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 i were to get a refund, where would that money come from?
The answer is: There is nothing to refund. My payroll tax contributions have already been spent by the SS program.
I'm aware of this. A buyout would obviously come from tax revenue. To see if this is feasible even at a discount amount, I need to determine if a study has been done on how much has been paid in by those who haven't collected yet.
I'm aware of this. A buyout would obviously come from tax revenue. To see if this is feasible even at a discount amount, I need to determine if a study has been done on how much has been paid in by those who haven't collected yet.
Garunteed its way over a trillion. BTW , whats after trillion?
The plan for SS is to use it as a political football.
The plan for SS is to use it as a political football.
Emotion appeals and creative accounting lend themselves to be the perfect bait for myopic recipients who will believe any change to the system, that will not even impact them, is a death notice inscribed with their name. This is sure political death for anyone from any party who attempts to make any change.
SS changes are the perfect example of an animal in distress attacking the person who is trying to help.
Dems know this and play the gray card. Republicans are too stupid to address the Dems emotional threats in a manner that effectively communicates the facts to the wounded animals.
I think the GOP has really exposed its hyporcisy by saying that the payroll tax cut increases the deficiet. Yes, it does. That's why I'm against it. I'm also against all Bush tax cuts because they increase it as well. If the GOP was as concerned about the debt as they pretend to be, they'd be willing to increase taxes.
We spend $1.4 trillion in deficit in a single year, do you propose that we increase income taxes by that amount, or would it make more sense to reduce federal spending?
I agree that it's probably way over a trillion. I just want to figure out how much, and from there determine how much we could afford to buy out everyone, even at a discount.
We spend $1.4 trillion in deficit in a single year, do you propose that we increase income taxes by that amount, or would it make more sense to reduce federal spending?
I think we should do both if necessary, but primarily focus on spending. If anything, Repubs would be smart to agree to raise taxes in exchange for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
[quote=Kracer;22100320]The plan for SS is to use it as a political football.
Emotion appeals and creative accounting lend themselves to be the perfect bait for myopic recipients who will believe any change to the system, that will not even impact them, is a death notice inscribed with their name. This is sure political death for anyone from any party who attempts to make any change. [quote]
It will always be a political football that will lead to the programs demise or the whole countries. And the reason why :
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. Alexander Tytner
I'm aware of this. A buyout would obviously come from tax revenue. To see if this is feasible even at a discount amount, I need to determine if a study has been done on how much has been paid in by those who haven't collected yet.
just as long as you understand what it entails--
which is, retracting a lot of the funds that lower-middle class retirees depend on, and returning that back to higher-wealth, higher-income retirees.
I don't see a problem with that if we give everyone back what they already paid into the system, and maybe interest if it's feasible.
Right, which puts a lot of lower-income retirees out on the street, because they take out much more than they contributed.
Unless you plan on both, a. Refunding what people paid, and b. Continuing to pay out what was promised. Then you'd have to either create huge new taxes, or add that to the deficit.
No matter how you slice it, your idea has major undefined consequences. "Refund the payroll tax" ain't quite that simple.
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.
The plan for SS is to use it as a political football.
