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.
They do NOT earn 90% of the income. They earn less than half of the income, according to the IRS. So... why not have them pay the commensurate amount of the federal income tax revenue? Don't you want them to pay their "fair share?" Have them pay the same percentage of the income tax revenue as their share of the income. That would ensure they're paying their "fair share."
I never said that they earned 90% of the income, you did. Why do you play with numbers and lie?
Plus, why do you want to tax old people, poor people, and disabled people? What will this accomplish?
Why do you want to tax someone more who sweats for a living than someone who sits by the pool and earns a passive income?
SS is a great idea and one of the most successful programs ever enacted by the federal government which has lifted millions out of poverty in a more efficient manner than the private sector could ever accomplishment.
Your argument is not an argument against SS, but an argument against demographics and the fact that SS is not progressive enough.
So... it's perfectly fine that the middle class gets LESS back in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system throughout their working years?
Not only do you want to penalize and redistribute from the "rich" , liberals aregoing after the middle class now, too?
So... it's perfectly fine that the middle class gets LESS back in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system throughout their working years?
Not only do you want to penalize and redistribute from the "rich" , liberals aregoing after the middle class now, too?
You are distorting the facts and my words. I want to strengthen it and make it more progressive. Plus, I wanted to extend the payroll tax holiday for millions of people and use the general fund to finance it.
Again, your argument is not against SS, but against progressivity. I agree, make SS more progressive.
I never said that they earned 90% of the income, you did.
No, I didn't. You claimed they earn most of the income. They fact is that they DON'T.
Quote:
Plus, why do you want to tax old people, poor people, and disabled people? What will this accomplish?
There's not much to tax if one is poor, disabled, has no income, no? So... where's the problem?
Quote:
Why do you want to tax someone more who sweats for a living than someone who sits by the pool and earns a passive income?
That wouldn't happen. Everyone would pay federal income tax in DIRECT PROPORTION to their share of the income. Earn nothing; pay nothing. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT. Are you having a hard time understanding the concept?
No, I'm not. The Social Security Administration flat out ADMITS that the only people who don't get LESS back in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes throughout their working years are the low-income earners. That's precisely because it's a progressive system. Everyone else's wealth, including that of the middle class, is systematically confiscated to redistribute to the low-income.
No, I didn't. You claimed they earn most of the income. They fact is that they DON'T.
WTF are you smoking? Income distribution in the US is highly unequal. The top one percent earns more than a fifth of income in the US.
Why would anyone disagree with this? Do you also call evolution and global warming false? Are you this much of a dataphobe?
Quote:
There's not much to tax if one is poor, disabled, has no income, no? So... where's the problem?
These are the people who you want to tax more. After all, don't they have to pay their fair share?
Quote:
That wouldn't happen. Everyone would pay federal income tax in DIRECT PROPORTION to their share of the income. Earn nothing; pay nothing. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT. Are you having a hard time understanding the concept?
IOW, you agree with progressive taxation as long as we can tax old and poor people more.
No, I'm not. The Social Security Administration flat out ADMITS that the only people who don't get LESS back in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes throughout their working years are the low-income earners. That's precisely because it's a progressive system. Everyone else's wealth, including that of the middle class, is systematically confiscated to redistribute to the low-income.
I want to make it more progressive. Does this bother you?
WTF are you smoking? Income distribution in the US is highly unequal. The top one percent earns more than a fifth of income in the US.
Why would anyone disagree with this? Do you also call evolution and global warming false? Are you this much of a dataphobe?
Mostly because it's False.
The top 1% earns 18.9% of the income, but pays 37.4% of the federal income tax revenue. They pay roughly TWICE their fair share.
The top 25-50% ($34,000 to $69,000 incomes, the middle class) earn 20.7% of the income but pay only 10.5% of the federal income tax revenue. They are paying roughly HALF their fair share.
"the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age, altering a clockwork rhythm of periodic cooling of the planet that extends back more than a million years."
Why? Do you like seeing people's hard-earned money confiscated from them and given to those who've contributed little or nothing?
Life is about choices. Many people foolishly make poor decisions. Others start with little or nothing and accumulate millions. Read The Millionaire Next Door. The overwhelming majority of millionaires sacrificed and worked hard to earn their wealth. Why penalize that kind of initiative and reward poor decision making?
Guess what happens when you penalize initiative, hard work, and success, and reward poor decision making. You get less of the former and more of the latter. Also known as... an Idiocracy.
Is it possible that about half of us really want to live in a world where where the wealthy have "everything" and the workers scrape to get by? Where one needs to carry weapons to defend oneself against one's neighbors, where fear is the prevelent attitude amoung such a large percentage of the population, and where the attitude of cooperation amoung residents to achieve a common good is looked upon with disgust?
No. There are a lot of crazy people who think that. It's just the rest of the members of a certain party who tolerate them--which actually makes them part of the problem.
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.
, liberals are going after the middle class now, too? 
