Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

mchammer said:
Why? SS is socialism. People should pay for it.
Click to expand...

We do. With paying in for almost 50 years that should generate more of a return than $1,800 a month. If the govt didn't run a Ponzi scheme there would be plenty of money to pay for it. Pass a law to mandate the funds not be touched for any other purpose except SS payments and investing for that and I would consider a real proposal with an increase as long as I see it directly relates to a better return for me.

I max out SS tax payments every year and I will never see anything near what I've put into it even given I'm also paying for someone who has never put money into it.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
We do. With paying in for almost 50 years that should generate more of a return than $1,800 a month. If the govt didn't run a Ponzi scheme there would be plenty of money to pay for it. Pass a law to mandate the funds not be touched for any other purpose except SS payments and investing for that and I would consider a real proposal with an increase as long as I see it directly relates to a better return for me.

I max out SS tax payments every year and I will never see anything near what I've put into it even given I'm also paying for someone who has never put money into it.
Click to expand...
People will only care about it if you increase the payroll tax. Besides it’s a flat tax that I support in general.
 
mchammer said:
People will only care about it if you increase the payroll tax. Besides it’s a flat tax that I support in general.
Click to expand...
What do you mean it's a flat tax? In essence, the less fortunate pay a larger percentage of their income than someone like Vol Horn does.

If Vol Horn makes $500,000 gross on his earnings, he stops paying on his social security after $176,100 in earnings and pays nothing on the remaining $323,900 for 2025.

The current rate is 6.2% which would work out to $31,000 if he paid on the full 500k amount but instead he only pays $10,918 based on $176,100. Which means he saves $20,082 in taxes and only has a 2.2% SS tax rate relative to his total earnings, whereas someone who makes $50,000 a year pays the full rate of 6.2%.

In my opinion it is not a flat tax rate.
 
He won't be paid for all that excess on which he didn't pay in either. Benefits are capped just as the taxable proportion is.

But that's not the point being made. People from every income group should pay in to the government, if for no other reason than to make poorer folks just as angry and dissatisfied with government as those who get screwed under so-called progressive tax schemes.

Sales taxes do such a job, because they apply to all above the table purchases.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
Hey, how did you guess how much I make? 🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Johnny Carson Nbc 90Th Special GIF by NBC
 
militaryhorn said:
What do you mean it's a flat tax? In essence, the less fortunate pay a larger percentage of their income than someone like Vol Horn does.

If Vol Horn makes $500,000 gross on his earnings, he stops paying on his social security after $176,100 in earnings and pays nothing on the remaining $323,900 for 2025.

The current rate is 6.2% which would work out to $31,000 if he paid on the full 500k amount but instead he only pays $10,918 based on $176,100. Which means he saves $20,082 in taxes and only has a 2.2% SS tax rate relative to his total earnings, whereas someone who makes $50,000 a year pays the full rate of 6.2%.

In my opinion it is not a flat tax rate.
Click to expand...
Even better! Anyway, it’s a flat tax when you consider the benefits are capped too. In fact, even though the SS tax is capped, the rich is still subsidizing others.
 
nashhorn said:
I was not too good at instilling the economic facts to my kids but am proud to say I have with the Grandkids. Everyone has their own Roth or reg IRA established with their first employment.
Click to expand...
Good going, nash. I did the same - when my older granddaughter graduated from UNT, my gift to her was her IRA. I paid to establish it, and she has put money in regularly. I will do the same for my next granddaughter when she graduates. Probably the best gift we can give our grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
Sangre Naranjada said:
People from every income group should pay in to the government, if for no other reason than to make poorer folks just as angry and dissatisfied with government as those who get screwed under so-called progressive tax schemes.
Click to expand...
:bow: Great point, Sangre. I agree - everyone should have some skin in the game. Otherwise we'll have two categories - the "givers" who pay taxes and gripe about the giveaway programs and the "takers" who gripe because the government isn't giving them more money for luxuries.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Realistically the too large majority of people have not do not and will plan for next month let alone for their retirement. If the ONLY way is to take the money before they see it maybe it can help fund for awhile longer.
Click to expand...

Many people absolutely will not save for their retirement. That is true, and that's why I'd still make people pay FICA. I just wouldn't direct it down the toilet like it is now. I'd make it a real retirement plan for the benefit of the person paying rather than a government-backed Ponzi scheme largely for the benefit of politicians.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Agree 10,000%
Then what do we do with all the millions of idoits who won't plan and save?
Let them die on the streets?
Click to expand...

That's the point. They would be required to save by depositing what they now pay in FICA into a retirement account. I would not give them a choice.
 
Deez,

How about a government that invested the money paid in over all those years rather than "stealing" it. If all the money paid in had been invested in S&P companies, where would the fund be? How much would each recipient receive? Another classic case of government greed, incompetence, and stupidity.
 
SabreHorn said:
Deez,

How about a government that invested the money paid in over all those years rather than "stealing" it. If all the money paid in had been invested in S&P companies, where would the fund be? How much would each recipient receive? Another classic case of government greed, incompetence, and stupidity.
Click to expand...

The government is set to take from you not benefit you. The only reason FDR started SS was to trick people into trusting the government more. He didn't care what it actually did, and no politician today does either. It's purpose was to dupe people into giving more of their liberties and resources over to government.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Agree 10,000%
Then what do we do with all the millions of idoits who won't plan and save?
Let them die on the streets?
Click to expand...

If we got rid of all the government spending and the Fed, prices would naturally drop over time. Then simply saving money would set you up for the future. There would be no need to invest, like we have to now in our inflationary system.
 
Lol I know it sounds like I want nanny government
But You know people just won't plan for retirement on their own and there will be millions
Heck they won't even plan for an emergency
So what will happen to them when they don't have a home? They will get SNAP but what else?
 
Horn6721 said:
Lol I know it sounds like I want nanny government
But You know people just won't plan for retirement on their own and there will be millions
Heck they won't even plan for an emergency
So what will happen to them when they don't have a home? They will get SNAP but what else?
Click to expand...
I am with Mona here, I think. Why should we all have to take care of people who are mentally and physically able to do for themselves?
 
Horn6721 said:
I compare completely. They should be on their own.
BUT Seriously what will we do with millions with no way to support themselves?
Click to expand...

Horns is right. In a pretty good world, everybody saves for their retirement. It's unrealistic to end SS now and say you're on your own. It would be millions of old people living in the streets.
 
Mr D's idea is the best.
Would take time to phase in BUT over years money could be taken out of a workers pay before they saw it and somehow invested in a fund etc that would increase in value.
Didn't W suggest something like that and got blasted?

it will take generations but at least the common lazy person will get some money
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D's idea is the best.
Would take time to phase in BUT over years money could be taken out of a workers pay before they saw it and somehow invested in a fund etc that would increase in value.
Didn't W suggest something like that and got blasted?

it will take generations but at least the common lazy person will get some money
Click to expand...
You mean like the last 90 years except people knew the money was deducted and then the politicians mismanaged and/or stole it.

Yes, that should work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top