Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp I don't think it would be that different from what it is now. The federal income tax is reasonable across the board, and I've said it could even go up a little if they added more brackets. All I'm campaigning against is the idiotic comments that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, when in reality they are the ones paying in the vast majority of the income tax. Actually I'd like my federal income tax to go down. More money in the pocket and more opportunity to buy things. I ask this as a hypothetical and I ask this to the people more aligned with tshrimp's point of view. If the SS tax was setup like this, would anyone poor, middle, rich, or otherwise really have a problem with this or find this unfair? SS Tax Bracket: $106,800 - 6.2% $250,000 - 4.2% $500,000 - 3.2% $500,001 and up - 1.2%

The Tea-party would howel like the world is coming to an end if you tried that.

So is that enough to make SS completely funded?

Quote:

Original post by Spinoza Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp I don't think it would be that different from what it is now. The federal income tax is reasonable across the board, and I've said it could even go up a little if they added more brackets. All I'm campaigning against is the idiotic comments that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, when in reality they are the ones paying in the vast majority of the income tax. Actually I'd like my federal income tax to go down. More money in the pocket and more opportunity to buy things. I ask this as a hypothetical and I ask this to the people more aligned with tshrimp's point of view. If the SS tax was setup like this, would anyone poor, middle, rich, or otherwise really have a problem with this or find this unfair? SS Tax Bracket: $106,800 - 6.2% $250,000 - 4.2% $500,000 - 3.2% $500,001 and up - 1.2% The Tea-party would howel like the world is coming to an end if you tried that. So is that enough to make SS completely funded?

It would definitely make it solvent until 2100.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Spinoza Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp I don't think it would be that different from what it is now. The federal income tax is reasonable across the board, and I've said it could even go up a little if they added more brackets. All I'm campaigning against is the idiotic comments that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, when in reality they are the ones paying in the vast majority of the income tax. Actually I'd like my federal income tax to go down. More money in the pocket and more opportunity to buy things. I ask this as a hypothetical and I ask this to the people more aligned with tshrimp's point of view. If the SS tax was setup like this, would anyone poor, middle, rich, or otherwise really have a problem with this or find this unfair? SS Tax Bracket: $106,800 - 6.2% $250,000 - 4.2% $500,000 - 3.2% $500,001 and up - 1.2% The Tea-party would howel like the world is coming to an end if you tried that. So is that enough to make SS completely funded? It would definitely make it solvent until 2100.

Seems like an acceptable solution to me. Although I must admit I personally think creating private accounts held by the public is a better solution to the issue as a whole.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: The Tea-party would howel like the world is coming to an end if you tried that. So is that enough to make SS completely funded? It would definitely make it solvent until 2100.

THINK OF OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN!

edit:
what is it now? I have no experience with SS tax other than at very low levels.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care what is it now? I have no experience with SS tax other than at very low levels.

Employees pay half (6.2%) up to just over $100,000 and the employer covers the other half. Self employed have the pleasure of paying the full 12.4%.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care what is it now? I have no experience with SS tax other than at very low levels. Employees pay half (6.2%) up to just over $100,000 and the employer covers the other half. Self employed have the pleasure of paying the full 12.4%.

what do they pay over $100,000?

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care what do they pay over $100,000?

0%

It was intended that the people paid into their own accounts for their own retirement and what you paid in determined what you got out. People who make over $100,000 really aren't going to be using the program so there was a cap on how much they had to put in.

The payment scheme proposed here is much more of a socialist (for better or worse), everyone pays for everyone else's retirement. It would make SS more sustainable, but breaks with some of the principals that were setup when the program was created.

tstrimp, your thoughts on my "proposal"? Click here

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp I don't think it would be that different from what it is now. The federal income tax is reasonable across the board, and I've said it could even go up a little if they added more brackets. All I'm campaigning against is the idiotic comments that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, when in reality they are the ones paying in the vast majority of the income tax. Actually I'd like my federal income tax to go down. More money in the pocket and more opportunity to buy things. I ask this as a hypothetical and I ask this to the people more aligned with tshrimp's point of view. If the SS tax was setup like this, would anyone poor, middle, rich, or otherwise really have a problem with this or find this unfair? SS Tax Bracket: $106,800 - 6.2% $250,000 - 4.2% $500,000 - 3.2% $500,001 and up - 1.2%

So you pay 6.2% on the first $106,800 and 4.2% between $106,800 and $250,000? Does the employer pay the other half on incomes above $106,000?

I agree with you that I would rather not have my taxes raised. If this made the program viable and meant I would actually be able to leverage it when I qualified for retirement, then I'll give you a solid maybe. That being said, I don't think that social security will be around when I retire, at least not in it's current form and I would much rather utilize that money for my own retirement account. I think you could understand why I have trouble trusting the government to manage my retirement account for me.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by LessBread I disagree that you can't tax your way out of a deficit. The idea is complete nonsense really. The US paid for WWII and the Cold War with high taxes, "obscene taxes on the wealthy" actually. I can use the same argument. The country didn't implode in the 1910's when the top marginal tax rate was 7%.

No you can't make the same argument, at least not without demonstrating a large degree of ignorance of US history. We are living in a world remade by WWII, not the Spanish-American war. And at any rate, your claim was that we couldn't tax our way out of a deficit. Pointing to 1910 and 7% tax rate does not change the fact that "The US paid for WWII and the Cold War with high taxes, "obscene taxes on the wealthy" actually."

Here's another graph for you.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp ... and they sure as hell didn't have nearly half the working population paying no income tax at all.

How do you know that? What about all those single income households that were so common back in the 1950's and 1960's?

I always finding amusing when conservatives complain that some people don't pay income tax. It seems to me that conservatives should be proud of their handiwork and celebrating what they've accomplished instead of falsely complaining about how the poor get a free ride. I say falsely complaining because the complaint overlooks the fact that poor people pay state taxes and sales tax as well as other fees and so on. The complaint is leveled more for the purpose of stoking class resentments than anything else. It's meant to divide middle income people from lower income people. It's the same with conservative complaints about the deficit. The latest tax compromise demonstrates beyond a doubt that they don't care about the deficit at all. They care more about maintaining a low tax burden on billionaires. The deficit talk is euphemistic complaint about social spending. One that also serves to stoke class resentments.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp It was also a different time. WW2 was a real war against a legitimate enemy and it was a war that the US people supported. The cost of WW2 (in lives and dollars) dwarfed our little tryst in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you saying that when it comes to fake wars only the poor should pay? I mean, really, the implications of your remark are disgusting. Bush lied the nation into invading Iraq and then cut taxes on his benefactors and everybody but the rich should be stuck with footing the bill?