We are a nation of two classes....the recipient class and the provider class. (NAFTA, lobbyists)

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by mb1547

It also depends on what point you are in your life. Half of the people paying no taxes are retirees living on social security. They paid throughout their working lives.

But they still receive much more back in dollars and services than they have ever paid in.

My father in law is 89 years old. He exceeded what he paid into SS about 16 years ago.

How is this sustainable?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by NJBest

I feel the same way about states like NJ and NY being the providers for recipient states like South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Why can't states hold their own without relying on other states to subsidize them?

Hey! Look at that!

Another leftie making a Constitutional argument!

That's 2 this week!

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by aus10

I probably wouldn't say so much about those who WON'T either, if they'd just shut up and quit telling me that I don't pay enough, that every one of my principles is wrong, and that it's their way or else. I don't even expect a thank-you. Just a quiet nod or an indication of appreciation or understanding would be enough...

Exactly.

A thank you would be nice, instead of the constant F**k You! that we get.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by NJBest

Sure you can. By posting something thoroughly and comprehensible. Not something half-assed.

Comprehension is the key.

My post was cut and dry.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Hey! Look at that!

Another leftie making a Constitutional argument!

That's 2 this week!

Hey, don't drag me into your group of people. I've never claimed to be a "leftie"... especially not on this forum! That's all yours.

[GregW]

SS insurance is sustainable if we apply the tax to all income from all sources and adjust the rate to only cover current expenses and not put any money into "trust funds". We could also limit payment to only those people with retirement incomes below the mean. Then the fund would be solvent but some of the top 1% might complain about income redistribution. Too bad income redistribution via a rigged system is how they got their money in the first place.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Comprehension is the key.

My post was cut and dry.

Your post was vague. Maybe intentionally. But then your question from readers based on a vague statement isn't going to yield a conclusive discussion.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by GregW

SS insurance is sustainable if we apply the tax to all income from all sources and adjust the rate to only cover current expenses and not put any money into "trust funds". We could also limit payment to only those people with retirement incomes below the mean. Then the fund would be solvent but some of the top 1% might complain about income redistribution. Too bad income redistribution via a rigged system is how they got their money in the first place.

So the successful support the unsuccessful....

If you pay attention to the folks who speak up... a lot more than the top 1% are concerned with your proposal. You'd see close to 50/50 split on this forum over this issue.. and half the people on here are not part of the 1%.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by freemkt

Low-wage workers provide for the welfare class AND the middle class. TYVM.

And in turn the low-wage workers are provided for BY the other classes.

As in roads, schools, water, sewage police, firemen and every other thing they are involved in.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by alphamale

I thought it was pretty well laid out.

You are either a provider, or a recipient.

What is so difficult to understand?

I probably pay more in Taxes than you make, so much for your provider class being made up of righties. Oh, you do know that good righties also use government assistance at times of need also don't ya, or is your mind not capable of admitting that FACT.