Joe the Liar

[T.A.M.]

mhaze:

Well, I don't know, but to me personally, it is ok if someone earning $8K per year pays little or even no tax...come on, my god how can you survive on 8K per year? Is your complaint that these people, who pay little taxes, are going to get a $500-1K gift from the government?

SO ****ING WHAT!

I guess I am just a socialist...right?

TAM

 

[mhaze]

mhaze:

Well, I don't know, but to me personally, it is ok if someone earning $8K per year pays little or even no tax...come on, my god how can you survive on 8K per year? Is your complaint that these people, who pay little taxes, are going to get a $500-1K gift from the government?

SO ****ING WHAT!

I guess I am just a socialist...right?

TAM

Yes.

You see, what the person earning $8k per year does pay, with a matching amount from the employer, is social security taxes. This has been a retirement trust. Now it would become a welfare program. What then happens to the retirement trust account you relied on?

It's not all all a problem for the "wealthy", because they likely could not care less (red herring argument).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Mhaze, your arguments make absolutely no sense and seem to be based on your own greed. You don't seem to care about helping the economy or the country, just in making sure you don't get taxed.

 

[gnome]

Something I have trouble understanding...

We already have significantly progressive taxation system. The rhetoric flying around today seems to favor having to re-justify the entire concept of progressive taxation in order to make a relatively minor change.

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, your arguments make absolutely no sense and seem to be based on your own greed. You don't seem to care about helping the economy or the country, just in making sure you don't get taxed.

Either you gone to the old progressive standby, the hallowed Ad Hominum rebuttal, or you cluelessly parse my comment with the full bore, concentrated intensity of two brain cells.

You see, what the person earning $8k per year does pay, with a matching amount from the employer, is social security taxes. This has been a retirement trust. Now it would become a welfare program. What then happens to the retirement trust account you relied on?

It's not all all a problem for the "wealthy", because they likely could not care less (red herring argument).
​

Directly address Social Security as a retirement trust, if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[Snide]

Something I have trouble understanding...

We already have significantly progressive taxation system. The rhetoric flying around today seems to favor having to re-justify the entire concept of progressive taxation in order to make a relatively minor change.

It's simply a political Hail Mary (of American Football). It of course is the wrong move early in the game, but sometimes near the end, it's the only option.

Actually, it's more like intentionally fouling late in a basketball game when you're down a bunch. You have to break the rules (lie) in pitiful desperation.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, Social Security is a catastrophic ecconomic insurance policy that guarantees that the elderly and disabled will not be thrown under the bus when the entrepreneurs drive the bus into the ditch. That's hardly welfare.

 

[mr rosewater]

Actually, Social Security is a catastrophic ecconomic insurance policy that guarantees that the elderly and disabled will not be thrown under the bus when the entrepreneurs drive the bus into the ditch. That's hardly welfare.

It is when you use the current surplus to support a payment to those who have no tax obligation.

 

[leftysergeant]

It is when you use the current surplus to support a payment to those who have no tax obligation.

As opposed to tapping it to subsidize the entrepreneurs who are making obscene profits from Bush's war?

 

[mr rosewater]

I hear ya, but countries that have extreme concentrations of wealth at the very top tend not to do too well. I don't think we're at the point where we have to start worrying about Bastilles being stormed, but as Disco Stu says, "If these trends continue...".

Look, my wife and I are both teachers. She just started and I've been teaching for 10 years. We're now at $110,000 a year and living comfortably. We could afford to pay an extra 2 or 3 percent. I won't be able to get that ivory back scratcher, but hey, that's life. Five years ago, we were making $45,000 and it was a lot tougher, and that's WITHOUT having to worry about paying for health care. I go grocery shopping nowadays, and I honestly wonder how a family at median income can afford it.

Thank you Malerin.

 

[mr rosewater]

I understand where you are coming from.

I graduated high school at age 17. I then went to college, and graduated with an Electronic Engineering Technology Diploma, A Bachelor in Medical Science, an MD, and a 2 year residency...I was 30.

I graduated with $160,000 in student loan debts.

I now make about $200-$250K per year. I lose about 35% of that to taxes. I lose another 15% per month to pay off my student loans.

I don't expect anyone to carry my water either, but I FEEL AN OBLIGATION to contribute to those who for any number of reasons didn't get the right shakes, didn't get the right breaks, and as a result, do not do as well as I do.

If I have to pay a few percentage points more in taxes then them...so be it.

I am Canadian, and that is how I see Canada.

TAM

Thank you T.A.M.

 

[mhaze]

It is when you use the current surplus to support a payment to those who have no tax obligation.

To be clear, SS paid out to you only if you paid in for 40 quarters (some exceptions). Now, under the Obama scheme it will simply pay out (above mentioned case of a wage earner earning $8k or less), and do it every year, not on retirement.

Leaves nothing for the future, it would seem (course just printing money is an out)

 

[mr rosewater]

To be clear, SS paid out to you only if you paid in for 40 quarters (some exceptions). Now, under the Obama scheme it will simply pay out (above mentioned case of a wage earner earning $8k or less), and do it every year, not on retirement.

Leaves nothing for the future, it would seem (course just printing money is an out)

Which is why he wants to raise the cap. Forget the fact of how SS is calculated.

 

[mr rosewater]

As opposed to tapping it to subsidize the entrepreneurs who are making obscene profits from Bush's war?

The guy I work for started by flipping houses before it became fashionable, now he does retail construction. He's an entrepreneur he employs people sometimes me I wish him the best. I hope he makes great gobs of money none of which has to do with President Bush or war.