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.
Ah, so you got me.....used an "and" instead of an "or"......
Never the less, as you well know, KY and many other places are 30-40 places behind Warren's state. You can pick nits if you like, but the point stands.
It's factually true that people in MA are better off in terms of health care, social services, life span, body weight, innovation, creation of value, education and MANY other metrics.
One either accepts that reality or they stand on their head to read the state ratings.
BTW, as I said earlier, I am against sky-high SS limits. I want the account to balance since I am very fiscally conservative. Tax money can be gotten from higher rates on incomes (stopping some of the preferred treatment of capital gains and dividends) and such things.
Increases in SS to the employers and employees should be kept small and gradual - and they WILL BE. As I said, also, the POTUS doesn't make those decisions. It's a compromise that is worked out.
Medicare is somewhat another story. We need to get that money from many places....including means testing for seniors with millions in the bank. At some point they need to fork up some of their life savings for their medical care....the other option is that Junior gets the money after their death, which spoils Junior and makes him or her non-productive.
Yes. MA is ahead in lots of those metrics. So is a place like Colorado (regarding obesity and lifespan). Unfortunately, correlation does not equal causation. General cultural inclination, demographics, geographic differences, historical economic industries all have an enormous effect. You just want to pretend it all comes down to social policy. Not true.
What would actually be a more useful information is to remove the largest 10 cities from each state and then only look at the rural populations. See how they compare on a state by state basis on healthcare, life expectancy, educational attainment, etc. etc.
It will kill what's left of the middle class. The small operations that employ 70% of the work force.
She is a liberal shill pretending to be a female Sanders. She stole his entire platform.
Nothing new. She stole her identity for God's sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Do you mean everyone will have high wages and great medical care and social services like here in the State where she holds office?
I think a lot of the country would love to be in that position....
What planet do you live on? Do they teach math?
If you believe the nonsense she's feeding you then be my guest and vote for her lies.
Facts count!
The US has an $18T economy - she wants to spend $52T over a decade.
She agrees that several million people will be out of their jobs and hundreds of companies wiped out.
That will be MORE than a few million out of work and placed on some type of welfare. That will kill the RE markets. People will lose 10s of thousands of homes. It would crash the world economy because the US would catch the flu, not just a cold.
You really need to learn how things actually work in the real world.
"I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally." bad debt, OP
It is clear that the OP has issues with the American working class who in 2016 had an average income of just over $31,000. The real question here should be why is there a cap at all on SS earnings?
We might think that our tax system is fair, right? Well, Warren Buffet has a different take on the subject. Buffet stated that he believed that our tax system was unfair. He made his case by saying that on his earnings of billions annually he paid a tax rate of 13% while his secretary paid a tax rate 35% on her $75,000 annual salary.
The reality is that it is the wealthy who are fleecing the American working class.
"I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally." bad debt, OP
It is clear that the OP has issues with the American working class who in 2016 had an average income of just over $31,000. The real question here should be why is there a cap at all on SS earnings?
We might think that our tax system is fair, right? Well, Warren Buffet has a different take on the subject. Buffet stated that he believed that our tax system was unfair. He made his case by saying that on his earnings of billions annually he paid a tax rate of 13% while his secretary paid a tax rate 35% on her $75,000 annual salary.
The reality is that it is the wealthy who are fleecing the American working class.
The reality is that Warren Buffett’s 13% is many, many, many times the amount his secretary pays at 35%. If we are talking about what is really “fair”, why talk percentages? It is not like we do that in any other area of life. We just split the cost of the things we use, evenly among the people who use them. When we go out to eat with friends, we dont all pay different percentages based on income. Someone making $500,000 doesn’t use the roads any more than someone making $50K. Or the military, police department, fire department, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc.
Let’s be truly fair, and divide the taxes evenly among all people. Let everyone pay their REAL and true fair share, where nobody has to pay more than anyone else. I have a wife and three kids, so I will pay for the five of us, and everyone else can pay for their family.
"I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally." bad debt, OP
It is clear that the OP has issues with the American working class who in 2016 had an average income of just over $31,000. The real question here should be why is there a cap at all on SS earnings?
We might think that our tax system is fair, right? Well, Warren Buffet has a different take on the subject. Buffet stated that he believed that our tax system was unfair. He made his case by saying that on his earnings of billions annually he paid a tax rate of 13% while his secretary paid a tax rate 35% on her $75,000 annual salary.
The reality is that it is the wealthy who are fleecing the American working class.
Income tax rates are progressive. Period. Also, there is no way that someone earning only 75,000 per year is paying a 35% of her income on income taxes. You're being lied to.
Currently for Social Security employees pay 6.2% (which is matched by employers) on gross earnings up to $132,000 and 0% on those above $132,000 on the front end while paying into the system.
My understanding of Warrens plan that she wants to do the following: 1) to remove the cap on those earning above $132,000 and increase the contribution percentage to 7.4%; and 2) for individuals making over $250,000 individually or $400,000 jointly would owe 14.8% to the system (which would also be matched by employers). Talk about killing wage growth. That would do it immediately.
There's a better plan that was submitted by Democrats back in January.
That plan sets the FICA rate at 7.8% for employer and employee, and creates a "doughnut-hole."
The doughnut-hole is between the current cap and $400,000.
The doughnut-hole floats, so based on the National Average Wage Index the cap increases and the initial $400,000 amount increases.
As I've repeatedly proven, eliminating the wage cap does absolutely nothing.
Democrats know that, which is why in their pending Bill --- not Warren's --- the use the revenues from the elimination of the wage cap as wage adjustments and credits for low income earners and beneficiaries.
The way it works is someone with 29 years of work only gets 83% of their benefits. You have to work 35 years to get 100% of your benefits.
So the money from the elimination of the wage cap gives the person with 29 years a 3-year credit, so that they have a 32-year work history and get 91% of their benefits instead of 83%.
For low wage earners who do have 35 years, the revenues from the wage cap are used to boost their benefits up to the level of Supplemental Security Income benefits.
The FICA rate increase will make Social Security solvent for the next 200+ years, because your ratio of workers-to-beneficiaries isn't going to change, and if it does, it will increase slightly to your benefit.
Anyway, I got paper-plates that are smarter than Warren.
You are in luck then. Social Security is a trust fund, so you dont have to worry about spending without funding. When it runs out of money, there can be no more spending from it.
How about just taking the money everyone pays to Social Security, and putting it in their own personal retirement account, in a fund that tracks the S&P? No option to take it out before retirement. People would get a much better return on their money.
Generally speaking 75-year-old are not well served invested 100% in equities.
Also it's just not how Social Security works. It's progressive system, eg someone who averages $20,000/yr gets far, far more than a quarter of someone who averages $80,000 year for the same number of years.
Unfortunately it's also not much of a trust fund. It's used for various reasons such as tax cuts and then backfilled with general fund deficit dollars. And while I do agree it's more preferable to just cut the payouts buy 20-30% when the deficit exhausts the fund in 15 years than to use deficit funding, it's a pretty crappy solution to the problem to do so. Someone my age can, and should be, planning on potentially lower Social Security payments. Someone who is 85 and retired 20 year ago it's a bit tougher to just tell them to deal with it. Sure, they should have been more responsible with money but in 2000 it was nowhere near as obvious to the average Joe that Social Security was unsustainable.
There's a better plan that was submitted by Democrats back in January.
That plan sets the FICA rate at 7.8% for employer and employee, and creates a "doughnut-hole."
The doughnut-hole is between the current cap and $400,000.
The doughnut-hole floats, so based on the National Average Wage Index the cap increases and the initial $400,000 amount increases.
As I've repeatedly proven, eliminating the wage cap does absolutely nothing.
Democrats know that, which is why in their pending Bill --- not Warren's --- the use the revenues from the elimination of the wage cap as wage adjustments and credits for low income earners and beneficiaries.
The way it works is someone with 29 years of work only gets 83% of their benefits. You have to work 35 years to get 100% of your benefits.
So the money from the elimination of the wage cap gives the person with 29 years a 3-year credit, so that they have a 32-year work history and get 91% of their benefits instead of 83%.
For low wage earners who do have 35 years, the revenues from the wage cap are used to boost their benefits up to the level of Supplemental Security Income benefits.
The FICA rate increase will make Social Security solvent for the next 200+ years, because your ratio of workers-to-beneficiaries isn't going to change, and if it does, it will increase slightly to your benefit.
Anyway, I got paper-plates that are smarter than Warren.
Do you have a link to any sort of summary that shows the general outline new proposal?
Also, can you describe exactly what this doughnut hole represents?
"I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally." bad debt, OP
It is clear that the OP has issues with the American working class who in 2016 had an average income of just over $31,000. The real question here should be why is there a cap at all on SS earnings?
Because there's a corresponding cap on SS benefits.
And just as an FYI... Most people already LOSE money on Social Security now, anyway. Only the low-income come out ahead.
Quote:
"As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.
Not anymore.
A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration."
The reality is that Warren Buffett’s 13% is many, many, many times the amount his secretary pays at 35%. If we are talking about what is really “fair”, why talk percentages? It is not like we do that in any other area of life. We just split the cost of the things we use, evenly among the people who use them. When we go out to eat with friends, we dont all pay different percentages based on income. Someone making $500,000 doesn’t use the roads any more than someone making $50K. Or the military, police department, fire department, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc.
Let’s be truly fair, and divide the taxes evenly among all people. Let everyone pay their REAL and true fair share, where nobody has to pay more than anyone else. I have a wife and three kids, so I will pay for the five of us, and everyone else can pay for their family.
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.
