Posted on 10/05/2016 4:16:16 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton plans to raise the payroll tax in order to prevent the Social Security program from going bankrupt, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine said during Tuesday’s VP debate.
...
“And Social Security has enabled people to retire with dignity and, overwhelmingly, not be in poverty. We have to keep it solvent, and we will keep it solvent. And we’ll look for strategies like adjusting the payroll tax cap upward in order to do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Kaine was head of the DNC, and saw to it that Debbie Whatsername succeeded him so that she could rig the primaries in a way to screw Bernie and to get Hillary the nomination?
And being put on the ticket with her is his reward?
Maybe it was something else kinda like that, I'm not exactly sure. But it had something to do with greasing the skids for The Beast.
Most of you are not employers and don’t realize that your employer PAYS 50% of your social security each payday. That’s right! You look at your paycheck and see that (for example) $50.00 has been taken out for SS, well...your employer also paid $50.00 to the government too. I’ve owned a business for over 45 years and this fact really pisses me off each time I sign a paycheck. Now, with this in mind it’s time to realize for each dollar your SS is raised it is really 2 dollars that you will not get. GET IT? It’s “smoke and mirrors” and the gullible public goes for it like a duck to a June bug.
This isn’t exactly news, just the fact they are being honest about it.
Basically they want to remove the cap on income for FICA.
Since FICA is for retirement/SS the reasoning is,once you get above a certain income level, you likely don’t need FICA as much, so the contributions to SS end for the year once you are over the max.
Dems just want to remove the cap so you will have to pay FICA on every dollar earned no matter how much it is.
This will only affect folks earning over 118,500 this year... So, the rubes will fall for it hook line and sinker.
Look at it like this. Of all the Democrats around the country who were ready to be put on the VP ticket Kaine was the safest choice. HAAAAARRRRR!!!!!
And your point is?
Why on gods earth would any conservative be for removing the cap?
My feeling is that SS needs to return to its roots. That is, benefits kick in slightly before the age at which the average person dies of “old age”.
I come from a position where I will be 66 in about three years, and thanks to a very messy divorce and the fallout it created, I’ll have little more than SS to live on at that point unless I keep working.
You don’t need to raise taxes on SS, just raise the cut off limit on what you pay on income..
My point is this:
As someone who has earned more than the maximum to which SS taxes can be applied, I’d be willing to give up some of that to fix the problem.
But keep in mind I’m being academic here, since the house of cards will have collapsed long before anything like this is even considered. Probably before January 20th.
I recall one speech where Hillary, iirc, said she will increase taxes on the middle class, and the audience cheered loudly.
>
I get tired of people who want to remove the cap when they don’t even understand the benifits formula. SS is she’ll game that just enriches the government. Why on gods earth would any conservative be for removing the cap? We should be fighting to remove all SS tax and programs.
>
Thank you for the return to reality moment. Holy schnikies!
As if the Ponzi scheme were valid, let alone VIABLE, to begin...stealing one’s property, to ‘invest’, to be given (if you survive) at THEIR leisure and stipulations.
Next I’ll hear is the ‘(C)’ clamoring for outright theft, “Well, the ‘rich’ don’t REALLY need to be ‘paid back’, they should forego...”
All of this is academic, of course. Everything will collapse WAY before anything like that will get implemented. ;-)
Yes, sir, latest calculation I heard is that in 2027, no amount of taxes will keep it solvent, social security taxes would have to be 101% of every pay check to break even.
I’d be surprised if we get into next year, or very far into it.
That being said, I learned my lesson with the 2008 crash. Unless we have a “road warrior” apocalypse type situation, people will simply adjust to the new normal and still laugh at “doom and gloomers”.
Ok, you may be willing to and that is noble enough, but why should anyone else fall in line? What good purpose does that serve? Do you believe the government can direct your donations more effectively and efficiently than you can?
I’m not trying to hack on you here.
No worries. All I did was float an idea.
This also demonstrates the problem. NO human solution will work because EVERY solution gores someone’s ox.
This is why we are in this thing all the way to the glorious bottom. And yes, it will leave a mark.
Whining about how Soc Sec has been mismanaged/stolen from, is a complete waste of bandwidth, because the money's gone.
In fact, even if the program had been run honestly from the get-go, it would be doomed anyway because it is a demographic Ponzi scheme which works great when there are seven or eight workers for every retiree but crashes completely when it's two or three.
Personally, I would happily give up the necessary 25-30 percent from my Soc Sec check to save my kids and grandkids from tax increases. I wish there were a lot more Americans who felt the same way, instead of pissing and moaning about "what I paid in" and "what the government promised me".
Raise the tax and the cap?
“”Maybe it was something else kinda like that, I’m not exactly sure””
None of us are super human enough to remember everything we’ve heard or just where we heard it. It’s meant to drive us bonkers and it’s doing a fine job of it. I spend so much time trying to REMEMBER where I saw something and then trying to FIND it...Or probably more like “waste” so much time...
Sounds a bit like a Jason Lewis response. No worries, you’re in good company there.
The DCCC ads running against Jason Lewis and other candidates in MN are ridiculous, so it seems a bit apropos that you responded how you did.
I’m all for SS being moved to the average age of death but they don’t 15k per year for that. I happen to work a lot and in those few years on those few pay perods that they Dont skim me for another 6.2% is nice. If they remove the cap fuck them I will work less. Greedy bastards take enough.
I would say the simplest human ideas are usually the best - it’s when corrupt human bastardize them that they start goring man other people’s oxen. If the government didn’t take people’s money and manage it terribly in the first place we wouldn’t have to worry about this particular issue.
If I was allowed to invest just my share of the tax - and yes it is a tax because I will never get back what I paid in, nor what my employers have paid in since I was 14 years old until the day I die.
If I could invest my money the way I saw fit, then I could sink or swim on my own, be free on that choice and be accountable to myself. That is true freedom - the ability to make a choice, good, bad or indifferent and take responsibility for my own action, not be subservient to the government for a potential, but seemingly less likely subsistence. If I could invest my share alone - let alone what my employers have paid, I would be quite well off and retire before 50. (Notice I said would - I know I could do better with just cursory effort.)
Again, this is not directed at you in particular and isn’t meant to be inflammatory or sound derisive towards you.
End rant I guess...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.