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 realize that self employed people like my kid will end up paying more? Not some rich guy like Warren Buffet who probably makes zero dollar but he's accumulated tons of wealth.
Of course I do, twice as much actually as he is paying the employer part as well. What does that have to do with my point?
I do understand the rational for the cap, again you can only take out so much so the top earners will put in far more than they will take out. But the cap is too low.
Its just a question of whether we want a society to maximize human happiness, or whether we dont want that. Giving the billionaire class another million to play with dont affect their happiness at all. There is never enough money to satisfy their greed.
After 40 years of a massive transfer of wealth and income to the richest people in America, as a result of neo-liberal economic policies, what we see as a result is a country with close to zero trust in all public institutions, a bitter and angry electorate and severe human suffering. Some people want to double down on this strategy, eventually ensuring that one family will own the majority of the wealth in the country, while others believe in the more social democratic approach of giants like FDR and JFK who believed in fairness and a prosperous middle class. Two different approaches. Dwight D Eisenhower would be a member of the Democratic Party today with his strong support for unions, the minimum wage and FDR legislation. FDR and JFK would have to join Sanders in the Progressive Party.
Its not only intelligence. Risk taking, work rate and other attributes are also largely genetic and determined early in childhood. Its a lottery and you want to punish people for something they have nothing to do with.
So what does that mean? I don't want to punish them no more than I want to punish people who are contribute more to the system already. I don't want to vilify success, we have a lot of that already in the last 8 years.
I think another issue is that more than $80 billion a year flows to the big banks in profits as a result of taxpayers guaranteeing a "too big to fail insurance policy", making it easier for big banks to make risky bets, earn a high profit, pay lower interest rates, and overall scamming the people for tens of billions a year, at the expense of ordinary Americans. These same big wigs are also the same people who use this profit to donate to politicians (big banks are the biggest lobbyists in DC) to lower their taxes on the proceeds that they gain. And the corporate media doesnt pay attention to this at all and divert people's attention to the latest Trump episode.
There you go again. I knew this was going to happen. You get religion again. It's your belief and you want to drive down that believe. If we didn't bail out the bank, I think the poor who couldn't help themselves would be in a world of hurt again.
Of course I do, twice as much actually as he is paying the employer part as well. What does that have to do with my point?
I do understand the rational for the cap, again you can only take out so much so the top earners will put in far more than they will take out. But the cap is too low.
Because they already pay twice as much, enough is enough. You kill small businesses and there will be no jobs creation.
And the cap is too low but I bet you are not paying one cent more. Other people are paying. You are an armchair liberal. Sit in a chair, drink your beer, and spend other people money freely.
So what does that mean? I don't want to punish them no more than I want to punish people who are contribute more to the system already. I don't want to vilify success, we have a lot of that already in the last 8 years.
What does it mean? It means that whenever you vilify the "undeserved", because they are not as successful as you and your millionaire friends, remember that the characteristics you vilify is not a fault of their own, but as a result of genes and the first couple of years of life. You praise the risk takers. Great. But risk taking is genetic. You simply deny reality and science.
There you go again. I knew this was going to happen. You get religion again. It's your belief and you want to drive down that believe. If we didn't bail out the bank, I think the poor who couldn't help themselves would be in a world of hurt again.
The banks are allowed to continue to rip off the people to the tune of tens of billions per year. Thats the reward for giving billions in donations to politicians. The rich get richer, the working class suffers, and you have to choose whether you want massive income inequality or democracy. You cant have both.
I don't agree with you and don't think Donald Trump does either.
You should be allowed to opt out of social security. Put it another way how many people would opt out if given the choice? What does this tell you about the real value of the program.
The truth is that people realize that the program is counterproductive, it takes money you could use for retirement. The only people it benefits are the poor. Another wealth redistribution scheme
I'm sure the majority would opt out, and at retirement age many would be absolutely penniless. And then what? Are we going to revert to allowing millions to starve in the streets? Doubtful. We'll just expand social programs. And who will pay for those programs?
Isn't it better that every working person pays something? I think so.
Have said this before; you do realize that for purposes of calculating benefits earnings only matter up to a certain amount; anything above is totally moot. Furthermore SS benefits are weighted towards those whose work record is mostly from low income wages. That is those who earn high wages and contribute the max for twenty or even the full thirty-five year period receive smaller payments that someone who is at the opposite end of that scale.
A high earning individual is likely also to have investments, savings, and or other sources of income in retirement. After a certain amount not only is he/she paying taxes on that income but SS checks as well.
So cry me a river; those on the lower end of SS benefit scale are already doing very well by the system. When you add in spousal and child benefits they are well covered indeed.
The whole idea of raising income SS caps is to get more money into the system, but pay it out not to those who gave, but to others. Long story short a wealth redistribution scheme.
No, those on the higher end of the wage scale receive a smaller percentage of what they paid in, not a smaller payment.
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.
