v you got it - the other benefits would be available to me and my family only if we lived on the reservation i used to go the indian tribal center here in dallas for all medical, dental and prescriptions but its been years since i have been there could detail much much more but i think the point in general without going into specifics (which again as some of you guys spend page after page after page documenting your valid points) is to simplify the complexity of the problem again we could all spend hours with this detail but why? wrong is f'n wrong whether it is a tax system that makes you pay based upon what you make........ where does one invent this dumb ass system - a sewer gutter in somalia? ............or a copious amount of cumbersome civil laws that are built to make sure good responsible people (who do follow basii natural law) abide by an ever expanding encroachment on their civil liberty.......... all of these laws which overburden our legal system which is then maxed by the lovely government of ours and its "pass a new laws today" happy agenda ...........or entitlement programs which btw our governemnt cover cant afford - i mean at what point do we go we are going to need to cut our government in half, quit trying to do more than we are capable of doing, quit relying on our government to solve every f'n problem we have and take some responsibility for our selves instead of relying on the government so damn much? people are going to have hurt - its the bottom line and there is no way around it to fix the problem granted i am no economist, i am not an accountant, i am not a politician and i am certainly not a sociologist but what i am is just a very simple common person who can clearly see beyond thirty five million layers of bs and debt associated with a government that is so far out of touch with reality rob (instead of simply punishing those who dp break the natural law are responsible for an actual crime against another person or property)
Many good points, there, diamondheaded. There's more than just a little illogic, and unfairness, in what's being done, now. _________________ In the U.S., it got to be popular to call oneself a conservative, but fiscal conservatives remain "thin on the ground." What's become of self-identified conservatives who would support putting an end to working people handing their money over to the truly rich in America, via payroll taxes, to pay social security retirement benefits? Nobody's voiced support for the idea of limiting social security retirement payments to those who truly need the money, except for twini, and diamondheaded (if I'm not putting words into their mouths, inadvertently). Let's make it easy for the rest of you: suppose only those with a total annual income of $25,000/year, or more, after taxes; and, those with an "adjusted" net worth greater than $500,000.00, would be ineligible to receive social security retirement payments [in the calculation of net worth, only one half of the assessed value of the recipient's residence would be counted]. NOW, can you buy into the idea? Presently, the way social security retirement is structured, we're handing over a portion of our earnings to very wealthy, and relatively wealthy people as a supplement to their retirement spending: for what? Where's the outrage about that? Tax dollars should not go to the rich, and the near rich, as they do now, but only to those who truly need public support. What I've suggested, here, would leave a large group of comfortably well to do people who would still have their hand out for money from other taxpayers. We ought to be ashamed, but we're so used to it that it doesn't strike us with how truly odd, and unfair, it is. Are there any out there who will actually lend their open support to reducing the cost to the taxpayers of the social security retirement program- one of two programs that are now, and totally unnecessarily, eating the federal budget alive- by eliminating from eligibility those Americans who are well to do; or, is cutting government expenditures not as popular a proposition as one would think it is, given the number of tea parties that are held, annually?
the new deal social security plan was actually a well thought out plan ............................for that time period they need to just wax that whole damn thing too asap again stop the politics and the worrying about who got this and who go that and just nix all these antiquated plan and programs in one ball of wax and fix that problem, the tax problem and all the rest of the mess once and for all johnson and johnson band aids over an open incision for a triple by pass aint going to last the best rob
Stumbled across this article.. has some mild political tones but mostly spot on IMHO... Saul Friedman: A Fresh Idea to Fix Medicare, Pay For Health Care and Cut the Deficit--Raise Taxes
The Huffington Post is one of the most liberal and biased blogs out there. The whole attitude of The Huffington Post can be summed up in one phrase from the article "the problem isn't the government, but the lack of government." They cite those wonderful days when we had 90% tax rates as being what should be done. And to think the writer of that article referred to the Tea Partiers as crazies! I think that person should look in a mirror at who is really the crazy one! No nation can survive by having more people on the take of government services than those who are paying for those services. The problems we are facing are not from a lack of government, but an inefficient government that is looking for the buying of votes rather than the betterment of the people. Social security disability is one of the most abused rip off programs that has ever existed. Of the people that I know who are on social security disability, all but maybe one are totally capable of working, but refuse to do so. From my perspective, the problem isn't the lack of government services, but the over abundance of government services to those who don't need them and to those who refuse to provide for themselves. We hear on the radio the ads for welfare. Can't pay your heat bills, then call us, your friendly government and we'll pay them for you. Don't want to work? No problem we'll pay you unemployment benefits for two years. Here in NY we are in deep financial trouble. When the head of the NY Teachers Union was contacted he said that there is no way the teachers will make any concessions whatsoever. Now before you get all upset about the poor underpaid teachers of NY, let me cite a few examples for you. During tax season I had an art teacher here in my office. Her W-2 was for $92,000. With her benefit package she is making over $145,000 per year and she works 6 hours a day for 180 days. That means that she makes over $134 per hour with guaranteed job security and a guaranteed pension. Oh and while she was here she was moaning about how she couldn't survive on that wage. Sorry, but that is just part of the problem. The NY teachers control NY State and there is not one politician with the guts to stand up to them. To give you another example. I had a couple here in my office and they are struggling. However, when they found out what his business had made they were almost in tears because it would cut off their food stamps and heating assistance. I'm sorry, but you make enough money to pay for those things yourself. Maybe you need to take your kids' cell phones away from them and pay for your own heat instead. No one is accountable anymore. The government will always bail them out. To be quite honest I'm tired of paying for people who refuse to work and refuse to contribute to society. Social security should be denied to people who make over $100,000 per year. Disability should only be given to people who can not perform any work whatsoever. I have a guy on disabilty because he is too fat to continue to work. He is over 600 pounds and can't work. Oh, but he can drive to Florida every winter and spend the cold months in his cozy condo in Florida. We need to change the mentality here in the US that everyone is entitled to a free ride. If you don't contribute, you should be given only enough to survive and the training necessary to bring you to a point where you can contribute. Harsh? Absolutely, but it is a change that is way, way overdue!
Tax in America There's at least a couple of things in the article, or suggested by the article that I think are true: Americans pay the lowest taxes of any developed country I know of; and, Americans are, in general, whiners not doers, when it comes to making meaningful changes to the benefits they are receiving, or may receive in the future, so as to reduce the cost of the two most expensive of programs, social security and medicare/medicaid. _________________ All good points and, no, you're not being harsh. I don't know if you meant that only those who had total incomes, from all sources, exceeding $100,000 annually, at age 65, should be denied social security retirement benefits but, if so, that's way too generous, and is even more generous than the existing system; and, to have passive income of that magnitude they'd have to be wealthy, with ballpark two million dollars of value in their portfolio: anyone that rich would probably also own their home. There is no reason I can think of to burden working people, who may have families to support, with providing additional spending money to any relatively well to do person, as the current system does.
Right now anyone can draw full social security at age 66 regardless of their income. I had one client who was 94 and still working. Between him and his wife they were drawing down $52,000 per year in social security. His total income was over $500,000 per year. The law was changed under Clinton that people can draw their full social security at age 65/66 and continue to work. Under 66 there is an income restriction. The best example of the folly of social security is that the very first person who ever drew down from the system paid $1300 into the system and had drawn out $130,000 by the time she passed away. Great return on investment for her. When the system started it was meant as a safety net, not an entitlement. When it started the average life expectancy was 62. Now the average life expectancy is almost 80. Statistically if you live to be 60, the odds are 4 to 1 you will live to be 80. Okay, so how do you change it. First I would limit who can draw and how much. Once you reach a particular income limit then the amounts would start to decrease that you would draw. Second, I would subject net rental income, investment income, and Subchapter S income to social security. Third, I would tighten the requirements for disability. BTW, each and every one of these would effect me directly and I'm a lot closer to being able to draw socail security than a lot of the folks on here. Before any of these changes could be made, the government would have to admit that the whole social security system is a tax, not an annuity, and a safety net, not an entitlement.
That's what I call, "steppin' up to the plate"! Way to go, twini, some good suggestions there and being willing to be hit in the pocketbook, for the sake of the country, is what it's gonna take to get the job done. I believe that if we stop paying social security retirement to the wealthy there will be a net savings that could result in an opportunity to reduce payroll taxes; I would wait to see what happens, and how much is then needed, before considering any "new" taxes, such as suggested in your second point. Set the threshold for ineligibility low enough that it excludes those who don't need this extra money, in the form of social security retirement benefits, and the savings would be significant. Well done.
i'm finding this very interesting, i thought our culture of everything for nothing was bad but pales in comparison if its not in place already, a means tested points based system is the way forward ... if you can afford it, you can't get government assistance in getting it..period, forcing people in to work by cutting their benefits if they refuse offers so that it no longer becomes attractive or affordable to stay on social
Franco, there have been comments about direct assistance to needy people in the U.S., but the focus on this thread, recently, has been on a program that redistributes money from working people to those of retirement age, who may be wealthy and have no need for the money, making us question whether it shouldn't be stopped. ____________________ There has been almost no support expressed for the concept of curtailing redistribution of payroll taxes to the wealthy, which is now what happens with Social Security Retirement, so it makes me wonder about how truly concerned people may be about what's being done with their tax dollars, but another thing I'd suggest, which would also potentially result in a lowering of payroll taxes, to the benefit of working people and their employers, is to stop transferring payroll taxes to the general budget of the federal government. This has been going on for several decades: whenever the payroll taxes collected exceeded the demand on Social Security for payouts, that excess has been transferred to the general budget, giving legislators more tax dollars to play with. An IOU has been left behind, in the Social Security System, and that money is gone, gone, gone.... If this were stopped, payroll taxes could be reduced, to all working peoples' and businesses' benefit. ____________________ I've mentioned a national sales tax several times, and no one has expressed support for the idea, but I like it for several reasons. One, if there are no exempt classes of goods or services at retail, it guarantees everyone will be supporting their national government, financially, something the current set up does not do. Two, it's fair, everyone has to pay. Three, it's easily administered: businesses are already in the habit of collecting taxes on retail sales, which they now do for state sales tax. Four, the rich will pay more because they spend more, the poor will pay less because they spend less- which may not seem fair to some, but does to many.
