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.
Another post about Social Security prompts me to post this one. The SS amount deducted from the paycheck does seem to be a pain to the present day worker. I can really understand that. And there may not be any money around when they retire. This may be true.
Social Security decuction is a tax. Plan and simple, it is a tax that is matched by the employer for a specific purpose. Call it whatever you want to, it's still a TAX.
Now, if that SS tax is reduced or eliminated, what happens to the people that depend on it? Not just the elderly, but the disabled, the blind, etc. They must be taken care of. There would be more receiving welfare payments. Someone will pay for it. And that will mean MORE income taxes withheld from the paycheck. The difference will be that the employer will no longer have to pay in an equal share.
What's the solution? It's not as simple as you might think. It's easy to say that everyone should save up for their retirement years, but not everyone makes enough to do that. We haven't reached a point where we can just toss people out on the streets when they get old and penniless or disabled in some way.
Who knows...perhaps <silas777> is one of them. What's your plan for Social Security reform? Would its outcomes in any way resemble those that obtained prior to the establishment of Social Security, when we did indeed routinely toss people out on the streets when they got old and penniless or disabled in some way?
Who knows...perhaps <silas777> is one of them. What's your plan for Social Security reform? Would its outcomes in any way resemble those that obtained prior to the establishment of Social Security, when we did indeed routinely toss people out on the streets when they got old and penniless or disabled in some way?
you made the statement "some republicans have" ,I asked who, and your response is "who knows"?
you made the statement "some republicans have" ,I asked who, and your response is "who knows"?
'Who knows' was to suggest your own potential inclusion in the identified class. I see we are trying to run away from the possibility of using you yourself as the example.
'Who knows' was to suggest your own potential inclusion in the identified class. I see we are trying to run away from the possibility of using you yourself as the example.
Yeah, the old bait and switch, I didnt make any claims to run away from, I believe that would be you. I would like to know of any republicans advocating what you say they are!
What's the solution? It's not as simple as you might think.
For starters, it seems like we could:
(a). Increase the amount of money going to SS
and/or
(b). Decrease the amount of money going out of SS
I'm sure there are a variety of simple methods for accomplishing either of these goals. However, no matter what we do it is going to step on someone's toes.
Yeah, the old bait and switch, I didnt make any claims to run away from...
Correct. I asked you a few qualifying questions which you are running away from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
I believe that would be you. I would like to know of any republicans advocating what you say they are!
The question isn't over advocating at all. Acceptance even as an 'unfortunate' side-effect is the level being looked at. On that score, we have a suspect under interrogation at the present time. But he is refusing to answer the questions put to him...
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.