...[text shortened]... t need more revenue. So let's get the revenue from those who can afford it. Pretty simple.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackThe wealthy recieve the bulk of government services in the form of property enforcement.
You just completely refuse to recognize that the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes in this country. The top 1% in wealth pay 40% of taxes. I think the problem is not that the contruibutors don't pay enough, the problem is others (like to bottom 50% who pay no income taxes) do not contribue anything at all.
20 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackNo they don't. They pay a slightly higher percentage of ALL taxes than everybody else. They could and should contribute a lot more.
You just completely refuse to recognize that the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes in this country. The top 1% in wealth pay 40% of taxes. I think the problem is not that the contruibutors don't pay enough, the problem is others (like to bottom 50% who pay no income taxes) do not contribue anything at all.
EDIT: When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.
And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the top 20% receives 59.1% of all income and pays 64.3% of all the taxes, so they aren't carrying a huge extra burden. At the other end, the bottom 20%, which receives 3.5% of all income, pays 1.9% of all taxes.
This whole article, if you bothered to read it, might either cause you to: 1) Have an epiphany; or B) A stroke. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Considering the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility, the poor and middle classes almost certainly bear a more substantial burden than the wealthy.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarI think you should take a look at:
It seems to me that if we are going to live in a country that pays people when they retire, we need to make adjustments. We do make small adjustments due to inflation, but we also need to make adjustments in retirement age!
Social Security in the United States began in 1935 with a retirement age of 65.
I'm using the numbers from this site for average ...[text shortened]... e and you fix the problem! I think that an adjustment every 10 years would be about right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
...because the actual data you should use, should be the life expectancy of people who have reached the actual or proposed retirement age. The rest don't matter. This approach, combined with the projected number of people reaching the actual or proposed age, will more accurately indicate the burden due to retirement and the effect of an adjustment to the retirement age.
Of course conceptually you are correct.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357The reasoning seems fallacious; what evidence is there that a 75 year old man is more able to work a full time job now than a 75 year old man was able to work a full time job in the 1930s? Sure, medical technology has advanced where more are living to that age, but it has not advanced to where people of that age are now akin to 60 year olds in 1937.
I think you should take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
...because the actual data you should use, should be the life expectancy of people who have reached the actual or proposed retirement age. The rest don't matter. This approach, combined with the projected number of people reaching the actual or proposed age, will more accurat ...[text shortened]... d the effect of an adjustment to the retirement age.
Of course conceptually you are correct.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou mix things that are taxed at different rates and come up with an erroneous conclusion. In this country there is a graduated income tax, if you make more you pay taxes at more. Then when you get to a higher bracket you pay at a higher percentage too. In fact half of the country pays nothing at all. Other forms of income are taxed at different rates (of course they are considered other forms of income because you don't get benefits from them such as Social Security etc) so it is erroneous to only look at the tax rate and taxes are captured in different ways (like corporate taxes are paid and then dividend income is also taxed again).
No they don't. They pay a slightly higher percentage of ALL taxes than everybody else. They could and should contribute a lot more.
EDIT: When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid ...[text shortened]... the poor and middle classes almost certainly bear a more substantial burden than the wealthy.
You can try to ignore the reality that the tax system is highly progressive system as is the benefits system (benefits from Social Security are capped as is the amount you can put in your 401(k) or even use for transit checks) Other programs are simply not available to higher income people whether they are college loans, food stamps or Medicaid.
American society does plenty for the disadvantaged in this country. I don't feel that we continue to need to burden our best contributors because you feel you have a binding contract (which you absolutely do not) with the US government that requires them to pay you Social Secuirty on the date you expect to recieve it.
20 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt certainly has when we consider that jobs were primarily blue collar labor intensive jobs.
The reasoning seems fallacious; what evidence is there that a 75 year old man is more able to work a full time job now than a 75 year old man was able to work a full time job in the 1930s? Sure, medical technology has advanced where more are living to that age, but it has not advanced to where people of that age are now akin to 60 year olds in 1937.