DUmmies show their wealth envy, (greed) and stupidity regarding Social Security

[thundley4]

Better Believe It   (1000+ posts)             Mon Aug-16-10 11:25 PM
Original message
The real reasons why corporate America wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare   
   
There’s Nothing Wrong with Social Security that Taxing the Rich Fairly Wouldn’t Fix
by Dave Lindorff
August 16, 2010

The ideologues at places like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are providing the intellectual justification for destroying Social Security, but the real opposition to Social Security, though, is corporate America, as represented by groups like the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce (it's corporate America that funds those foundations and their resident "scholars," after all). And the reason for this corporate opposition is that Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes paid by workers are both matched, dollar for dollar, by employers. If you pay 6.2% of your income in taxes to the Social Security Administration each year, so does your boss, and if the income cap is lifted for workers it will also be lifted for employers. That means a bigger tax bill for the company, and of course personally for the managers and board members.

So let's at least be honest in this coming battle over "saving" Social Security. It is nothing less than a war between bosses and workers.

The system is not in trouble because it's too generous or because it is underfunded. It has been pilfered over the years by politicians who have been unwilling to raise taxes to fund America's wars, or to fund the programs that we Americans say we want, like better roads, grants for local schools, etc. Instead of telling us what things cost, they borrow (steal) money from the Social Security Trust Fund, and then tell us Social Security is in trouble.

And now, as a day of reckoning approaches, they pretend it's all our fault. They say we want too much in benefits, or that we want to retire too early. But the truth is, we deserve decent retirement income, and we deserve to retire at 65 or even 62. In fact, if we hang onto our jobs until 70 or 72, as these hacks and the lobbyists for corporate American want us to do, it'll just be that harder for our kids to get jobs and move out of the house!

This is not about a private pension fund that's going bust. It's about a public pension program that has been raided, that has never been adequate, and that needs to be bolstered now by a tax on the rich. Nothing elaborate mind you. They just need to pay at the same rate that the rest of us do.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/16-7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8959535

commondreams should be commonleftistfantasies.

Better Believe It   (1000+ posts)             Mon Aug-16-10 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. How the rich pay into Social Security at a lower tax rate than the rest of us.   
   

The writer explains how the rich don't pay into the Social Security fund at the same tax rate as the rest of us when he points out:

"At present, every worker in America pays the same percentage of income into the Social Security Trust Fund--currently 6.2% of the first $106,800 of earnings. Since everyone pays at that rate, whether they earn $10,680 a year or $106,800 a year, that would be a flat tax, except that it's not. Because once someone earns more than $106,800 in a year, the tax rate falls off precipitously. After that cap, which is adjusted upward a little bit each year to account for inflation, there is no SSI tax on additional money earned. In other words, if someone earns $106,800.00, she or he pays $6,621.60 into the Trust Fund, but if that worker earns $107,000, or $313,600 a year, the tax is still just $6,621.60. For the person earning twice the income cap of $313,600, that means an SSI tax rate of only 3.1%. For someone earning 10 times the cap, or $1.680 million, the tax rate is only 0.62%."

The DUmmie is advocating a "flat tax" on all income for FICA. How about a flat tax for the income tax, then?

From there it gets worse. The DUmmies try and do math and to make it work the way they want.

[zeitgeist]

Poor dummies they are soooo conflicted.  I reading an Iggy (Indiana Green, Socialist pimpette extraordinary) thread about how public employees retirement is not all that it is banged up to be.  But note, dummies, those firemen, policemen and Indian affairs councilors aren't exactly clamoring to be put into Social Security.

Now, on a positive note, Social Security will be fine thanks to ObamaCare. There will be w a y fewer seniors in the not too distant future thus re balancing the actuarial tables. 

[AllosaursRus]

The system is not in trouble because it's too generous or because it is underfunded. It has been pilfered over the years by politicians who have been unwilling to raise taxes to fund America's wars, or to fund the programs that we Americans say we want, like better roads, grants for local schools, etc. Instead of telling us what things cost, they borrow (steal) money from the Social Security Trust Fund, and then tell us Social Security is in trouble.

Perhaps this asshat can prove this BS! I'd sure like to see where we pilfered the SS fund for anything else other than welfare!

I got news for ya DUmbass, if you make over 108,000 you sure as hell aren't waitin' for SS to kick in to finance your retirement! So why in the hell should you pay more into it? Oh that's right, so you lazy, pos mother ****ers don't have to work for your retirement!

SS was never intended to be retirement in the first frikkin' place! A thought completely lost on you worthless assholes standin' around for a frikkin' handout!

You sure as hell like the idea of a flat tax on SS, yet when anyone brings up the idea of a flat income tax, you all scream bloody murder because the poor will be harmed, like they aren't already payin' a frikkin flat sales, excise, or luxury tax, right?

Wanna 'splain to me why you should get more money back from Uncle Sam than you have ever paid into it, DUmbass? let's see.........

............you're a welfare anchor with 4 kids, papa 1,2,3,and 4 went bye bye years ago, you pay absolutely no income tax, as you have no income other than taxpayer funded freebies, at the end of the year, surprise, surprise, you get a check for 5 ****in' grand, also taxpayer funded. What a ****in' deal! Then, to add insult to injury, you join a site like DemonRat Dumpsterville and complain 24/7 you ain't gettin' enough!

Am I gettin' close there DUmbass?

ETA:

But, but, but........it's those evil repubs keepin' ya from gettin' rich, ain't it? Ya wanna know what I could do with an extra 5 grand a year, asshole? It sure as hell wouldn't be to buy Mexican Dirt Weed in order to keep my butt glued to the couch munchin' cheetos! Hell, I could use a new air compressor as mine is over 20 years old!

Did I mention I could actually make money with the 5 grand instead of throwin' in the DUmpster at the local game cube or flat screen vendor?

[jukin]

DUmbass wrong again.  If a DUchebag has a job their poor employer also kicks in 6.2% plus medicare 50% cut.

Now think about that. Imagine investing 12.4% of your gross for 45-50 years. 

That. Is. All.

[zeitgeist]

There is some severe post recycling going on over there.  Bot or sock puppets?  Just sayin.


This exchange is an example.

rve300 (126 posts)      Tue Aug-17-10 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
12. If you think that an employer pays half.....
 and it does not come out of the employee's pocket in the end, then you have a very naive view of business budgeting.
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Better Believe It  (1000+ posts)        Tue Aug-17-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. You mean employers would automatically give us that money in pay if they didn't pay the taxes? 
 Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 09:18 AM by Better Believe It
I think bib business would keep that "windfall" for themselves.

And so does everyone else who isn't naive.

I have a close friend who is the CFA for a company. She says they would bonus that money out to the owners if they didn't have to pay the taxes.
 

Only the names change.

[thundley4]

There is some severe post recycling going on over there.  Bot or sock puppets?  Just sayin.


This exchange is an example.

Only the names change.

There is a shortage of original thought over there, so what do you expect to happen?  Just remember that the DUmmies are limited as to what can be said, so a lot of seemingly plagiarized posts will appear.

[ConservativeMobster]

Wait!  Social Security is a TRUST FUND?   

[USA4ME]

Better Believe It

1. How the rich pay into Social Security at a lower tax rate than the rest of us.   
   
The writer explains how the rich don't pay into the Social Security fund at the same tax rate as the rest of us when he points out:

"At present, every worker in America pays the same percentage of income into the Social Security Trust Fund--currently 6.2% of the first $106,800 of earnings. Since everyone pays at that rate, whether they earn $10,680 a year or $106,800 a year, that would be a flat tax, except that it's not. Because once someone earns more than $106,800 in a year, the tax rate falls off precipitously. After that cap, which is adjusted upward a little bit each year to account for inflation, there is no SSI tax on additional money earned. In other words, if someone earns $106,800.00, she or he pays $6,621.60 into the Trust Fund, but if that worker earns $107,000, or $313,600 a year, the tax is still just $6,621.60. For the person earning twice the income cap of $313,600, that means an SSI tax rate of only 3.1%. For someone earning 10 times the cap, or $1.680 million, the tax rate is only 0.62%."

Ah, but the more you earn up to $106,800, the more benefit you receive when you retire.  What you want is for SS taxes to be on all income, but then you want a maximum cap placed on the benefit one would receive when they retire.  Doesn't work like that.  If you pay more in, then you get to receive more out when the time comes.  That's the American way, which is why it's foreign to Marxist idiots like you, the Better Believe It primitive.

.

[AllosaursRus]

Hey DUmbass, I can't be any plainer than this:

 

[Karin]

From the copy pasted article:

But the truth is, we deserve decent retirement income, and we deserve to retire at 65 or even 62.

  Everything in a capsule right there.  No need to even comment. 

Hey AR, how come you drop f bombs all day long, but substitute "shirt" for "shit?"  I've always wondered.  Not being snarky, just curious. 

[AllosaursRus]

From the copy pasted article:
  Everything in a capsule right there.  No need to even comment.  

Hey AR, how come you drop f bombs all day long, but substitute "shirt" for "shit?"  I've always wondered.  Not being snarky, just curious.  

Just a habit.

Picked it up from FR when I was postin' over there. Never used the "F" word but could sneak in a "shirt" once in a while without the mods gettin' their panties in a rip!

I prefer to talk to DUmmies in their preferred language, so I kinda like the "Free Speech" over here, heh! Not tryin' to insult anyone, it's mostly for the gutless wonders who lurk here to see what we have to say to them.

It really chaps their hide we spend so much time dissectin' their crap, so I just figured the curse words make it easier for them to comprehend my vitriol for them.