|
Post by Bevo on Feb 11, 2016 21:49:59 GMT
First of all, 47% aren't "takers". It is pathetic you still use this number.
You were right... 47% is NOT the real number. In terms of Income Taxes the real number is higher than 60%. Getting very close to 80%.
The sad part is... the masses STILL don't think people like me are paying a "fair share".
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 11, 2016 22:48:11 GMT
Bevo, fat cats like you are the reason aufan has to suffer on a poor engineer's income.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 12, 2016 0:24:05 GMT
LOL I'm not reaping any of those benefits just yet... still paying in. All of my adult life, I have been advocating for someone to FIX this very problem you've shown. It's an unsustainable LIE told over and over again. I supported Reagan when he raised taxes to help sustain Social Security. I opposed W Bush when he added to the problem by adding drugs to Medicare. I support W's effort to transition SS to a private investment account. That, was a great idea.... expensive in the short run, but... the best overall fix. Democrats beat him over the head for even daring to think about such a thing.
I'm not sure I'll get back all the money I've paid in. Maybe... if I live long enough to get Medicare. I doubt it. Most projections I've seen show a NEGATIVE rate of return expected for me... But, I'll tell you one thing: If I DO get on the money train, I will be the biggest Democrat/parasite supporter you ever saw. I'll vote for anyone who will keep my checks coming, and the rest of you can just suck it up... Like I had to do.
(That's fun to say... but, reality is... I'll continue voting for what I think is in the best interest of the country. That's just what I do...)
I think we've settled our squabble. Sometimes it is logical for taxes to be raised, even when it is just to support leeches like the baby boomers. I agree that if we do raise taxes because the system isn't sustainable, then we need to fix the underlying problem to make is sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 12, 2016 0:34:40 GMT
First of all, 47% aren't "takers". It is pathetic you still use this number.
You were right... 47% is NOT the real number. In terms of Income Taxes the real number is higher than 60%. Getting very close to 80%.
The sad part is... the masses STILL don't think people like me are paying a "fair share".
I don't know how those numbers are derived, but fair enough. I do agree with a progressive tax scheme, but as I stated before, we can't just keep increasing taxes without fixing the underlying problem. If we want to whine about "leeches", baby boomers with social security and medicare are a great place to start. My point remains: a baby boomer whining about "leeches" is laughable. Using your metric defining "leech" (taxes paid < benefits received), we have an entire generation of them.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 12, 2016 0:41:09 GMT
As usual, you miss the point, aufan. Or, perhaps you are in denial. YOUR GENERATION is the reason I receive overly-generous Social Security benefits. YOUR GENERATION has demanded that NO changes be made to Social Security. YOUR GENERATION has demanded NO privatization of Social Security. YOUR GENERATION has demanded that the monies they are paying into Social Security be sent directly to MY GENERATION, instead of going to a personal 401k-type fund that each member of YOUR GENERATION, not the government, would control. As long as YOUR GENERATION continues to demand that their money paid into Social Security go directly to MY GENERATION, then MY GENERATION will continue to graciously accept it. It is the price YOUR GENERATION is paying, and should continue to pay for BEING STUPID. Younger generations outnumber baby boomers several times over. Yet, younger generations are allowing MY GENERATION to run the country. Don't get me wrong. My child bride and I very much appreciate your paying for our wonderful vacations. After I depart this earth, YOUR GENERATION will continue to pay for my wife's widows benefits, because that is what YOUR GENERATION wants. The benefactors of social security and welfare imbalance are a huge voting demographic that nobody wants to upset. My generation has never been able to vote for a president that wanted to upset that huge voting demographic. Your premise is wrong, but is expected and often repeated: Blame the younger generation.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 12, 2016 1:37:56 GMT
LOL I'm not reaping any of those benefits just yet... still paying in. All of my adult life, I have been advocating for someone to FIX this very problem you've shown. It's an unsustainable LIE told over and over again. I supported Reagan when he raised taxes to help sustain Social Security. I opposed W Bush when he added to the problem by adding drugs to Medicare. I support W's effort to transition SS to a private investment account. That, was a great idea.... expensive in the short run, but... the best overall fix. Democrats beat him over the head for even daring to think about such a thing.
I'm not sure I'll get back all the money I've paid in. Maybe... if I live long enough to get Medicare. I doubt it. Most projections I've seen show a NEGATIVE rate of return expected for me... But, I'll tell you one thing: If I DO get on the money train, I will be the biggest Democrat/parasite supporter you ever saw. I'll vote for anyone who will keep my checks coming, and the rest of you can just suck it up... Like I had to do.
(That's fun to say... but, reality is... I'll continue voting for what I think is in the best interest of the country. That's just what I do...)
I think we've settled our squabble. Sometimes it is logical for taxes to be raised, even when it is just to support leeches like the baby boomers. I agree that if we do raise taxes because the system isn't sustainable, then we need to fix the underlying problem to make is sustainable.
I think we have....
Social Security is an integral part of our modern society. It would be wrong to take it away from people who have paid in, and bought into the system for 40+ years. It's actually not THAT hard to fix.... for a very long time. All they have to do is: Keep raising the cap on the tax, and the age limit for the start of benefits. These can be gradually raised over 25 years... and, the system can be sustained for 100+ years.
Medicare, on the other hand.... has ZERO hope of being sustained... not even close. And, there's nothing they really can do to fix it. Nothing short of remarkable advancements in medical treatment that dramatically lowers cost. We can always hope for unicorns, I guess...
I think you and I share an understanding of basic math, and we both hate bald face lies. It can be a curse.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 12, 2016 1:51:42 GMT
I don't agree with a progressive system. Our country was founded on the principle of everyone being treated equally. I think, everyone should pay the SAME percentage. That's fair.. and, it's naturally progressive. And, it provides dignity to people at the bottom. They may pay less (much less).. but, they are EQUAL to everyone else. Personally, I believe.. NO ONE who is not a Net Payer, should be voting. That is in the best interest of the country. Who today would say such a thing? But, that was the original idea of "America".
I see what you're saying about "Baby Boomers"... but, there's a flaw in your numbers, and logic. That is: MOST Baby Boomers haven't retired yet. They've only just started. If they live till normal ages, and draw the benefits promised to them? They will do GREAT. Not likely that they will though. The math just doesn't work. It's actually the "Greatest Generation" who have made out like bandits. My grandfather paid into Social Security at a VERY low level for about 5 years... then, drew benefits (albeit, rather modest) for 45 years. He got a GREAT return on his investment. It will all crash before late Boomers (like me) get a chance to change the ledger in our favor.
I will tell you this though.. in all sincerity: the older you get, the harder it is to stay optimistic. Ignorance IS bliss. Whoever first said that was freaking genius. That's part of the great thing about having children. They keep you so busy, you have no time to 'worry'. I hope, some day... you get a chance to experience the wonder of it.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 12, 2016 2:45:03 GMT
I'm 35...which generation am I in? I'm 39....I think we're technically the bottom-half of Generation X We're squeezed in-between the horrible Baby Boomers and obnoxious Millennials Amen brother. I'm 37.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 12, 2016 2:46:19 GMT
Anyone below the age of 70 is a member of the younger generation.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 12, 2016 3:14:22 GMT
That be me.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 12, 2016 3:33:26 GMT
aufan and Bevo on the same side re: Social Security? I smell a rat.
Social Security cannot be sustained, no matter what. The inevitable can only be postponed. It is in Bevo's best interests, and mine, to keep Social Security unchanged, and to defer the tough transition to a totally new system that is sustainable.
aufan is the perfect dupe. He actually believes that his generation is powerless, and that we baby boomers are and will remain in control until the last of us are gone. By that time, Social Security will be doomed, and aufan will be left holding the bag. Everything he has "invested" in my vacations will be gone by the time he is ready to retire.
The truth is, aufan's generation would rather see Social Security taxes increase indefinitely than to trust their abilities to manage their own private retirement investments using their and their employers' matching Social Security taxes contributions.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 12, 2016 13:25:44 GMT
You've got over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. All of those promises simply cannot be kept, not without taxing everyone at 90% from now til doomsday.
Nothing but promises...someone's gonna take it in the shorts
Municipal pensions are broke / going broke at a good pace.
PA is underfunded by some $7.7B. Detroit and Stockton are already bankrupt. Judges have huge power in determining whose "promises" get paid.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 12, 2016 13:55:27 GMT
I don't agree with a progressive system. Our country was founded on the principle of everyone being treated equally. I think, everyone should pay the SAME percentage. That's fair.. and, it's naturally progressive. And, it provides dignity to people at the bottom. They may pay less (much less).. but, they are EQUAL to everyone else. Personally, I believe.. NO ONE who is not a Net Payer, should be voting. That is in the best interest of the country. Who today would say such a thing? But, that was the original idea of "America".
I see what you're saying about "Baby Boomers"... but, there's a flaw in your numbers, and logic. That is: MOST Baby Boomers haven't retired yet. They've only just started. If they live till normal ages, and draw the benefits promised to them? They will do GREAT. Not likely that they will though. The math just doesn't work. It's actually the "Greatest Generation" who have made out like bandits. My grandfather paid into Social Security at a VERY low level for about 5 years... then, drew benefits (albeit, rather modest) for 45 years. He got a GREAT return on his investment. It will all crash before late Boomers (like me) get a chance to change the ledger in our favor.
I will tell you this though.. in all sincerity: the older you get, the harder it is to stay optimistic. Ignorance IS bliss. Whoever first said that was freaking genius. That's part of the great thing about having children. They keep you so busy, you have no time to 'worry'. I hope, some day... you get a chance to experience the wonder of it.
I agree, but try that, and you'll have people screaming "racist" from every street corner.
Nevermind the fact that most people on welfare are white.
It's not a racist thing or a poor thing, it's a conflict of interest thing.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 13, 2016 5:05:23 GMT
I don't agree with a progressive system. Our country was founded on the principle of everyone being treated equally. I think, everyone should pay the SAME percentage. That's fair.. and, it's naturally progressive. And, it provides dignity to people at the bottom. They may pay less (much less).. but, they are EQUAL to everyone else. I like the progressive system. With a flat percentage, the guy making half as much as I do pays a bigger percentage of his discretionary income than I do. A flat tax rate burdens him more than me. However a city, state and/or country supported by taxes benefits me more than him. Personally, I believe.. NO ONE who is not a Net Payer, should be voting. That is in the best interest of the country. Who today would say such a thing? But, that was the original idea of "America". The original idea of America would have the majority of people not voting. Is that a good basis? I see what you're saying about "Baby Boomers"... but, there's a flaw in your numbers, and logic. That is: MOST Baby Boomers haven't retired yet. They've only just started. If they live till normal ages, and draw the benefits promised to them? They will do GREAT. Not likely that they will though. The math just doesn't work. It's actually the "Greatest Generation" who have made out like bandits. My grandfather paid into Social Security at a VERY low level for about 5 years... then, drew benefits (albeit, rather modest) for 45 years. He got a GREAT return on his investment. It will all crash before late Boomers (like me) get a chance to change the ledger in our favor. I won't disagree that there is a chance that baby boomers will get screwed by social security. But if the baby boomers get screwed, my generation will get screwed worse. And by your metric of "leech", the (paid in):(paid out) ratio will be lower for boomers than my generation, thus baby boomers are still whining about a generation that is less of a "leech". I will tell you this though.. in all sincerity: the older you get, the harder it is to stay optimistic. Ignorance IS bliss. Whoever first said that was freaking genius. That's part of the great thing about having children. They keep you so busy, you have no time to 'worry'. I hope, some day... you get a chance to experience the wonder of it. I'm glad you derived joy from having children. However I'm interested in an argument for having children that isn't selfishly based. In my opinion, having a child is a gamble. It is not about whether a child brings me joy or sorrow, it is about whether the child I created experiences joy or sorrow. There are millions of variables in that equation, and I don't think it is my place to gamble on a life that is not my own. If you have an argument for having children that is not one derived from your own self joy, I will gladly entertain it.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 13, 2016 18:44:23 GMT
The original idea of America would have the majority of people not voting. Is that a good basis? I'm glad you derived joy from having children. However I'm interested in an argument for having children that isn't selfishly based. In my opinion, having a child is a gamble. It is not about whether a child brings me joy or sorrow, it is about whether the child I created experiences joy or sorrow. There are millions of variables in that equation, and I don't think it is my place to gamble on a life that is not my own. If you have an argument for having children that is not one derived from your own self joy, I will gladly entertain it.
Well... kudos to you for figuring out how to do properly format multiple quotes... I still haven't figured it out.
Our system of government was supposed to be about providing equal opportunity. Not making sure we all have equal burdens. Taking from each, according to his means is a tried, and failed practice.
If the majority of Americans are net "takers"... then, yes... by all means, they should NOT be voting.
There is nothing selfish about having children. In fact, it's about the most un-selfish thing you can do. It's a life time commitment to love someone even more than you love yourself. It's a social responsibility to give back to society... to do your part in sustaining the chain of productive citizens. It's a sacrifice of time, money... (LOTS of money) and emotion. All with the purpose of doing the best you can to prepare another person to be the best they can be.
If all I cared about was me? If I had stayed alone and kept all my earnings to myself? I'd easily be retired right now and playing golf every day. But, I have chosen to do all in my power to raise two fine young men to continue the success of our species.
You may choose to not participate in the circle of life, it's your right. But.... don't fool yourself about which decision is "selfish".
|
|