I think I can fix Social Security

Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:43 pm

It is really very simple. You pay the tax now on earnings up to $72,000, I think. Do away with the rule, and start taxing at $72,000, with no upper limit. The people on the lower end of the scale will get more net pay, and those on the upper end will have to start paying

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

So, you're penalized for earning more. I would object to that. Personally I'm a proponent of a flat tax, no deductions.

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:28 am

Any reform thats enacted will be a huge burden on the X'ers and those of us in between the X'ers and the Boomers are really up a creek without a paddle if we haven't made alternative plans.

I've heard plans that support raising the age to 67 or higher which is saying that those younger will be forced to return to the work place making competition for existing jobs even more fierce then it is today.

My dad was forced to retire at 55 now he is 60 and looking for a part time job for several reasons close to 80% loss on his retirement account in the crash between junk bonds and tech stocks bottoming out about the time he retired. Another business venture that caused a substancial loss of assets also related to the economic environment at the time. (Eh win some lose some life goes on)

If he falls into the loop hole of an increase in the age of either medicare or SS it is highly likely he will work until he is no longer able to do so. Its very hard to know if he will lose coverage if the age is raised or not because there was nothing written into the early retirement plan that adapts for a shift of burden should the age be raised. Even if it is then this burden in his case will be shifted from the federal system to the state one because he was a state employee. Even if he wasn't a state retiree the shift of burden would most likely fall onto the state system under the current medical assistance laws.

So who gets the bill now? The state which is in a economic crisis already or very near to one at the very least. Property taxes have already been raised here an average of $300 a year on homes and $2200 on small businesses. There is very little room to wiggle on our economy. Low interest has stimulated growth in areas like new houses but that can't last forever and not everyone who is swinging a hammer today will be over the next couple of years as interest rebounds and demand for new homes dwindles.

The situation is very bad and there is very little light at the end of the tunnel. We are approaching an era where there will no longer be a middle class there will just be kings and surfs.

:::: Runs away singing "Its the end of the world as we know it!" mixed with sounds of maniacal laughter :::::

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:29 pm

I don't think of it as penalizing the rich, but rather creating more income for the lower income brackets. In the same token, why should the rich benefit from the present system? I agree that a flat tax would be the correct way to go, but having that happen would face the same odds of my plan being adopted. Laughing

Involved Joined: Apr 06, 2008 Posts: 484

I have been reading these posts totally lost.....I assumed social security was some new security issue or fix to do with social bookmarking

Blonde Moment

Involved Joined: Jul 03, 2006 Posts: 273

I read only the first couple posts of this thread and then quickly scanned the rest so I may have missed someone iterating my points already but if not I these are my thoughts on it.

In Canada (where I am from) we have a graduated Income Tax based on earnings the more you make the more your taxed. (by rate I am talking as % so for example your first $45,000 is taxed at 17% the moneies above the percentage goes up till I think it reaches something like 47% I dunno the exact figures actually but I am giving you examples.

Now as Raven says seems kinda BS that the more I make the more I pay which seems hardly fair but then again is the Baseball Star who makes $8 mil a year working any harder than the ditch digger who makes 20 thous? Heck I think the Baseball Star prob enjoys his job more!

So yeah it seems a little outweighted but a lot of things are so that outweight in tax offsets the outweight in wage a little too.

Also maybe it should be ones duty when one can afford to pay more to help the country that they do so?

registered · Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:16 am

Raven wrote:

So, you're penalized for earning more. I would object to that. Personally I'm a proponent of a flat tax, no deductions.

I as well. Today, and rightly so due our tax laws, the rich are able to avoid much of the taxes they really should be paying. Hey, they are smart... and have smart tax lawyers/accountants... hence why they are rich.

If, as Robert Kiyosaki says, that 95% of the wealth is tied up in 5% of the population and very few of that 5% are paying their share of taxes (again, through valid, legal means), just how much of a flat-tax with NO deductions would it take to fix SS and keep this country's government humming? Is it 2%? Is it 5%? I don't think it would take much more than that.

IMO, a flat tax with no deductions is the only fair way to tax someone. Sure, you make more, you pay more, but you don't pay a higher percentage rate, therefore, you are still motivated in this capitalistic society to invest and make more. Without investment and growth from that investment, you have what we are experiencing today...

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:45 am

This thread had gotten off topic so the Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! concerning Religious debate were moved on March 10. 2009.