Should Republicans Vote Yes Now on the 98%

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

That's different. You can never reasonably assume what next year's tax rate is going to be. Here you already put the money away into the system. If anything, it would be like retroactively increasing your taxes on last year's income.

Originally posted by sh76
The warning implies some sort of proportional cut, not a cut merely because you had the foresight and ability to save money.

It implies no such thing. It says Congress has changed the law in the past and can do so in the future. Pouring your own predilections and preferences into the language is ridiculous.

Originally posted by sh76
That's different. You can never reasonably assume what next year's tax rate is going to be. Here you already put the money away into the system. If anything, it would be like retroactively increasing your taxes on last year's income.

You did not "put money into the system" as you well know. SS is a "pay as you go" arrangement. People pay taxes into the system now which are used to pay the present beneficiaries. There is a formula (which nobody understands) for what your benefits will be when you retire, but it is explicitly stated that the formula may be changed at any time (in fact, the present language suggests it almost certainly will be). Nothing assures you of any specific level of benefits.

The whole purpose of the program was to alleviate elderly poverty, not to be an upper middle class and wealthy welfare entitlement. Your arguments are bogus.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You did not "put money into the system" as you well know. SS is a "pay as you go" arrangement. People pay taxes into the system now which are used to pay the present beneficiaries. There is a formula (which nobody understands) for what your benefits will be when you retire, but it is explicitly stated that the formula may be changed at any time (in fact, ...[text shortened]... , not to be an upper middle class and wealthy welfare entitlement. Your arguments are bogus.

The purpose of Social Security is to ensure that people who worked and paid taxes through out their lives would not be foolish and outlive their savings. The government therefore forces contribution and pays you upon retirement. It is simply not, nor should it ever be, a needs based program.

Originally posted by quackquack
The purpose of Social Security is to ensure that people who worked and paid taxes through out their lives would not be foolish and outlive their savings. The government therefore forces contribution and pays you upon retirement. It is simply not, nor should it ever be, a needs based program.

Here's what FDR said:

Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.

This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odssast.html


Social Security was included in the same bill as unemployment insurance and had similar purposes as FDR points out. Nowhere does he mention augmenting the lifestyles of wealthy retirees. If the program cannot be funded at present levels and benefits need to be cut, it is utterly consistent with the program's rationale that the benefits be reduced for those who are not threatened with "poverty ridden old age".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's what FDR said:

Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how l hat the benefits be reduced for those who are not threatened with "poverty ridden old age".

I'll set aside the question of paying in to a system without getting a return. I'll also set aside the mean-spiritedness of many of the posters in this thread, and their effect on how I feel about paying higher taxes. You guys need to work on your higher-minded altruism.

I don't object to means testing. That's fine. My wife and I have always assumed that we wouldn't be getting social security, and we planned for that. We've saved, a lot. We forwent lavish vacations, expensive cars, conspicuous consumption, so that we'd be in a position to be financially independent someday. We're not there, but we can see it.

I'll make you a deal. We'll forgo social security if the higher taxation side, part of which is unwilling or unable to take care of itself, stops vilifying the people who made good choices, who planned, who pay your benefits, and who, as a result of their good choices, are now in a position of relative security.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I'll set aside the question of paying in to a system without getting a return. I'll also set aside the mean-spiritedness of many of the posters in this thread, and their effect on how I feel about paying higher taxes. You guys need to work on your higher-minded altruism.

I don't object to means testing. That's fine. My wife and I have always assu ...[text shortened]... nd who, as a result of their good choices, are now in a position of relative security.

How is expecting the wealthy to pay slightly higher tax rates, which were utterly typical during most of both our lifetimes, "vilifying" them? They should count themselves fortunate that for the last thirty years the government has followed policies that favored them and disfavored average workers. They should not be complaining that this imbalance is to be ever so slightly corrected; they will remain rich either way.

BTW, I was not suggesting that means testing would reduce anyone's SS benefit to zero. I was proposing that there be some reduction in benefits for those who already have ample means to fund their retirements. To me that is a far fairer, more equitable and more in keeping with the goals of SS approach than the meat axe one of raising the retirement age for all, including those who very well might be otherwise pushed into "poverty ridden old age".

Originally posted by no1marauder
How is expecting the wealthy to pay slightly higher tax rates, which were utterly typical during most of both our lifetimes, "vilifying" them? They should count themselves fortunate that for the last thirty years the government has followed policies that favored them and disfavored average workers. They should not be complaining that this imbalance is to be ever so slightly corrected; they will remain rich either way.

Nearly every post made by a liberal in this forum on this topic, and every liberal media broadcast, contains a tone of sneering victory. You're too smart not to observe that, even if the tone makes you feel a little good inside (and I'm not saying it does).

And $250K a year doesn't make you wealthy. It makes you comfortable, but not wealthy. I've said this before - I don't necessarily object to paying higher taxes. I think the government - Obama's, Bush's - manages the nation's finances extremely carelessly and wastefully. Obama has not explained what he'll do with an extra 8 1/2 days of money; he just wants it. That's not good enough for me and I'm very surprised it's good enough for you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, I was not suggesting that means testing would reduce anyone's SS benefit to zero. I was proposing that there be some reduction in benefits for those who already have ample means to fund their retirements. To me that is a far fairer, more equitable and more in keeping with the goals of SS approach than the meat axe one of raising the retirement age f ...[text shortened]... r all, including those who very well might be otherwise pushed into "poverty ridden old age".

Ok - but the fact is that people are living a lot longer. The program was not intended to support people for a third of their working lives. This hits home - my dad retired too early. Now I send him a check every month. He had a very cushy white-collar job. No reason to quit. I don't be grudge him, because he raised me, but I'm partially supporting him.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Nearly every post made by a liberal in this forum on this topic, and every liberal media broadcast, contains a tone of sneering victory. You're too smart not to observe that, even if the tone makes you feel a little good inside (and I'm not saying it does).

And $250K a year doesn't make you wealthy. It makes you comfortable, but not wealthy. I'v ...[text shortened]... it. That's not good enough for me and I'm very surprised it's good enough for you.

$250K a year puts you in the top 2% of taxpayers.

Right wingers keep screaming about the budget deficit, but refuse to accept that revenues have to be raised if it is to be reduced. Presently tax revenue as a share of GNP is the lowest since 1950 yet right wingers keep insisting that lower taxes have nothing to do with the deficit. This is nonsense.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ok - but the fact is that people are living a lot longer. The program was not intended to support people for a third of their working lives. This hits home - my dad retired too early. Now I send him a check every month. He had a very cushy white-collar job. No reason to quit. I don't be grudge him, because he raised me, but I'm partially supporting him.

Just abolish Social Security then. I'm sick of hearing all the complaints about the pittance people who have worked all their lives get when they turn 65 (or 67) now. The average benefit is barely above the poverty line and about 1/3 of average household income. If our society really can't afford that, we should just close up shop.

Originally posted by no1marauder
$250K a year puts you in the top 2% of taxpayers.

Right wingers keep screaming about the budget deficit, but refuse to accept that revenues have to be raised if it is to be reduced. Presently tax revenue as a share of GNP is the lowest since 1950 yet right wingers keep insisting that lower taxes have nothing to do with the deficit. This is nonsense.

The real nonsense is to keep running deficits, having new pet programs and saying we will pay for it only by taxing the people that some liberal decmocrat decides is rich so they won't miss the money anyway.

Originally posted by no1marauder
$250K a year puts you in the top 2% of taxpayers.

Right wingers keep screaming about the budget deficit, but refuse to accept that revenues have to be raised if it is to be reduced. Presently tax revenue as a share of GNP is the lowest since 1950 yet right wingers keep insisting that lower taxes have nothing to do with the deficit. This is nonsense.

What about the debt? The deficit is a red herring, kind of - closing the deficit with tax increases alone would require marginal rates to rise on everybody by about 25%. So take whatever rate everybody is paying, and multiply it by 1.25. Obama's $82 billion is a whiff on any serious talk about responsibility.

But the deficit is still a red herring. The real issue is the debt, which Obama will have doubled by the time he left office. You cannot tax your way out of a $20 trillion hole. And when you hit dEbt to GDP of 100%, investors get nervous.

Originally posted by moon1969
Should Republicans vote now to extend the Bush tax cuts on income up to $250,000, which is 98% of people (and 97% of small businesses), or should they wait until a final plan is reached, or just go off the cliff?

How about not believing the hype and see that somehow this country was able to get by under the tax rates back when Clinton was President.

Much to do about nothing. Let the temporary tax break expire. That's the nature of temporary things, they exist for a period of time, then don't exist. Just saying.