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.
If you're raising a tax back to its previous level after a temporary decrease, then that's orders of magnitude different than just simply raising a tax from its normal level to a new higher normal level.
Removing the cap solves no problems since the payout is based on what you paid in.
You are so right but so few who haven't been directly involved with SS can see what you say. My wife will get more than twice what I get but then I retired 17 years ago and she continued to work and made quite a bit more in those years than I did before that.
Taxing the poor? who's the brainiac who came up with that idea? The poor have no money,thats why they're called poor..
It is the falacy of the left. They are the only morons playing class warfare here, not the GOP or any other quasi-intelligent American. They are incapable of grasing the difference between class and caste, where one is transitory and the other is not.
A person who makes $350,000 pays the max, which is 6.2% of $106k, which is 1.9% of their income.
Do you know when this system of collection was installed? Maybe you ought to look at what it was in the beginning. I said earlier that I got a "raise" in pay a couple of years because my $7000 was above what people paid on then. Now it is $106,000 to get to the top. Surely you know that many teachers today make at least double what I did when I got out and about 10 times what I made in 1967.
Do you know when this system of collection was installed?
do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
You are so right but so few who haven't been directly involved with SS can see what you say.
I have been directly involved with SS, and I know y'all are wrong.
The system is designed to pay more out to people who paid less in. The CBO report I just posted says:
In general, retired worker benefits can replace 90 percent of taxable earnings
for the lowest earners, but as little as 27 percent for the
highest earners
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
It is the falacy of the left. They are the only morons playing class warfare here, not the GOP or any other quasi-intelligent American. They are incapable of grasing the difference between class and caste, where one is transitory and the other is not.
So you support raising payroll taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Nope. They're taxed 6.2% on $106k just like everyone else. And their benefits are capped just like everyone else.
How did you shoot it down? If you propose I pay more tax on the 106K income ...than I would get a proportional increase in my payout (so different than teh person who paid taxes on a much lower amount)...it sounds like you are suggesting I pay 6.2% on all income above 106K so it could be given to other wage earners?
About 50% of people filing a yearly 1040 form do not pay any taxes.
For the last 8 months, they have not been paying SS taxes.
So if on Jan 1, paying SS taxes are re-imposed, liberals and the news media will have headlines 'GOP increases taxes on poor people by 6.5%'
If the 50% were made to pay only $1.00 it would be considered as a tax increase. 'GOP makes poor people pay taxes'.
How have they not been paying SS taxes (the subject of this thread) for the last 8 months? The tax had been reduced from 6.5% to 4.5%. They're still paying unless they are unemployed. If unemployed, how will things change on Jan 1 unless they have a job?
Some people have not been paying for almost 8 months. But those are people who had wages of well over $106,000 a week and reached the cap the first week of the year.
The real double standard is why didn't the Democrats make this temporary cut when they had control of the House in 2009 and 2010?
Why is it important now, but it wasn't important then?
Is that like the double standard with the corporate tax breaks? The Democrats didn't think corporate tax breaks were an issue in 2009 and 2010 when they had control of the House, but in 2011 when they lost control of the House corporate tax breaks were the "shame of America."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
What is different about the Bush tax cuts compared to the payroll tax cuts?
Quote:
While President Obama has made clear that he supports extending the lower 4.2 percent payroll tax rate for another year
Do you understand that is the Social Security payroll tax?
Do you understand that Social Security was bankrupt in 2009 and 2010?
Do you understand that by bankrupt, I mean that Social Security did not collect enough money in payroll taxes to pay Social Security Retirement benefits, Social Security Disability Benefits (SSDI), Social Security Supplemental Income Benefits (SSI) or Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) during those two years?
Do you understand that the government had to borrow money to pay those benefits for the 2 years in question?
Do you understand that Obama's own CBO projected that 2011 would also be a year in which Social Security could not make payments to beneficiaries without borrowing money?
Do you realize that a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax will only result in Social Security being bankrupt once again? And that the government will have to borrow money, or cut money from other government spending programs to fund the payments to beneficiaries?
Do you understand that continued borrowing increases your National Debt, and that so long as your National Debt exceeds your GDP that it jeopardizes your credit rating?
Do you realize that a lowered credit rating bars investors from purchasing your Debt?
Do you understand that if investors cannot purchase your debt, that your government will be forced to cut the annual budget whether it wants to or not, and that such forced cuts will lead to an extended recession?
Didn't Obama say he would protect Social Security? How is cutting the Social Security payroll tax protecting Social Security?
And Obama is an Harvard graduate? Really? He's as stupid as the rest of the "you-Harvards."
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.
who's the brainiac who came up with that idea? The poor have no money,thats why they're called poor..
