RE: The looming deficit problem

RE: The looming deficit problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 7:33:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I see. There's an old GOP argument that people would make more investing their own money. And technically, it's true -- but, that's 1) IF they actually saved and invested (most people have negative savings, and only a fraction are on track for retirement), and 2) only true if they invest wisely, as they would also be subject to greater risk. Before SS, there was widespread elderly poverty. Now there isn't. That's a good thing. Yes i totally agree with you. I guess my only concern is where the balance is for requiring people who make decent money for mandated contribution. Social Security is supposed to provide a safety net from poverty, but not supposed to give huge retirement payouts. of course it is supposed to give retirement payouts, huge or not, its a retirement program as well as disability program.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 8:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's like talking to a wall, but in circles. That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit. That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't. I understand. Lift the caps... so pay a percentage to ss every year no matter what you make. My point is this... what happens when the person retires and it's time for them to collect social security? Now we have to pay them back. And you, us, we, whomever had the free use of that money for all those years, borrow umpteen trillion dollars at no ongoing interest and no guarenteed payback for 40 years. Thats a damn good deal. Of course, if you weren't fiscally irresponsible as the nutsuckers are, you would budget that, and be fiscally responsible with your borrowing, using it for the good of the country, not for handing out like a crack whorewith both hands to corporations, and spending on worthless military-industrial complex consumables and so on, but on infrastructure and american citizenry. Yes i never really thought about the zero interest on the money part. And there should be some kind of legal framework protecting that ss money and how it is allowed to be used (or not). Someone should make some rules for it if there aren't any now.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 8:25:37 PM)
Gore campaigned on it. That's the last I've heard about it.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 8:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Gore campaigned on it. That's the last I've heard about it. Well maybe we should get 2/3 of the states to force it through.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 9:05:15 PM)
Good luck. Red GOP states want tax cuts, and they can't pay for them. They need financial tricks instead.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 9:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail well, thats gotta be tongue in cheek. Largest being military-industrial spending. Tax the rich, and tax the living shit out of corporations, and take caps off ss. Soc. sec. and SSI is $800+ billion...defense is $600+ billion and we both know defense will...never be cut. Taxing the rich and the corporations will also never happen unless the people at large get truly active and demand it.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 5:40:01 AM)
In fact, Trump campaigned on expanding the military.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 8:15:51 AM)
I'm curious what will happen about rebuilding infrastructure -- which Trump wants, and GOP opposes, as it costs money (but is needed...one of the few areas where I agree with Trump).

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 8:55:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail well, thats gotta be tongue in cheek. Largest being military-industrial spending. Tax the rich, and tax the living shit out of corporations, and take caps off ss. If you tax the living shit out of corporations they will move elsewhere and they will not have the money to invest in themselves to stay competitive, create more jobs, etc. Taking caps off ss is basically stealing unless you are going to pay out more to those people when they retire. American corp. to the extent they can, have already moved out of the US. American corps. do not invest in America except in paper (equities) The fortune 500 has not created one new net job in the US since the 60's. When productivity was shared with labor the most, the 50's, corporate taxes paid $1.50 for every $1 that labor income tax contributed. Now corps. contribute .20 (20 cents) for every $1 labor's income tax contributes and only 10% of the entire budget. If lower corp. taxes created job in the US...where are those jobs ?

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 8:59:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka One thing i kind of (a bit reluctantly) question about ss is spouses benefits. A spouse who never paid into ss themself is eligible to receive ss benefits just because they were married to someone who did. I think that might be an issue... you are paying out a benefit to someone who didn't earn it. They don't even have to be an American citizen. That is true but it a small fraction of the decease's soc. sec. stipend. Plus, any spouse that receives such benefits that never worked is extremely rare.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: montanasubboy What I find most entraining is how many do not understand economics and talk like they do. The first thing each of you should to is live on a budget. Yes, write out a budget, make sure to spend a small amount on savings. After just a few months let’s see if you can meet your goals and comment on how hard or easy it is. Anyone can save, many do, too many don't. Many have budgets, some don't. Neither in itself however has anything to do with the vacuous science of economics.

WhoreMods -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail well, thats gotta be tongue in cheek. Largest being military-industrial spending. Tax the rich, and tax the living shit out of corporations, and take caps off ss. If you tax the living shit out of corporations they will move elsewhere and they will not have the money to invest in themselves to stay competitive, create more jobs, etc. Taking caps off ss is basically stealing unless you are going to pay out more to those people when they retire. American corp. to the extent they can, have already moved out of the US. American corps. do not invest in America except in paper (equities) The fortune 500 has not created one new net job in the US since the 60's. When productivity was shared with labor the most, the 50's, corporate taxes paid $1.50 for every $1 that labor income tax contributed. Now corps. contribute .20 (20 cents) for every $1 labor's income tax contributes and only 10% of the entire budget. If lower corp. taxes created job in the US...where are those jobs ? To be fair, if somebody is fool enough to still be talking like trickle down theory is a viable economic model after thirty or forty years' demonstration that it just plain doesn't work at all, facts like those you've pointed out aren't really going to concern them much, are they?

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm curious what will happen about rebuilding infrastructure -- which Trump wants, and GOP opposes, as it costs money (but is needed...one of the few areas where I agree with Trump). Maybe they should appeal to the rich people and tell them they will name the bridge/highway after them if they pay for it.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:09:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted. [8\|] Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect. And again, social security DOES pay based on income. You make more, you put more in, you get more out. It's how it works. * shrug * Agreed... but there is a limit when you're paying into it each year according to your income. Here is what it is for 2017. http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/07/what-is-the-2017-maximum-social-security-tax.aspx $127,200 is the highest income subject to the SS tax. Many are saying that amount should be raised. That means the cap should be raised not eliminated.

WhoreMods -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:11:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm curious what will happen about rebuilding infrastructure -- which Trump wants, and GOP opposes, as it costs money (but is needed...one of the few areas where I agree with Trump). Maybe they should appeal to the rich people and tell them they will name the bridge/highway after them if they pay for it. Short of promising that they won't let any of the underclass use their bridge/highway, that won't work.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's like talking to a wall, but in circles. That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit. That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't. I understand. Lift the caps... so pay a percentage to ss every year no matter what you make. My point is this... what happens when the person retires and it's time for them to collect social security? Now we have to pay them back. Soc. sec. has a formula based on what you paid in to determine what you get when you file to collect. It is my understanding and it's not in your link, that the formula is based on a workers average income per annum over the last or presumably highest 10 years. (40 qtrs.) But don't quote me on that.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:21:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So what would the maximim social security retirement benefit be for someone who paid an astronomical amount to it over his/her lifetime when they made lots of money and had no cap on social security taxable income? Here's what it is now: https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable Look tamaka, your own link has that no matter how much you make, you pay in no more than $7,886.40 per year. The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement age is $2,639. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:27:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Here's The Evidence Republicans Are Already Increasing The Deficit ... Big Time http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/01/08/heres-evidence-republicans-are-already-increasing-the-deficit-big-time/#abc266658fca From Forbes, no less. That is a very depressing read. At least it is, if you have children and have or are looking forward to...having grandchildren.

MrRodgers -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:28:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka The scary part about the wall is that it also serves to corral and lock us all in. Switzerland is not in that direction.

thompsonx -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/13/2017 9:38:34 AM)
ORIGINAL: tamaka One thing i kind of (a bit reluctantly) question about ss is spouses benefits. A spouse who never paid into ss themself is eligible to receive ss benefits just because they were married to someone who did. I think that might be an issue... you are paying out a benefit to someone who didn't earn it. They are married...comunity property...his wages are hers...her wages are his. They don't even have to be an American citizen. What has nationality or citizenship have to do with it? S/s is simply an insurance policy.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875