Originally posted by quackquack
It certainly has when we consider that jobs were primarily blue collar labor intensive jobs.

We have one of those installing new flooring, and another fixing the leak in the roof. Oh yeah our maid too.

Originally posted by quackquack
You 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 ...[text shortened]... government that requires them to pay you Social Secuirty on the date you expect to recieve it.

LMAO! THREE PAGES AGO in this very thread, you said:

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...


Now we have to disregard those taxes! What a hypocrite.

The wealthy benefit most from this society and therefore should pay the most. And the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility gives a separate, but no less compelling reason for sharply progressive taxes (unlike the system currently in place).

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! THREE PAGES AGO in this very thread, you said:

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...


Now we have to disregard those taxes! What a hypocrite.

...[text shortened]... no less compelling reason for sharply progressive taxes (unlike the system currently in place).

Actually, your point is further support for what I am saying: everything you buy is taxed and presumably those with more money pay more taxes. Since there are no taxes that are only on people with low incomes and not for people with high income (yet there are benefits which phase out) this too is a progressive system which lead to wealthier people yet again paying a higher tax bill.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Whatever the evidence shows, could be one factor in adjusting the retirement age ladder. That's why I agree with the concept. But I agree with you that life expectancy alone is not the determining factor. A measure of "work life expectancy" could be estimated. Retiring before that age would bring reduced benefits, similarly to the existing system.

There are also existing provisions to commence early payments for people who have an eligible, medically confirmed disability. People who cannot work through their "work life expectancy" due to such a condition, could continue to be handled this way.

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, your point is further support for what I am saying: everything you buy is taxed and presumably those with more money pay more taxes. Since there are no taxes that are only on people with low incomes and not for people with high income (yet there are benefits which phase out) this too is a progressive system which lead to wealthier people yet again paying a higher tax bill.

Sales taxes on essentials are generally considered to be regressive.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

It's not for you to dictate a retirement age, folk should be able to plan their own, one size does not fit all.
It's not for you to dictate how and when a person should prepare for their retirement, they might have other more pressing priorities, survival of their business, keeping their house from being repossesed, flying to other less regulated countries for medical precedures because they're tired of being on the state waiting list. You have no right to take money from them and thus put these choices beyond their reach.
It's not for you to take out a mortgage on the next generation to fund your retirement.

You have a low opinion of your fellow mans ability to run his own life, we see that over and over here.

If the 'system' is so much better surely people would not need to be forced into it. If the 'system' is so much better it would be self sustaining and not rely on an ever growing pool of ants to fund it.

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” Bastiat, about 200 hundred years a go.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It's not for you to dictate a retirement age, folk should be able to plan their own, one size does not fit all.
It's not for you to dictate how and when a person should prepare for their retirement, they might have other more pressing priorities, survival of their business, keeping their house from being repossesed, flying to other less regulated countries f ...[text shortened]... wants to live at the expense of everyone.” [/i] Bastiat, about 200 hundred years a go.

What society forces people to retire?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What society forces people to retire?

What silly billy would try such lame bait?

Originally posted by Wajoma
What silly billy would try such lame bait?

You're the one talking about "dictating" a retirement age. Social Security exists precisely to make planning of the retirement age possible for those with lower incomes, yet here you are saying one should be able to decide their own retirement age!

Originally posted by JS357
Sales taxes on essentials are generally considered to be regressive.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

There isn't only sales tax on essentials. In fact most essentials (such as food) are specifically excluded in the US.

Originally posted by quackquack
There isn't only sales tax on essentials. In fact most essentials (such as food) are specifically excluded in the US.

Doesn't much matter:

Sales taxes are regressive even when food and other
“necessities” are exempt.
Sales taxes are inherently regressive because low-income families generally spend everything they earn, and often more, while high-income families save larger portions of their income.7 The sales tax thus applies to virtually all of the income of low-income households, but relatively little of the income of affluent households. Most states with sales taxes exempt some “necessities,” but this only slightly alters the regressivity of a sales tax.
States with sales taxes that exempt food and other necessities still have steeply regressive tax systems. Seven of the ten most regressive states exempt food sales from their sales taxes (Table 2). Washington’s sales tax, for example, takes 4.7 percent of the income of low-income households and only 0.8 percent of the income of the richest one percent of households, despite the fact that Washington does not tax sales of food. Most of the states with highly regressive tax systems also exempt prescription or non-prescription drugs, or both, from the sales tax.8

http://www.ocpp.org/2003/issue030707.pdf


Of course, States and localities also rely on property taxes which are also regressive as recent studies have confirmed:

The study's primary finding was that the property tax was regressive for low-income families under both the conventional and new views of the property tax.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED136435&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED136435

Originally posted by Wajoma
It's not for you to dictate a retirement age, folk should be able to plan their own, one size does not fit all.
It's not for you to dictate how and when a person should prepare for their retirement, they might have other more pressing priorities, survival of their business, keeping their house from being repossesed, flying to other less regulated countries f ...[text shortened]... wants to live at the expense of everyone.” [/i] Bastiat, about 200 hundred years a go.

🙄🙄

There is no "dictated" retirement age in the US.

Social Security was put into place to combat the problem of elderly poverty. It has been extremely successful in doing so. The people support it overwhelmingly.

If there are those who are sooooooooooooooooooo outraged at contributing to a system that combats elderly poverty and that is supported by an overwhelming number of their fellow citizens they can always leave. No one is stopping them, but disgruntled hermits don't get to run the US to the detriment of its people.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Doesn't much matter:

Sales taxes are regressive even when food and other
“necessities” are exempt.
Sales taxes are inherently regressive because low-income families generally spend everything they earn, and often more, while high-income families save larger portions of their income.7 The sales tax thus applies to virtually all of the i ...[text shortened]... _nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED136435&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED136435

None of what you say is really relevant. In sales tax, (especially when necessities are excluded) people with more money buy more items, have fewer exclusions and therefore pay on a higher percentage of what they buy. If you have more money on average you pay more and therefore pay more taxes.
You simply want to soak those who contribute the most even more once again.

Originally posted by quackquack
None of what you say is really relevant. In sales tax, (especially when necessities are excluded) people with more money buy more items, have fewer exclusions and therefore pay on a higher percentage of what they buy. If you have more money on average you pay more and therefore pay more taxes.
You simply want to soak those who contribute the most even more once again.

Your "holding your breath till you turn blue" strategy is tiresome. The article cited lays waste to your claims in this post.

To repeat just one example (there's a whole chart in the piece itself):

Washington’s sales tax, for example, takes 4.7 percent of the income of low-income households and only 0.8 percent of the income of the richest one percent of households, despite the fact that Washington does not tax sales of food.

Originally posted by quackquack
None of what you say is really relevant. In sales tax, (especially when necessities are excluded) people with more money buy more items, have fewer exclusions and therefore pay on a higher percentage of what they buy. If you have more money on average you pay more and therefore pay more taxes.
You simply want to soak those who contribute the most even more once again.

It appears you don't understand what "progressive taxation" and "regressive taxation" mean.