Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Vader]

They already raised the retirement age for FUTURE beneficiaries. AKA kicking the can down the road. But grandma and gramps vote so there's no cutting the current benefit.

Yes, grandma and grandpa, conservative and liberal, are ******* future generations over because they want theirs, dammit!

I actually have an 88 year old great aunt who gives her SSI checks to her grand kids. She is one of the few that gets it.

Raising the retirement age isn't kicking the can down the road. Do you even understand how SSI works? It's a Ponzi scheme. The government takes money from today's working people and gives it to people that are retiring TODAY. You could pay into it for 40 years and get ZERO benefits depending on when you die. OR you could pay into it as little as a few years and draw money for over 40 years. It's a scam.

People should be responsible for their own retirement. Government has NO business in the retirement game. Just like they have NO business in other areas like education and health care... they've ****** that up enough.

 

[oneforthebus]

Income taxes aren't a disincentive to make money or hire people as they're an incremental expense on profit. Businesses hire people if doing so will improve their bottom line, income taxes don't have anything to do with it.

What you are arguing is for more income inequality: The rich have gotten richer, but not rich enough to make everyone else better off.

Do you not understand basic math? Income taxes equals LESS MONEY TO PAY PEOPLE WITH. Income taxes equals LESS MONEY TO BUY STUFF WITH, stuff that is created, marketed, advertised, packaged, shipped and sold by other people doing what is known as WORKING.

You keep coming back to your fundamental flaw which is the idea that taxing rich people makes everyone else better off. It hasn't, and it doesn't. It makes bureaucrats and lobbyists better off, that's it. Once again, tax revenues are at record levels. Welfare programs are at historic highs. Yet it's not helping people get ahead. A robust economy and competition for workers is what helps people get ahead. The government cannot create that. It has tried, and failed, over and over again.

 

[Rod Farva]

A little tweaking of the rules could even make a huge difference. I know people who work 20 years that retire at a young age with a great pension and bennies that have never paid into SS. They then re-enter the workforce for the amount of time necessary to collect SS. That's one ingredient in this recipe for disaster.

 

[SteelChip]

They then re-enter the workforce for the amount of time necessary to collect SS.

I didn't think this was very doable, I thought you needed like 25 years of employment history to qualify but it turns out that only 10 years is possible.

To qualify for Social Security retirement benefits, you must work in a Social Security covered job for at least 10 years. More specifically, you must earn 40 credits (you can earn 4 credits per year) to qualify
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...ecurity//RK=0/RS=_1bMTTs349WGJxF9vFBzxyxRlhY-.

How's that ole sayin' go....ya learn sumphin' new every day.

 

[Vader]

SSI has also had grace periods where they allow people to buy into it. I knew a guy that worked off the books his entire life. Never paid a dime to SSI. Sometime in the 80s they gave a grace period for people to pay into the system. He paid ~$3000 and started receiving SSI immediately. He was in his late 60s at the time and died over 25 years later. $3000 put in and probably $300,000 (not counting Medicare) out in benefits.

People need to have responsibility for their own lives. Enough of this nanny state bullshit.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

A little tweaking of the rules could even make a huge difference. I know people who work 20 years that retire at a young age with a great pension and bennies that have never paid into SS. They then re-enter the workforce for the amount of time necessary to collect SS. That's one ingredient in this recipe for disaster.

Why do you hate Italy and Greece?

 

[DBS1970]

Raising the retirement age isn't kicking the can down the road. Do you even understand how SSI works? It's a Ponzi scheme. The government takes money from today's working people and gives it to people that are retiring TODAY. You could pay into it for 40 years and get ZERO benefits depending on when you die. OR you could pay into it as little as a few years and draw money for over 40 years. It's a scam.

People should be responsible for their own retirement. Government has NO business in the retirement game. Just like they have NO business in other areas like education and health care... they've ****** that up enough.

It was originally intended to create a pool of money that the government could plunder. They set the retirement age at 62 and the average lifespan was 53 at the time.

 

[Troglodyte]

If I paid less income taxes, I'd have more money to spend on goods and services, and those business would need to hire employees to provide those. That is pretty simple.

Exactly. Someone has to pay taxes, and unfortunately a lot of them.

Is it better for the economy to give the rich (job creators) a tax break and increase taxes to the masses (consumers)? Or is it better to give a tax break to the consumers?

 

[Troglodyte]

Raising the retirement age isn't kicking the can down the road. Do you even understand how SSI works?

Do you even understand what it means to kick the can down the road?

If you're 65 today, you can collect SSI. In the FUTURE, you will need to be 67. FUTURE beneficiaries have had their benefits cut.

Future = down the road.
Can = Raising the retirement age.

 

[Troglodyte]

It was originally intended to create a pool of money that the government could plunder. They set the retirement age at 62 and the average lifespan was 53 at the time.

The increase in life expectancy has more to do with improved infant mortality rates than keeping old geezers alive longer.

There were old people when SSI was implemented. It's not like most people died before they turned 60.

 

[Steeltime]

Is it better for the economy to give the rich (job creators) a tax break and increase taxes to the masses (consumers)? Or is it better to give a tax break to the consumers?

I agree with you that tax breaks to the middle class produce more economic growth than any other tax break. That is an economic theory that has proven true.

However, tax breaks for ALL taxpayers have the same result.

Further, as I have discussed at some length in this thread and as supported by data from the IRS, increasing tax rates for the wealthy do not yield the tax revenue anticipated, simply because the rich don't need the @#$%ing income. They defer it, make it non-income basis, etc.

Finally, evidence shows that decreasing tax rates yields GREATER tax revenue long-term, due to the vastly superior economic performance, and the fact that the lowered tax rates make it unnecessary for higher income taxpayers to hide their income via deferments, non-income wealth, etc. Liberals simply cannot accept the fact that a 70% tax rate on $3,000,000 yields less revenue than a 28% rate on $8,000,000.

 

[Troglodyte]

Do you not understand basic math? Income taxes equals LESS MONEY TO PAY PEOPLE WITH.

Do you not understand what EBITDA is?

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Do you even understand what it means to kick the can down the road?

If you're 65 today, you can collect SSI. In the FUTURE, you will need to be 67. FUTURE beneficiaries have had their benefits cut.

Future = down the road.
Can = Raising the retirement age.

Currently I believe one has to be 66 to collect full benefits. It would increase 8% yearly if you hold off to age 70.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

At my age I don't get full benefits unless I wait until I'm 70, which i will. You can collect when you're 62 but it is a smaller amount. My cousin and I argue about this, he says to collect at 62 because you'd have to live to 85 or whatever to make up the difference for what you'd collect between 62 and 68 or 70. Me, I'd still rather have a bigger check.

 

[MT~Forged]

Exactly. Someone has to pay taxes, and unfortunately a lot of them.

Is it better for the economy to give the rich (job creators) a tax break and increase taxes to the masses (consumers)? Or is it better to give a tax break to the consumers?

How bout we don't take other people's money and give to people who don't work for it?

 

[jitter77]

I am for the flat tax. People with more money will buy more "toys" and therefore be taxed more. I have a problem with all the tax loopholes where companies or the rich get off easy due to stupid laws. For example the company I work for is a billion dollar company. My boss and I installed a door and entrance ramp and parts were like $800. We get the bill and its almost 2 grand. Our parent construction company (the brother of our owner is a project manager for the construction company) charged us for labor, parking fees, mileage, etc etc..My boss went to the administrator and asked if he should pay it and after a few phone calls she said yes. By charging extra fees it looks like our company did not make as much profit and therefore our company pays less taxes while both owners get rich.

 

[DBS1970]

The increase in life expectancy has more to do with improved infant mortality rates than keeping old geezers alive longer.

There were old people when SSI was implemented. It's not like most people died before they turned 60.

True there were old people but way fewer than there are today as a percentage of the population. The amount of people living in to their late 80s and 90s that we have today was unheard of in 1935.

 

[SteelChip]

There were old people when SSI was implemented. It's not like most people died before they turned 60.

You guys are confusing me again. Are yinz talkin' about SSI, which is...

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
* It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and
* It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

or SSA

The Social Security Administration assigns social security numbers; administers the retirement, survivors, and disability insurance programs known as Social Security

SSI is run by the SSA but qualifications run a whole different gambit.

You younin's don't have to worry about this program, there won't be anything left for ya in 20 years or so. Not only are people living longer but the bleeding hearts and career pols are giving SSI to anybody and everybody that will possibly vote for them and some that can't even vote...yet. The SS program was supposed to be a "lockbox" program that paid for itself and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it but guess what happened to that cash.

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it.. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2011 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021. Under current law, the securities in the fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the trust fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2033, the fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations.[4]
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...ust_Fund/RK=0/RS=HnjhpeKNJ2Ez80eN4sDAMMwM6U0-

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Further, as I have discussed at some length in this thread and as supported by data from the IRS, increasing tax rates for the wealthy do not yield the tax revenue anticipated, simply because the rich don't need the @#$%ing income. They defer it, make it non-income basis, etc.

This......Does anyone honestly believe that Warren Buffett would be touting that the rich need to pay more if it actually meant he would?
He means those other rich people, you know, the ones making the obscene amount over $125,000 a year.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The increase in life expectancy has more to do with improved infant mortality rates than keeping old geezers alive longer.

There were old people when SSI was implemented. It's not like most people died before they turned 60.

Soc Sec was established in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 66 and you collected at 65. These days people routinely live well into their 80's. My grandmother died in 1968 at the age of 69 and she was OLD. My grandfather died in 1978 at 78, same deal. Now my parents are both 79 and bop around just fine except for some arthritis and my dad having a pacemaker and mom's cancer coming back. Back in the day almost everyone smoked a pack or two a day too.

 

[SteelChip]

Soc Sec was established in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 66 and you collected at 65. These days people routinely live well into their 80's. My grandmother died in 1968 at the age of 69 and she was OLD. My grandfather died in 1978 at 78, same deal. Now my parents are both 79 and bop around just fine except for some arthritis and my dad having a pacemaker and mom's cancer coming back. Back in the day almost everyone smoked a pack or two a day too.

You are absolutely correct JonBoy, we are living way longer than the plan was designed to sustain and modern medicine is making it harder by the day. Changes have to be made pretty quick or it's a dead program walkin'...so to speak. Living 'till late 80's early 90's is common place here in La-La land.

 

[Confluence]

Do you not understand what EBITDA is?

Dude,

DI or Disposable Income is what matters. The dough each person or corporation has left to spend when all its other obligations are met.

EBITDA is simply an accounting function that relates to many artificial corporate structures like net tax effect, depreciation schedules, implied interest, etc. that can easily be manipulated to demonstrate "great corporate earnings" like GE while no net tax is paid.

Come on, man!

 

[Troglodyte]

At my age I don't get full benefits unless I wait until I'm 70, which i will. You can collect when you're 62 but it is a smaller amount. My cousin and I argue about this, he says to collect at 62 because you'd have to live to 85 or whatever to make up the difference for what you'd collect between 62 and 68 or 70. Me, I'd still rather have a bigger check.

I think most advisors side with your cousin and say to take the smaller amount earlier.

 

[Troglodyte]

How bout we don't take other people's money and give to people who don't work for it?

Again, I'm not aware of many politicians with any real chance of being elected who are trumpeting that idea. Liberals know those people vote. I suspect conservatives are afraid of sounding racist or mean-spirited and alienating moderate voters.

 

[Troglodyte]

True there were old people but way fewer than there are today as a percentage of the population. The amount of people living in to their late 80s and 90s that we have today was unheard of in 1935.

Yes, and the Baby boomer generation will also turn SSI on its head.