[Casey]

afterall, it's not broken yet.

I started this thread as a huge HOLY CRAP in response to that I just found out that incomes over $90k are NOT taxed for social security purposes at all.

Does anyone realize that his means the mega wealthy contribute essentially NOTHING to the living standard of the elderly and disabled. NOTHING in terms of their personal wealth.

Geezus pleezus. Discuss.

[+Donny]

Does anyone realize that his means the mega wealthy contribute essentially NOTHING to the living standard of the elderly and disabled. NOTHING in terms of their personal wealth.

What about all the other methods of taxation and systems of wealth redistribution?

[JerryLove]

I started this thread as a huge HOLY CRAP in response to that I just found out that incomes over $90k are NOT taxed for social security purposes at all.

You misunderstand. You are taxed on the first $90k of your income.

If you get paid $30k, you get 6% of $30k withheld
If you get paid $90k, you get 6% of $90k withheld
If you get paid $110k, you get 6% of $90k withheld

[anathema]

Also, the wealthiest people I know also give the most to charity and such. I understand the elderly need money, but the homeless and hungry need it too.

[+Donny]

Thanks for clearing that up Jerry.

[Qingu]

The answer seems very obvious to me. We're "fixing" social security -- a program which is not broken and whose flaws can pretty much all be traced back to government stealing its funds for other purposes -- because of both ideology and pure greed. Ideology for the huge wing of the Republican party that consists of poor, uneducated white voters who have been manipulated into equating "social security" with "atheistic communism," and greed for the much smaller but much more economically powerful wing of the Republican party consisting of highly educated businessmen and women.

[guitarmonkey<><]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The answer seems very obvious to me. We're "fixing" social security -- a program which is not broken and whose flaws can pretty much all be traced back to government stealing its funds for other purposes -- because of both ideology and pure greed. Ideology for the huge wing of the Republican party that consists of poor, uneducated white voters who have been manipulated into equating "social security" with "atheistic communism," and greed for the much smaller but much more economically powerful wing of the Republican party consisting of highly educated businessmen and women.

Um, the system is not broke because of Bush, nor Clinton, nor Bush sr. nor anyone else, its broke because This generation who are currently workers, have a smaller population rate than the baby boomers, who are now retiring, There are not enough people to support the massive generation of baby boomers who are now retireing. I attribute this to more than 1/3 rd of the population having been aborted. So we really can't fix this, and its not thats it's "Broken" but it will be within 15 years, if we don't do something to prevent it.

Personaly I don't believe in welfare, but anyway. What can you do? This was a very bright Idea in the 40's when our values changed, it used to be the children would take care of the Parents in thier later years, and we would live happy lives, but now it's frowned upon. Really as a Christian I belive that according to Romans 13, the role of Government is to administer Justice, and not to exceed that, but it has, and now we are paying (literly) for that. I found that if you skimmed down all the welfare taxes, and such. It would not be so hard to make a living, and where I live 90k is not even close to wealthy, My family of 8 with one on the way, has to make 75k just to survive, and we our most definetly not wealthy, and we are lower middle class.

[nomoreroad]

guitar monkey said:
its broke because This generation who are currently workers, have a smaller population rate than the baby boomers, who are now retiring, There are not enough people to support the massive generation of baby boomers who are now retireing. I attribute this to more than 1/3 rd of the population having been aborted.

Are you actually saying that abortion is the reason that social security is running out? if so, that is the most assanine and ignorant thing i think i have ever heard.

[JerryLove]

Um, the system is not broke because of Bush, nor Clinton, nor Bush sr. nor anyone else, its broke because This generation who are currently workers, have a smaller population rate than the baby boomers, who are now retiring, There are not enough people to support the massive generation of baby boomers who are now retireing.

The upcoming shortage was noticed in the 70s and fixed in the 80s. The taxation system which funds SS was modified to bring in extra revenue. Then every president from Reagan on (with the exception of Clinton in his last couple years) has stolen that money and spent it.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by guitarmonkey<><

I attribute this to more than 1/3 rd of the population having been aborted.

This can't possibly be a factual figure, can it? Do you have a citation? I'm finding it hard to believe that 33% of all pregnancies occuring in this generation of workers were aborted.

In His love,
Nate

[BurntHombre]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then every president from Reagan on (with the exception of Clinton in his last couple years) has stolen that money and spent it.

And we should note that, at the end of Clinton's administration, Social Security was still headed toward insolvency.

[anathema]

Originally Posted by Nate

This can't possibly be a factual figure, can it? Do you have a citation? I'm finding it hard to believe that 33% of all pregnancies occuring in this generation of workers were aborted.

In His love,
Nate

Last number I saw was 52 million americans. From what time period or generation, I am not so sure. That is the extent of my knowlege.

[JerryLove]

And we should note that, at the end of Clinton's administration, Social Security was still headed toward insolvency.

The stolen money had yet to be replaced. When the surplus appeared, there was debate over what to do with it. The Clinton/Gore adminstration put "pay down the debt" as #1, though congress discussed an awful lot of other ideas.

When Gore ran, part of his campaign was to change the budget rules so that congress could not steal from SS... he didn't win the election.

If we replace the money taken over the past 2.5 decades, the current structure will see a solvent SS as far as we can predict.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BurntHombre

And we should note that, at the end of Clinton's administration, Social Security was still headed toward insolvency.

It would have been fine if we applied the surplus to replacing the money that was stolen from it, and putting SS in a lockbox. There is no fundamental problem with social security. It's as if you're complaining about a board game being broken, when the reason it's broken is that your buddies stole half of the pieces. Replace the pieces, and the game will be fine.

[fifsuperpod37]

It would have been fine if we applied the surplus to replacing the money that was stolen from it, and putting SS in a lockbox. There is no fundamental problem with social security. It's as if you're complaining about a board game being broken, when the reason it's broken is that your buddies stole half of the pieces. Replace the pieces, and the game will be fine.

You're ignoring the other inherent flaws in the current SS system. Also, your suggesting that the Bush plan is to scrap SS when this isn't the case at all.

The worker to retiree ratio will be slightly less than 2-1 by 2040, and the age at which people receive SS means a lot less than it did in the 30's when the legislation was passed. This is an unsustainable ratio unless we act to reform the system somehow. You suggest that the money that is stolen stop being stolen. Where do you think the extra money "stolen" from SS is being spent?