Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you support politicians that have a track record of fighting to increase benefits for the people who are born disabled? Because the reason the disabled in America only get $700 a month is because so many people vote for politicians who dont think they deserve more.
Lowering the enormous amount of taxes I pay is a greater priority for me.
If I wasn't having to constantly fight to keep my taxes from increasing, I'd spend time trying to get money transferred from things like the DOE to programs for the truly disabled.
I see you post more about having people making more than you pay more in taxes than you post about using foreign aid money for the disabled.
Lowering the enormous amount of taxes I pay is a greater priority for me.
If I wasn't having to constantly fight to keep my taxes from increasing, I'd spend time trying to get money transferred from things like the DOE to programs for the truly disabled.
I see you post more about having people making more than you pay more in taxes than you post about using foreign aid money for the disabled.
America spend far, far less on foreign aid to poor people in other countries than most other developed countries. Its like 0.1% of GDP or less of truly foreign development aid (and not just weapons aid to various puppet regimes).
Do you agree that SSI and SSDI should be boosted? Have you ever voted for a politician with a track record of strengthening SSI and SSDI?
As far as I've seen, you're the only one talking about Medicare.
People talk about being against "redistribution", so it all boils down to not being able to argue consistently why there should be a cap on SS while Medicare has no cap and proportionality between payments and benefits like SS.
America spend far, far less on foreign aid to poor people in other countries than most other developed countries. Its like 0.1% of GDP or less of truly foreign development aid (and not just weapons aid to various puppet regimes).
Until we stop wasting money on things like foreign aid, there is no need for increased taxes.
Do you believe we should be sending money that could be used to help our disabled overseas?
So you cant argue why Medicare tax should have no cap and no proportionality to payments while SS tax should have a cap and be strictly proportional to payments.
The obvious point, which has been made by others, not to mention the U.S. Congress, is that the maximum lifetime benefits payable under Social Security are limited by 1) statute, and 2) the longevity of the recipient.
There are no similar limitations for Medicare benefits payable, because you're talking about delivering health care services primarily to an aged population, where the costs for any one patient could be astronomical.
There's your difference. Two completely different programs, with two completely different functions, and with two completely different funding mechanisms. And since everybody else who is party to this discussion clearly understands the difference, there is no reason for you to be left behind, intellectually speaking.
But the subject of the discussion is *still* the FICA wage base cap, not the Medicare tax. You will do well to avoid further faulty comparison between FICA and the Medicare tax, and concentrate on the subject at hand, which, incidentally...is not the Medicare tax.
People talk about being against "redistribution", so it all boils down to not being able to argue consistently why there should be a cap on SS while Medicare has no cap and proportionality between payments and benefits like SS.
If you want a thread to cover every aspect of redistribution, start one. This thread is about SS.
The obvious point, which has been made by others, not to mention the U.S. Congress, is that the maximum lifetime benefits payable under Social Security are limited by 1) statute, and 2) the longevity of the recipient.
There are no similar limitations for Medicare benefits payable, because you're talking about delivering health care services primarily to an aged population, where the costs for any one patient could be astronomical.
Terrible argument. Medicare benefits are NOT in any way proportional to what you pay into the system. Thats the argument used to defend the SS cap. What you get back should be proportional to what you've paid into the system. These same people are fine with someone paying $10 million into the Medicare system and getting the same benefits as someone who've paid $30 000 into the system. If people want to be consistent, then scrapping the SS cap is the logical position so retirement security and health care security in old age are funded by a progressive tax system.
If you want a thread to cover every aspect of redistribution, start one. This thread is about SS.
People are simply not consistent in their arguments. That's apt to point out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
