The Road to the White House

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

by Kitno:

quote:

He proposes to uncap payroll taxes and if he doesn't also raise that rate, which he surely will, that's another 12.5%. Payroll taxes I'll never benefit from, so why would I pay?

 

 

The payroll tax which for people that don't know is the social security tax on your paycheck. Right now it is limited to the first $55,000 dollars you make. Which means anyone earning over that amount does not pay anymore SS tax on the money over $55K they make. So you think Kitno that people who make less money should get taxed more, how so very human of you. A regressive tax that only taxes the poor is right up your alley. You are a useless example of an American, I am glad you have citizenship elsewhere because you don't deserve to be called a citizen of the USA. Period!!!!!!

 

Payroll taxes are currently capped at over 100k champ.

 

I have no clue how you could draw the conclusion that a capped payroll tax is a regressive tax. You couldn't possibly have been born this stupid, you had to work at it.

[Berto 338]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

[SmackDaddy 30]

The issues that we deal with today are not wholely unique to our generation or our time.

The following is an excerpt from a speach given by Reagan in 1964.

 

"And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

 

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

 

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

 

...Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

 

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

 

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

 

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

 

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

 

...But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

 

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

 

...Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

 

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

 

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

[~O~ 565]

What candidates will be eager to run for the 2012 election?

[fan for too long 16]

quote:

Payroll taxes are currently capped at over 100k champ.

 

I have no clue how you could draw the conclusion that a capped payroll tax is a regressive tax. You couldn't possibly have been born this stupid, you had to work at it.

 

 

Let's see a tax that is just limited to people who make 100K or under. That sounds like a regressive tax to me and anybody who is smarter than you, I guess. Are you seriously that greedy that you think your workers who make considerably less than you, should pay more taxes percentage wise then you do? WoW! And by the way I am considerably smarter now than when I was born. LMFAO!!! Of course reading your posts, my IQ has diminished.

 

 

Smack, was that Reagan before or after the Alzheimer's?

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

Reagan had the right idea, it's only unfortunate he was too comfortable compromising with Tip O'Neil and bloated the social welfare programs that have spiraled out of control ever sense.

 

I also neglected to include to include the medicare portion of payroll taxes earlier...which would bring the grand total of taxes paid under Obama to a minimum of 54.9%.

 

*****

 

To specifically address the abomination that is social security...these are qoutes taken directly from the website of social security.

 

Q: Should I count on Social Security for all my retirement income?

 

A: No. Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans.

 

What a crock! A system that forces Americans to "save" 12.5% of their income should provide a sound retirement. The average savings rate in this country is less than 3%!

 

If every American saved 12.5% of their income throughout their lifetimes, the vast majority of Americans would retire millionaires, live on the interest, and pass wealth onto future generations. Undeniable FACT.

 

Q: I'm 26 years old in 2007. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?

 

 

A: Unless changes are made, when you reach age 60 in 2041, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 22 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 101 years old in 2082 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 25 percent from today's levels.

 

Benefits cut 22% from today's levels 40 years from today. To put that in perspective, the median income in the US today is nearly 50k, 40 years ago it was 13k.

 

Translation, this system is broke, can not be fixed, and will continue spiraling towards bankruptcy no matter how many times we artificially inflate it. The only way it can artificially be kept afloat through our life time is to raise payroll taxes and continue raising them while also watching the debt grow by leaps and bounds. Then the next generation will face the exact same problem. That's not a solution!

 

Higher taxes which provide a diminishing return and make the savings you actually need for retirement more difficult to achieve. Which, again, considering the average savings rate in this country is less than 3% seems unachievable.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

quote:

Payroll taxes are currently capped at over 100k champ.

 

I have no clue how you could draw the conclusion that a capped payroll tax is a regressive tax. You couldn't possibly have been born this stupid, you had to work at it.

 

 

Let's see a tax that is just limited to people who make 100K or under. That sounds like a regressive tax to me and anybody who is smarter than you, I guess. Are you seriously that greedy that you think your workers who make considerably less than you, should pay more taxes percentage wise then you do? WoW! And by the way I am considerably smarter now than when I was born. LMFAO!!! Of course reading your posts, my IQ has diminished.

 

 

Smack, was that Reagan before or after the Alzheimer's?

Interesting perspective. KITNO points out that fact your claim of an existing $55K Social Security Tax cap was completely inaccurate (and not even remotely close), then you proceed to state that reading his posts diminishes your IQ?

 

Apparently you are confusing your IQ with the facts as they live in your fantasy world, where the government has the responsibility of taking care of everyone, regardless of whether or not its citizens raise a single finger to help themselves.

 

No one likes to use the term, but basically many apparently believe that America should simply be a "Welfare State". Let those that work hard and are successful due to their own ambition and energy give their monies to those that choose to simply exist and wait for handouts.

 

I always thought that this is what charities are for, not the federal government.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

quote:

Payroll taxes are currently capped at over 100k champ.

 

I have no clue how you could draw the conclusion that a capped payroll tax is a regressive tax. You couldn't possibly have been born this stupid, you had to work at it.

 

 

Let's see a tax that is just limited to people who make 100K or under. That sounds like a regressive tax to me and anybody who is smarter than you, I guess. Are you seriously that greedy that you think your workers who make considerably less than you, should pay more taxes percentage wise then you do? WoW!

 

God lord, it's not limited to individuals who make under 100k, income over 100k isn't taxed. Why? In theory, it's an investment, and nobody will even see a fraction of that investment paid on even 100k. Not to mention, SS benefits on these individuals is now taxed. So, the individuals paying 12.5% on 100k will never even see a fraction of what they've paid into this socialist plan.

 

Every American pays the exact same percentage, that's not regressive no matter how hard your diluted mind attempts to twist it. When a very high percentage of American receive far more than they paid in...that's even more confusing to understand.

[fan for too long 16]

Exactly what do feel our taxes should go to. Or do you believe that we should build our own roads, fight our own wars, pay our government employees with a tip jar, etc. etc. etc. I am sick and tired of you and any other conservative bs artists who feels that taxes are just meant to keep the poor people in the lap of luxury. You are truly delusional.

 

http://www.retiredamericans.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/1433/pid/324

 

And according to this website the cap is at $90,000 so neither one of us was right. But I was right naming this tax as regressive.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

Exactly what do feel our taxes should go to. Or do you believe that we should build our own roads, fight our own wars, pay our government employees with a tip jar, etc. etc. etc. I am sick and tired of you and any other conservative bs artists who feels that taxes are just meant to keep the poor people in the lap of luxury. You are truly delusional.

 

http://www.retiredamericans.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/1433/pid/324

 

And according to this website the cap is at $90,000 so neither one of us was right. But I was right naming this tax as regressive.

 

That's from 05', 102k

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=45

 

Notice the upward trajectory of every aspect of of payroll taxes and yet...the same problem every 10 years.

 

There's a massive difference between saying I don't think Americans should pay any taxes and taxes should be reasonable. 50+% isn't reasonable, that's socialist.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm of the mind that either this thread should be closed or renamed.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I'm of the mind that either this thread should be closed or renamed.

Closed and immediately moved to the HOF.

 

Sure, there is a lot of sharpness and over-the-top in here, but the participants equally allowed and participated in it, so I never understood the concern over its contents. The only one I know that TRULY went over-the-top was HamsterNelson, and he self-destructed soon after anyway.