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.
It's bad enough that retired folks have to watch their money.
SS is now taxed at certain levels.
And now you want pensions, annuities, dividends, rent, inheritance and 100% of SS taxed as regular income ?
These people are on fixed incomes and usually have to cut back when prices rise.
The Fed thinks there's no inflation so SS isn't getting any COLA next year.
Yet prices at the supermarket continue to rise. Property taxes continue to rise.
Utilities continue to rise in cost.
Should people just hand over all their money to Uncle Sam ?
I dont want SS taxed. Nice implication though.
But yes, I do think unearned income should be taxed like earned income. Whats your point?
As for the rest, it is just a deflect and blame tactic. IE associate my conversation here with completely unrelated topics.
some have a way of making greed and theft sound so reasonable
You didn't deposit anything,the money taken from you went immediately to pay for something/ someone else.
Today's workers are now paying your bills.
Do you have insurance on your car? Your house? Perhaps even your life? Do you think the insurance company has a little drawer in a vault somewhere labeled with your name? And if your house burns down they go to that vault and open it and find your cash, and pull that out, and hand it back to your grasping little hands?
It's bad enough that retired folks have to watch their money.
SS is now taxed at certain levels.
And now you want pensions, annuities, dividends, rent, inheritance and 100% of SS taxed as regular income ?
These people are on fixed incomes and usually have to cut back when prices rise.
The Fed thinks there's no inflation so SS isn't getting any COLA next year.
Yet prices at the supermarket continue to rise. Property taxes continue to rise.
Utilities continue to rise in cost.
Should people just hand over all their money to Uncle Sam ?
Social Security is taxed after a certain amount because it is the only way to "level" the playing field if you will.
Someone earned and contributed the max into SS and has a nice pension, savings, investments and other assets doesn't "need" SS, but since they contributed they are entitled to receive. Spouses who claim upon their husband's or wife's record and or survivor benefit aren't means tested so they to may not "need" the money but by law they are entitled to claim.
So to make things a bit more equitable SS is taxed above a certain amount which I agree is stupid, but can see why. Doing so helps calm those screaming for blood because people who "don't need" SS are receiving payments regardless.
The alternative to taxing SS payments would be some sort of means test but that is never going to happen. Well can see not for the primary worker but now that marriage has been redefined by the SCOTUS spousal and survivor benefits perhaps should be looked at.
Sooo...suddenly social security is part of the budget? Really?
And Medicare? That people pay for seperately?
Soo handout spending...that people seem most upset by is welfare, and food stamps....which is in fact a trivial amount of the budget.
So of interest is that you include social security-given that it is in fact not part of the budget.
Why do that? Ohhh because it fits your narrative.
So Medicare and Social Security are just "free" and the funds come from thin air?
Medicare and Social Security are funded by TAXES, which is revenue, and actual money is paid to support these initiatives. Simply because those taxes are earmarked does not change the fact that they are indeed taxes and real federal expenditures.
Remember- there is no "trust fund" for social security. It is a "pay as you go" system that requires working people to maintain it. The same for medicare.
Many paying those social security and medicare taxes will never see a dime of benefits, or are paying a very large amount relative to what they will ever recieve. I got my "social security report" letter last week and it was shocking what I have paid into that ponzi scheme over the last thirty years.
Most of the federal budget is allocated to handout spending. And yet, liberals say we need to cut defense spending which only accounts for about 16% of the budget.
Do they not understand that even if we cut the entire defense budget, we would still end up with a budget deficit? Why do they not understand that all this welfare spending is simply not sustainable?
Oh, and the handout spending (2.33 T) as a percentage of the estimated 2015 federal tax revenue (3.2 T) is about 73% That means that almost 3/4 of the tax money you send to the federal government goes straight to handouts. And they still claim it's not enough.
Social Security is not a "handout." Social Security is paid for by everyone who works, from the time they take their first job. But, the Federal Government has robbed SS of billions of dollars.
As for health care, it was predicted that Obamacare was going to be a looser and cost billions of dollars. This is no surprise. This is by far the worst thing the government has ever done to the American people. Thank Obama and the Democrats.
Social Security is not a "handout." Social Security is paid for by everyone who works, from the time they take their first job. But, the Federal Government has robbed SS of billions of dollars.
As for health care, it was predicted that Obamacare was going to be a looser and cost billions of dollars. This is no surprise. This is by far the worst thing the government has ever done to the American people. Thank Obama and the Democrats.
It IS a handout. Why? MANY of those who "contribute" to social security recieve far more than they contributed. That is where the "social" in social security becomes relevant. I have paid in to social security (even at this point) far, far more than I would ever recieve. It is a wealth redistribution scheme.
You guys can argue all you want about what's a handout and what's not. The fact still remains that cutting defense spending will not get us out of a budget deficit. Period. Cuts will have to be made to social services.
Why? Social Security hasn't contributed one dime to the debt. Yet, the GOP looks to raise the retirement age to 70.
When one is dealing with budgets, one has to look at the objective one is trying to accomplish and form policy around that.
The 2001 cut was passed based on the claim that the government was running an excessive surplus; the 2003 cut on the claim that it would provide an economic boost. Now we face the effects largely created by those tax cuts, lower revenue. As a response, the GOP says we must raise the Medicare age and cut Social Security!
As an alternative to slashing social services, we could raise the taxes of the top 0.1%, who annually earn over a trillion dollars. Raising it by 10% would mean that they pay on average 26% in taxes, about what the upper-middle class pays. That extra 10% would raise $100 billion.
Well, consider the idea of raising the Medicare eligibility age, a move that would create vast hardship. According to the CBO, when fully phased in this would save $42 billion a year -- less than half of what raising taxes on the super-rich would yield.
The point is that higher taxes on the very rich could make a significant contribution to deficit reduction without slashing social programs.
It IS a handout. Why? MANY of those who "contribute" to social security recieve far more than they contributed. That is where the "social" in social security becomes relevant. I have paid in to social security (even at this point) far, far more than I would ever recieve. It is a wealth redistribution scheme.
That depends upon your math. The dollars that I paid in were paid in over a long period of time. The money paid in long ago were more valuable dollars. The dollars paid out are inflated, less valuable dollars. If you compare them equally, you are making a fundamental mistake.
He would be pleased to see more people on welfare than those working.
Who is "he?"
Since the original comment was in response to my post, I assume he is me. If so, the assertion that I "would be pleased to see more people on welfare than those working," is false. Please don't speak for me.
If is also a false assumption that only those who are not employed get social benefits. Over 30% of SNAP participants work.
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.
