[rabscuttle385]

fyi

[RJS1950]

What is their definition of “wealthy” and who makes the definition?

[upchuck]

An appropriate picture for your crazy idea Lady Linda:

Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."

Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.

h/t to martin_fierro for the graphic

[ratsreek]

I’ll give you an alternative view while I zip up my asbestos suit here.

There is some validity to Linda’s position. But making the wealthy pay a percentage of their income and then paying them a lesser percentage at a later time is indeed a tax increase. There are no if’s, and’s or but’s about that, and it’s wrong. But the idea of paying less to people who don’t depend on it for their sustenance is not a bad idea. It’s really no different from the notion of not paying people to not work at all or do pump out kids they can’t afford that the rest of us pick up the tab for. It’s all wasteful and doesn’t need to be if we just say, “Hell NO!”

Cash out those with incomes high enough that they would be impacted down the road by reductions with a lump-sum refund of what they paid in and a reasonable interest rate on what they paid in and leave them to their own devices, which is probably what they wanted in the first place way back when. Raise the retirement age and change the entire structure of SSI and all the other welfare programs attached to the social security program umbrella. Completely revamp the entire program with the focus strictly on waste and fraud. After restrucuring and implementing new safeguards, fire half the federal SSA staff, delete those jobs and cut the SSA budget in half.

Now, fire away!!!! ;)