? Of The Day - June 3, 2005 - Freeze-Frame Radio

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

? Of The Day - June 3, 2005

JennyCat · Living Legend

NO

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

I think of all the people that I've helped make rich or stay rich through my efforts or through spending my money on entertainment (concerts, sporting events). Not only should they pay social security; they should rub my toes after they cook me a breakfast of steak and eggs each day of my retirement!

(This does not include trust fund babies like Paris Hilton, for example. These naturally superior heirs, who got their money through inheritance shouldn't have to pay a dime!)

Music Junkie · Living Legend

I think social security taxes should be flat across the board, but I also think the rich should have this additional quantity reduced from one of thier other taxes. (not being rich, i am not sure what other taxes they might have.... stock gain taxes maybe?) 60% of your income is much much too much... i am like between 15 and 20% and I whine about it every year.

Don't the really rich people all have tax shelters anyway??? (or so i have been lead tim believe from watching TV)

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Music Junkie,

You raise a good point about tax shelters. I seriously question that 60% figure, because people know the loopholes and really rich people won't pay THAT high a percentage.

But I'm torn because a rich person, even if they are paying 5% will pay thousands of times more in taxes than me at 25%.

I've never been in favor of taxing the rich above and beyond reasonable amounts. But this issue I'm not sure on.

I think the fact the tax is already there, but drops off at a certain point makes this a little tougher call.

BUT, middle class would be hurt as well, because I beleive that tax rate drops even if you're earning in the very low six figure range, and suddenly those folks would have an additional 8% in taxes on everything over a certain amount.

WFTR · Prophet of the Posts

I'm curious, was the increase suggested by the Dems or Repubs? An increase for the rich doesn't make sense because they already pay more. The tax is a percntage, not a set number. 8% of 100 is 8, of 1000 is 80, of 1,000 is 800. If you make more, you pay more. And no increase on anyone is going to work if the politicians don't clean up how there handleing the money. Social Security was never supposed to be a stand alone retirement plan, just assistance.

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

I don't pay that much attention to social security, because I figure it won't be there when I retire anyway. I've been putting money in my 401K since I was 20!

So, can someone fill me in with more details on how SS works? I thought it was 8% period. So, is it 8% or something like $1000, whichever is less? Is this proposal to take that cap off, or to increase the percentage for the rich? When it come time to collect social security, how is it figured how much you get? I assume rich people get more than the middle class do, right?

confuzzed · Permanent State of Confusion

Remeber that everyone pays about 7.65% and that is broken up into FICA and Medicare. I don't know how we ever came to the Medicare cap. We all know that SS will be broke because the Baby Boomer generation is getting into retirement and there are not enough of us to fund all of them. I believe they out number us two to one. I believe there should not be a dollar cap. That is another reason the rich continue to become more rich they end up paying less in taxes. The cap only applies to the working. If you are working, you should continue to pay. No rich person pays 60% in taxes. Income taxes top out at 35% for earned income and that is on large incomes. Add in your state taxes (or personal property taxes) and your rate will rise some. Just look at your payecheck sometime. See how much you are actually paying out in taxes - as a percentage. Then turn around and look at your tax return. See that rate that you are actually paying - especially if you have a house and kids. If you use a software program to do your taxes you should see that on a report. It is less than you are paying - hence the refund. Sorry single people with nothing - we get screwed if you don't have itemized deductions. In most cases, continuing to pay over the cap can't hurt people making over $1 million a year. So much more money would flow into programs where it is needed. Medicare needs to be reexamined too. We all know that we will not survive on SS. Of course, if this keeps up it won't be there for us anyway. Which, have I mentioned is not fair. We pay an dpay and then receive nothing. Private accounts will simply not work. That is why we must win the lottery for a huge amount of money and secure the family and retirement. That being said, the rest of us will have to go with our 401k and portfolios. And that may not be enough either.

Okay, sorry. I am finished ranting now. This was all off the top of my head so I will have to think about some other things too.

Music Junkie · Living Legend

Every so often the Social Security Department sends out a booklet that say how much you'll get when you retire. Maybe it is once a year?

I think it is supposed to be a wakeup call for some people. It says at your current rate of pay you will be entitled to XX amount a month if you retire at this age.. i saw my number and invisioned my self eating dented cans of catfood in my old age.

I have a pension at the job I am at now, and 401K, and I play the powerball every once in a while.

but it is kinda scary, especially for people in low income jobs that don't have other retirment options.

It is also kinda scary that i could work here for the next 30 years and then get sick and lose it all to medical bills and end up in a state run nursing home.

but that is for another thread i think.....

Dylan · Leader Of The Banned

Confuzzed,

I think the reason most people dont think about taxes and the percentage we pay is that it is all taken off our checks on a weekly basis. That was a work of genius by the federal government. If people had to write quarterly checks like small business owners, there would be a cry for not only tax reform, but also more spending accountability.

Its sad to think that our generation is funding a program we wont be able to take advantage of. This program has been diluted to cover alot of programs it was never meant to fund. That is a part of the problem. If I am not mistaken, it has also become a political slush fund as well. When Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, he used 12 Billion of SS money to fund it....

So we can talk about percentages etc all we want. Until the program itself is reformed, the good money after bad syndrome will continue.

-- Edited by Dylan at 11:41, 2005-06-03

JennyCat · Living Legend

The federal government wasn't MEANT to fund any of the stuff it does. If we didnt' get taxed like we do, to fund useless crap the government has no business spending our money on, we'd have our paychecks to save how and where we want. then we wouldn't all be screwed and have to worry about how we won't have anything to retire on. Right now, our money is going into limbo. If we had all of our own money, we'd at least KNOW weather or not we have something to retire on. there's no "government program" that (i believe) we should be paying for--except for national defense. that's not what the federal government was set up for. I know that is sort of radical and it would never happen, but it's what i dream of: I get my ENTIRE PAYCHECK and i use it to pay for my OWN retirement, my sons education, my own medical care, etc....

don't kill me.

Dylan · Leader Of The Banned

Jen,

You kind of hit on the philosophical difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican party and their different views of the role government should play in peoples lives.

The Democratic party has been living in the shadow of the legacy of FDR's New Deal. Those programs were designed to lift us out of a depression, but red tape and bureaucracy not only continued those programs but expanded them.

The Republican Party adopted a less centralized role for government.

Both philosophies have their merits, but right now there is such an unwillingness to compromise, that finding the right mix is not only unlikely but detrimental to the country.

Jen, your opinion was perfectly valid

WFTR · Prophet of the Posts

Jenny? Was that YOU! Well spoken! I didn't realize you were a closet Republican. And your right, we forget that the age of the goverment giving money to just about everything is a recent condition (post WWII). We get too lazy, take things for granted, and gripe when our free-bees are removed. We need to straighten out SS now that it IS such a mainstay, but let's get wise about our own finances.

JennyCat · Living Legend

I'm a Republican by default. I like Libertarian ides much better. Oh man, i thought i'd be taken out for that. but man, it just seems so simple to me. i'm saying lets all keep our own money, and decide what we want to do with it. If the Dems want to pay for other peoples stuff, that's what charity is for. and that's not to say that i don't give to charity, just i don't like being forced into it. and oh man! i could go off about the stem cell research thing: (real quick) the debates about weather or not it should go on are BESIDES the point! the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no busines spending MY money on that. THATS what pharmaceutical and research companies are for! you know? part of my personal paycheck should not go to stuff like that. and that's not to say that i'm against a womans right to choose! where does that come into it? my feelings on THAT subject have nothing to do with me wanting my whole paycheck you know? people automatically jump to that as a weapon to argue with. ok, that is for another thread i guess, maybe i'm not supposed to get so serious on our forum. but i care about this stuff sometimes...

oh ya! AND you kind of have to be a closet republican -- people get really mad if you admit that.

-- Edited by JennyCat at 12:23, 2005-06-03

confuzzed · Permanent State of Confusion

Both JC and Dylan's points are well taken. It will be hard to change things. No one will listen to us. Or at least a small minority would listen but wouldn't do much to help. And most of these guys (Congress) are already old and don't care. They will get a pension that would blow everyone's mind if they knew what they were getting. They don't need to change things for themselves, the need to do it for us. It will be a hard fight, but if no one takes up the cause, where does that leave us?

Trish · The Procrastinating Red-Head

I don't agree that all government subsidized programs are not needed. There are some very good programs that are funded by the government that should be funded by them. For instance, soybean rust is a very big problem right now. It blights the soybeans and there is no cure for it. It is spreading like wildfire and it can cripple a farmer's crops. What farmer can afford to pay for the research to find a cure for this? My brother-in-law works a 40 hour a week job outside of farming, so it's not like he's making a lot of money at it. Can we afford to wait for a company to decided that it is in their best interest to do this research? As a farmer-in-law, I think this is necessary. I do not, however, agree with them giving money to the Puxatawny (sic?) Phil museum, as they did this year. There are other numerous frivolous things that they give money to, but there are some worthwhile programs that they fund. I don't know the solutions to the problem of social security, but I do know that I am not depending on it. I think all too often it has been robbed by people to balance the budget and the IOU's are stacking up. That is the biggest problem with it. I'll continue squirreling away money to retire on and if it's there, I'll have it, if not, I'll have my own money.

CP · Lord of the Lair

I am sure that I will be most unpopular in this opinion. I do not think that the rich should pay higher, I believe that lower income should pay higher, because they are the ones that are going to use it for retirement, which as Jen said, was never meant to be your total retirement. I am not working really hard to build what I have so that someone that didn't work as hard as I did can have an easier life. I save everything I can for education funds for my kids, retirement etc. One of my former employees asked me how I got what I did. No I am not rich, but have a little money set aside and some investments that are paying off. I told him that he could have the same house I did if he put a mobile home on his parents property. Work seven days a week for five straight years, most of the time at more than one job and save, save, save. He looked at me and said he did not want to give up his weekends or vacations. I just looked at him and told him that is what I sacrificed to build my business and save for my golf, house and car. I sold the business, got burned and thank god I have the savings to get me thru and build another business. I am back to working seven days a week, two jobs one building my own business again, and the other for the man.

Music Junkie · Living Legend

I agree with Trish, a lot of programs are valid and needed and if those of us who are better off than other's didn't help, we would have an even bigger gap between the classes' living status.

I would like Americans to have the ability to vote about big spending items, even though it seems that there is definitely some different ideas about how the country should be run lately.

I don't mind the idea of funding for stem cell research if it will help cure diseases. I think that it is the governments job to help fund medical research, the drug companies are powerful enough without controlling all the research too. And I think it is in the American's benefit to continue to improve our standard of life.

I can't even imagine how much money the government funds for research and where it goes. That would be interesting to learn. (or sickening ) I have been quite curious about the budget lately and where it all goes.

And with that the blue stater who has gotten completely off the thread will get off her pulpit...

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

As a clarification.

I beleive the 60% tax number includes ALL forms of tax, including property taxes, where the rich get soaked quite heavily, even though they use the same or often FEWER government services.

Mocrzy · Patient Zero

I'm voting not sure, only due to the fact that by the time I am old enough to collect SS, It will be long gone. I'll be completely honest that I don't know the ramifications of a flat tax across the board, but I beleive that is the most ethical & fair.

to put my own twisted 80's spin on it, I'm dumping all of my money into Mint in Sealed box Transformer Figures I hope to sell on Ebay in 2035.

Music Junkie · Living Legend

LOL MO!!!!!