http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_el_pr/obama_social_security



Unless I'm missing something, he basically wants the $250k+ earners to pay social security for people who make less..and the people who make less don't have to pay anything.

I may be reading it wrong, but I think he basically wants the same tax rate to apply to everyone where it doesn't already?

Seems fair to me.

Well, yes. Taking more from those than earn more is sort of the whole point of taxation, to redistribute wealth. This is fairly basic economics and a principle of socialism that is applied in virtually every economy in the world. The principle itself is nothing controversial, it's just the degree to which it is applied that will have different effects.

If the % is the same across the board, then it would be fair. However, the article (with horribly worded sections) seems to suggest that those who make more than $250K will pay more than those who make between $102K and $250K (which would be far from fair).

What is unfair about paying more when you earn more? The point is that paying more is less noticable because you have more in the end.

%

By paying a percentage, they ARE paying more.

I thought I smelled something funny in the air today..

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that...

Do you have a tiered system of tax brackets in the US?
Eg here we don't pay tax on the first ~£5000 and then any money earned after that is taxed at the first lower tax rate, and any money over ~£40K is taxed at the higher percentage.

Yes, its funny how people fail to realize that if everyone had the same tax percentage, those who made more would still pay more in taxes.

*sighs*

Fair tax forever! Stupid progressive tax!

The government should do a regressive tax (the lower income you earn the higher percentage you pay in taxes) to see how people finally understand that maybe the current system sucks

Sadly the average person is an idiot these days. Apparently percentages of large numbers is too hard to grasp that they need to see raw numbers in order to get the idea that people who earn more pay more with a percentage system.

11 posts in and the thread is already a gigantic

Good job, misunderstandings.

Sorry, I can't shed a tear if people who make more than 250k will pay more taxes. Seriously, who gives a ****? Top 3%. **** 'em.

It has always been this way.
They always try and make the rich pay more tax.
And it's always the rich that can afford to hire people that will get them around lot of tax.
In the end, they probably pay a lot less =p

Why? Do you also think it's fair that my taxes pay for people to live on welfare - people who don't try to get jobs - or people who are careful not to work too much, else they lose 'their benefits' from the government?

I wouldn't be so downright opposed if I knew the government is spending our money wisely. But it's not. There are sooooooo much bloat, waste, and corruption in the federal government. Millions have been lost and unaccouted. Now Obama wants basically higher taxes to spend more. Typical tax and spend liberal. He isn't different from most liberals. And now we're starting to see that.

The whole point of taxation is to fund the government. Redistribution of wealth is simply a primary ulterior motive of socialists. Increasingly, the US system is designed to influence private and corporate sector behaviour.



We do have a convoluted, tiered system. Basically, the bottom half of wage earners pay nothing with regards to the federal income tax. Opportunists like BHO love to confuse the issue even further by pandering to people about the payroll tax, AKA Social Security.

In the interest of helping those who are confused, the payroll tax has little to do with most of the income tax related posts in this thread. It is Social Security. The wages are capped because payments are capped.





BHO's economic advisor's plan excludes a major portion of income but then kicks in over a quarter million. That's not fair. But the real issue is that his plan must certainly disregard the purpose of the tax. It is doubtful that he will require rich people to pay more into their own social security "accounts" (which don't really exist anyway) because that should mean that their government elderly welfare checks are obscenely high. More likely, the additional revenue will simply subsidize the payments other people are already going to receive. So instead of fixing a broke program he will simply pass the expense along to those who already pay for basically everything.

"Social [in]Security" has got to be the biggest scam ever purported by the Democrats. No wonder all the socialists love BHO.

Oh brother. Where to start?

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done side-by-side analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans. Obama's includes tax cuts that benefit the middle class THREE TIMES as much as McCain. According to their report, families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319. Furthermore, McCain's plan includes virtually no relief for poorer Americans. (link, link)

Wall Street Journal compared Obama and McCain theoretical budgets, and they found that Obama's added up. McCain's "would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts." (link, registration required, sorry).

Now I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Obama on this particular tax, but the article really lacks depth. It seems fair that people making over $250,000 should pay the same 6.2% tax that the rest of us do, but I don't understand the purpose of "the doughtnut hole" between $102,000 and $250,000. I need to learn more about that aspect.

But let's put this thing is perspective before we start with the gnashing of teeth and the "tax-and-spend" lamentations. Republicans need some new points, because I don't think "OMG HE'S A LIBERAL!" is going be as effective this time around.

Why should poorer Americans get more tax breaks while receiving the same services? They're not exactly overtaxed as it is.


This, I do not understand. Obama has more tax cuts, yet has more money to spend? Or...possibly Obama taxes the piss out of the higher-income people, thus being able to fund the budget?


If their Social Security benefits are capped at, say, the level of $102k income, why then should their tax not be capped as well? Why should they even pay the same percentage for their entire income if they won't receive the benefits? Social Security is not supposed to be a redistribution of wealth.

Agreed. The article touched that topic poorly.

So they have money for food and shelter

Look at the tax system - they already pay next to nothing...and if they're not able to afford food/shelter, they're probably already on government aid. Might as well just give them a check every month, I guess?

Welfare / unemployment / food stamps have their place, but it pisses me off to see people living off of it for extended periods of time. Sure, that may not be the case always...but it happens a lot.

It should be a percentage, across the board. There is no reason for there to be a breaking point on income where you don't get taxed the same. There isn't a tax breaking point on purchases... the more expensive it is, the more on tax you can expect, it should be the same way with income.

Poverty breeds further poverty. The whole point of these welfare efforts is to try and give those in poverty an equal footing towards making their way in the world and to ensure that their children do not end up in even worse poverty.

I can see this is gearing towards same 'the poor are poor because they're lazy!' argument that's been used by the middle-class for a good 200 years now. I think it's fairly disgusting if people have still have this worldview.

This is exactly what I have been wanting for the better part of my aware life. I want MASSIVE spending cuts. We spend Way. Too. Much. both in government and in our personal lives. Americans are in record debt. Foreclosures are going through the roof. Stop spending people!

And before anyone shouts "WHAT ABOUT THE WAR HUH??? REPS SUPPORT WAR!" This one doesn't. If we get the **** out of there PDQ, that'll be one helluva spending cut. Although I think it's a grave disservice to the troops to suddenly pull their financial rug out from underneath them. I can see Congress doing that to force a withdrawal. I think that's quite cheap. (pun partially intended). Also I thought the "economic stimulus" was crap. I got two free car payments out of it. Wooooo.

Eh, laziness is a factor but not the only factor.

We have public education and various means for financial aid at college. I think two of the common issues (but not the only ones) are:

1) Lack of guidance. You simply don't know where you're going or where you want/need to be going.
2) Laziness (this is common among students and undeniable). But more importantly, it's laziness due to lack of guidance or motivation.

Pursuing what you want/need is fairly straightforward if you have the guidance and motivation to get there.

Waitaminute. Social Security is supposed to be a tax? I thought it was meant to be a retirement system. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not a tax, because being in the State's retirement system here, I don't pay into Social Security.



I was raised in a sub-poverty-level household. There are people that work with a friend of mine who are careful not to work over a certain number of hours because they'd lose their free government money. When I worked in Florida, I saw people buying convenience foods/etc with foodstamps that my family couldn't afford. Maybe we should've leeched off the system too!

It's not an issue of money. Immigrants can come into the US with out even a good grasp of the language and at least do decently for themselves with a lot of work. It's a cultural issue. People who grow up in a bad neighborhood and school, and are discouraged from perusing education or work, will obviously not have the will or desire to do so, and end up perpetuating the environment they grow up in. Throwing welfare at them simply facilitates this cycle. If you really want to break this cycle you need to do something about the environment they live in, and encourage them to break free of it.

Besides, they poor in this country are pretty darn well off. No one is lacking for food, at least basic health care, TV, decent shelter, AC, ect, and no one has to even work comparatively hard for it. Even a poor person here who makes 9$ and hour and works forty hours a week is rich compared to the third world people who slave for over eighty hours a week for pennies to make it all possible. No, if things were fair, we'd all being working much harder for a lot less that the "poor" make now.

It's one things to suggest that we can improve our society but to suggest the the lower class in the US is living in abject squalor due to awful oppressive middle and upper classes and monstrously arrogant. There are people who are living in squalor to make our lives possible but they don't live in the US.

Also, why are we pretending that social security still works? This isn't going to fix it, this is just another, "wahh, it's not fair that rich people are so rich." I'll never make that much, but making stupid little gestures like these isn't going to fix anything.

EXACTLY!!!! dear lord! if i actually had any say in it the government would not be able to pass a tax hike of ANY kind until they clean up their spending in a HUGE way! and i think the idea of taxing the rich at a greater percentage is absolute CRAP! if you make more money your going to pay a significantly greater amount at 6% than a middle class person at 6%.

On a side note: 3 double cheeseburgers for $3 at McDonalds = feast.

Might also equate to a heart attack later down the line but still....FEAST.

You know, if we cut all government benefits, maybe more privileged people would be forced to look the problems in society and start taking personal responsibility for change instead of just gaffing off and occasionally supporting a law that would throw a couple of impotent benefits at them. We can't simply make perfect for everyone no matter what we do, but if we had to actually take responsibility for helping the underprivileged, maybe we'd get more done.

Are you ****ing serious? Do you honestly think everyone in this country is that well off? Leave your basement once in a while and take a look around. I'm not going to pretend that we have extensive portions of our country that are third world, but god damn, ignorance for the win I guess.

*cough*homeless*cough*

You would be very hard pressed to find a house with out a TV. I'm often surprised to see satellite TV dishes on houses that haven't had a right angle on them in fifty years. I used to live in a small city in Mississippi, so chances are I've seen more and worse poverty than you, so don't pull your life experience crap on me.




Well, we are discussing households, homeless are a bit of a different situation, although they don't want for food.

That's all I got.

I agree with spook/the hairy guy.

Oooh, haven't seen this one before. "Oh noes, my condescending, ambiguous reference to 'life experiences' failed, so now I'll post a picture and pretend that I've obviously won the argument." Anything to stay on you're high horse, eh?

Are you just lazy or do you really have that little to say?

They're not exactly paying into Social Security (unless they have a job)...which is what this thread was about..

I was just pointing out that they're not well off.

From what my boyfriend and his friends have told me (all who have been or still are homeless)...they have it pretty good out here.