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.
ReachTheBeach said: I do think that income is high enough
I'll say it again.
And who are you to think you know how much is enough?
Do you "know" everyone's circumstance"
ReachTheBeach said: If you want to make a straw man argument
The typical response from someone trying to redirect away from an opinion they don't like.
And yet here you are, "thinking".... you know how much is enough. I'll say it for the umpteenth time....
Who are you to think you know how much is enough?
Do you know everyone's circumstance?
Did you earn the money to think you have a right to give your opinion on what they should do with their money?
Did you notice that I used first person? Yes, I am talking about what I feel I should pay. No, I don't know everyone's circumstance, nor do you. There are exemptions and deductions that should address truly special circumstances. We have opinions; there is no right and wrong answer unless there is math that has to work. You are entitled to you opinion, I am entitled to mine. I am not claiming to know the answer; that's your straw man again.
EDIT - I am done with this. You can have the last word.
I can't imagine a more hopeless and pointless semantic debate than trying to define what "rich" means. Although pretty much all adjectives are relative, this one is about as relative as it gets.
I'll give an example of the relativism. A couple of decades ago I lived in a two-bedroom, one and a half bath apartment - very plain Jane. I was a public school teacher, which is about as far from rich as it gets. A middle school student, upon hearing what my living accomodations were, exclaimed, "Mr. Escort Rider, you live alone, but you have two bathrooms!" He was incredulous. I rather imagine he lived illegally in a garage and had to go into the house to access a bathroom. To that unfortunate kid I must have seemed rich. Should we use his definition? Well, obviously not, at least not in the context of the United States, which is what the context is for this thread.
I don't think Social Security should be means-tested beyond the level which already exists, so in that sense I disagree with ReachTheBeach. But I do think he is entitled to his opinion about the matter, including his opinion about what level of income should constitute the trigger point. Holding that opinion should not be the cause of the rather vicious attacks which he has undergone here.
Edited to add: I posted the above before I read the post by ReachTheBeach just above this one.
Did you notice that I used first person? Yes, I am talking about what I feel I should pay. No, I don't know everyone's circumstance, nor do you.
oh ok sure... So if you "feel" it's the right thing to do... do it, nothing is stopping you sending more if that makes you "feel" better but stop preaching to the rest of us.
I don't think Social Security should be means-tested beyond the level which already exists, so in that sense I disagree with ReachTheBeach. But I do think he is entitled to his opinion about the matter, including his opinion about what level of income should constitute the trigger point.
Holding that opinion should not be the cause of the rather vicious attacks which he has undergone here.
You'll find ReachTheBeach posts mostly consist of preaching that the government should take more of other people's money.
There's opinion and there's constant preaching and here's a warning, I will "voice my opinion" of opposition.
I can't imagine a more hopeless and pointless semantic debate than trying to define what "rich" means. Although pretty much all adjectives are relative, this one is about as relative as it gets.
Relative definition of rich.... someone who makes a higher income than I make.
Or people who just parrot what they are told without understanding what they are parroting, it's either feel good or hoping to be on the receiving end (get some of that).
"Income" is not an indication of "wealth" especially if you have to "exchange your time" to earn that income. Here's the kicker, ... You do realize that a middle class person (with no money in the bank) and a wealthy person (with a lot of money invested) can both make $50k a year right?
There are two different ways of looking at these requirements vis-Ã -vis federal taxation:
(1) Funding the federal redistributive social programs (like Social Security's progressive benefits calculation, and also like TANF or SNAP or EIC)
(2) Funding the entirety of the federal budget including debt payments.
Number (1) is always a subset of number (2).
How we determine the parameters of (1) can include value judgments about what kind of society we, the voters, want; how we apportion the pain in taxation; what constitutes a minimal retirement or a median retirement or even a maximum retirement.
How we determine the parameters of (2) is accounting. Not a value judgment. Not politics. There is some absolute minimum number needed in revenue to manage (2).
IMHO for number (1), I think the current tax code is fairly good. Maybe a few tweaks are needed at the top end, like elimination of the carried interest loophole. I think a radical change to "middle" rates would actually be cannibalistic. I think a radical increase would cause many of the so-called "middle" taxpayers to slide into the category of needing federal assistance rather than contributing via taxes to fund federal assistance. I also think everyone should have some skin in the game, so I oppose refundable taxes like the EIC (I'd rather just call it cash assistance and have it handled like welfare). Finally, I believe everyone should pay at least 1% in federal income taxes, so even the guy who makes $10,000 per year is paying $100 rather than zero.
For number (2), it is pretty clear that more federal revenue will be needed. With nearly $20 trillion in outstanding debt, something's gotta give.
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
I was just thinking about Ike last night. The higher income folks would wet their pants if he were President today.
Some of those folks are small business owners who employ people.
I was just thinking...I'll bet people they employ would wet their pants when the small business owners says, hell no, I'm retiring and closes shop. LOL
I don't think Social Security should be means-tested beyond the level which already exists, so in that sense I disagree with ReachTheBeach.
Nearly all European States means-test their retirement benefits. Since the Social Security Administration publishes a journal bi-annually of foreign social security-like programs, and pays particular attention to means-testing, it should come as no surprise that means-testing may be considered by SSA to be a viable option to help keep the program solvent.
The annual deficits that Social Security will face approach $450 Billion annually. The initial shortfall will be about $270 Billion resulting in slashing benefits by about 30%-35%. As that number grows and approaches $450 Billion it will result in additional benefit cuts. Then as Boomers leave the Earth, the deficits will decrease to about $350 Billion.
In looking at solutions, you need changes that will generate tens of $Billions, not tens of $Millions.
Eliminating the payroll tax cap will not solve the problem, as it still leaves $140 to $320 Billion in annual short falls (assuming the cap is lifted for both employer and employee).
Increasing the FICA payroll tax to ~9.2% will generate $190 Billion, making up a large chunk of the shortfalls, assuming those actions are taken now and not delayed.
Changes to FRA have minimal impact, and may actually back-fire, resulting in more people taking early retirement or Social Security Disability.
Means-testing, if done in a particular way, could generate up to $70 Billion in savings.
From an economic policy perspective, the options should be those that cause the least amount of damage to the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
You'll find ReachTheBeach posts mostly consist of preaching that the government should take more of other people's money.
But the government really isn't taking your money.
If you file a false claim for damages that never happened to your home, that's insurance fraud.
One method of helping keep Social Security solvent might be treating it as it really is -- insurance -- and having people file a "claim for damages." In that sense, you'd be hard pressed to claim you have damages with an annual income of $200,000 or more.
The current system of means testing only generates about $16 Million per month, whereas an alternate method of means testing, could generate $5 Billion to $7 Billion per month.
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.
Defining who is "rich"
