Obama proposes change in Social Security tax

UGLY · 06-13-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

He would apply the Soc Sec tax to incomes above 250K. Currently, it stops once one reaches 102K. Can someone explain why those earning b/t 102 and 250k should be exempt? Appears to be a sop to middle class voters.

As mentioned elsewhere, this is a proposal. Any changes to law in this respect would have to be passed by Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/...ocial_security

Why don't teachers or railroad workers have to pay Soc sec tax? It is because they don't need it. People in the top 5% don't receive the benefit of social security either. Most of those people like teachers or railroad workers have sufficient retirement and do not need this gov. assistance. I say if they don't reap the benefit then they should not sow the seed. Personally I like the private account Bush proposed. Chances are I will never see a dime from social security and a private account would ensure I do. I do believe however that we have an obligation to care for the elderly and a portion of all social tax's should go directly to a private account for them.

Tight-Waist · 06-13-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

He would apply the Soc Sec tax to incomes above 250K. Currently, it stops once one reaches 102K. Can someone explain why those earning b/t 102 and 250k should be exempt? Appears to be a sop to middle class voters.

As mentioned elsewhere, this is a proposal. Any changes to law in this respect would have to be passed by Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/...ocial_security

When he applies it to himself and the rest of his club of 100 then I wont call him a hypocrite.

matclone · 06-13-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Why don't teachers or railroad workers have to pay Soc sec tax?

I'm sure there's a historical reason.

It is because they don't need it.

Okay, answer your own leading question, and sort of make up an answer about something you probably have little knowledge of.

People in the top 5% don't receive the benefit of social security either.

Sure they do. I've never heard of people not receiving Social Security retirement because of too much income--particularly since they are retired. You can't resist trading in false rhetorical claims, can you? Probably because that's the sort of argument you listen to day in and day out.

Most of those people like teachers or railroad workers have sufficient retirement and do not need this gov. assistance.

You have no idea whether teachers or railroad workers (who are not all the same but go ahead and generalize if it suits your purpose) have sufficient retirement.

I say...Chances are I will never see a dime from social security

I say you're wrong. Of course, if there's enough people who think like you, you could conceivably dismantle the program and then you may never see a dime from Social Security.

and a private account would ensure I do.

There is no such thing as a private Social Security Account. You can't ensure what something will do if it doesn't exist. I'm also sure you are investing at least 6.2% of your income in private accounts as we speak since there's nothing to prevent you from using them to save for retirement.

UGLY · 06-13-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

I'm sure there's a historical reason.

It is because they don't need it.

Okay, answer your own leading question, and sort of make up an answer about something you probably have little knowledge of.

People in the top 5% don't receive the benefit of social security either.

Sure they do. I've never heard of people not receiving Social Security retirement because of too much income--particularly since they are retired. You can't resist trading in false rhetorical claims, can you? Probably because that's the sort of argument you listen to day in and day out.

Most of those people like teachers or railroad workers have sufficient retirement and do not need this gov. assistance.

You have no idea whether teachers or railroad workers (who are not all the same but go ahead and generalize if it suits your purpose) have sufficient retirement.

I say...Chances are I will never see a dime from social security

I say you're wrong. Of course, if there's enough people who think like you, you could conceivably dismantle the program and then you may never see a dime from Social Security.

and a private account would ensure I do.

There is no such thing as a private Social Security Account. You can't ensure what something will do if it doesn't exist. I'm also sure you are investing at least 6.2% of your income in private accounts as we speak since there's nothing to prevent you from using them to save for retirement.

Considering Clone that I coach at a school and know many teachers and my brother in law works for a railroad I would say I do know what I am talking about. The fact is teachers don't pay soc sec. tax and they retire anywhere from 75-80% of their three highest grossing years in the profession and the percentage depends on the years in service. The railroad workers are the same thing it is a little thing called a union that makes this possible. Look it up and you can see for yourself. I was wrong rich do get soc. security and they only have to pay soc. sec. . They only have to pay the tax on their income up to 100,000 dollars if he raised the bar then they would have to pay the tax on the additional 150,000.

Either way it is a terrible idea, taxing the rich to death will only cause them to lay people off and reduce payroll and expansion of the business. While I do not have a lot money my father in law does along with other people in my family and considering that the tax bracket they are in already foots 70% of all taxes paid I think it is enough.

Also, it is a very very real possability that if I retire at 65 I will never see one red cent from sos. The private savings plan does ensure I would see something because it goes into a private account just for me. The only thing the libs dont like about it is they cant raid the kitty for more wellfare projects.

RYou · 06-13-2008, 07:01 PM

Here in NJ, the treachers have a separate pension plan through the state. It does not cost a dime and the benefits ramge from 50% after 20 years to 75% of top three years after 30 years. Every municipal and state worker is in the same plan and the benefit kits in if you make as little as $1500 for a government agency.

The plan is killing us here in NJ along with the free medical benefits with no co-pay. They have documented 100s of part time workers that annually consume well over 1500 in medical costs and make barely over 1500 in wages. Might I add that after 20 years those medical benefits stick to you for your lifetime. I don't mind the benefit package for full time workers, but for someone that makes 1500 annually it is ridiculous.

Cyclone85 · 06-13-2008, 07:03 PM

No -- you're wrong. Unless of course you can find 52-trillion dollars to make good on the unfunded promises of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The only other possibility is if you can game the system to figure out when the pyramid tips over. It's a freaking Ponzi scheme man.

The welfare game can only go on so long until there is fiscal collapse. 52-trillion is about as close to fiscal collapse as it gets. You better start praying for a quick demographic change in this country, because the current worker-bene ratios don't add up.

Originally Posted by matclone

I say you're wrong. Of course, if there's enough people who think like you, you could conceivably dismantle the program and then you may never see a dime from Social Security.

matclone · 06-13-2008, 07:43 PM

It's not in any sense a Ponzi scheme. But keep spewing your rhetorical nonsense if you like feeling angry or scared. If the angry white man in the suit says its true, then it must be. He would never lie to you. Not for a moment.

Same holds for your predicted shortfall. Anyone who claims to know what Social Security will look like in 30, 40, or 50 years from now is full of shit.

matclone · 06-13-2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Considering Clone that I coach at a school and know many teachers and my brother in law works for a railroad I would say I do know what I am talking about. The fact is teachers don't pay soc sec. tax and they retire anywhere from 75-80% of their three highest grossing years in the profession and the percentage depends on the years in service. The railroad workers are the same thing it is a little thing called a union that makes this possible. Look it up and you can see for yourself.

Teacher pensions and railroad pensions are not necessarily the same across the country. In any case, they don't have anything to do with the solvency or the purpose of Social Security. In all your arguments, you start from the premise that Social Security is flawed, and reach out for something (apples and oranges or any silly putty apparently will do) to corroborate that claim, but you don't make an actual connection.

Originally Posted by ugly

Either way it is a terrible idea, taxing the rich to death will only cause them to lay people off and reduce payroll and expansion of the business.

I was right. You can't even make a simple argument without laying on the rhetoric ("taxing the rich to death" "will only cause"). If you find that people disagree with you, do you think if you repeat something often and long enough, they will change their mind?

Hey, I heard Littleton. Colo. is surrounded by "Libs" and they're all out there to get you. Are you scared yet?

Cyclone85 · 06-13-2008, 08:34 PM

You see -- that's the difference between me and you. You're sounding like a financial idiot, and now you're bringing race into the argument like a damn fool. What does the angry white man have to do with it Matclone? Everything boils down to race for you which makes talking to you a complete waste of time.

Oh, and by the way, yes we can figure out where things are going to be 30-years out. It's my job, it's a science, and we do it quite well. 52-trillion is the low end of the estimate and you can book it, Dano.

Originally Posted by matclone

It's not in any sense a Ponzi scheme. But keep spewing your rhetorical nonsense if you like feeling angry or scared. If the angry white man in the suit says its true, then it must be. He would never lie to you. Not for a moment.

Same holds for your predicted shortfall. Anyone who claims to know what Social Security will look like in 30, 40, or 50 years from now is full of shit.

UGLY · 06-13-2008, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

Teacher pensions and railroad pensions are not necessarily the same across the country. In any case, they don't have anything to do with the solvency or the purpose of Social Security. In all your arguments, you start from the premise that Social Security is flawed, and reach out for something (apples and oranges or any silly putty apparently will do) to corroborate that claim, but you don't make an actual connection.

I was right. You can't even make a simple argument without laying on the rhetoric ("taxing the rich to death" "will only cause"). If you find that people disagree with you, do you think if you repeat something often and long enough, they will change their mind?

Hey, I heard Littleton. Colo. is surrounded by "Libs" and they're all out there to get you. Are you scared yet?

Clone I am not afraid of the libs. What are they going to do welfare me to death. I am afraid of the facts, while I am not an economics major I know that if you raise tax rates it stifles the economy. I don't care what tax rate you raise it stifles the economy because you are taking discretionary income from businesses and individuals. When you do that there is a slump in spending, hiring and benefit packages for employees. Most companies will lay off labor that is not essential to there production so they can recover what the government is taking or they raise the cost of the product passing the expense on to the consumer. Either way you look at it it is bad business and when the price of goods goes up coupled with people bringing less money home, I say put two and two together.

As far as the teachers union and railroad unions are concerned the teachers are represented by the teachers union probably the largest and best run unions in the nation and I believe the railroad workers all run under the same local. I did make a connection but I was wrong in my initial understanding so now my point makes no sense.

Obama proposes change in Social Security tax

Politics & Religion