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.
We should blame the rich who has never paid their fair share.
And how much do you think their fair share is? I bet you have no clue how much a 'rich' person even pays. You are just parroting Democrat talking points. They tell you you lose because some rich person isn't 'paying his fair share' and you buy right into it. I can tell you why YOU aren't rich. It's not because some wealthy person isn't paying his fair share.
We should blame the rich who has never paid their fair share.
What is a fair share, you need to look at the numbers. The top 10% pay almost 70% of all taxes paid, the top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The bottom 50% earners pay about 3% of all taxes, 48% of tax payers pay no tax at all. The US has one of the most progressive tax structures in the world, where the bottom pay next to nothing and the top pay for almost everything.
Social Security benefits should be means tested. Any retired person with an annual income of $75K or more from investments and/or other sources shouldn't get Social Security.
I disagree unless such persons had the ability to opt out of the SS tax. How in the hell can you advocate forcing people to pay decades worth of taxes for nothing?
Many look to the Scandinavian countries but taxes on even low wage earners there is very high. In Denmark, the top tax bracket is at 64.28% and the average tax rate is 56% - the highest marginal and average rates in the world. They have the second highest average pre-tax salary: $64,310 (just above the US at $64,184) but the average post-tax salary is $28,227 - they also impose a VAT/sales tax of 25%. Sweden is not much better with effective rate of about 52%; Average tax salary: $46,804; Average post-tax salary: $22,410. In comparison, the US has the second Highest Average post-tax salary in the world at $52,344, behind only Switzerland who has highest average salary in the world and an effective tax rate of only 2%.
The rich in the US pay a larger share of the total taxes than in almost all countries.
And how much do you think their fair share is? I bet you have no clue how much a 'rich' person even pays. You are just parroting Democrat talking points. They tell you you lose because some rich person isn't 'paying his fair share' and you buy right into it. I can tell you why YOU aren't rich. It's not because some wealthy person isn't paying his fair share.
100%. All of their incomes should be confiscated and redistribute to the people who don’t produce anything valuable but endless babies.
So once your income goes over $30,000 in that tax year it is taxed at 30%.
Now anyone making $.01 to $150,000 in a year is taxed an additional 5%.that goes into your SS Account. Once you go over $150,000 no longer taxed an additional 5%.
The Government deposits funds into your SS Account. The amount determined is 15% of your total income for the year. Only eligible if income is $150,000 or less for the year.
Now anyone making $.01 to $150,000 has the option to have deducted from their income an additional 1% to 10% to be deposited into their Social Security Fund.
Now everyone has access to an SS Account.
Now anyone can deduct from their SS Account once they reach 65. However, it's a 10% percent penalty and that penalty percentage will diminish by 2% until the individual reaches 70.
Now companies with 40 or less are exempt from paying corporate taxes. However, those with 40 or more employee's pay 40% in taxes. With 15% of that 40% tax going towards funding Social Security.
So with transition to the reformed Social Security. Those 60 or older currently paying taxes would have $1,500,000 deposited into their SS account if the last ten year's of year to date income does not exceed $1,500,000 and currently not receiving SS retirement funds. Anyone 50 to 60 would have $900,000 deposited into their SS account if last 10 year to date incomes don't exceed $1,500,000. 40 to 50 $500,000 again same thing with YTD income. 30 to 40 $250,000 again same thing for YTD income. $50,000 for those 20 to 30 same thing with YTD income but last 5 don't exceed $1.5 Million.
Social Security benefits should be means tested. Any retired person with an annual income of $75K or more from investments and/or other sources shouldn't get Social Security. For many people who never even made $75K a year in their lives, so never had extra money to invest, SS benefits are probably all they have.
So you want to punish those that did save - what incentive would anyone have to save anything for retirement if this were to happen. Those that paid into it for 40+ years would get nothing in return, making more of a socialist program than it is already.
SS and Medicare are already partially means tested, those making close to the top of the amount subject to Payroll taxes get very little additional SS payments. Many are already subject to 2-3x higher Medicare part B payments based on reported income with no additional benefit. More of SS is subject to being taxed if make more.
How would you deal with pensions and would you cut off those that need these payments to pay medical bills or house/rent payments. Current federal pensions are set based on expecting SS and Savings to cover the rest. How about high COL locations where $75K in CA is worth the same as $30K in MS.
This is true class warfare - punish others even though they did nothing wrong other than scrimp and made due to save when others spent foolishly. If SS benefits are all someone has then they are the very definition of foolish for not planning. This is a stupid idea, it would disincentive those who can and do save and bring everyone down to the same level as those who spend everything.
What every worker has is an amount equivalent to 12.4% of their income going to SS away from their bank account.
It was Bill Clinton who first brought this up. Democrats lament the poor not building wealth and the various wealth gaps. My plan helps address this.
Once again, you are proving that you are financially illiterate or a liar distorting reality.
You are ignoring dividends. During your highly selective timeframe to include right before a stock market drop to minimize the number lower you further distort by leaving out dividends reinvested.
The S&P 500 is up 5.871% annualized the past 20 years or 213% overall.
That is if you invested in the S&P 500 index fund 20 years ago - you'd be up 3 times.
Annuities are essentially insurance products that often fluctuate based on the market - similar premise here.
What is so wrong with closing the wealth gap by building up the wealth of the poor?
#1 If you read my post no one would be forced to put their SS money into the Total US Stock Index, they would have the option to put a portion of it in there.
#2 The Government wouldn't pick the companies - it would buy all companies in the US in proportion to their size, see index fund.
#3 You can bash on Obama's Solyndra all you want.
You bash the government and then you go ahead an say hey let them run with 100% of your SS money!
Most tangible goods go down in value. Look at your car.
I said the rich get richer by owning stocks...how can you take exception with that? What does your citationless claim on how the rich acquire their stocks say about their wealth? Yes, as I've already stated in this thread you can build wealth via real estate, etc too.
That's not actually true. Every wage earner has 6.2% of their income up to a certain amount, not all their income. It's something over 100K but not that much. If ALL income was taxed at 6.2% it would make quite a difference.
That's not actually true. Every wage earner has 6.2% of their income up to a certain amount, not all their income. It's something over 100K but not that much. If ALL income was taxed at 6.2% it would make quite a difference.
It’s around $120k. But let me ask you, if there was no yearly cap on how much you have to pay in, is there still a cap on how much you get out when you collect?
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.
