http://washingtonexaminer.com/ap-gfk-poll-raise-taxes-to-save-social-security/article/feed/2027608
8/26/2012 3:31:30 PM
Increasing taxes can help fix the deficit...
8/26/2012 3:49:54 PM
after we spend most of it on propping up crony business partners and pipedream cars that run on walrus burps
8/26/2012 4:16:41 PM
You're right. Let's just live in total anarchy. Our lives will be shittier, but at least we'll be free, the way human beings were 8,000 years ago.
8/26/2012 4:21:15 PM
yes thats exactly what I said. fine observation skills
8/26/2012 4:51:22 PM
So you're allowed to exaggerate, but I'm not?
8/26/2012 4:55:23 PM
His weren't really all that exaggerated.
8/26/2012 5:00:32 PM
8/26/2012 5:04:39 PM
i find it sad that folks haven't got enough sense to save money on their own and would actually depend on the fucking government for their retirement
8/26/2012 6:36:32 PM
8/26/2012 6:43:16 PM
Here's an idea. How about we stop mailing SS checks to millionaires?
8/26/2012 6:52:47 PM
i'd rather shut it down than continue the ponzi scheme
8/26/2012 8:16:58 PM
too bad it's not a Ponzi Scheme
8/26/2012 9:45:31 PM
In what way is it not? The moneys paid in are not being invested, they are immediately being paid out. Previous "investors" are being paid with the money put in by current "investors." I suppose if you wanted to be kind you could call it a pyramid scheme instead. Maybe it wasn't started as a ponzi scheme, but because all the money in the SS fund was spent on other things it most certainly is one now. The very fact that it is going to run out of money in the near future makes it obvious that it is not being run as any kind of savings or retirement plan should be run.
8/27/2012 12:07:49 AM
8/29/2012 10:10:12 AM
Its definitely a ponzi scheme.And I find that the solution is generally somewhere in the middle. My personal view is we should pay the lowest taxes possible. Im all for limited govt, staying out of our lives, etc. The govt role is for military, roads, police, education, etc.With that said, I would be okay with increasing taxes to pay down debt if there was a 1 for 1 decrease in govt spending. Also, specific to SS, its going to take compromise from all parties. Meaning increasing retirement age, decreasing amounts, and capping based on income. The system is clearly broken and the solution is to not JUST increase taxes and throw more money at the problem, we need to fix the causes to the problem.
8/29/2012 10:22:35 AM
8/29/2012 10:43:40 AM
Taxes should be increased on the wealthy. For those of you that are unfamiliar with the Pre-Reagan days, go away and look into it.
8/29/2012 11:51:59 AM
^ Done. It was a period when the rich paid a far smaller share of income taxes. What of it?
8/29/2012 12:21:58 PM
8/29/2012 12:58:49 PM
8/29/2012 1:04:53 PM
^who are you to say how much someone can afford to pay in taxes?? honestly? there is zero justification for making one person pay more than another solely based on their income. especially when a large portion of the population doesn't pay shit.bitching and moaning about taxes being unfair then saying the rich should pay more is retarded. flat rate for all or GTFO.
8/29/2012 1:25:55 PM
8/29/2012 1:54:29 PM
i'm just saying, if a mom has to work two jobs to feed her kids, i don't think she should have to pay as much as a millionaire who has enough money to raise a family and buy a yacht and a vacation home (that's only an example)
8/29/2012 1:55:35 PM
^ So you agree we should cut her taxes? Payroll tax at 12%, she's paying far more than she should.
8/29/2012 2:15:02 PM
49% of the country pays ZERO income tax. The solution is to expand the tax base, not increase taxes on a certain group
8/29/2012 2:17:35 PM
But if I have to pay more in taxes how will I ever afford the top end monocle polish that I currently use. I'm no millionaire, but considering how much more I pay in taxes than most people I think I should at least get some free monocle polish out of it.
8/29/2012 2:23:51 PM
8/29/2012 2:29:49 PM
What makes it morally correct to take by force that which is not yours?Even dropping that basic premise, what makes anyone other than the person who earned the money the arbiter of how much they can afford to do without?
8/29/2012 2:33:59 PM
Because the United States is a (somewhat) democratic and civilized society?[Edited on August 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]
8/29/2012 2:45:11 PM
8/29/2012 3:59:32 PM
greed is good.amirite, my brothers?
8/29/2012 4:01:57 PM
8/29/2012 4:12:38 PM
8/29/2012 4:46:07 PM
8/29/2012 4:49:26 PM
Somebody will always "have the guns". The idea of a free and peaceful world is a fabrication of the human mind. We live in an interconnected world.The only way to have a peaceful world is to have a non-free world and vice versa. The absence of one necessarily implies the other. You also have the option of the level you want to imply the order on. We don't yet have world government, and this is accompanied by the fact that we still fight occasional wars. If all the governments agreed on policy generally (which is somewhat true for the Western world), it would become effectively world government.Every meal humans have consumed since the first one of us walked the face of this planet has been taken by force from an unwilling participant.You can point to the different forms of evolutionary relationships like - parasitic - predatory - symbioticand apply your own feelings to each of these, but that ignores the reality that your feelings don't matter. No organism ever consented to the relationship it found itself in.So the universe isn't free market. Everything about free market ideology also completely ignores the natural tribal state of humans. Our natural social contract never had anything to do with people being fairly compensated for what they do. It had to do with organizing as a group and becoming more competitive collectively. The derivation of the concept of entitlement to one's own labor is impossible from such a starting point.
8/29/2012 5:25:25 PM
The only problem with Social Security is the retirement age. It simply needs to be raised. When Social Security was passed during the Great Depression, the retirement age was greater than average worker life expectancy by about ten years. Now it is the reverse, with average life expectancy over ten years greater than retirement age.
8/29/2012 5:35:20 PM
Ohh, how I long for the New Deal days
8/29/2012 6:23:06 PM
Kill old people
8/29/2012 11:31:05 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/
8/30/2012 12:33:12 AM
8/30/2012 1:17:43 AM
8/30/2012 1:20:59 AM
^would you refute his question substantively?
8/30/2012 1:55:20 AM
8/30/2012 8:10:22 AM
^AHAHABut seriously, it seems like raising taxes a bit, cutting benefits a bit, and raising the retirement age a bit is the way to go.That set of changes, however, does represent a lot of sacrifice, and I don't want to be played for a fool. And I think that's why people are resistant to making the sacrifices. There is this sense that the system is currently favoring the wealthiest among of us, and as long as that's the case, average folks are going to feel like total patsies if they accept cuts in benefits and a higher retirement age.But I think we're going to have make sacrifices in spite of the super wealthy leaches. We're also going to have to make sacrifices in spite of the small amount of people who leach on the other end of the spectrum, opting to live off perpetual underemployment and paltry sums of government money.
8/30/2012 8:58:51 AM
I would say that SS screws rich people in some ways and poor people in others
8/30/2012 9:51:10 AM
Look, I would be all for ending SS payouts to anyone currently below the age of 35, continuing to pay benefits to those now drawing and then grading down by percentage (i.e. current recipients get 100% of their payout, those within 10 years of eligibility get 75% of currently projected payout, those within 20 years get 50%, etc.) and in addition doing means testing for those currently drawing.For everyone below 35 (my generation, probably yours too if you're reading this, and future generations) you pay into SS to fund it for the next 30 years but receive no benefits. It will suck, it will be a sacrifice, but it's probably the best solution. We make the sacrifice to pay for the boomers and we don't pass along a burden to our children. If you're currently 35 or younger you have plenty of time to plan for your own retirement. I would also argue that we should create some kind of incentive for companies to begin funding pensions again since they won't be paying any SS tax in a few decades. Those pensions would be a huge help to people who might not be able to invest a large enough amount to retire comfortably.OK, so I've not done the math on this plan, but I bet with some tweaking of ages and percentages we could still fund current and future recipients without adding a massive burden to the next generation.Any objections?[Edited on August 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]
8/30/2012 12:03:56 PM
^ are you joking? ...seriously? company pensions? really? have an entire generation pay into the system and not get anything out?Here's the one thing I have to add:To whatever extent we recognize that SS funds the general budget, this talk about federal income tax burden has to go. Social Security is then a tax, not a fund. The middle class pay a waaay larger fraction of their income into the SS system, so when we're talking about the tax burden of different people, the current scheme is smoke and mirrors.
8/30/2012 12:30:45 PM
Well, I don't know about you, but I already expect to pay into the system and get nothing back.
8/30/2012 12:34:43 PM
^i think a better solution is for our generation to put their contributions in a private account they control. Pay for current retirees with the employers contribution and deficit spending. Might be the easiest way to go, other than screwing our generation or savers completly.Having a private account is a great way to generate real wealth over generations, but you cant let the govt have that money or they will piss it away on something else. See the SS "trust fund". The knock has been that minorities dont live as long. Private account helps with that. If you die early your balance goes on to your kids, thus building their accounts more. After all it is YOUR money, you should decide who gets it. imo[Edited on August 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]
8/30/2012 1:19:11 PM