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.
What do you mean, "keep" depriving it of funds? We aren't depriving it of funds.
Personally I wouldn't care if we did cut SS payments, but macroeconomically I think it would be a problem, and politically it would be very unpopular.
Clete:
6.2% - 4.2% = 2.2%
That is 2.2% less from everyone's paycheck going towards Social Security. 2.2% less from millions of paychecks is most certainly depriving it of funds. Now surely you understant that very, very elementary math calculation? Assuming you do, and I think you do, then that derails your statement.
We are not talking about cutting Social Security payments. Nor are we talking about Bush's tax cuts. Changing the subject is almost as bad as pretending not to understand the math.
We are simply talking about a compromise that was meant for one year and one year only. Were it as you claim, and the GOP was really raising taxes, I would think a Leftist such as yourself would cheer. Is that not what your crowd craves?
That is 2.2% less from everyone's paycheck going towards Social Security.
That is true. When you cut the payroll tax, that is less money going from paychecks into social security.
Quote:
2.2% less from millions of paychecks is most certainly depriving it of funds.
That is not true. We simply make transfers from the general fund to cover the revenue lost from the payroll tax cut.
Quote:
We are not talking about cutting Social Security payments. Nor are we talking about Bush's tax cuts. Changing the subject is almost as bad as pretending not to understand the math.
You are incoherent and starting to sound like a crazy person. You just asked me: "Do you want to keep depriving Social Security of funds?" I respond and you say I'm changing the subject to social security.
Quote:
We are simply talking about a compromise that was meant for one year and one year only. Were it as you claim, and the GOP was really raising taxes, I would think a Leftist such as yourself would cheer. Is that not what your crowd craves?
A leftist such as myself? Hah. Don't kid yourself. I am center-right.
"Far Rightists" want to shift the tax burden from wealthy people to people who earn wages. That's what this is about.
They don't want to raise the cap on the payroll tax, to make it less regressive. They don't want to allow the payroll tax cuts to continue, which provides relief to lower-income workers.
Instead they want to push the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly a tax break for people who have had gains on their stock portfolios.
the ;bush' 01/03 tax cuts/CREDITS were mostly for the poor and middleclass
the 'rich' (those over 180k) could not get the credits
the credits are why many of the bottom 50%(including myself) pay nearly nothing in federal taxes
to say the bush tax cuts were for the rich...is a LIE
When the GOP controlled Congress temporarily suspended the 1993 tax increase in May 2001, they effectively undid (temporarily) the massive, and retroactive, tax increase imposed by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1993.
When you suspend a progressive tax increase that disproportionally taxes the wealthy, it will naturally appear to be a disproportionally regressive tax cut that benefits the wealthy.
This is the game liberal freaks have played for decades - Massively increase taxes on the wealthy, then blame Republicans for giving the wealthy tax cuts when the GOP repeal the ridiculously unfair liberal tax.
First of all, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, as Rick Perry stated a few weeks ago, and which has been confirmed by economists such as Walter E. Williams.
Secondly, NO politician until the Obamaminable One came along has had the guts to raise taxes on low, moderate, and middle-income citizens (ObamaCare has plenty of them, and taxes are going to have to soar in order to pay for it) because there are not NEARLY enough rich people in this country.
This is class warfare, plain and simple.
Democrats are and always have been ignorant (except for JFK) about the relationship between tax increases and the resulting tax revenues; raise the former and the latter collapses--straight out of the Econ. 101 textbooks eternally being used at your local JC.
If 'soak the rich' really did work, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts and other skyhigh tax rates states would be swimming in revenue instead of drowning in debt.
When you impliment the Democratic playbook of skyhigh taxes & rampant overregulations, you get a hellhole like DETROIT.
When you impliment the Republican playbook of modest taxes and a light regulation touch, you get booming cities such as DALLAS.
Democrats are and always have been ignorant (except for JFK) about the relationship between tax increases and the resulting tax revenues; raise the former and the latter collapses--straight out of the Econ. 101 textbooks eternally being used at your local JC.
i disagree with nearly everything you said..
but this in particular, i can't let slide. This is not in economics textbooks. This is failed 1980's Republican supply-side orthodoxy, based on the right's belief that we should be running budget deficits. Funny how y'all forget.
As important, they appeared to have no impact politically, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Club for Growth who worked in Reagan's budget office.
"Voters and politicians became anesthetized to big deficits," Moore recalled. "Reagan was running these big deficits, and liberals argued it was going to be Armageddon. We were going to ruin the economy. Interest rates were going to go through the roof. And none of these things happened."
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.
Democrats are and always have been ignorant (except for JFK) about the relationship between tax increases and the resulting tax revenues; raise the former and the latter collapses--straight out of the Econ. 101 textbooks eternally being used at your local JC.
If 'soak the rich' really did work, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts and other skyhigh tax rates states would be swimming in revenue instead of drowning in debt.
That doesn't make sense. The states in question are swimming in revenue AND debt.
What they lack is net revenue, because they spend too much. I see no connection between their overspending, and the laffer curve. Y'all haven't even made an attempt to prove that their rates are causing diminishing revenues.
That doesn't make sense. The states in question are swimming in revenue AND debt.
Swimming in revenue? No. Revenue has declined. Swimming in debt and forced huge cuts in services? Yes. Oh, and by the way... everyone knows the state of Illinois is many months behind in paying its bills, and some don't even get paid. Illinois is broke, and can
Quote:
What they lack is net revenue, because they spend too much. I see no connection between their overspending, and the laffer curve. Y'all haven't even made an attempt to prove that their rates are causing diminishing revenues.
Swimming in revenue? No. Revenue has declined. Swimming in debt and forced huge cuts in services? Yes. Oh, and by the way... everyone knows the state of Illinois is many months behind in paying its bills, and some don't even get paid. Illinois is broke, and can
How do you know that the revenue decline is being caused by tax rates, instead of the financial crisis?
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.
