The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

I don't even slightly see legitimacy in this view.

We as a nation have made decisions on what to buy. The issue is how to distributte the cost.

And, let's remember that the wealthy in America have FAR more influence in what it is that we buy.

It wasn't wage earners who designed our healthcare system that too many can't evenn USE due to its cost.

It wasn't wage earners who decided we need to spend TRILLIONS on conquering Afg, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Palestine, and then increase our military as we stand down in those samee countries.

Now, those with money fight to have THEIR features paid for by wage earners through cuts to features they depend upon - even for food, shelter and health care.

You can NOT pretend the moral issue here is wage earner greed. That argument is just plain silly.

 

Yes, there is a basis and a gain. That is fully accounted for in what I stated in my post.

If you think there is some "it" that "doesn't" you need to say what it is.

 

Well they have to be invested in something, what's the safest investment in the world other than US T-Bills? What do you do with your retirement money, invest it. What do pension funds do, invest it.

So what should be done with any surplus or reserve funds?

 

These aren't standard t-bills.
They aren't bought or sold anywhere in the world.
There is no market for them

 

NO!! I did NOT say we should increase the capiital gains tax rate.

I DO say that the way people receive their income needs to be a factor in what we consider to be a fair distribution of the cost of stuff we as a nation decide to buy.

We have people who are living paycheck to paycheck. That has to be considered when we deciide to jack up military spending, to make healthcare less affordable by cutting Medicaid and other features.

We also have people who have so benefitted by our amazing country that if their tax load were to double, it would make absolutely no difference in their lives now or ever.

If we want to lower income tax, how about recognizing that our military is big enough? How about recognizing that Amazon doubled its profit and yet is paying $0 on their more than $11B in profit. - and they aren't the only ones paying LUDICROUSLY low taxes. When we can't deliver healthcare to US citizens, why are we choosing to go all in on maximizing Amazon???

 

I know, they are special issue T-Bills SS buys, the government owes the money to the trust fund. It's a special category of T-Bills only SS can buy. SS doesn't sell bonds to other countries and owe them money, that's not how it works. SS could buy bonds of other countries if the law were changed. The question is what should be done with the surplus funds and reserve other than they be in these special T-Bills.

 

It's not fair that I have stuff and they don't.

 

How does the impact of what you take from them give you any justification for taking it?

Can I steal their car ? They won't miss it!

 

This notion that paying our bills is theft is just way to disgusting to fully contemplate.

It's probably one of the reasons that our legislature buys stuff with no mortal idea of how it will be paid for.

The "tax is crime" meme has nothing to do with ANY rational approach to civilization.

 

Caine v Abel.
Man hasn't changed in thousands of years

 

Your disgusting desire to have someone else pay some of your share is theft.

 

Well then why did you bring capital gains taxes into it. You pay FICA on EARNED income for your retirement. Of course if someone ONLY had capital gains income they would not be able to collect any SS benefit, that would be the rare rare rare exception of course. Even the highest earners have incomes where they cap out on the income cap.

What do you mean the way they receive their income needs to be a factor? And you mean like copiers and typewriters and computers and tanks and planes?

Well you can have a person who makes $300 a week living paycheck to paycheck and you can have a person making $100,000 and living paycheck to paycheck. Of course the person making $300 is paying no income tax and little if any FICA while the person making the $100,000 is paying a lot. Should the person making the $100,000 not pay FICA or a lower FICA because they live paycheck to paycheck?

Who's to decide that and they benefitted by their actions in their lives and using our amazing country to earn that wealth which belongs to them not you or the government.

Non-sequitur

I do but not sure why I haven't seen their tax return or financials, did they do it by taking the deductions and credits for all the expanding and building in which they are engaged? There was a one time acceleration credit last year and a speeded up depreciation.

We do deliver healthcare and we also expand business and the economy. Would it be better if Amazon did not expand as much so you can give more people "free healthcare"?

 

The gov could simply kick in the interest without taking out the money and spending it first

 

What's really nuts is the people feeling sorry for the have-nots want to take from those who have to make themselves feel better. If it pains them so to see the poor let them share what they have. Don't come looking for what I have. Wonder when was the last time one of these bleeding hearts here took a homeless person home for a meal, a bath and a clean bed.

 

Our representatives spent the money.

Now we have a bill to pay

 

It goes into the Treasury and if the government is going to pay interest it needs to get some use of the money. It could be used to purchase bank notes or municipal bonds or even long term stock index funds. The trust needs to make a better return, if would certainly help the financial position into the future. But the left would freak out at the thought. I would rather we owe the money to the SS trust than China that's for sure.

 

Where else would you have rather invested the money, China? Maybe they could just bury it in a cookie jar behind the Treasury building?

Like any retirement fund it needs to make money on the surpluses and reserves, how do you propose they do that?

 

If your representative spent money, then that's your problem, not mine.

 

Yep I saved all my life and as I approach retirement will have my retirement funds to draw from. My neighbor did not, he spent his money and had lots of debt and never saved his money. Why should I now have to give him some of the money I invested and saved?

 

It's not costing SS anything, they just don't get that money.

 

False. I pay zero withholding taxes, though I have very high income. There are several very obvious ways to do that.

No, I mean that in forming a fair tax distribution one of the facts that must be recognized is that those in the high incomee brackets have serious income that is much less susceptible to being taxed.

I'm more pointing at those who are making in excess of $500,000.

$100,000 is well within the range of people paying off school loans and trying to establish theiir families. And, people in that range usually don't have the clout to choose how they take compensation. Also, they're paying FICA.

I'm talking about those who are where they are for reasons other than salary they earned - or because their salary is stupendous.

Amazon and other companies DO have an impact on their environment that is a cost to those living anywhere near. I'm in Seattle, so I know something about what Amazon's impact is. Other types of corporations have other impacts.

Those impacts affect far more than the employees of those corporations, and suggesting thee corporation should be allowed to ignore that cost is not acceeptable.

We pass laws saying corporations are essentially humans. THEN, we pass laws that say they don't have to pay their way.

Why does Amazon warrant being susiidizedd by those who are impacted, but not benefitted?

 

??? I didn't say anything about where anybody should invest or about any retirement fund.

 

Well, I guess you need to read up on how our legislature works.

Otherwise, you're going to say stuff like that!

 

What kind of income?

They pay the highest marginal rates, they pay the highest effective rates, they pay HUGE in actual revenue and they pay HUGELY in their share of tax. What serious income are you talking about not susceptible to taxation?

And so what they should be paying FICA contributions.

Well I don't know who you are talking about or why.

Yea they provide a LOT of jobs, a LOT of salaries, a LOT of other taxes.

I don't know what eliminated the tax liability and neither do you, if you do then post the reason. I can well imagine it has to do with their expansion expenses which are tax deductible, they also paid out lots of bonuses which are, like ordinary wages is an expense and is tax deductible. I don't know what was their net income before taxes.

 

Well you're complaining the trust funds are invested into the Special T-Bills, where else would you want them invested?