Originally posted by sh76 I don't like the idea of means testing SS because the people have paid into the system for decades under the expectation that they'd get their money out. To suddenly say that people who put $$ into the system for 50 years can't take out anything because they saved $$ would be unfair, IMO.
On the other hand, I like the idea of the tax picking up at $250k. If that would save SS for 75 years, then it's a great idea - almost a no-brainer.
It was designed as an anti-poverty program not as a subsidy to wealthy retirees. Taxing the wealthy on income that will not add to their benefit is as "unfair" as means testing.
Originally posted by Soothfast It's already been said: give up the wet dream of running a global empire. We have the nuclear deterrent. Chinese hordes are not going to come pouring over the Rockies toward Washington D.C.
You and your ilk are still fighting the Cold War. Contemporize.
Not only was it already said, it was said by someone who you should recognize as your unquestioned intellectual superior. I see you do this quite a bit - you groove into the slipstream of someone else's post.
So not only are you unoriginal, you're spineless. You have to make sure your pals think it before you decide you're going to think it. Pantywaist.
EDIT: you bring up nuclear weapons and you're telling me I'm still fighting the Cold War? Do you have any freaking clue how little relevance nuclear weapons have in in asymmetric conflicts?
You are way past your depth.
2nd EDIT: China? Are you really bringing up China, as a potential aggressor? Not in a million years, not our aggressor. You really - you need to stick to things you know.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 Not only was it already said, it was said by someone who you should recognize as your unquestioned intellectual superior. I see you do this quite a bit - you groove into the slipstream of someone else's post.
So not only are you unoriginal, you're spineless. You have to make sure your pals think it before you decide you're going to think it. Pantywaist.
It's actually been said many times on this forum.
At any rate I'm afraid No1 and I are going to disagree about Social Security. I still believe the age for full benefits should be raised to 72 eventually. He does not. I guess you missed that part of the discussion during the commercial break between Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 EDIT: you bring up nuclear weapons and you're telling me I'm still fighting the Cold War? Do you have any freaking clue how little relevance nuclear weapons have in in asymmetric conflicts?
You are way past your depth.
I bring up nuclear weapons because they provide a sufficient deterrence to a direct attack by another country. As for "asymmetric conflicts," you clown, you don't need a defense budget half again as large as that used to hold the Soviets at bay to handle Al-Qaeda and the like. You need military intelligence, a lot of headwork, and well-trained precision strike teams. That kind of stuff. You don't need loads of nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, ground infantry, tanks, and so on. You need some of that, but not as much.
You're past your depth when you slip in a poodle's piss puddle.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 2nd EDIT: China? Are you really bringing up China, as a potential aggressor? Not in a million years, not our aggressor. You really - you need to stick to things you know.
No one actually cares what you personally believe about China. You don't think a fair fraction of right-wingers are using China's growing military capabilities as a justification for pouring more money into the military budget? That's what we're talking about here, you idiot. I don't personally believe China is going to attack the U.S. I'm talking about the nonsense in the political ether that passes for rationales for having a bloated military budget.
Interesting comment from Republican rising star Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:
"At present, any reading of the headlines over the past week indicates that Republicans are fighting to protect the rich and cut benefits for seniors," he added. "It may be possible to have worse political positioning than that, but I'm not sure how."
Originally posted by sasquatch672 Because Obama is not the least bit serious about meaningful spending cuts. If Republicans give away the tax breaks Obama wants, they have no leverage to get what they need to do what is right for the country.
Obama wins against the GOP everytime. He makes John Boehner cry. No doubt people will be throwing out the GOP in 2014 after Obama is done with idiot Boehner just like he did last round, that is all that matters.
In the end, nothing really changes except that the GOP goes bye, bye.
Originally posted by no1marauder Interesting comment from Republican rising star Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:
"At present, any reading of the headlines over the past week indicates that Republicans are fighting to protect the rich and cut benefits for seniors," he added. "It may be possible to have worse political positioning than that, but I'm not sure how."
Could it be that we're now far enough from an election that the GOP can afford to secure its support among rich donors now and have plenty of time to put out other messages before the next election?
Originally posted by no1marauder It was designed as an anti-poverty program not as a subsidy to wealthy retirees. Taxing the wealthy on income that will not add to their benefit is as "unfair" as means testing.
Yes, but as you know, we get annual statements in the mail that tell us how much money we've contributed and how much money we stand to make in SS if we'd retire at this level, etc. etc. I'm sure we're all (the Americans, anyway) familiar with these green and white envelopes that we get annually. I'm sure people rely on these statements and make decisions based on them. They plan their estates and retirements around them.
To suddenly say "Yes, you've gotten statements for 50 years promising you $2,000/month when you retire, but now that you've got $300k in the bank that you're saving for your grandchildren's college education, you can't have the money we've been promising" seems to me to be unfair.
Originally posted by sh76 Yes, but as you know, we get annual statements in the mail that tell us how much money we've contributed and how much money we stand to make in SS if we'd retire at this level, etc. etc. I'm sure we're all (the Americans, anyway) familiar with these green and white envelopes that we get annually. I'm sure people rely on these statements and make decisions based education, you can't have the money we've been promising" seems to me to be unfair.
A guy who got shot in the head when he was younger than I am now said "Life is unfair".
Anyway, any changes are going to be phased in gradually; the system is solvent for another twenty years. How much the benefits will need to be reduced per asset level will be negotiable based on what is required to balance the system also taking into account the level of revenue enhancements. I fail to see how means testing is any more "unfair" then saying to people you now have to work five extra years to get the benefits you expected.
And you'll pardon me if I'm unable to shed as many tears as you do for people who have more assets than 99% of the rest of the population; they'll muddle through somehow even without a few hundred bucks extra a month.
Originally posted by sh76 Yes, but as you know, we get annual statements in the mail that tell us how much money we've contributed and how much money we stand to make in SS if we'd retire at this level, etc. etc. I'm sure we're all (the Americans, anyway) familiar with these green and white envelopes that we get annually. I'm sure people rely on these statements and make decisions based education, you can't have the money we've been promising" seems to me to be unfair.
The logical conclusion of such arguments is that no changes in tax or entitlements are "fair" as people are always taking into consideration the existing policies in future planning. "I expected to pay only 35% on my income above $250,000 and now you're changing it to 37%??? That's not fair!" etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by sh76 Yes, but as you know, we get annual statements in the mail that tell us how much money we've contributed and how much money we stand to make in SS if we'd retire at this level, etc. etc. I'm sure we're all (the Americans, anyway) familiar with these green and white envelopes that we get annually. I'm sure people rely on these statements and make decisions based ...[text shortened]... education, you can't have the money we've been promising" seems to me to be unfair.
This is on the annual statement you get in the mail:
*
Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 percent of scheduled benefits.
Originally posted by no1marauder A guy who got shot in the head when he was younger than I am now said "Life is unfair".
Anyway, any changes are going to be phased in gradually; the system is solvent for another twenty years. How much the benefits will need to be reduced per asset level will be negotiable based on what is required to balance the system also taking into ...[text shortened]... opulation; they'll muddle through somehow even without a few hundred bucks extra a month.
Your statement about "99%...a few hundred bucks less a month" - isn't based in principle. It's expedient, but not principled. That's unlike you.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 Your statement about "99%...a few hundred bucks less a month" - isn't based in principle. It's expedient, but not principled. That's unlike you.
Reading an entire post is always helpful. The principle is stated.
Originally posted by no1marauder This is on the annual statement you get in the mail:
*
Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 percent of scheduled benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/SSA-7005-OL.pdf
You've been warned.
The warning implies some sort of proportional cut, not a cut merely because you had the foresight and ability to save money.
Should Republicans Vote Yes Now on the 98%
01 Dec '12 23:30
Back to Top