The GOP Plan is the Biggest Tax INCREASE in American History, By Far

answer my question and i will answer yours. your braying and bleating about lazy poor blacks is a reflection of republicans

 

It's not guaranteed, it costs too much, and there's no way out.

 

I reject the premise of your question and you are the one saying they are lazy now answer mine.

 

I've heard lots on both sides talk of means testing and a progressive elimination as incomes go up, people right here on this board.

So you DO NOT support means testing?

Then raise the benefit accordingly, the more you pay in the more benefit you get.

Totally appropriate, one of the short falls has been US T bills don't pay squat these days. It doesn't even have to be a privatization although I support a partial privatization.

The fact remains there is NO guaranty with Social Security which I note you did not present a rebuttal. Congress could vote to cut benefits at it's whim.

 

Specious, didn't say they have been, you said they could not, that is a fallacious statement.

A distiction without merit and the fact remains the government could end the program tomorrow or say YOU have too much wealth therefore we aren't going to be sending you a check. SS is NOT a guarantied benefit.

Lack of rebuttal noted. Now show me where in any legislation concerning SS it says your benefit is guarantied. Show me a court decision that says your benefit is guarantied.

 

Well YOU are the one complaining that the government sends them support checks not me. dude

 

I wasn't complaining and I definitely wasn't suggesting a reduction in resources.

I was talking to someone who claimed that blue states don't pay their fair share and I noted that blue states currently pay more than red states.

 

I don’t know why you are so upset about this. You appear to be unemployed with all of the spare time you have to spend on this forum. Unless you mean this plan has the potential to cut into your dole. Is it safe to assume you are not an income earner, not winning your bread? Honest questions.

 

Hard for them to give up the multi-tool that is taxes.

They get to steal from the rich that don't donate to their cause.
They get to redistribute aka buy votes.
They get to take a piece for themselves.
They get to spend, overspend, and then use the overspending to justify more tax which comes with more overspending.
And they get the play the demagogue in the press battle and fool ignorant people with 20 year projections based on bad math.

 

Mostly because of the taxes.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835.

In a bureaucracy the role of legislators becomes to collude with industry for the benefit of both. Legislators get votes via advertising and campaign contributions, industry gets their competition eliminated through onerous regulation, direct subsidies off yours and mine dime, the first grab at printed money before it inflates, etc.

"Tax cuts increase the deficit" - Every progressive ever.
"Spending cuts decrease the deficit" - No progressive ever.

Income taxation is, in part, a tool to precipitate class warfare and socioeconomic divisions.

 

It's guaranteed until the Republicans find a way to destroy it, you get more out of it than you put in, and everyone is glad they couldn't get out of it once they retire.

 

You said "Social Security benefits are not guaranteed". No qualified person has ever been refused benefits. The Republicans have been threatening to undermine and endanger the program for as long as I can remember. Democrats have not. The people hold ultimate political power. If 4-5% of the adult population were to turn out to demand the program continue and eve be enhanced, it would happen.


[/QUOTE] A distiction without merit and the fact remains the government could end the program tomorrow or say YOU have too much wealth therefore we aren't going to be sending you a check. [/QUOTE]

NOTHING is guaranteed. My meaning was that SS has never denied benefits to any qualified person, and has no means to do so. Yes the laws can be changed or repealed, but only the Republicans have shown any intention to damage and/or repeal SS.

So property rights would make property ownership a guarantee? Buy a house for cash without any mortgage, and then try not paying property taxes.

As I said, ultimately NOTHING is guaranteed. But as long as SS legislation is kept in place, it cannot be denied to any qualified person, and the projected benefit never falls year-to-year. That's more of a guarantee than what you get from the stock market, bonds, gold, or a money market fund.

 

I am employed and earn enough income to pay taxes at the end of the year. This tax bill would cut my taxes, initially, but would result in a net tax increase by 2027.

Now, take your "honest" questions and shove it.

 

yeah right, it is black people is why red states need money. fyi, 2/3 of rural counties are below the poverty line and are republican.

 

It's not guaranteed. In fact, it's currently partially unfunded. Those retiring after 2012 get less than they put in. There are tons of studies showing this. All that I've read use 12.4%. I assure you; I will not like it after I retire, but then, I expect compensation from the use of my money.

Bottom line, your generation failed.

This article is from 2013.

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute

"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/social-security-still-good-deal-workers-125016929--finance.html

 

Your top response shows you do not even have the most basic understanding to that which you are debating.

Kode has spelled out very salient responses and you keep pushing right wing talking points.

SS is a floor. You and yours keep talking about “higher returns” on investaments and the like, while completely leaving out the risk. The ENTIRE idea of SS is to create a guaranteed floor. You are always welcome to invest whatever money you want in other vehicles, but you have to have a floor to live after retirement. Until you and yours understand that any SS debate is moot.

 

Trump polices ...............making America Great Again ?? Trump is on a roll..America is reacting :

General Electric plans to cut 12,000 jobs in its power division as the industrial conglomerate's new CEO institutes sweeping changes and the company grapples with a decline in business for coal and natural gas products.

The company will cut nearly one in five positions in its GE Power unit. It was not immediately clear where and when the reductions would occur, though the company said they would include "professional and production employees."

 

Your post is spot on!

 

I honestly don't think they care. They don't want any Floor, man.

 

It shows I know exactly of what I speak. It shows you do not know the history and what SS has become through the years. I can't invest the money when SS takes it first can I. And again the risk is the whim of the Congress. This "floor" takes at least 6.5% of my income and up to 13%. If I die before 66 all those contributions disappear. My original retirement age was 65, congress changed that. Now there is even talk of means testing which means that money I had left over that you say I am free to invest elsewhere, remember they get theirs first, could then lower what I would receive from SS. So I get screwed either way.

Its real simple, it is a retirement system if you are going to force someone to contribute more then increase their benefit accordingly.

 

"Also, those high tax states are a large part of the reason that low tax, low population (cough red states) continue to prosper because the large blue states contribute more federally than they withdraw."

 

I don't think soc sec was ever intended to be a "retirement system." It was what is says it is, and income security system. And, consider what it would cost to buy an annuity that would pay the benefits to your spouse and minor children if you died early. It is true that wages have not kept up with profits, so workers have lost some opportunity to save as well as pay the tax.

Despite the Title Thread that is a bit of hyperbole, it's ironic that after "tax reform" that took expenditures from middle class workers to give corporations and the 1% a tax break, Ryan is now promising to cut social security and medicare. And the people who voted for Trump because he was something other than the establishment are ... screwed once again.

 

This bill does not raise your taxes by 2027. Your taxes would go up if the bill would not be renewed or a new bill would replace it. Xan you show me anything in thia that would prohibt that?

 

Well if you refuse the fafe the facts and demographics I can't help you.

Are you denying that NATIONWIDE blacks are more highly disproportionately under the poverty level and on government subsistence?

Are you denying that a disproportionate number of blacks in this country live in those Southern red states.

Are you denying this would have a huge effect on the flow of tax dollars?

 

Trump's far better on the debt than Obama, he's nearly a $T ahead of where Obama was at by this point. Show me the CBO projections. that showed that Obama policies were going to add $10T to the federal debt in 8 years.

No, Silly, they are projections produced by a group with a rather lousy track record. Much of the evidence used for an evaluation is less certain than we would like, but it goes into the mix all the same.