How Would Democrats and Republicans Fix Social Security?

A retirement annuity is insurance too what is the point of the semantical argument going on here? Lot's of pension plans are run by insurance companies.

The fact is SS is a RETIREMENT plan with a defined benefit based on the contributions made. If you are going to require some to pay more contributions then it is only fair to raise their benefit. If someone tried to sell the company you work for a pension plan where the more you make the less you get would you sign on to it?

 

SS was approved by SCOTUS as a standard tax and spend ‘General Welfare’ power of Congress. See Helvering v. Davis.

 

It's for everyone, and the Constitution was not written by God.

Like the folks in Guantanamo...?

Assange is not in the USA, and thus has no constitutional protections. The US government can murder him with impunity, as it murders thousands of other people all over the world every year.

No they aren't. They are outright fabrications on your part.

One of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. You have committed that act of nauseating, despicable evil in every response to my posts.

I said no such thing. You simply made it up.

Which I invite readers to confirm does not say what you claimed it says.

Privilege is a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. It is thus a license to steal. The privileged legally steal from all of us, very much including me. Most of the money I have earned has been either stolen from me by the privileged or stolen by government at the behest of the privileged and given to them.

You have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to try to make me the topic. It's always the same with servants of evil.

You are just spewing evil, incoherent ad hominem filth with no basis in fact.

You don't seem to understand that a dissenting opinion is not the court's opinion.

The Supremes say you are wrong, and that proves you are wrong because the Constitution says what the Supremes say it says.

A lot.

The top 1% of taxable income recipients, not the top 1% of privilege owners.

Because it is an income tax. It is supposed to tax income. It is not supposed to be a head tax. You seem to think it is supposed to specifically burden the poorest.

I'd prefer no income tax. But if we are going to have an income tax, it should be steeply progressive to make up for the regressiveness of other taxes like sales taxes and excise taxes. I would exempt all income up to the median, and tax income above that amount at e% times the natural logarithm of the amount above the median. So if the median is $50K, and you made $70K, you'd pay ~$5400. If you made $150K, you'd pay ~$31K (~31% on the $100K). If you made $1G, you'd pay ~$560M of it, leaving you impoverished with only $440M of your year's stealings left.

You don't get to pretend your equivocation fallacies are the law, sorry.

 

NOT my problem that YOU cannot substantiate YOUR bogus position.

SAD!

 

~ I don't like the word "fix " when used by government. Best thing is to leave well enough alone. The dumb-dumbs on Capitola Hill would never even come close to writing something like SS or Medicare - nor do they have the desire to do so.