Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
What is being advocated is converting the money paid into social security into a de-facto tax - the most regressive tax imaginable.
Then they are opposing any increase in taxes on people who get a 7% tax break as soon as they reach the $106K income threshold.
They will not even consider tax changes that affect the highest income recipients, but will make cuts in social security to avoid repaying the debt owed to the funds made up of contributions from even the lowest income earners.
Consider the top marginal income tax rate, then subtract 7% from it to account for the social security discount that is provided to approximately 7% of incomes. ( Ninety-three percent of incomes are less than $100K) Essentially, we are asking 93% of the people to protect the tax rate of the top 2%.
Regards,
D-Ray |
Seems like I care more about the original promise and INTENT of Soc Sec than YOU do D-Ray..
Gotta follow this assertion carefully D-Ray - otherwise you're gonna think I just took a swipe at you..
The social MAGIC of Soc Sec was that it was a UNIVERSAL program that would benefit ALL surviving retirees. That it was gonna be an insurance program that EVERY US worker would appreciate. Promises were made that would NEVER exceed 3% of payroll income, never apply to more than XX% of your wages (can't remember the promise there) and would NEVER be taxed.. It wasn't JUST a tax -- Oh no -- it was personal investment in YOUR future and it was backed by the full faith/credit of the treasury..
ALL THAT bleeding heart crap goes downs the tube when you start RAISING the contribution cap to stratospheric heights. (or means-testing, or more progressive benefit schedule). You turn a sacred UNIVERSAL FED program into just another redistributionist welfare scheme.. It's ALREADY a progressive benefits schedule because ROI goes negative for most ALL participants except those who make less than about $30K/year.
Now heck -- that MIGHT not be a bad idea
considering how many pledges and trusts have been broken on this UNIVERSAL plan in just 70 years or so. But if you turn it into something else NOW -- don't ever expect to fool the American people into ANOTHER UNIVERSAL something in the next couple generations..
I might even support calling it redistributionist welfare.. Just don't think I (or my prodgeny) are gonna get fooled again anytime soon... And that may be why you don't understand why you just can't impeach that silly 2% of the rich. Why the 98% don't just TAKE IT from them.. Because D-Ray buddy -- it's not about the money... It's about the principle of ethically running a UNIVERSAL program and being conscientious administrators of public trust in that program...