# The Shrinking Middle Class



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

The president has announced an expansion of the child care tax credit to help the middle class. Families making less than $85,000 get the full credit and it is phased out for incomes of $115,000 and above. 

Funny, because in in July of 2008 Obama defined the middle class as familes making under $150,000 (for whom he would cut taxes) and families earning above $250,000 as being out of the middle class, for whom he would raise taxes. I suppose those earning between $150k and $250k were classless.

As if the recession was taking enough of a toll on the middle class, the president just eliminated millions of people from the ranks through a change in definition.:devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Yes; both nominal and real wages are down now. Soon most of us will qualify for entitlements. Then, of course, they will index it for growth ... :devil:


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I guess this is the "hope and change" that he ran his election campaign on. What a joke of a president. He's done nothing but give speeches and expand government to nightmarish proportions. The worst part is the major media won't report on any of this and anyone who does is labeled a racist.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

burnedandfrozen said:


> I guess this is the "hope and change" that he ran his election campaign on. What a joke of a president. He's done nothing but give speeches and expand government to nightmarish proportions. The worst part is the major media won't report on any of this and anyone who does is labeled a racist.


I don't believe the middle class mind receiving entitlements.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> I don't believe the middle class mind receiving entitlements.


Of course not--they functionally don't pay taxes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jpeirpont said:


> I don't believe the middle class mind receiving entitlements.


Speaking for my own dear retired Mother, her "hobby" is applying for benefits!!


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Yes; both nominal and real wages are down now. Soon most of us will qualify for entitlements. Then, of course, they will index it for growth ... :devil:


Don't worry about wages, we have credit cards and loans for a reason! False wealth for everyone!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

If he lowers and narrows the definition of exactly what the middle class is, it's far easier to incite jealousy and wage class warfare. The Jones' down the street have a combined household income of $125k per year. They must be rich...despite the fact they have a mortgage, two kids in college, a car payment and Mrs. Jones clips coupons before going to grocery store. Yeah...they're rich...r-i-g-h-t....

Peddling class envy, jealously, suspicion is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. It amazes me how easily people fall for it. Of course, the irony of it all is that the politicians who generally peddle it are all very wealthy (e.g. Pelosi, Kerry, Obama).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I had a conversation with someone today who said something along the lines of "some of these people will only ever make $60-70k per year." The context was degreed professionals and that might as well be poverty level. I happen to agree to an extent. Sometimes I don't see how a family makes it on less than $125k in this environment without severely lowering the Quality of Life for the average American family. No more xbox, dvds, big screen flat panels, etc ... I think average household income is still ~$50k and that's with a growing number of two income households.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Sometimes I don't see how a family makes it on less than $125k in this environment without severely lowering the Quality of Life for the average American family.


Massive amounts of consumer debt, that's how. Once the economy heats up again and companies start hiring, we'll will find that the bulk of people learned absolutely nothing from the downturn. They will still make minimum credit card payments, live well beyond their means, and continually play a game of "beat the bank."

Santayana was so right..."Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Contrary to what many may think, I've never felt there is a "right" to own a house or a lot of things popular cuture dictates you need to live a happy, fulfilled life.

Life owes you absolutely nothing. For that matter, other than keeping the lights on, keeping the water clean, and protecting you...governments owe you absolutely nothing. Life is what you make of it...and that includes how well you manage your finances.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Surprised to see so much fact-free crazy talk on this forum. Re. the middle class:



smujd said:


> Of course not--they functionally don't pay taxes.


Wanna see my check stub? I promise you I'm middle class, and I guarantee you I pay plenty in taxes. What do you mean "functionally"? That I get some kind of tax break that negates the taxes I pay? Uh, no.

This talk about class warfare: You guys are listening to too much Gush Limbarf.

I think being wealthy would be great! I plan on being wealthy myself someday. But at a time when our country is trying to pay for two wars, get the economy going, and fix a healthcare system that is not sustainable, somebody's gotta pay more. If you're making a quarter-million bucks a year, great for you--but you can surely afford a small increase moreso than someone barely making ends meet.

Asking someone who has more to contribute a little more does not mean declaring "war" on them. Those of us in the middle class pay more than people living below the poverty level. Does that mean they're making "war" on us? Ridiculous. They're just trying to get by.

As to the definition of "middle class": It really depends on what part of the country you're talking about. Here in the DC area, in my neighborhood a 3-bedroom house goes for about $700,000. If you go to a suburb of San Antonio, a comparable house is maybe $300,000.

I agree that rampant consumerism has led some people to spend beyond their means, and they're responsible for their own undoing in such cases. But thre are plenty of people struggling despite their frugality.

One can't deny that the buying power of many (if not most) jobs requiring a degree has dropped hugely in the last 50 years. When I grew up in the '80s, one moderate income paid for our house, both kids' college educations--everything. Nowadays--at least where I live--hardly anyone can even pay for their house without two very well-paying jobs, and college is something the kids have to pay for themselves, through loans, scholarships, jobs, or whatever.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> ... and college is something the kids have to pay for themselves, through loans, scholarships, jobs, or whatever.


As it should be!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> Massive amounts of consumer debt, that's how. Once the economy heats up again and companies start hiring, we'll will find that the bulk of people learned absolutely nothing from the downturn. They will still make minimum credit card payments, live well beyond their means, and continually play a game of "beat the bank."
> 
> Santayana was so right..."Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Contrary to what many may think, I've never felt there is a "right" to own a house or a lot of things popular cuture dictates you need to live a happy, fulfilled life.
> 
> Life owes you absolutely nothing. For that matter, other than keeping the lights on, keeping the water clean, and protecting you...governments owe you absolutely nothing. Life is what you make of it...and that includes how well you manage your finances.


Indeed, living the "good life" has very little to do with annual income and everything to do with truly appreciating what you do have! Sadly, there are a lot of unfortunate fools who never do realize this 'Life truth!'


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Man what a depressing thread this is. I'm going to go out right now and max out my credit cards and buy a huge plasma screen TV, an Ed Hardy wardrobe, and a new digital camera. That should make me feel better!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Surprised to see so much fact-free crazy talk on this forum. Re. the middle class:
> 
> Wanna see my check stub? I promise you I'm middle class, and I guarantee you I pay plenty in taxes. What do you mean "functionally"? That I get some kind of tax break that negates the taxes I pay? Uh, no.


Well, the top 1% pay ~37% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% pay ~57%, and the top 10% pay ~68%. That means that the remaining 90% pay only 32% of all federal income taxes. The net result is that the middle class bears a de minimus tax burden.

I say "functionally," because, yes, the middle class pays some federal income taxes, but it isn't much.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

... and receives far more in services than they pay.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Of course when you talk to a liberal democrat about how the tax burden is distributed, they will say that the rich have tax loopholes that allow them them to pay far less then they should and therefore it falls onto the middle class to pick up the slack. Sigh - who to believe?


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

smujd said:


> Well, the top 1% pay ~37% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% pay ~57%, and the top 10% pay ~68%. That means that the remaining 90% pay only 32% of all federal income taxes. The net result is that the middle class bears a de minimus tax burden.
> 
> I say "functionally," because, yes, the middle class pays some federal income taxes, but it isn't much.


I wonder where you get those figures, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I guess. But even if those numbers are accurate, it would not be a shock that the _portion of US tax revenue_ from wealthy individuals is going to be larger. But the *portion of a wealthy person's income that they pay* is not that much larger--and many wealthy folks find ways to shelter their income so that they don't actually pay that higher rate.

By your logic, we could say that people on the East Coast pay (guessing here) 40% of all income taxes, so that you folks in the middle of the country should all pay a higher rate.

In other words, if you're a billionaire, it doesn't matter that the taxes from all billionaires make up, say, 10% of all taxes collected. What matters in the context of this debate (whether wealthy individuals can afford to be taxed more than everyone else) is the burden on the _individual_.

I can tell you that as a middle-class person (making way, way less than $100K/year in an expensive part of the country), I pay about 30% of my pretax income in federal, state, and Social Security taxes. (I don't have a stub handy, or I'd figure out the exact amount for federal.) I'm not thrilled about paying taxes, but I certainly will concede that I can afford to pay more than a person of limited means.

Some people have suggested that, because the Iraq war is a big chunk of our deficit these days, those who voted for GWB should be paying a higher tax fo fund this expense that they voted for. A controversial idea on innumerable fronts (and not practically feasible, of course)--but one notices that it's the same people (wealthy Republicans) who voted for this expensive war who object to the idea that their taxes should be higher to pay for that war.

And I am actually not a liberal Democrat.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

A little reality about taxes and the middle class:

The middle class pay a heck of lot in taxes. Don't forget that, in addition to federal income tax, there are:

state income taxes
sales taxes
gasoline taxes
property taxes
Social Security (yes, it is a tax)
vehicle taxes
etc., etc., etc.
--and probably one of the biggest uncounted taxes is the additional money that is charged for goods and services every time government increases taxes on corporations. Those corporations simply pass that increase along to consumers. Yes, consumers are the ones actually paying those corporate taxes.

The middle class pay a lot in taxes because, economically, they have no one to pass the tax on to--they have to just pay it.

As far as the middle class receiving benefits from their tax burden that compensate for outlay--I can say—without a doubt, that here in California, we are being robbed.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

^ Don't the rich 10 percent pay those taxes you listed above? 

IMHO I think the point being made is that the percentage share of the total taxes generated for the government comes mostly from the rich 10% not that the middle class doesn't pay taxes but that the total amount of taxes they pay into the coffers of the government is less than what the upper 10% pay.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

Don't forget the inflation tax we all pay for.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

smujd said:


> Well, the top 1% pay ~37% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% pay ~57%, and the top 10% pay ~68%. That means that the remaining 90% pay only 32% of all federal income taxes. The net result is that the middle class bears a de minimus tax burden.
> 
> I say "functionally," because, yes, the middle class pays some federal income taxes, but it isn't much.


Your tax statistics are sort of correct. By most definitions of income, only the top 6% out earners are outside of the middle class, and by some more expansive definitions (say the Presidents') Only the top 3% of families are outside of the middle class. So, the middle class pays between 40% and 50% of all income taxes. The reason for this is that they earn far, far less than the top 1%.

As a percentage of their income, the middle class pay far more in taxes than the top 1%. The reasons being that the top 1% do not pay social insecurity taxes, and they derive more of their income through capital gains.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Can someone present a good argument on why removing the cap on Social Security taxes is wrong?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Can someone present a good argument on why removing the cap on Social Security taxes is wrong?


Hmm... a massive increase in taxation?

_Wrong_ in what context?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Hmm... a massive increase in taxation?
> 
> _Wrong_ in what context?


Why shouldn't they pay tax on all their earned income like everyone else since SS rates are not progressive?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I guess I would say I don't see why it is right that those people be subjected to massive tax increase.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Why shouldn't they pay tax on all their earned income like everyone else since SS rates are not progressive?


My _recollection_ is that social security benefits do not scale with salary past the cap. So whether you make $125K (which is _just_ past the current cap, I think) or $3.5M, you get the same SS benefits. If true, is that a good reason for the cap?

Personally, I wouldn't mind removing the cap so long as they reduce the rate such that I don't pay a penny more. :icon_smile_big: Less would be even better!!


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Asterix said:


> ^ Don't the rich 10 percent pay those taxes you listed above?
> 
> IMHO I think the point being made is that the percentage share of the total taxes generated for the government comes mostly from the rich 10% not that the middle class doesn't pay taxes but that the total amount of taxes they pay into the coffers of the government is less than what the upper 10% pay.


My point was not that the top earners don't pay enough--it was that we all pay too much.

The statistics about the progressive tax schedule sparing the middle class is a bunch of hooey from politicians. Income taxes are actually a small percentage of the total taxes we all pay. Here in California, we also have to be ever-vigilant to make sure Sacramento isn't able to create new taxes and call them "fees."

Another point is that every time politicians set out to "screw the rich" they always end up really screwing the working man and woman. It's simple: all of those vacations, luxury items and services that wealthy people spend their money on support a whole network of manufacturers, waiters and waitresses, groundskeepers and such. When they increased the luxury tax on yachts a while ago, they though they were sticking it to a bunch of idle rich fat cats. In reality, the wealthy yacht buyers just started buying them overseas. The only people who got screwed were the blue-collar boat builders down on the Gulf Coast.

It's an economic fact that government is the most ineffective way to try to get money into the economy-most of it is lost in the bureaucracy. Taxes are a necessary evil to keep our communities running, but we must make sure that they are kept to the absolute minimum.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

In Mufti said:


> My point was not that the top earners don't pay enough--it was that we all pay too much.
> 
> The statistics about the progressive tax schedule sparing the middle class is a bunch of hooey from politicians. Income taxes are actually a small percentage of the total taxes we all pay. Here in California, we also have to be ever-vigilant to make sure Sacramento isn't able to create new taxes and call them "fees."
> 
> ...


I appreciate the clarification and I share the same sentiments as you have made above.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I had a conversation with someone today who said something along the lines of "some of these people will only ever make $60-70k per year." The context was degreed professionals and that might as well be poverty level. I happen to agree to an extent. Sometimes I don't see how a family makes it on less than $125k in this environment without severely lowering the Quality of Life for the average American family. No more xbox, dvds, big screen flat panels, etc ... I think average household income is still ~$50k and that's with a growing number of two income households.


I disagree. I just graduated school and am married. I have student loans and my wife is in law school. I make less than $125k, and we do just fine. Mind you we only have one car and it is payed off, but I don't think we are in poverty, nor are we struggling to make it.

It all depends on where you live. $50k/yr goes much further in Minneapolis than San Francisco or New York though.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

well, I'm thinking theoretically, if anything should be progressive it should be the so-called social safety net; right?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

In Mufti said:


> Taxes are a* necessary evil* to keep our communities running, but we must make sure that they are kept to the *absolute minimum*.


Yeah! I too think that all spending that doesn't buy lots of stuff for just me is evil and I too will keep the little that I throw at the lazy bums who are not me to an absolute minimum.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --
> 
> The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
> 
> ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Uh, Oh!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Uh, Oh!!


I'm sure _someone_ will come along and explain why when "tax cuts for the rich" expire they raise taxes on the middle class.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

A man after my heart. I was just going to post the same story. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I disagree. I just graduated school and am married. I have student loans and my wife is in law school. I make less than $125k, and we do just fine. Mind you we only have one car and it is payed off, but I don't think we are in poverty, nor are we struggling to make it.
> 
> It all depends on where you live. $50k/yr goes much further in Minneapolis than San Francisco or New York though.


You are right that location plays a big part on how much one can do with one's income. $125K in Wisconsin (presumably in most parts of the Midwest) for a fiscally intelligent family can be adequate to live comfortably.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm right there with you brokencycle, 2 years out of college, wife in Pharmacy school. 2 cars 1 paid off student loans and I just bought a house. I don't make much but don't max out my credit cards and plan to have them paid off soon as buying a house nickle and dimes you to death, especially with unexpected fixes. I'm of the belief that I have never gotten a job from a poor man, so if there is a big tax increase on the "rich" hiring will suffer and layoffs will increase as the rich want to stay that way. I hate the entitlement programs, and really hate to see SS tax being deducted because I know by the time I retire I won't see any of it back and could do better saving on my own. I think the Fair Tax is a good idea as it allows people to choose what they want to pay. If you want to buy a $20,000 chevy you pay tax, if you want to buy a $100,000 Mercedes you pay tax but its up to you. If you want to save, you don't pay tax on that money, if you want to invest you don't pay tax on that money. It rewards people for frugality and saving, while still providing gov. revenue because a millionaire will probably still buy the mercedes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apparently, someone in the office of propaganda got out of line ...



> The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Some of us regard the tax cuts that were parceled out during the Bush years as a bonus of sorts, a bonus to those who, because of their wealth, had been made to disproportunately contribute to the country's coffers. I was sorta okay with that. But if private companies, when times are bad, _withhold _bonuses, why shouldn't government take a page outa that book?
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Apparently, someone in the office of propaganda got out of line ...


The link is still alive. I just read it, and find nothing in it egregious (though it was writen in a manner that hoped I would).
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

dwebber18 said:


> I hate the entitlement programs, and really hate to see SS tax being deducted because I know* by the time I retire I won't see any of it back and could do better saving on my own*


Nothing prevents you from saving on your own. And while you're at it why don't you open up a couple of savings accounts for those who aren't as fiscally endowed as you (or who are but maybe will have their legs chopped off in some weirdo accident in the ensuing years). But wait: you don't have to save for others, that's what Social Security does, no? Lucky you.

Am really fatigued at hearing the same constipated Right wing line about nothing being left in SS come cash-in time. *Social Security has never missed a paynment to a single individual since its inception 70 years ago. *Tatoo that to something.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> *Social Security has never missed a paynment to a single individual since its inception 70 years ago. *Tatoo that to something.​


"Past performance does not guarantee future results!!"


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

See I'm of the belief that people should be responsible for their own lives. I do happen to save on my own, and work as a stock broker so I know how important it is to put money aside. If I hadn't saved when I got out of college I wouldn't be a home owner now. It would just be nice to see the couple thousand dollars that got taxed for SS back in my pocket to spend or save as I wish. I would even be open to a government option that would allow me to take my SS money and put it in a savings account. If they didn't take it but required me to put it in a 401k or IRA type account that would be great, it would be up to me to save for myself, not in hopes that my great grand kids will be able to fund my SS burden. I understand a very small percentage of people can't work because of a disability or accident or something like that, and I agree they should be taken care of. Maybe not by government but by private charity or churches. We are a rich nation founded on a moral belief set that gives us the love of charity and helping those less fortunate, but that doesn't mean the government has a place to force me to help someone by taxing me. I'm sure I'm right above the poverty line for a family of 2 with a wife who can't work but 16 or 20 hours a month for going to school, and you don't see me asking someone else to give me anything or asking the government to take it from someone else and give it to me.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You seem like a reasonable, dare I say, lad. Maybe I was a little harsh with you. Allow me to explain:

I did the reverse of most. I was very Conservative when young. And I became very Liberal almost overnight, if waiting until age 52 can be considered overnight (but another thread for that). Everything you've said I used to agree with; I still agree with most of it. Like you, I think we should be responsible as much as possible for our own lives. But when and if you have children you would agree that they must be looked after, not just fend for themselves. Well, and I'm very hesitant to say this publicly, there are a lot of adults who all their lives will be like children and they have to be looked after. At your age I was actually for punishing them for this, but now, what to hell, why not give 'em a hand, for I could have been just as irresponsiblle as they (and in some ways am) and some of this has to do not just with nose to the grindstone, but with the luck of the draw. You and I have drawn well apparently. And now that I'm in a position to be the dealer, I'm a lot more gratuitous than before. My best to you. Sincerely.​


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Yeah! I too think that all spending that doesn't buy lots of stuff for just me is evil and I too will keep the little that I throw at the lazy bums who are not me to an absolute minimum.
> ​


In addition to all of the other things that are wonderful about the United States, we are also the most charitable and generous as individuals. I contribute a great deal of time and money to causes that help the less fortunate--tutoring and mentoring inner city kids etc.

Expecting some government agency to fix the world is laziness. It's a cop out to claim that you are compassionate because you believe in taking other people's money and throwing it into some swamp of a bureaucracy. I can say unequivocally, that the social programs are the most corrupt, ineffective and unresponsive.

I came up from the bottom-financially and in every other way. By my socio-economic profile, I should be sharing a cell at San Quinton with some of my relatives. I'm not in prison; I'm well-educated and have a great home and life because I worked very hard. Everything I have I earned the hard way. I'm not going to be apologetic about being successful to anyone.

A lot of the people I grew up with, including others in my family, are in much worse condition because they made many poor decisions over and over again. It wasn't a great secret that what they were doing was stupid. They had been warned repeatedly. They just refused to listen. They had exactly the same opportunities I had but decided to: goof off in school, drink and use drugs, were unreliable employees, decided that it was easier to steal and commit crimes than get a job, got pregnant by losers&#8230;.and on and on and on. I have seen many of these people bilk the welfare and social security systems out of tens of thousands of dollars to support their drug habits and other dysfunctions.

I have also seen dazzling examples of people rising to realize wonderful dreams. But those stories happened because the people decided that their lives were going to be different. They, not some government handout, made their life better.

There is a difference between helping someone and enabling their self-destructive behavior. Many in government have no idea there is a difference.

I don't believe that people are dumb animals that need some government agency taking care of them as if they were pets.

I guess that's a long rebuttal to the idea that paying high taxes makes you benevolent and virtuous. That's just a bunch of crap.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> My _recollection_ is that social security benefits do not scale with salary past the cap. So whether you make $125K (which is _just_ past the current cap, I think) or $3.5M, you get the same SS benefits. If true, is that a good reason for the cap?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't mind removing the cap so long as they reduce the rate such that I don't pay a penny more. :icon_smile_big: Less would be even better!!


Yes; but SS has a funding problem long term so the rich should pay a higher share regardless of the fixed benefit IMHO


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

dwebber18 said:


> I'm right there with you brokencycle, 2 years out of college, wife in Pharmacy school. 2 cars 1 paid off student loans and I just bought a house. I don't make much but don't max out my credit cards and plan to have them paid off soon as buying a house nickle and dimes you to death, especially with unexpected fixes. I'm of the belief that I have never gotten a job from a poor man, so if there is a big tax increase on the "rich" hiring will suffer and layoffs will increase as the rich want to stay that way. I hate the entitlement programs, and really hate to see SS tax being deducted because I know by the time I retire I won't see any of it back and could do better saving on my own. I think the Fair Tax is a good idea as it allows people to choose what they want to pay. If you want to buy a $20,000 chevy you pay tax, if you want to buy a $100,000 Mercedes you pay tax but its up to you. If you want to save, you don't pay tax on that money, if you want to invest you don't pay tax on that money. It rewards people for frugality and saving, while still providing gov. revenue because a millionaire will probably still buy the mercedes.


What kills me is the section 8 housing. I am looking to move apartments, and I find all these ads for brand new apartments in downtown Minneapolis/St Paul (more St Paul) with SS appliances, hardwood floors, lots of space, granite counter tops, exposed brick walls, etc... basically the most desirable places in a city right now. They want like $800/mo for a 1200 ft 2br.... that's with section 8... without it is like $1200-1500.

So if someone is making less than me, they can afford to live in a place I can't (and not be house poor). Why? How does that make sense? Perhaps if there weren't these affordable income places everywhere around here, rent for these newer places would be lower because there would be more supply for the demand.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yes; but SS has a funding problem long term so the rich should pay a higher share regardless of the fixed benefit IMHO


Perhaps you haven't read the Nobel prize winning argument on how great SS is because it works despite not being actuarily sound... as long as population growth continues at a high rate, incomes continues to grow faster than inflation and life expectancies don't lengthen... oh... wait...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

In Mufti said:


> [A lengthy post, then:] I guess that's a long rebuttal to the idea that paying high taxes makes you benevolent and virtuous. That's just a bunch of crap.


You are right. It was long. I've titled it _In Praise Of You_ and I have no response. I did, but I gave it back in '62 in some dorm room. I've heard your tale again and again and all it amounts to is jealousy. The same with the poster just after you who talked of granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Grow up. The government is us; we pry money from each other for war and food stamps. And there's plenty left over for us to keep. Get used to it.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Perhaps you haven't read the Nobel prize winning argument on how great SS is because it works despite not being actuarily sound... as long as population growth continues at a high rate, incomes continues to grow faster than inflation and life expectancies don't lengthen... oh... wait...


:aportnoy:


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You are right. It was long. I've titled it _In Praise Of You_ and I have no response. I did, but I gave it back in '62 in some dorm room. I've heard your tale again and again and all it amounts to is jealousy. The same with the poster just after you who talked of granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Grow up. The government is us; we pry money from each other for war and food stamps. And there's plenty left over for us to keep. Get used to it.
> ​


OK. I'll bite...who or what is it that I am supposedly jealous of?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes; both nominal and real wages are down now. Soon most of us will qualify for entitlements. Then, of course, they will index it for growth ... :devil:


But once OHI (Obama Hyper Inflation) kicks in, we will all be MILLIONAIRES!!!!! Won't be able to afford a loaf of white bread, but we will be RICH!

Anyone who can't see that we are experiencing the deliberate, malicious destruction of this country is delusional or ignorant. Or they already have a government job.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> Anyone who can't see that we are experiencing the deliberate, malicious destruction of this country is delusional or ignorant. Or they already have a government job.


they do have government jobs - they're the party of NO - the party that refuses to do absolutely anything except say No, vote No and threaten filibuster


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You are right. It was long. I've titled it _In Praise Of You_ and I have no response. I did, but I gave it back in '62 in some dorm room. *I've heard your tale again and again and all it amounts to is jealousy.* The same with the poster just after you who talked of granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Grow up. The government is us; we pry money from each other for war and food stamps. And there's plenty left over for us to keep. Get used to it.


Pinesol, if the best response you can give to the post below is jealousy, then you must be certifiably retarded. In most of your posts it is like you take special delight in showcasing how ignorant or dense you are especially to people you think are not "bleeding hearts" or you just go around dishing out subtle insults instead of intelligent counterpoints.



In Mufti said:


> In addition to all of the other things that are wonderful about the United States, we are also the most charitable and generous as individuals. I contribute a great deal of time and money to causes that help the less fortunate--tutoring and mentoring inner city kids etc.
> 
> Expecting some government agency to fix the world is laziness. It's a cop out to claim that you are compassionate because you believe in taking other people's money and throwing it into some swamp of a bureaucracy. I can say unequivocally, that the social programs are the most corrupt, ineffective and unresponsive.
> 
> ...


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes; but SS has a funding problem long term so the rich should pay a higher share regardless of the fixed benefit IMHO


Interesting perspective that the burden should be borne by the "rich." As a matter of definition, I'd be interested in who is "rich." Do you think all people making over the $125K cap are "rich"?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

young guy said:


> they do have government jobs - they're the party of NO - the party that refuses to do absolutely anything except say No, vote No and threaten filibuster


It's OK to say NO to a rapist.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> It's OK to say NO to a rapist.


im just glad taxes are lower now than when Reagan was in office, talk about getting screwed


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> You are right. It was long. I've titled it _In Praise Of You_ and I have no response. I did, but I gave it back in '62 in some dorm room. I've heard your tale again and again and all it amounts to is jealousy. The same with the poster just after you who talked of granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Grow up. The government is us; we pry money from each other for war and food stamps. And there's plenty left over for us to keep. Get used to it.
> ​


But the government shouldn't exist to help people "pry money form each other."

Justify taking money from one to give to another. Why am I paying taxes to help someone making less money than me to afford an apartment nicer than I can afford?

Maybe I need to grow up, but I think you need to put down the peace pipe and let the smoke clear.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes; but SS has a funding problem long term so the rich should pay a higher share regardless of the fixed benefit IMHO


I agree that Social Security has a funding problem, but raising the age for eligibility would be my preferred solution. You could do it gradually, and not change things for people who are currently on the benefit.

Life expectancy when SS was created about 55 years. Eligibility age 65 years.

Life expectancy now about 72 years. New SS eligibility age 82. Works for me, and budget problem solved.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Interesting perspective that the burden should be borne by the "rich." As a matter of definition, I'd be interested in who is "rich." Do you think all people making over the $125K cap are "rich"?


Well, it is a social entitlement. By definition that's how it works. The people with more help the people with less. If any program should work that way and be defended; it should be SS. If SS can't be defended as a progressive system what can?

I'm looking at the cap on wages for my perspective and being generous (the cap is $106,800). That would seem to be the real government standard between working wages and excessive wages. You can argue the govt shouldn't be determining what is excessive and what is not, but that is not the current reality.

And No, I actually think "rich" people have little to no earned income.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> I agree that Social Security has a funding problem, but raising the age for eligibility would be my preferred solution. You could do it gradually, and not change things for people who are currently on the benefit.
> 
> Life expectancy when SS was created about 55 years. Eligibility age 65 years.
> 
> Life expectancy now about 72 years. New SS eligibility age 82. Works for me, and budget problem solved.


I like that too, but I think it should be available as needed. Some 62 year olds are done and some people can work until they are 90. Is that too low for mose men? Sure IMHO most men can work far past 60, but what about the few that truly cannot or working women?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

> Pinesol, if the best response you can give &#8230;is jealousy, then *you must be certifiably retarded*.


Careful or I'll tell Sarah Palin what you just said.

"White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to the head of the Special Olympics today after the Wall Street Journal reported the fiery Chicagoan privately called a group of liberal activists "f---ing retarded. Former Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin, who has a son with Down's Syndrome, was offended by Emanuel's reported remark&#8230;" 
　
Let me explain jealousy. Jealousy is _not_ me wanting a pair of shoes like yours. That's envy. Jealousy is me wanting the very pair you have, and thus I end up with the shoes and you get zip. Now go back and read Mufti and Cycle's posts, especially the part about the granite counter tops. 

For the record, of the four of us involved so far in this branch of this thread, I really like Mufti and Cycle and enjoy engaging with them and hope they feel the ame. Asterix, however, is a different matter. You are well-named in that you're sorta a foot note to all this. Up your game. Brush up your writing skills. Put some wit into it. And stop using school yard taunts.​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I like that too [upping the age to which one is eligble for SS to 82!] but I think it should be available as needed. Some 62 year olds are done and some people can work until they are 90. *Is that too low for mose men?* Sure IMHO most men can work far past 60, but what about the few that truly cannot or working women?


Whoa, hold on a minute! I think I'm a mose man, whatever that means. I'll be 65 on Friday (really) and I can't wait to slide under that cash cow and milk it for all it's worth. But being the fair and balanced Liberal that I am, I'm going to try to leave a few dribbles for those that follow.

I'm also considering marketing a line of MoseMan clothing (pronounced: mohz.man) which would be noted for it's lack of a scarf offering, because MoseMen have no necks; our heads sit softly on our shoulders, enabling us to spit up directly on our clothing rather than make the unecessary drool trail down our necks. ​


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Careful or I'll tell Sarah Palin what you just said.
> 
> "White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to the head of the Special Olympics today after the Wall Street Journal reported the fiery Chicagoan privately called a group of liberal activists "f---ing retarded. Former Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin, who has a son with Down's Syndrome, was offended by Emanuel's reported remark&#8230;"
> 
> ...


All you do is jump from thread to thread cowardly insulting people and in this case, in your senility, you couldn't comprehend the posts so you went into your rabidly extreme political frenzy and responded with veiled insults to them.

Brokencycle gave those examples about counter-tops et al to show the quality of the interior of some of the apartments that are discounted to section 8 recipients in the name of rental assistance while he who went through the rigors of getting a good education and getting/maintaining a good job where he is taxed (of which a portion of the same taxes goes to subsidize the rental assistance recipients rent) but has to pay much higher to get the same quality of apartments.

InMufti summarized his experiences and journey from grass to grace by dint of hardwork, sensible choices, focus and perseverance but you disdainfully responded with the silly title "_In Praise Of You_" insinuating that he was tooting his horn then you crown it saying that he is jealous of the people his hard earned income via taxes feeds, clothes and houses just because he believes people should make better choices?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Asterix said:


> Brokencycle gave those examples about counter-tops et al to show the quality of the interior of some of the apartments that are discounted to section 8 recipients in the name of rental assistance while he who went through the rigors of getting a good education and getting/maintaining a good job where he is taxed (of which a portion of the same taxes goes to subsidize the rental assistance recipients rent) but has to pay much higher to get the same quality of apartments.


Thank you. I'm glad someone understands what I was trying to say.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Asterix said:


> All you do is jump from thread to thread cowardly insulting people and in this case, in your senility, you couldn't comprehend the posts so you went into your rabidly extreme political frenzy and responded with veiled insults to them.


Ouch. I'm picturing veins and stuff popping on your forehead as you pound the keys. Take it easy. I want to see you live as long as me. But you must have a duck's back, no? Because this:



> Up your game. Brush up your writing skills. Put some wit into it. Stop using school yard taunts.


...appears to have rolled right off it.​


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Let me explain jealousy. Jealousy is _not_ me wanting a pair of shoes like yours. That's envy. Jealousy is me wanting the very pair you have, and thus I end up with the shoes and you get zip. Now go back and read Mufti and Cycle's posts, especially the part about the granite counter tops.


I think you are mistaken. It isn't jealousy, it is anger--an anger I share. Many of us are angry that we have made prudent choices and have foregone the opportunities to spend recklessly, only to find ourselves subsidizing those who have made poor choices and who have spent foolishly.

For quite a while, I drove a very old car worth ~$5k (not looking for sympathy, it's a great car, and I still drive it occasionally). I was frequently annoyed to see that almost all of the residents of a new public housing project (paid for, in part, by my tax dollars) drove newer and more expensive vehicles than mine. Odd that I should be subsidizing their lives.

Similarly, we recently replaced our TV with a ~$250 TV from Target. Sure, I can afford a nice plasma/LCD TV, but it wouldn't be a wise decision. Often when our local newspaper runs a story on the latest plight of someone in public housing, on food stamps, etc., the person is pictured next to his or her plasma/LCD/DLP TV. While I'm not jealous, I am angry that they made foolish, frivolous choices which I am forced to underwrite.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I like that too, but I think it should be available as needed. Some 62 year olds are done and some people can work until they are 90. Is that too low for mose men? Sure IMHO most men can work far past 60, but what about the few that truly cannot or working women?


The system already includes options to address those issues. Social Insecurity payments are available for disability to injury, disease, etc. I honestly believe we have to raise the number of working Americans supporting each retiree, and it is too late to go back and ask people to have more children. I know, I know, you paid into the system. But you get all of your money back plus interest in just a few years, and then you are living off of the work of younger people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> The system already includes options to address those issues. Social Insecurity payments are available for disability to injury, disease, etc. I honestly believe we have to raise the number of working Americans supporting each retiree, and it is too late to go back and ask people to have more children. I know, I know, you paid into the system. But you get all of your money back plus interest in just a few years, and then you are living off of the work of younger people.


That's supposedly true, but for several years people cannot get social security or disability, but also can't find employment. I know they made certain life choices, but raising the age on all of them (as a broad group) is not a good idea IMHO. Each case is different.

ADD: I should add; Do I trust civil servants to identify those cases? No. It's a conundrum for sure.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

smujd said:


> I think you are mistaken. It isn't jealousy, it is anger--an anger I share. Many of us are angry that we have made prudent choices and have foregone the opportunities to spend recklessly, only to find ourselves subsidizing those who have made poor choices and who have spent foolishly.


I understand every thing you say and I agree with every word. Really.

Where we differ is that a few years back I decided to not let that anger get to me anymore and when you leave out the anger you're left with just _what the hell is going on with these people.?_ And it is that question and the answers I found that turned me into a liberal quite late in life. ​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Thank you. I'm glad someone understands what I was trying to say.


:Coach Mora voice: COUNTERTOPS?! You're asking about COUNTERTOPS?! :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> I think you are mistaken. It isn't jealousy, it is anger--an anger I share. Many of us are angry that we have made prudent choices and have foregone the opportunities to spend recklessly, only to find ourselves subsidizing those who have made poor choices and who have spent foolishly.
> 
> For quite a while, I drove a very old car worth ~$5k (not looking for sympathy, it's a great car, and I still drive it occasionally). I was frequently annoyed to see that almost all of the residents of a new public housing project (paid for, in part, by my tax dollars) drove newer and more expensive vehicles than mine. Odd that I should be subsidizing their lives.
> 
> Similarly, we recently replaced our TV with a ~$250 TV from Target. Sure, I can afford a nice plasma/LCD TV, but it wouldn't be a wise decision. Often when our local newspaper runs a story on the latest plight of someone in public housing, on food stamps, etc., the person is pictured next to his or her plasma/LCD/DLP TV. While I'm not jealous, I am angry that they made foolish, frivolous choices which I am forced to underwrite.


It's good to get "angry" to a degree when one observes an injustice. The current system is "legalized plunder" to quote "The Law."


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Ouch. I'm picturing veins and stuff popping on your forehead as you pound the keys. Take it easy. I want to see you live as long as me. But you must have a duck's back, no? Because this:
> 
> ...appears to have rolled right off it.​


You are quite right that your veiled insults to people who don't pander to your views occasionally gets under my skin especially since most of them (being cultured gentlemen) try to be respectful by ignoring your stupidity but you childishly and relentlessly continue doing it so I now get an almost perverted pleasure in showing you up when you act like a blundering old pissant. :icon_smile_big:
_
*** Now going back to the watcher mode where I learn from the intelligent folks on the interchange_.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> And No, I actually think "rich" people have little to no earned income.


So, then, would removing the income cap have the effect that you suggested eariler? (i.e., place the SS burden on the "rich")


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> So, then, would removing the income cap have the effect that you suggested eariler? (i.e., place the SS burden on the "rich")


Yes; using the term how it is used/


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes; using the term how it is used/


Wow, we're going around in circles!!! :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Wow, we're going around in circles!!! :icon_smile:


Yes; you are. 

My point was clear enough even without the clarification over the term "rich". I said "The people with more help the people with less. "

I think someone is "rich" who has no need to work and makes only passive income. The payroll system, quite obviously, considers anyone making over $107k to have excessive earned income or working "rich."

Can you address my core question; why not tax all earned income for a social entitlement?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yes; you are.
> 
> My point was clear enough even without the clarification over the term "rich". I said "The people with more help the people with less. "
> 
> ...


Because we shouldn't tax capital gains at all. :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Because we shouldn't tax capital gains at all. :devil:


ROFL! ok, that was funny! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> ROFL! ok, that was funny! :icon_smile_big:


While I don't fully understand the last two exchanges, I would like to say that Ksinc has put forth some solid and creative ideas in this thread regarding Social Security. ​


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes; you are.
> 
> My point was clear enough even without the clarification over the term "rich". I said "The people with more help the people with less. "
> 
> ...


Rather than worrying about levying significantly more tax on people who make $108K+, many (most?) of whom are *FAR* from any conceivable definition of "rich," isn't the more important question how we get the _actual_ "rich" people (under your definition, which let's presume is correct) to bear the SS burden? We haven't figured that one out yet, but it can't be through wage taxes. And whatever the answer is, should it be applied to all taxes?

As for your other question, does your proposal contemplate a proportionate increase in SS benefits for those earning (and thus taxed) over the cap?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Rather than worrying about levying significantly more tax on people who make $108K+, many (most?) of whom are *FAR* from any conceivable definition of "rich," isn't the more important question how we get the _actual_ "rich" people (under your definition, which let's presume is correct) to bear the SS burden? We haven't figured that one out yet, but it can't be through wage taxes. And whatever the answer is, should it be applied to all taxes?
> 
> As for your other question, does your proposal contemplate a proportionate increase in SS benefits for those earning (and thus taxed) over the cap?


There are a couple of problems with taxing rich people. The first is there aren't that many of them. According to the census there 2,476 households with income above $250,000 in 2008.

The second problem is that the really rich are really mobile. If the taxes get to be too much, they can leave. Congress tried to make it more difficult for them, but t still isn't that hard.

And for Social Security, there are only 10,000 households that have incomes above the social security cap, and many of them are dual incomes, so the real number of those not subject to social security is far less.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

agnash said:


> There are a couple of problems with taxing rich people. The first is there aren't that many of them. According to the census there 2,476 households with income above $250,000 in 2008.
> 
> The second problem is that the really rich are really mobile. If the taxes get to be too much, they can leave. Congress tried to make it more difficult for them, but t still isn't that hard.
> 
> And for Social Security, there are only 10,000 households that have incomes above the social security cap, and many of them are dual incomes, so the real number of those not subject to social security is far less.


I think that the "2,476" was in thousands, i.e., 2,476,000 households have an income above $250K. I think in my office building there are more than 2500 people each having household incomes over $250K. :icon_smile: (Also, households with a total income over $250K _includes _people who are "rich," but that is not a good _definition_ of "rich.")

There probably are a lot of rich people who are mobile in the sense that they have to means to live where they wish, but do you think that many people would flee the country due to taxes? I've never considered this issue, but I have a job, family and friends here that would make me reluctant to pack up and go.

And as for your 10,000 number, again, I think that you're off by a factor of 1000.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> There probably are a lot of rich people who are mobile in the sense that they have to means to live where they wish, but do you think that many people would flee the country due to taxes? I've never considered this issue, but I have a job, family and friends here that would make me reluctant to pack up and go.


That's the beauty of it. You don't have to go, just your money and your corporation have to!!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> There probably are a lot of rich people who are mobile in the sense that they have to means to live where they wish, but do you think that many people would flee the country due to taxes? I've never considered this issue, but I have a job, family and friends here that would make me reluctant to pack up and go.


At some point, yes, people will leave because of taxes. England has seen it (albeit to a rather limited degree). More problematic than people leaving is people moving their capital outside of the U.S.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

smujd said:


> At some point, yes, people will leave because of taxes. England has seen it (albeit to a rather limited degree). More problematic than people leaving is people moving their capital outside of the U.S.


Ah, I misunderstood his point then. I thought he was referring to the mobility of rich _people._

I guess this presumes more favorable tax treatment can be found in other countries for those assets and that the US gov't can't tax those assets.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> As for your other question, does your proposal contemplate a proportionate increase in SS benefits for those earning (and thus taxed) over the cap?


No; if their benefit increased they wouldn't be helping those with less. If there is a single justifiable 'Robin Hood' tax it should be SS.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Rather than worrying about levying significantly more tax on people who make $108K+, many (most?) of whom are *FAR* from any conceivable definition of "rich," isn't the more important question how we get the _actual_ "rich" people (under your definition, which let's presume is correct) to bear the SS burden? We haven't figured that one out yet, but it can't be through wage taxes. And whatever the answer is, should it be applied to all taxes?


Well, SS has been defined as a 'workers' program. Such as; one must work to qualify, etc. So, it would get the "working rich" to pay for the "working poor."

As to should their be a wealth tax? I would say Yes; but I would create a Capital Gains credit. IE I would lean towards taxing money that was sitting still more than I taxed money that was put to work.

Say you had $10M and you put $1M in a business investment. I would hammer you on the $9M if it wasn't 'at risk' and figure the $1M created economic activity that I received increased taxes on indirectly. So, I would go beyond the current Capital Gains debate and I would not only reward you for investing, but I would punish you for not... I don't personally believe having people put money in Tbills is a wise thing for the country.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Doom and gloom, raise the cap is no help*

I concede Patent Lawyer's point of my population numbers being off.

That said, I thought I would take a look at what SSA says about removing the payroll cap. According to the SSA, removing the payroll cap entirely would delay the collapse of the system by 6 years. Yeah, not a long-term solution. If you remove the cap, but limit benefits to just the first $100k or so of income, as benefits are currently calculated, you delay the collapse of the system by 7 years instead of 6.

There were three solutions for adequately preparing the social security fund. First, make sure enough children are born to support their parents. Too late for that one.

Second, tax people enough to fund their retirements given increasing life expectancies. Still an option, but only if you raise the eligibility age.

Third, tax current workers at double or triple the current rate, and hope they actually pay.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> No; if their benefit increased they wouldn't be helping those with less. If there is a single justifiable 'Robin Hood' tax it should be SS.


Under the current manner of calculating SS _benefits_ (as I understand them), people with lower yearly incomes receive a higher relative % of their pre-retirement yearly income than do people with higher yearly incomes. So, for example, someone who made $25K receives a greater % of their yearly income in the form of SS benefits than does someone who made $75K. Assuming this is true, does it satisfy your requirement that "those with more help those with less"? With this understanding, would it be acceptable to you if the benefit increased?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Under the current manner of calculating SS _benefits_ (as I understand them), people with lower yearly incomes receive a higher relative % of their pre-retirement yearly income than do people with higher yearly incomes. So, for example, someone who made $25K receives a greater % of their yearly income in the form of SS benefits than does someone who made $75K. Assuming this is true, does it satisfy your requirement that "those with more help those with less"? With this understanding, would it be acceptable to you if the benefit increased?


No; and I would even phase the benefit out too. Why does a rich person need SS benefits; exactly? Do healthy people draw on their major medical benefits?

If you're rich and want a private account that pays you your own money back at a fixed interest rate then buy an annuity. 

I seem to be one of the few Conservatives willing to admit and fund SS for what it is. If we're going to have a Social Entitlement let's quit crying about getting our own money back or our 'fair share.'

IMHO the rich and working rich should give back to the Country that gave you your opportunity and help those less fortunate who still spent 40 years working for hourly wages in the so-called service economy - cutting hair, mowing lawns, and washing clothes.

SS discussion about the 'working rich'/'rich' somehow strike me as a person wishing they would get cancer so they could get all their money back from the insurance company premiums they paid. Frankly, I hope I'm the most profitable customer of my health insurance company in their corporate history. I feel the same about my home insurance, my car insurance, and my life insurance policy. I've got a 30-year, super preferred, term life contract until 70. I hope those greedy, evil, rich bastards completely rip me off!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No; and I would even phase the benefit out too. Why does a rich person need SS benefits; exactly? Do healthy people draw on their major medical benefits?
> 
> If you're rich and want a private account that pays you your own money back at a fixed interest rate then buy an annuity.


What is your definition of rich? Do you support an income test for those who are on benefits? What about a wealth test for those no longer drawing an income? At what level of income, assets, or combination of the two should someone be denied social security benefits? Would you base your calculation on a ethics, anyone below this numbershould recieve social security, or would you be more practical, we need to sustain social security, so this is the income/wealth number regardless of need?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

ksinc said:


> SS discussion about the 'working rich'/'rich' somehow strike me as a person wishing they would get cancer so they could get all their money back from the insurance company premiums they paid. Frankly, I hope I'm the most profitable customer of my health insurance company in their corporate history. I feel the same about my home insurance, my car insurance, and my life insurance policy. I've got a 30-year, super preferred, term life contract until 70. I hope those greedy, evil, rich bastards completely rip me off!


Hey, ksinc, you're alright! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> What is your definition of rich? Do you support an income test for those who are on benefits? What about a wealth test for those no longer drawing an income? At what level of income, assets, or combination of the two should someone be denied social security benefits? Would you base your calculation on a ethics, anyone below this numbershould recieve social security, or would you be more practical, we need to sustain social security, so this is the income/wealth number regardless of need?


I think I already answered the first question.

Sure; I said I would phase out therefore I would test.

I haven't done the analysis to answer your question, but some level is reasonable. I don't buy the poverty number so 4 x poverty or something seems spurious to me.

Theoretically, let's say we use the post-fix AMT numbers - indexed for inflation. We can include passive income for SS benefit means testing - that makes sense to me.

If someone never had earned income they wouldn't be in the discussion anyway. So, I kind of fail to see the point about the truly rich ... sorry. Clearly we are discussing the 'working rich' for lack of a better term. And I think the 104-106-108 type of numbers are a fair place to expect someone to have alternative retirement planning.

If someone makes $100k+/year and thinks they still need SS they are whining to the wrong person. I don't feel your pain on that one.

A lot of lot of people make $14-$16/hr their whole life and save or could save 15% of their income. They are gonna survive without help even if they live for 30 years past 65. FTR That's $199k saved PLUS compounded interest.

But we know most do not do that sort of thing because they need that money to live in the immediate term because they pay SS taxes already. But are they prepared to live on $900/mo? No; they are not - usually.

I think the real weakness is that we incentize people NOT to save for their own retirement. And this hurts the working poor the most when they help pay for the other working poor to retire with benefits.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hey, ksinc, you're alright! :icon_smile_big:


THX :devil:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hey, ksinc, you're alright! :icon_smile_big:


Yeah! +1 and more. That and previous posts in this thread reveal a side to you heretofore unknown to me. But since you have publicly pondered that I am drunk when I post you may be tempted to chalk these pludits up to booz. Maybe. Come the dawn I may be less concilatory. Good show just the same.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cuff Daddy is filling in for the Energizer Bunny today; he's everywhere. And I like the drum he's beating a lot more than the rabbit's. This is one of the best Interchange days ever.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> I concede Patent Lawyer's point of my population numbers being off.
> 
> That said, I thought I would take a look at what SSA says about removing the payroll cap. According to the SSA, removing the payroll cap entirely would delay the collapse of the system by 6 years. Yeah, not a long-term solution. If you remove the cap, but limit benefits to just the first $100k or so of income, as benefits are currently calculated, you delay the collapse of the system by 7 years instead of 6.
> 
> ...


I was asking more for a justification of the cap. What is the moral argument for the cap? Where does the cap idea stem from? Why not have no cap and lower the rate of the tax? We could remove the cap and cut the rate. Think through what would that do for the average hourly person. Right now there is a debate that cutting payroll taxes would be the best stimulus and since there is a cap certainly we are not talking about cutting taxes on the rich ...

And I hope there aren't people here who still think small businesses create jobs? I mean that's like believing in creationism! oops! LOL


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Theoretically, let's say we use the post-fix AMT numbers - indexed for inflation. We can include passive income for SS benefit means testing - that makes sense to me.
> 
> If someone makes $100k+/year and thinks they still need SS they are whining to the wrong person. I don't feel your pain on that one.
> 
> I think the real weakness is that we incentize people NOT to save for their own retirement. And this hurts the working poor the most when they help pay for the other working poor to retire with benefits.


1) I think Bush I proposed means testing some time ago!!

2) Need?? No. Right now it's an "entitlement!!"

3) SS itself is probably the largest dis-incentive to save there is!! It perpetuates a false sense of "Social Security" and working people undersave.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

^. Preach it! :aportnoy:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I was asking more for a justification of the cap. What is the moral argument for the cap? Where does the cap idea stem from? Why not have no cap and lower the rate of the tax? We could remove the cap and cut the rate. Think through what would that do for the average hourly person. Right now there is a debate that cutting payroll taxes would be the best stimulus and since there is a cap certainly we are not talking about cutting taxes on the rich ...
> 
> And I hope there aren't people here who still think small businesses create jobs? I mean that's like believing in creationism! oops! LOL


I believe the justification for the cap is that is the maximum salary for which benefits are calculated. The theory behind the system was that you as a worker are putting money into the system for your future benefit. And, you are not allowed to deduct SS taxes from your income when calcualting your income taxes.

Cutting payroll taxes might generate more stimulus, but the Social Security Administration has admitted that completely removing the cap, and not increasing the salary level for which benefits are calculated would only give the system another 7 years. If you remove the cap, and cut the rate, you probably make the system go bust even faster.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> If someone makes $100k+/year and thinks they still need SS they are whining to the wrong person. I don't feel your pain on that one.


Do you take into account when they made $100k per year? If they made $100k the year before they retired, are they no longer entitled to SS payments? Or, are you saying someone who makes $100k per year after retirement would not qualify?

How about asset tests? Medicare already has asset tests for those going into assissted living facilities. Would you propose testing of net asset levels for those going on SS? If your house is paid off, and worth more than $250k you sir are out of luck.

Speaking of asset tests, it is very important to structure things for retirees so that their big assets are no longer in their names 60 months before they need assissted living.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

agnash said:


> Speaking of asset tests, it is very important to structure things for retirees so that their big assets are no longer in their names 60 months before they need assissted living.


That way they can stick the rest of us for their tab!!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That way they can stick the rest of us for their tab!!


Often it is for a married couple, where one spouse is in worse health than the other, and their primary asset is their home. Grandma needs long term care. First, Medicare insists on selling the house, putting Grandpa on the street.

I don't make the rulse, the morons in D.C. do that. I just try and follow them to the best of my advantage.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

agnash said:


> First, Medicare insists on selling the house, putting Grandpa on the street.
> 
> I don't make the rulse, the morons in D.C. do that. I just try and follow them to the best of my advantage.


1) How do her dirty rotten children and grandkids let that happen to poor Grandama?? (Or even an illegal Auntie??  )

2) I don't blame you.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) How do her dirty rotten children and grandkids let that happen to poor Grandama?? (Or even an illegal Auntie??  )
> 
> 2) I don't blame you.


A lot of them failed to procreate, which is a big part of the problem with the whole system. No kids = no one to pay your benefits.

See also, Western Europe, Japan, Canada, etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> I believe the justification for the cap *is that is the maximum salary for which benefits are calculated.* The theory behind the system was that you as a worker are putting money into the system for your future benefit. And, you are not allowed to deduct SS taxes from your income when calcualting your income taxes.
> 
> Cutting payroll taxes might generate more stimulus, but the Social Security Administration has admitted that completely removing the cap, and not increasing the salary level for which benefits are calculated would only give the system another 7 years. If you remove the cap, and cut the rate, you probably make the system go bust even faster.


That's the definition of a cap not a justification.

On the second - you missed the point. I would also introduce means testing. To be clear people making $100K+ or more would pay into the system on their full salary at the new tax rate and then may or may not receive a benefit based on their post-retirement income total from earned and passive income. The SS has not graded that proposal.

I won't even get into whether the SS has proven generally incompetent; if they had made a public statement. Even if they were competent, Would you ask a child how much candy they should be allowed to eat?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> Do you take into account when they made $100k per year? If they made $100k the year before they retired, are they no longer entitled to SS payments? Or, are you saying someone who makes $100k per year after retirement would not qualify?
> 
> How about asset tests? Medicare already has asset tests for those going into assissted living facilities. Would you propose testing of net asset levels for those going on SS? If your house is paid off, and worth more than $250k you sir are out of luck.
> 
> Speaking of asset tests, it is very important to structure things for retirees so that their big assets are no longer in their names 60 months before they need assissted living.


Ok, I'll try again ...

#1 While you're working - if you make more than $106K in "earned income" you should pay SS tax on ALL of it. Remove the cap.

#2 When you go to retire - there should be "qualified retirement" not just a set age.

#3 Once you are retired - your needs should be means tested based on your current total income (including other sources of passive income)

So, let's just remove the "SS is getting your own money" idea from CW and simply do what it should be - a Social Insurance Program that takes premiums from all workers at an equal rate on what they earn and gives benefits based on needs.

The 'working rich' pay more in. They may or may not receive benefits. The two should be separate issues; just like any other insurance scheme works.

Don't make me run for President to fix SS - you wouldn't like my Iran policy.


----------

