Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

President Says Democrats Are 'Disposed' to Increase Taxes


@DCGoldPants

Recommended Posts

That is how the program was made palatable to the rich and middle class, who often don't care all that much whether the guy who shined their shoes for the past 50 years starves in the street when he can no longer work.

Everyone pays in to Social Security, everyone collects out when it is their time. Nothing wrong with that.

Give me a break. No really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is not acknowledging that Social Security is a safety net, not a full pension.

The AVERAGE net worth goes up with age, but that average only reflects that some of the elderly are very, very wealthy, a lot are comfortable, but millions upon millions of others are borderline impoverished.

People who can no longer work.

The Social Security safety net ensures that the elderly do not end up on the street. It has been a huge boon to the economic and political stability of this country.

Agree

Social Security is only a helper now, you can not depend on retiring with just Social Security, you can't. It is not possible in todays world with rising costs in healtcare, and to make everything easier to access and communicate it will grow especially with newer drugs etc...

My wife and I are not even planning our retirement with the thought of social security, that will just be a bonus if anything.

However I do feel Social Security needs to turn more into an IRA, or 403B type of account, that way you have more control and if you are well off just let your money go to a larger pot that will help others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why everyone of age gets Social Security. No matter their economic status. Because the rich need a safety net......
If you think back to the time Social Security was first proposed, the rich really did need a safety net. They all put their money in stocks in the 20's and lost it in the Depression. Social Security was a direct reaction to that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how do you explain, how can people who are poorer then anyone we have in the states make it to this country and suceed??

Because they did not grow up here. The mentality is different. The question is how can we install that mentality here.

"support the poor" is not the answer to that question, and "do nothing" is not the answer either.

For those who feel we need to pretty much are suggesting we need to support our own poor population have you ever stepped foot in a country like India, like Bolivia, where some people live in a little hut with nothing, yet are out and about all day long trying to make ends meet?

Fighting poverty is not the same as supporting the poor.

If we spoon fed our poor population in the states then we are just enabling them to continue to be what they are not and not what they can become.

It seems people are talking about fighting poverty here, not simply supporting the poor.

Fighting the poverty would entail exactly what you are talking about - showing them what they can become, giving them ways to become that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how do you explain, how can people who are poorer then anyone we have in the states make it to this country and suceed??
Because those who choose to come to the United States and who have the means to get here (legally or illegally) are usually the same people who are willing to take risks and work hard to succeed. Refugee populations generally end up on welfare at a much higher rate than voluntary immigrants.
For those who feel we need to pretty much are suggesting we need to support our own poor population have you ever stepped foot in a country like India, like Bolivia, where some people live in a little hut with nothing, yet are out and about all day long trying to make ends meet? I witnessed little kids, selling whatever they can just to get by, they do not sit in a place built by the government or take food from the government they are doing it themselves and that mentality is created from the start.

When I'm in one of those countries it's a pain in the ass to have people running up to you all the time trying to sell you stuff. I think I prefer American homeless people that just sit there holding cardboard signs. In both cases, the poor remain poor. The kids selling wares in the streets are not becoming rich, and you often have generations of people in those countries scraping to get by. I suppose I don't see how that is much better than the homeless situation we have in the U.S.

If we spoon fed our poor population in the states then we are just enabling them to continue to be what they are not and not what they can become.

This is why we went through welfare reform in the 90's and created TANF welfare-to-work programs. People don't need to be starving to be encouraged to work - there are plenty of incentives in place for those in poverty to start working.

It embarasses me to see immagrants from all other nations but our poor to shame when it comes to mentaliy and work ethic.

It has always been like that, from the Chinese who built the railroads to the Irish and Italians who worked in factories. American was built on the backs of immigrants, and it will continue to be so.

India is one of the poorest countries in the world and it is hard to see a child, or anyone just sitting in waiting.
I think it is a good thing that the American poor aren't starving. Maybe it would make you FEEL better to have the poor running around trying to sell you stuff, but it wouldn't change their economic situation significantly.
How do you we started the US we did not ask for anything from our small government, people worked in the fields, and made things work, they worked hard did not sit on their ass and wait for something.

Now that the United States has become the wealthiest nation in the world, you want to go back to when we were dirt poor?

Everyone is wondering why other countries are going to pass us in education, technology, innovation, etc..... It is because mentality and effort thats it that is all it is. Kids do bad in school, well most likely they are trying hard enough or feel they are entitled, well they are not and should never feel like that.
So you think that kids feel entitled in school because they know they will get welfare? I'll promise you that the kids on the street in India are not doing much better in school. Entitled kids will beat out starving kids any day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you are attempting to mislead using statistics, its really quite humorous. What's it matter if the top 2% pay more than 50% of the taxes, when the percentage that they are actually paying is less than what the average middle class family pays. I love it when the super wealthy 2% complain about paying less percentage than everyone else. :laugh:

I love how people who don't pay taxes complain about taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people who don't pay taxes complain about taxes.

I pay my share of taxes, probably the highest % out of anyone here, because I am in the high income bracket with no write offs. I think it is ludicrous that I got a tax break, I did not need one nor did I think I deserved one. The extra money really did nothing to me personally, and it was ll evaporated by the increases in fees and other taxes across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that kids feel entitled in school because they know they will get welfare? I'll promise you that the kids on the street in India are not doing much better in school. Entitled kids will beat out starving kids any day.

I was referring to kids in school in general, not poor kids but the majority of those in school.

I agree I hate seeing kids starve, or in the street, but I think for everyone to achieve what they want in live they have to put effort and not just sit back and wait to get their helping from the government, that is my point.

If we empower the poor to not be poor then you see a difference, if you continue to just give handouts then nothing will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pay my share of taxes, probably the highest % out of anyone here, because I am in the high income bracket with no write offs. I think it is ludicrous that I got a tax break, I did not need one nor did I think I deserved one. The extra money really did nothing to me personally, and it was ll evaporated by the increases in fees and other taxes across the board.

However others in your position could have used the extra money to say get a housekeeper (give someone a job) put away money for a business etc...

You could also just donate the extra income to charities you care about and would like to see helped.

Just because you got a tax break does not mean you had to sit on the money, if you feel very strongly in helping there are many areas you can go.

The other thing you could do is put extra into your retirement, then give up your social security to someone else who might need it etc....

There is a lot that you could do that less fortunate can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we empower the poor to not be poor then you see a difference, if you continue to just give handouts then nothing will change.
Wasn't this the slogan for welfare reform in the 90's? As I recall, wasn't welfare-to-work one of the only substantive things that Clinton accomplished during his Presidency? Hasn't it shown remarkable success?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1620.cfm

What are you proposing, jbooma, that's any different from what we've already done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people who don't pay taxes complain about taxes.

I hope you aren't attempting to direct this to me, because as a clergy member I actually have to pay "self employment" taxes which means I pay more (i.e. higher percentage) than most people do. Where's the whole "separation of church and state" when I really need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pay my share of taxes, probably the highest % out of anyone here, because I am in the high income bracket with no write offs.

Congratulations Mike, you are now officially a limousine liberal.

I think it is ludicrous that I got a tax break, I did not need one nor did I think I deserved one.

So I'm sure you gave it back to then right? :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you aren't attempting to direct this to me, because as a clergy member I actually have to pay "self employment" taxes which means I pay more (i.e. higher percentage) than most people do. Where's the whole "separation of church and state" when I really need it.

Let's be honest here hombre, you claimed you are below the poverty line, thus you don't pay taxes. You probably get the earned income tax credit, unless you were lying about your poverty status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Jerry Doyle:

The taxes don't expire until 2010..

There's no way they can let it expire while their on duty.

NOW, did they say they were going to repeal them specifically?

(i worked two jobs (military - security guard Springfield Mall- the bike kept me in shape.) and went to school Mon - Wed - Sat morning for a year., now I'm doing quite well....)

Thats what two+ jobs are for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However I do feel Social Security needs to turn more into an IRA, or 403B type of account, that way you have more control and if you are well off just let your money go to a larger pot that will help others.

It's a nice-sounding theory, and I'd be infavor of it for some reasons. (I also see some drawbacks: The present SS system is very progressive: Low-income folks "get back" a lot more than they put in. A strict IRA-type system would do away with that.) One big advantage I'd see to that type of a system is that I think it would do a lot to increase people's confidence that the system actually exists.

The biggest problem with that type of system: There isn't any money for it.

Right now, when you "put in" money, something like 99% of it goes right out the door to somebody who retired 5 years ago. If your money's going into an IRA instead, then Grandpa's check has to come from somewhere else (meaning: deficit.)

Me, I wouldn't kick and scream too much if the government were to decide that we're going to convert SSI from a "tax now, spend now, worry how we'll pay future benefits later" system to a system where future benefits are funded now, and the only way to get there is to suck in our guts, begin setting aside current revenues right now, and we'll just have to pay current benefits out of general revenues. (Eventually benefits will be comming from the now-fully-funded retirement accounts, but it'll be decades before that happens.) It'll mean deficits. But the threat of having to do deficit spending to make the system work isn't going to get easier if we keep pushing the problem off to the next Congress. And I don't think we're going to see a better time, in terms of the national economy, to bite the bullet, than right now.

Another problem I'd have with a straight IRA-type plan is risk and administrative costs. (I'd read 'round here that England(?) supposedly privatised their social retirement system some time ago. The net result was that when the citizens made their own investment decisions, their savings got eaten up by administration, broker, and advice fees. Even though the citizens' investments went up in value, they didn't make enough profit to cover the transactrion fees, and they wound up at retirement with less money than they put in. The government is now seeing vast increases in welfare to make up for the money the now-seniors lost to the "financial services industry".)

One solution I'd heard for that one would be to have citizens "retirement funds" managed by the same organization that now administers the retirement fund for federal workers. That fund typically has administrative costs that are in the fractions of a percent, and their investments have done very well. The potential problem I see is that this would involve giving the government billions in taxpayer money to put in the stock market, with coresponding potentials for corruption and/or political pressured manipulation. However, with several government agencies managing retirement portfolios for large groups of government workers, that potential exists right now, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here hombre, you claimed you are below the poverty line, thus you don't pay taxes. You probably get the earned income tax credit, unless you were lying about your poverty status.

I get paid $19,500 per year, and last year I got a refund because of my two kids of a whopping $200. However, 2 years ago before I started Seminary I was making $30,000 per year (not too bad for for a country town) and was definetly paying taxes and at a much higher rate than others who were making the same amount per year because I am considered self employed. Even now with what I make I still get much less of a refund than others who have 2 kids and make about what I make because I'm taxed at a higher rate.

I'm wondering how many reading this could imagine their lives at $19k per year or even $30k. Funny how reality shows up at the most inconvienent times for those who think any thing less than $100k is poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...