First General Motors - Then Social Security

The Virginian ^ | 6/6/2009 | Moneyrunner

[kabar]

YOU CLEARLY SUPPORTED AN INCREASE IN THE PAYROLL TAX PERCENTAGE, ABOVE!

YOU HAVE A READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.

There is great incentive for people to try and earn MORE than the “cap” today, since that gives them a bit of a “booster rocket” increase in take home pay.

LOL. With that kind of reasoning, I can understand why you hold the views you do.

[Kansas58]

One of your very links admitted as much, to eliminate the cap on earnings subject to SS taxation DOES eliminate the incentive to earn above that cap, which is counter productive.

YOUR OWN LINKS SUPPORT WHAT I SAID!

You have a logic problem. You do not grasp these concepts at all.

[Kansas58]

YOUR POST:
___________
To: Kansas58
Raising the Payroll Tax, btw, will cause a much greater revolt than taxation of the benefit, itself.
Not really. You could raise the payroll tax from 6.2% to 6.5% and very few people would complain, especially if it was explained that the last time the rate was raised was 1990. I am not in favor of any tax increases. I want the system privatized.

Nothing is going to happen this year or next [mid-terms] on SS. Obama is going to appoint some phony commission that will study the issue and make recommendations. This has been done many times being with Monyihan. But the status quo is not an option. Something has to be done by 2016. My guess is that Congress will kick the can down the road to make SS solvent a few more years rather than make substantive, long term reforms, just like they did in 1983.

40 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:44:04 PM by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

ON several posts, on this thread, you seem to support or actually DO support increasing the payroll tax.

You do not comprehend your OWN writing, so I understand completely that I am talking way above your head!

[Kansas58]

From YOUR “Heritage Foundation” Link:

“Removing the cap on taxable wages also would result in a massive 10.6 percentage point hike in the top marginal tax rate for millions of workers—bringing the top rate to almost 52.5 percent, the highest rate since the 1970s. 24 Should Social Security's tax cap be removed, many workers would immediately find that federal taxes consume over 52 cents of every additional dollar they earn from employment.

An increase in the marginal tax rate on labor income would damage the economy by reducing the incentive to work. The fact that the Social Security tax increase would fall on wage, salary, and self-employment income would lead many workers (especially the self-employed and small-business owners) to find ways to avoid this tax, perhaps by taking employment income in the form of non-taxable “profits” or fringe benefits.”

---

In other words, YOU post a link which says that removing the wage cap subject to payroll taxes would be a bad idea.
(I agree, but I think the Marxists who do not understand incentives will do it anyway.)

Then, you tell me that I have some kind of reasoning problem or you laugh at the way I think, when I tell you that removing or raising the cap would reduce incentives to work, and that there is great incentive, in the current system, to try and rise ABOVE the cap, since you can keep more of what you earn.

NOW, I show you that your very link supports what I said!

Game
Set
MATCH

Thanks for playing!

[kabar]

LOL. You DO have a reading comprehension problem.

[kabar]

Not really. You could raise the payroll tax from 6.2% to 6.5% and very few people would complain, especially if it was explained that the last time the rate was raised was 1990. I am not in favor of any tax increases. I want the system privatized.

What is so difficult to understand? I am not in support of any tax increase. I want the Ponzi scheme gone and replaced by a privatized system.

[kabar]

Then, you tell me that I have some kind of reasoning problem or you laugh at the way I think, when I tell you that removing or raising the cap would reduce incentives to work, and that there is great incentive, in the current system, to try and rise ABOVE the cap, since you can keep more of what you earn. NOW, I show you that your very link supports what I said!

I provided you the link to puncture your assertion that the cap will be eliminated altogether, something you have repeatedly predicted. Obama and the Dems don't favor lifting the cap completely. Removing the cap would cause huge economic damage per the Heritage article. Yet, you make the idiotic predicition in post #33 and earlier:

I stand by my earlier predictions: 1.) The “cap” on W-2 and Self Employment earnings that can be taxed, by Social Security, WILL BE REMOVED.

Your prediction is nonsense.

[Kansas58]

Since when does Heritage make any predictions?
Heritage Foundation articles generally say what is BEST, but they are not predictive in a political sense.
HF made NO predictions about what shape entitlement reform would, eventually, take, as near as I can tell.

[kabar]

Boy, you are dense. The Heritage article provides the data to show why lifting the earnings cap entirely would be an economic disaster and would only extend SS solvency a few years. I am sure the Dems and Obama are well aware of that, which is why none of them have recommended it.

Your unequivocal prediction that the cap will be removed entirely is absurd and nonsensical.

[Kansas58]

YOU are still confusing two very different issues.

The earnings cap might well be removed, entirely, by a Congress and a President which seek to “spread the wealth around” and by a President who says that the Supreme Court has not been used effectively, yet, as a “redistributionist” tool.

Most of the money, in this country, is held by those over 65.

The LEFT wants to “soak the rich” so of course taxing the SS benefit is a route to take, in that regard.

Furthermore, liberals do NOT believe much, in the incentive power of tax law.

Obama, HIMSELF, when confronted with the fact that the Reagan tax rate cuts INCREASED Federal Revenue, basically admitted that he did not care. He did not think it fair for the “rich” to keep their earnings, even if punishing the “rich” hurt the entire country.

Therefore, You and I and the Heritage Foundation might well agree that removing earnings cap, at which earnings are no longer subject to SS taxation, is a bad idea -— but that is not relevant at all, is it?

We have a President who DOES NOT CARE about the capitalist incentives built into the current system.

We have a President who wants to PUNISH achievement and PUNISH the “rich” -—

Therefore, removing the cap on W-2 earnings, as well as making 100% of the SS benefits taxable, as well as increasing the “means testing” of Medicare (Which actually serves to reduce SS payments” ALL are in the mix, big time!

We WILL move in the directions that I have predicted, even if we do not get there, all at once.

You are in denial, and I can not help you get out of your delusions, it seems.

There is not a snowballs chance in hell that these systems will move towards “privatization” and “fixing” these programs is not really the FULL agenda of Obama ANYWAY!

Obama and Rahm go by the credo, “Never let a crises go to waste” -—

They used the financial melt down as an excuse to take over the banking industry, the investment industry and the auto industry.

DO NOT BE SURPRISED if Obama uses the SS and Medicare crises to “SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND” and INCREASE TAXES!

It is NOT Obama’s objective to fix anything.

It is Obama’s objective to break the back of capitalism!

[kabar]

The earnings cap might well be removed, entirely, by a Congress and a President which seek to “spread the wealth around” and by a President who says that the Supreme Court has not been used effectively, yet, as a “redistributionist” tool.

And pigs may fly if they have wings. No one is calling for a complete removal of the earnings cap--not even Obama and the Dems. What exactly are you basing you predicition beyond emotion and feelings?

The LEFT wants to “soak the rich” so of course taxing the SS benefit is a route to take, in that regard.

As I demonstrated, there are not enough "rich" to make it worthwhile. Only one-third of the retirees pay taxes on their benefits now. And the future retirees over the next 25 years will fit the same profile.

DO NOT BE SURPRISED if Obama uses the SS and Medicare crises to “SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND” and INCREASE TAXES!

Duh, Captain Obvious. Of course he is going to raise taxes and not just on the rich. That is the only way they can close the deficit gap, which is unsustainable.

[Kansas58]

Huh?
You are stuck on the idea that acts of Congress, signed by the President, must ALWAYS be good ideas.
I did not claim that increasing the upper limit of earned income subject to the Payroll Tax would be a good idea.
I did not claim that such an act would solve the problem.
However, the POINT is that we are moving towards abolishing that ‘cap’ altogether. You say that no one is, currently, advocating such a move? SO WHAT? SS is the “third rail” of politics, and such an idea will only be brought up at the last minute, so that it can be shoved through.

The fact that raising the amount of SS benefits subject to taxation would not, in and of itself, “SOLVE” the problem, is also off point.

It will take SEVERAL different measures to “fix” this problem.

But, as stated before, “fixing” the problem is NOT the POINT of the Obama Administration.

They wish to soak the rich.

They wish to “spread the wealth around”

They do not WANT to “solve” anything.

The ONLY objective of this crowd is to increase the size and power of government.

[Kansas58]

Another point:

Obama will justify tax increase on EVERYONE by making the masses feel that the “rich” are getting soaked even worse!

Obama will BRAG that he is “sticking it to the rich”

Obama will BRAG that he is increasing the SS “earnings cap” and increasing the amount of payroll taxes paid by “the rich”!

Obama will also BRAG about the “sacrifice” he is asking, of those who already GET Social Security and Medicare, by claiming that those who “make less” than X $s will not have to pay anything more into the system.

Sound familiar?

TELL YOU WHAT -—

I think you are so wrong on this as to be silly and contradictory and way off topic.

However, I will book mark this thread, and when entitlement “reform” of some type actually HAPPENS, I will then say, “I told you so” -—

Until then, I think you are living in a fantasy world, and I can not prove the validity of my predictions, to YOU, without actually seeing them come true.

Of course, much like you have done on this thread, you will claim you never said what you clearly and plainly DID say, so even then, when I say, “I told you so” it will be for my own score card, as you can not admit it when you are wrong.

Besides, I do NOT want all of these things to happen, I just understand politics better than you, and I understand that the path of least resistance is the path that our politicians will always take! By the way, the libs are now talking about TAXING employer benefits, lol. If they do that, how can the government justify giving any benefits away, tax free?

[kabar]

However, the POINT is that we are moving towards abolishing that ‘cap’ altogether. You say that no one is, currently, advocating such a move? SO WHAT? SS is the “third rail” of politics, and such an idea will only be brought up at the last minute, so that it can be shoved through.

Only in your mind are we moving towards abolishing the cap. The votes aren't there and no one of any significance is proposing it. You are living in a fantasy world.

Care to lay a wager on your prediction that the cap will be removed?

[Kansas58]

From a policy perspective, what difference, is there, really, in saying the cap will be increased, dramatically, and saying that it will be removed, all together?

Why get so animited, so hostile, so insistent that Obama and the Marxists in Congress will not do something stupid, economically speaking?

Everything that they have done has been stupid, thus far, don't you agree?

You say “NO ONE” is advocating the abolition of the cap?

Please visit a few liberal Blogs and Websites.

YOU ARE WRONG on that point, as well.

Wager?

Well, frankly, that would be unfair to you on TWO counts:

I say that it WILL happen, down the road.

You would have to pay up, when it happens, when would I pay up?

I say that, in 5 years, it will happen. Or at the very least it will go so high as to be meaningless.

[kabar]

From a policy perspective, what difference, is there, really, in saying the cap will be increased, dramatically, and saying that it will be removed, all together?

That sophistry might work with your liberal friends, but I am a conservative. The cap goes up every year now.

You say “NO ONE” is advocating the abolition of the cap? Please visit a few liberal Blogs and Websites. YOU ARE WRONG on that point, as well.

Why do you persist in taking my words out of context and omiting others? I wrote in post #74, "no one of any significance is proposing it."

I say that it WILL happen, down the road. You would have to pay up, when it happens, when would I pay up? I say that, in 5 years, it will happen. Or at the very least it will go so high as to be meaningless.

Lots of qualifications, far different from your original predicition. Lets wager 5K each in cash to be deposited with a neutral party by July 2009. The proposition is that the SS cap will be removed entirely within the next two or if you like, three years. You say yes, I say no.

[GOP_1900AD]

They’ll try to inflate their way out of it by printing money. By the time all the old folks realize they can’t cover their ever increasing expenses it will be too late.