WWTBAM Bored

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything? How is that 'unfair'? Why is it unfair that good drivers pay less for car insurance than someone who has a wreck once a year? Ummm, because the insurance company pays out more for the bad driver.

Obama is a Marxist Socialist, plain and simple. Everything he says is something about the government taking something from those that succeed and giving it to those that don't and those that don't try. People who refuse to see that have their head somewhere dark.

BackInTex wrote:

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything?

You're mistaken. Millionaires and billionaires are entitled to social security payments upon reaching retirement age. They will get more under Obama's plan, precisely because they will pay more. Even with those additional benefit payments, the plan works better for Social Security. --Bob

I don't think anyone is "asked to join Mensa." My impression is that some people seek Mensa membership, but not vice versa. At least, they've never asked me. On the other hand, I've been asked to join AARP hundreds of times.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything?

You're mistaken. Millionaires and billionaires are entitled to social security payments upon reaching retirement age. They will get more under Obama's plan, precisely because they will pay more. Even with those additional benefit payments, the plan works better for Social Security. --Bob

"works better for Social Security"

Karl couldn't have said it better.

"they will get more because the will pay more."

I'll offer anyone here this deal...You pay me $100 and I'll give you $75. Want more than $75. O.K. Pay me an extra $20 and I'll make it $85. For an andditional $25, I'll up it to and even $100.

Deal?

TheConfessor wrote:I don't think anyone is "asked to join Mensa." My impression is that some people seek Mensa membership, but not vice versa. At least, they've never asked me. On the other hand, I've been asked to join AARP hundreds of times.

I was invited.

Bob Juch wrote:
I was invited.

There was indeed a period of time in which Mensa sent letters of invitation to recent high school graduates based upon their SAT scores. Bob's invitation may have come through that path, or they may have had other "membership drives," as well.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything?

You're mistaken. Millionaires and billionaires are entitled to social security payments upon reaching retirement age. They will get more under Obama's plan, precisely because they will pay more. Even with those additional benefit payments, the plan works better for Social Security. --Bob

"works better for Social Security"

Karl couldn't have said it better.

"they will get more because the will pay more."

I'll offer anyone here this deal...You pay me $100 and I'll give you $75. Want more than $75. O.K. Pay me an extra $20 and I'll make it $85. For an andditional $25, I'll up it to and even $100.

Deal?

Once again, you have your (implied) facts wrong. Assuming a normal life expectancy, I believe the numbers work out that you can expect to receive more from Social Security than you will pay.

More to the point, Social Security (and its sibling, Medicare) has been a spectacular success. Compare the poverty rate among the elderly before and after its adoption. It is a classic safety net program <U>and it works</U>. Or would you like to have your parents move in with you because, having stopped working, they can no longer afford their own home? --Bob

OK, I'm gonna hafta demand this thread stop right here.

This is a presidential campaign! How dare you debate an actual issue?

Can we get back to the innuendo and vicious rumors that make us so proud to be Americans?

Bob78164 wrote:Once again, you have your (implied) facts wrong. Assuming a normal life expectancy, I believe the numbers work out that you can expect to receive more from Social Security than you will pay.

More to the point, Social Security (and its sibling, Medicare) has been a spectacular success. Compare the poverty rate among the elderly before and after its adoption. It is a classic safety net program <U>and it works</U>. Or would you like to have your parents move in with you because, having stopped working, they can no longer afford their own home? --Bob

No, I do not believe I will receive more from SSN than I paid in (to include interest). Maybe gross doallars, if any, but adjusted for inflation and the time value of money, I will get very little back. If for some reason I do, it will come from my grandkids and yours.

Social Security and Medicare have been successful. They have been successful in keeping Americans from taking responsibility for thier own retirement and old age living expenses. Thus we have a negative savings rate where people would rather buy a bigger flat screen T.V. than sock away $500 for retirement so they can afford to pay for their house.

Bob78164 wrote:
Once again, you have your (implied) facts wrong. Assuming a normal life expectancy, I believe the numbers work out that you can expect to receive more from Social Security than you will pay.

I think you probably are correct for the average person of average income. I question whether that would be the case for people of very high income, who might suddenly be asked to pay 6.2 percent or an even higher rate ( 15.3 percent for the self-employed, including Medicare tax) on all of their income up to $250,000 or $500,000 -- whatever the numbers turn out to be. Most of the people at that earnings level will be given opportunities for continued earnings after their retirement from their primary career -- as consultants, because they start new businesses, or whatever. If they have not yet reached "full retirement age," currently up to 67 (and that could be adjusted upward in the future,) the social security benefits to which they are "entitled" will be reduced by $1 for every $2 earned. After full retirement age, up to 85 percent of their social security benefits will be subject to income tax, depending on the adjusted gross income (from continued work, other pensions, annuities, investments, interest, quiz show winnings, and half of social security benefits.) Since I would expect the people in that highest income group to have significant investment and other income, I doubt that many of them will come out ahead -- and most will end up with negative benefits -- from the additional social security taxes.

Now, if you wish to argue that high earners deserve no sympathy, or the system needs the extra funds to stay afloat "so screw 'em," you may do so, but it seems disingenuous to pretend that the additional taxes will benefit many members of that group.

I seek out political advice from anyone who voted for Bush.Twice.

I'm not sure which of his accomplishments I value more, the war or the recession.
Or the subprime mortgage debacle.

His gut tells him the wisest course.Anyone who is ruled by their emotions(and those who vote for such a person) Must be respected.

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Once again, you have your (implied) facts wrong. Assuming a normal life expectancy, I believe the numbers work out that you can expect to receive more from Social Security than you will pay.

I think you probably are correct for the average person of average income. I question whether that would be the case for people of very high income, who might suddenly be asked to pay 6.2 percent or an even higher rate ( 15.3 percent for the self-employed, including Medicare tax) on all of their income up to $250,000 or $500,000 -- whatever the numbers turn out to be.

Not all of their income. All of their earned income. It's an important difference, particularly for those of very high income -- most people in that bracket form S-corporations specifically to shield all income above a "reasonable" salary from payroll taxes, by distributing the income as dividends instead.

More to the point, sixty-some years of history have taught us that as social policy, Social Security <U>works</U>. Its goal is to provide a safety net to keep the elderly out of poverty. And poverty rates establish that it has accomplished that goal. --Bob

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: I was invited.

There was indeed a period of time in which Mensa sent letters of invitation to recent high school graduates based upon their SAT scores. Bob's invitation may have come through that path, or they may have had other "membership drives," as well.

I had both happen actually. I joined the Boise group after I moved there.

Bob78164 wrote:
Not all of their income. All of their earned income. It's an important difference, particularly for those of very high income -- most people in that bracket form S-corporations specifically to shield all income above a "reasonable" salary from payroll taxes, by distributing the income as dividends instead.

Yes. I had the words "earned income" in that sentence at one point, but rewrote part of it and the distinction disappeared. I did use "earned" in a later sentence. According to at least one analysis I've read, however, Obama's proposal would remove such S-corporation "immunization" from that group. I do not know if that is accurate, and I have no doubt that all proposals are subject to both fine-tuning and major changes.

More to the point, sixty-some years of history have taught us that as social policy, Social Security <U>works</U>. Its goal is to provide a safety net to keep the elderly out of poverty. And poverty rates establish that it has accomplished that goal. --Bob

I have no objection to the long-term continuation of the Social Security System. I am one of the people who will benefit from it and probably find myself in a world of hurt if it is destroyed before I die. It does not succeed in keeping the elderly out of poverty, however. It serves as a supplement to other pensions or savings, but anyone who must live on social security benefits alone probably is in or near poverty now. I have some sympathy to younger workers who would rather have the right to invest at least some of the amount withheld into private retirement vehicles because they believe they can gain a far higher return over the long term. Historically, they would be right most of the time.

BackInTex wrote:

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything? How is that 'unfair'? Why is it unfair that good drivers pay less for car insurance than someone who has a wreck once a year? Ummm, because the insurance company pays out more for the bad driver.

Obama is a Marxist Socialist, plain and simple. Everything he says is something about the government taking something from those that succeed and giving it to those that don't and those that don't try. People who refuse to see that have their head somewhere dark.

Okay, let's focus on the really important fact here...we should just be happy that Obama can read, speak AND spell "social security"...hey these days, have to give props where they're due...

BackInTex wrote:Obama is a Marxist Socialist, plain and simple. Everything he says is something about the government taking something from those that succeed and giving it to those that don't and those that don't try. People who refuse to see that have their head somewhere dark.

------------

George W Bush has failed at every job he ever held, yet has a fortune of around $30 million.Almost all of that came from his share of the sale of the Texas Rangers, which he didnt pay one dime for.He served as a figurehead "president" whilst his daddy was in the White House to help the team get a new taxpayed funded stadium.All of the increase in team value was attributed to the new stadium.W dint even have to pay capital gains taxes thanks to a favorable court ruling.
Is this the kind of "success" you are talking about?

Gamers and greedheads thank you for your vote.

BackInTex wrote: Obama is a Marxist Socialist, plain and simple. Everything he says is something about the government taking something from those that succeed and giving it to those that don't and those that don't try. People who refuse to see that have their head somewhere dark.

Obama is no Marxist. He is an opportunist, which means that he will say whatever he must to the current audience in order to curry favor with them. I sense that he is a person of very little political or moral conviction whatsoever, other than a constant attempt to be all things to all people under his "hope and change" rhetoric. It's one thing to change your philosophy later in life; a number of politicians, including Robert Byrd and Ronald Reagan, did so. It's another to change your stated views from moment to moment as Obama frequently does.

I sense he also has very little grasp of economic realities, as evinced by his changing views on such things as raising capital gains taxes (a view which changed, not over time, but in a matter of days as soon as his advisors explained what Hillary's position actually meant).

His relationsip with Jeremiah Wright is another example. For years, he cozied up to the man to build street cred, then, when the black vote was safely locked up in the primaries, he jettisoned him and the church.

Obama is not an environmentalist and he has a very cozy relationship with big oil. He claims not to take lobbyist money, but he allows "middle level" oil company executives who just happen to want to donate to his campaign to do so.

Such a person is highly dangerous in a position of power. You don't deal with Iran and North Korea by running up trial balloons and gauging public reaction to them.

Obama's constant attempts to avoid revealing his true character leave him open to the right wing charges that he is a Marxist (something they say about every Democrat other than Joe Lieberman). In most cases, I would be upset, but in his case I find it highly amusing. If that's what it takes to bring him down, by all means, go for it. He's made his bed; now he has to lie in it.

Leave Obama alone, he makes me feel hopeful

In all seriousness I think he is the only candidate who can really save America right now.

BackInTex wrote: Social Security and Medicare have been successful. They have been successful in keeping Americans from taking responsibility for thier own retirement and old age living expenses. Thus we have a negative savings rate where people would rather buy a bigger flat screen T.V. than sock away $500 for retirement so they can afford to pay for their house.

I wonder about the negative savings rate. All of my friends are socking away significant amounts into 457s or 401Ks, and our 457 consultant advises that those amounts are not credited to the nation's savings rate. A quick google didn't reveal anything supporting the consultant's assertion, however.

I think I earned BiT's admiration without trying to do so. The television cost less than $100 about four years ago. The dryer cost $50 because the store wanted three weeks delivery on the brand new one we tried to buy, so we bought this one after "thumbing through the want ads of the Shelby County Tribune, when this classified advertisement caught my eye..."

We did watch the first two games of the Stanley Cup finals on a huge hi-def television for the price of dinner and a couple beers at a local sports bar. GO PENS!! Oops, maybe next year.

Speaking of the dryer, I want to know how some of you get a deal where your houseguests go out to use a laundromat. Maybe they could scrub up the pots and pans from dinner in the sink while they're there.

OK, that's it for a Saturday. Everybody have a great weekend!

If Obama is not a Marxist-what is the difference in the policies that he actually espouses versus the ones he would espouse if he were a Marxist?

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Obama is a Marxist Socialist, plain and simple. Everything he says is something about the government taking something from those that succeed and giving it to those that don't and those that don't try. People who refuse to see that have their head somewhere dark.

Obama is no Marxist. He is an opportunist, which means that he will say whatever he must to the current audience in order to curry favor with them. I sense that he is a person of very little political or moral conviction whatsoever, other than a constant attempt to be all things to all people under his "hope and change" rhetoric. It's one thing to change your philosophy later in life; a number of politicians, including Robert Byrd and Ronald Reagan, did so. It's another to change your stated views from moment to moment as Obama frequently does.

I sense he also has very little grasp of economic realities, as evinced by his changing views on such things as raising capital gains taxes (a view which changed, not over time, but in a matter of days as soon as his advisors explained what Hillary's position actually meant).

His relationsip with Jeremiah Wright is another example. For years, he cozied up to the man to build street cred, then, when the black vote was safely locked up in the primaries, he jettisoned him and the church.

Obama is not an environmentalist and he has a very cozy relationship with big oil. He claims not to take lobbyist money, but he allows "middle level" oil company executives who just happen to want to donate to his campaign to do so.

Such a person is highly dangerous in a position of power. You don't deal with Iran and North Korea by running up trial balloons and gauging public reaction to them.

Obama's constant attempts to avoid revealing his true character leave him open to the right wing charges that he is a Marxist (something they say about every Democrat other than Joe Lieberman). In most cases, I would be upset, but in his case I find it highly amusing. If that's what it takes to bring him down, by all means, go for it. He's made his bed; now he has to lie in it.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Ummm, maybe because the millionaires and billionaires won't get anything?

You're mistaken. Millionaires and billionaires are entitled to social security payments upon reaching retirement age. They will get more under Obama's plan, precisely because they will pay more. Even with those additional benefit payments, the plan works better for Social Security. --Bob

"works better for Social Security"

Karl couldn't have said it better.

Sounds like something straight from the mouth of Rush or Sean or Ann or Karl (the other one). Course, they're all just stealing from McCarthy's playbook anyway.

Warren Buffet thinks it's ridiculous that his secretary's taxes represent a higher percentage of her income than his do his. I don't know whether he's a member of Mensa, but I'm pretty sure that he's cool with Capitalism.

Spock wrote:If Obama is not a Marxist-what is the difference in the policies that he actually espouses versus the ones he would espouse if he were a Marxist?

Well, a true Marxist would have no one receive any wages, but receive whatever they need from what society produced collectively. You need an apartment? You will be provided with one. Same for food, healthcare and everything else. It's known as communism.

Fwiw, liberation theologists are usually labeled Maoist, not Marxist. But I can't really remember the difference. I suppose it would be easy enough to google. But Obama isn't one of those either.

Now if you want to claim Obama is a socialist, that's a little more reasonable. He's probably less of a socialist than most Democrats, and even some Republicans, but at least you'd be in the ballpark. All government is socialism in that it in some way burdens the individual for the betterment of society. It's just a matter of to what extent.

I forgot to say how touched I was by BiT's concern for the financial well being of the millionaire club.A noble and selfless sentiment I heartily applaud.

clapclap


iirc, when I studied the SS issue back in the 80's, the high wage earner retirees then recouped all the coin they contributed plus interest in 3 years.Middle earners got it back in 6ish.

Maybe if the GOP calls the shots for SS reform, and keeps the cap at 92,500ish, BiT will volunteer to pick up the slack.

Those who vote against their economic self interest are the bedrock of the GOP.
Go to West Virginia and see for yourselves.

BigDrawMan wrote:iirc, when I studied the SS issue back in the 80's, the high wage earner retirees then recouped all the coin they contributed plus interest in 3 years.Middle earners got it back in 6ish.

This doesn't even make sense. High earners will always get back a smaller percentage of their contributions than lower earners will. Whether that is appropriate or not is a valid subject for discussion.

BigDrawMan wrote:I forgot to say how touched I was by BiT's concern for the financial well being of the millionaire club.A noble and selfless sentiment I heartily applaud.

clapclap


iirc, when I studied the SS issue back in the 80's, the high wage earner retirees then recouped all the coin they contributed plus interest in 3 years.Middle earners got it back in 6ish.

Maybe if the GOP calls the shots for SS reform, and keeps the cap at 92,500ish, BiT will volunteer to pick up the slack.

Those who vote against their economic self interest are the bedrock of the GOP.
Go to West Virginia and see for yourselves.

I'm unconcerned with the millionaires. I'm concerned with the government trying to be everyone's parents. I'm concerned with Obama's solution of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Many governament forms have tried that in the past and this country has historically tried to eliminate them.

If this is such a good deal as Bob is trying to make it, I kinda peeved Obama is leaving me out. Why are the poor and the rich getting all the good deals?