Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Social Security is Fantastic, Yet Lifting Its Taxes Is a Godsend. Huh?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 12:50 p.m. EST by earnyours (124)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If Social Security is so fantastic, then how come lifting the taxes needed to support it is such a relief? If the program is worthwhile, surely it's worth paying for. Or is this yet another government program that only has value when people can experience it as free? Liberals will argue the merits of the program, but then also argue about the oppression of paying for it.

37 Comments

37 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This payroll tax charade is an underhanded attack on social security -- who's going to want to have their taxes raised later? Obama is simply a Trojan horse traitor. He's actually a RATpublican, yet Fox calls him a commie marxist. Amazing.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Those on your side are so disrespectful to our Commander In Chief. If we were to refer to politicians on your side in similar terms, your kind would be the first to excoriate us for doing so, as if we didn't enjoy free speech.

Please understand, you're projecting your own sense of inadequacy whenever you attack others on that basis.

Numbers don't lie. Why don't you allow yourself to become educated on the math involved in this issue instead of calling our president names? Be open-minded enough to let some facts into your frame of reference.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

But the program is glorious. Surely, people are willing to pay for it, aren't they? And if they aren't, why are you so dead set on giving people a program that they don't like enough to pay for? That makes no sense.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

We're more than happy to pay for it -- it's not an entitlement. Obama is trying to undermine social security. He's a traitor to his supporters and true Democrats.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

U R Right !! There's more here than what meets the eye. They've been selling this super hard on the news - that's a definite red flag! Although it does help individuals in a small way; the real benefactors are the large corporations with MANY employees. By de-funding SS, you are selling your benefits for a mere pittance. ~ It will come back to haunt us. ~

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

But people are clamoring for the tax cut and getting it is like some huge burden being lifted. So, which is it: a wonderful program worth paying for or a program that isn't worth what it costs? The other possibility, of course, is that it's like so many other government programs: it has value as long as its free?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

People are being snowed. They don't know the payroll tax is the tax that funds SS. The funding has been hidden under the term FICA. Obama is doing a sleight of hand for his bankster masters.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

"Liberals will argue the merits of the program, but then also argue about the oppression of paying for it."

I'm not sure how one could honestly say that "liberals argue about the oppression of paying for Social Security".

You make a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Check them out.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

It's easy. Obama just made the argument that extending the cut was of seminole importance to "working families". Not extending the cut was presented as some crushing blow to the middle class. Well, if the taxes are that burdensome, maybe the whole program should be re-evaulated.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

everything should be re-evaluated

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

you're confused. most don't have a problem paying into social security as long as they feel that is where the money is going.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Yes, but then they won't fund the rest of government. This generation has been paying enough into social security expecting to walk away with those benefits, but then under-funding government elsewhere looking to stick future generations with that debt.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

I honestly don't know what you're saying.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Social security has a surplus. The rest of the government has a huge deficit. Both are funded by the same cohort of people. But those same people want to claim their social security benefits based on entitlement stemming from the "reserve", but they don't want to claim their share of the deficit for the rest of government. That's for the grandkids.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

The very rich (upper 1% or so) need to pay their fair share to support social security and other social safety net programs.

The rest of us need tax cut extensions. We already pay a greater proportion of our incomes than they do to support safety nets and infrastructure maintenance, on which the very rich continue to become very, very, very rich.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Fair is in the eyes of the beholder. You can't penalize the rich because they have more. You want to make sure everybody pays the same rate that way the incentive is there for our most talented people to produce and provide jobs.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

EXCUSE ME: I certainly CAN penalize the rich for having WAY, WAY, WAY more than most world governments. They came by their riches from the labor of the lower 99%. PLEASE OPEN YOUR MIND TO EDUCATING YOURSELF BY EXAMINING THE NUMBERS WHICH BACK UP OUR POSITION!

The "incentive" for "our most talented people to produce and provide jobs" wasn't apparent during the 1980's, 1990's, or 2000's, when taxes on the wealthiest 1% declined to their lowest levels in 80 years, now, was it? Had you read the news reports over those years which repeatedly referred to the "jobless recovery?"

The "incentive" is for wealth to concentrate. Wealth concentrates. Just remember that. This is a fundamental fact and truth of capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The less regulated the very wealthy are, the more power they have, and their power has very clearly become corrupted beyond anything we've seen in the history of our country. The numbers prove it. Look up the Central Intelligence Agency's figures on wealth disparity in the world today. Read their figures carefully. You will begin to understand the principals on which Occupy Wall Street is based.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

I think you would be hard pressed to believe that the rich took advantage of other members of society to become rich. Just anecdotally, go through the names on the Forbes 400 list and I don't see that. How did Fred Smith from Fed Ex make money off of thers.

Yes, the incentive was there in 80's and that;s why prior to this recession the unemployment rate got so low altering a bad trend of unemployment in the 70's.

Yes, wealth concentrates when there is economic growth as those who take the risk to build companies that do well. Slow growth alters this. Just recently Greece saw a decline in income distribution between the high and low ends, unfortunately this means high unemployment.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Trouble is, you leftists never define fair share.

That's bullshit too about the share you pay. Counting money you pay for the safety net of OTHERS is different than money you pay for the safety net of yourself. Your social security and medicare "taxes" are backed up by YOUR future entitlement.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Fair share is fair compensation for labor and services performed. Fair share is fair distribution of profits. Fair share is a sustainable, workable infrastructure and social safety net for ALL people in our society and world. Fair share is just and equitable distribution of wealth and resources. FAIR SHARE allows everyone to lead a reasonably well-balanced life. FAIR SHARE allows technology to DO ITS JOB and make life as easy as it can be for ALL PEOPLE, not just the upper 1%.

FAIR SHARE is just compensation for services rendered. FAIR SHARE is only possible with REGULATED CAPITALISM. FAIR SHARE is what adults provide to one another, and for those who can't for whatever reason. FAIR SHARE honors human rights for the least of us as well as everyone else.

FAIR SHARE can easily be provided by requiring the upper 1% to pay their FAIR SHARE in taxes. If you're really interested in how us "leftists" define FAIR SHARE, consult the tax tables to find out how the tax progressivity of the upper 1% is REVERSED from the normal, FAIR progressivity imposed on extremely high income earners. Why don't you open your mind to becoming educated on the facts, numbers, truth of the issue?

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's what I expected. No numbers, but just a lot of justification for why some people should likely be nailed for way more than half of what they've earned, while others bask in rationalization.

Come on, put a number on it. If a leftist were allowed to roam free in someone else's bank account, where would you stop yourself? Take someone making $1 million a year. How much do you think belongs to you?

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

How is it fair that 1% of the population own more than 90% of the rest of us? How are those numbers fair?

How are the bank bailouts fair? Those numbers are worth examining. Have you examined them? They are easy to obtain, as you well know.

Have you heard of "context?" It is useful when determining the intended meanings of words and phrases which could be interpreted differently depending on the context.

The reason I bring up context is that the concept of "a leftist ... allowed to roam free in someone else's bank account" is only relevant in the context of a distinctly criminally-minded "leftist." As you know, criminal law is very distinct from civil law. Civil law can be unfair, too, however, as the current tax code demonstrates.

The slippery slope posed by the question "Where would you stop yourself" is again context-driven. A sociopathic criminal of course wouldn't stop themselves. A sociopathic rich person, of which there are a few, you must admit, wouldn't stop themselves, either. A well-adjusted person of integrity would easily stop themselves, having a sense of loyalty to the "rule of law."

A person making a million dollars a year should only pay the same percentage of their income that I pay (we make about $130,000/year) to pay for the portion of infrastructure and services which contribute to their income. Admit it: no one can make a million dollars without direct and indirect cooperation from others -- transportation, hospitals, police, fire, utilities, etc. They need to pay what we pay for their portion of the benefit derived from adequate services and infrastructure. Did you understand the proportional equity suggested here? Those are numbers with which I am quite content.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

OK, so an equal rate for you at around $130k and for someone at $1million. You know what? That's reasonable. It's actually higher than that now,but it's how you count it, but that's reasonable too. I met a leftist recently and he'd tax that million dollar household down too "enough to live on". I was ready for you to say something crazy too and I was wrong.

Social security and medicare aren't really taxes at your income level. They simply accrue into your future benefits. They aren't like other taxes.

With income taxes, the million dollar person is deep into the 35% bracket. If they get income from capital gains, that's a different form of income and that's taxed less. Interest from municipal bonds is mostly untaxed. But if it was taxed, interest rates for municipal borrowers would have to rise. So, we wouldn't gain anything. People could pay tax on the income, but get more income because of higher rates or they could just get less income because of lower rates and not pay taxes like now.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Agreed. Those making a million dollars a year aren't part of the 1% as far as I'm concerned. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Occufridazzle (-19) 2 years ago

Bill Clinton drained the SS fund to balance the budget and thats why Obummer threatened to cut off checks. They have to pay with Federal Reserve funds now because they just put an IOU in the SS kitty. Many of us under 60 will never see a dime. That is the reality because the baby boomers will need more than the Feds will ever think about giving.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Lift the cap, fucktwit.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

More taxes you'll never pay, so why not? Leftists are predictable, I'll give you that.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Get off your knees, Koch sucker.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

There isn't a lot of dignity digging around for ways to live off of someone else, GirlFriday. Learn to be self-suficient; it'll help a lot with your anger and you'll build some self-esteem. It's hard, but rewarding in the end.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am self sufficient, you little Koch whore.

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 2 years ago

Most people are economically illiterate. In fact, about 99% of the OWSers are.

'nuff said.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 2 years ago

The cut is a lousy ~$167 for a $50k salary and is being paid for by a mortgage tax of ~$17/month on Fannie/Freddie mortgages! Who really wins?

[Removed]