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.
He is absolutely correct about this. It makes more sense than the rich-supporting Republican view, a view that was shown to be entirely wrong during the 8 horrific Bush years. Tax cuts for the rich don't help the country. They only help the rich.
95% of the 'bush tax cut/credits" were for the poor and middleclass
When the tax-rates were higher in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the debt to GDP ratio was small and shrinking.
Misleading. The IRS tax code was radically different, something you repeatedly ignore in order to spread disinformation.
You would need to compare real tax rates against the IRS tax codes in effect at the time.
Yes, the tax rate was 91%, but not one person in the US ever paid 91%. After taking all legal deductions available to them in the IRS tax code applicable at the time, their real tax rate was only about 45%-50%. Contrast that with the IRS tax code today, where the tax rate is 35% and people are actually paying 30%-35%.
Continually debunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
the premise of your post is incorrect. Our looming insolvency is not due to low FICA taxes, it is due to increased costs that were legislated but never paid for.
The premise of my of post is 100% correct.
Your "looming insolvency" is due to the fact that neither Social Security nor Medicare were adequately funded from their inception.
Both are Ponzi-schemes, wherein it requires an ever growing supply of "investors" to keep paying benefits.
Initially, there were 46 workers for each retiree, and life expectancy was less. Now, as of May 2012, you have 2.3 workers for each retiree. According to past annual reports (and I have read all of them since the year 2000), you were supposed to have at least 2.8 workers through 2035, tapering of to 2.0 workers per retiree in 2050.
Even having the number of workers, the FICA rate has to be adjusted to offset Natural Inflation.
Not only do you not have enough people working to support the number of retirees, they aren't paying enough to cover the costs either.
The Ford Commission recommended steady annual or periodic increases in the FICA tax rate. The Carter Administration did its part and raise the FICA tax rates. The commission appointed by Reagan also recommended annual or periodic FICA tax rate increases. The Reagan Administration did its part and raised the FICA tax rate.
Clinton and Bush the Younger did nothing, passing the buck, and Obama has refused to increase the FICA tax rate, and additionally given a 33% rebate by reducing the FICA tax from 6.2% to 4.2%.
And over that entire period, life-expectancy has steadily increased.
You said....
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
how else is the U.S. government going to afford all the unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations? Penalize young workers who are trying to be prudent, and save, so they can build businesses or buy houses or start families?
...and my response was....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What? That is an incredibly absurd statement. When Boomers started working, the FICA tax was 3.625% and then it was increased to 6.2%. Let's do the math (lest there be any confusion).
Boomers had a 71% payroll tax increase, to fund Social Security, so it would be there when they retire.
How much have Social Security taxes increased for the Gen X/Gen Y Pukes? Again, we'll do the math:
6.20
6.20 less
----------
0 / 6.2 * 100 = 0%
Wow, a whopping 0% FICA tax increase on Gen X and Gen Y.
And you dodged The Truth by failing to address it, and instead, you posted a meaningless graph that you don't even understand and isn't even relative to the discussion.I then pointed that there has been no FICA tax increase, not since 1990. That was 22 years ago (for the not-too-bright who can't handle 4th Grade Math). If you are not willing to pay higher taxes to get the services you want, then I'm real sorry about your luck.
Then you continued your rant with....
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
No, the best way to support the rising indigent senior population is to tax capital gains and dividends.
Indigent? Do you even know what that word means?
I rebutted that stupidity with more facts and truth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The IRS reports that there were 236,883 tax-payers in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million. They earned a total of $727 Billion. You and many others are under the false and misguided impression that eliminating the cap on earnings will solve the problems of Social Security (and Medicare).
Let's look at that. Calling the cap $110,000 for easier math, those 236,883 people pay 6.2% on $110,000 or:
$110,000 * 6.02% * 236,883 = $1,568,639,226 or $1.5 Billion
If we eliminate the cap then:
$727 Billion * 6.02% = 43,765,400,000 or $42.7 Billion.
What will $42.7 Billion get you? That won't even cover the losses of Social Security's day-to-day operations.
Had you bothered to read any of the budget reports, you'd know that capital gains generates revenues equal to about 0.2% of the GDP, or $30.4 Billion, so you're still riding the Fail-Boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
That way the cost overruns from these Medicare / Social Security programs will fall on the generation that's using them...
Um.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds Page 49
Under current law, the HI and SMI trust funds are separate and distinct, each with its own sources of financing. There are no provisions for using HI revenues to finance SMI expenditures, or vice versa, or for lending assets between the two trust funds. Moreover, the benefit provisions, financing methods, and, to a lesser degree, eligibility rules are very different between these Medicare components.In particular, both accounts of the SMI trust fund are automatically in financial balance under current law, whereas the HI fund is not.
For these reasons, the Trustees can evaluate the financial status of the Medicare trust funds only by separately assessing the status of each fund. Sections III.B, III.C, and III.D of this report present such assessments for HI (Part A), SMI Part B, and SMI Part D, respectively.
[Emphasis Mine]
.....hahahahahaha.
Nice try -- in the future, why don't you educate yourself on a topic before looking foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Furthermore that generation is best equipped to pay for them, as they own the vast majority of American personal wealth.
Uh, they paid an higher FICA tax rate to ensure Social Security would be there for them.
Other than whining and demanding that other people give you money, what exactly are you doing to ensure Social Security will be there for you?
So for the record you repubs are against Obama continuing the Bush tax cuts? And I thought I had seen everything!
There were plenty of conservative folks (not necessarily Republican) that didn't want these cuts to be extended in the first place. I was one. Let them all expire.
He is absolutely correct about this. It makes more sense than the rich-supporting Republican view, a view that was shown to be entirely wrong during the 8 horrific Bush years. Tax cuts for the rich don't help the country. They only help the rich.
You stepped in it this time...What the Republican having been doing in the House has been ignored by Harry "no budget" Reid so blame Obama,Reid ,Pelosi,Wasserman Schulz for being obstructionists.They had a super majority and ignored this issue,the economy,the debt,to focus on and pass HC.This I do blame on Obama for lack of leadership and vision to make HC his main goal instead of the economy first and foremost but that is predictable since he was a community organizer how he relied on the government for his budget to him its free money why make a budget when you can TAX,TAX,TAX.
Hmmmm, interesting that you do not mention the fact that much of what the House passed was known that it would be rejected by the Senate before it ever was passed on. You also seem to have forgotten that when a group was formed with Republican and Dems to deal with the budget it came to a halt all because the Repubs would not even consider removing the tax breaks for the rich. You also seem to forget that the reason behind our decress in credit rating was due to the obvious no-compromise stand of the Repubs when it came to removing some tax breaks to ensure that our bills could be paid. Are the Dems in the Senate blameless, no, they have not been much better, but they still understand that our system is based on compromise and always has been. As for the President, please explain how, other than making his position known and pushing Congress to do their job (which he did), he could affect their actions. The problem for the Republicans is they stated publically that they would do anything to get Obama out and their guy in, that also applies to both Houses of Congress, and for many Americans we see that they meant it, even to the point of hurting the Nation by doing all in their power to divide us and to run a propaganda program that has warped reality and set American politics further back. My taxes have not gone up, I know yours have not, but let me remind you that taxes were higher under RR and Clinton and in both cases the government and Nation were doing great. So yelling TAX, TAX, TAX is nonesence. So, go head, blame everything on President Obama, it only shows you are ignorant of the limits of power the President has or your are not being honest, I'll let the readers decide which it is.
Hmmmm, interesting that you do not mention the fact that much of what the House passed was known that it would be rejected by the Senate before it ever was passed on. You also seem to have forgotten that when a group was formed with Republican and Dems to deal with the budget it came to a halt all because the Repubs would not even consider removing the tax breaks for the rich. You also seem to forget that the reason behind our decress in credit rating was due to the obvious no-compromise stand of the Repubs when it came to removing some tax breaks to ensure that our bills could be paid. Are the Dems in the Senate blameless, no, they have not been much better, but they still understand that our system is based on compromise and always has been. As for the President, please explain how, other than making his position known and pushing Congress to do their job (which he did), he could affect their actions. The problem for the Republicans is they stated publically that they would do anything to get Obama out and their guy in, that also applies to both Houses of Congress, and for many Americans we see that they meant it, even to the point of hurting the Nation by doing all in their power to divide us and to run a propaganda program that has warped reality and set American politics further back. My taxes have not gone up, I know yours have not, but let me remind you that taxes were higher under RR and Clinton and in both cases the government and Nation were doing great. So yelling TAX, TAX, TAX is nonesence. So, go head, blame everything on President Obama, it only shows you are ignorant of the limits of power the President has or your are not being honest, I'll let the readers decide which it is.
LIMITED POWER? Compromising with Closed Door Harry and THE DIVIDING ONE ? LMAO its called Executive order and there is no getting around it HC is TAXES out the gazoo BROUGHT TO YOU BY UNELECTED LOBBYISTS,SPECIAL INTERESTS....Voted on with out reading it and shoved down our throats....talk about ignorant aren't you the guy that blames G.W.Bush's 8 years for our mess then say Obama doesn't wield this sort of power? So which is it then? Did Obama wave his magic wand and say "HopeyChangey" three times ...you my Hopeless CD member are just Color Blind to this empty suit POTUS.
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.
