BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:14:22 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:49:21 -0400, wrote:

Why should I, you are good for the money. You seem to enjoy paying for
my new boat.

Huh? You're the ****ing hypocrit. "Why should I?" for the good of your
grandkids asshole. You want everyone else to do the "right thing" but
not you.

My kids may get most of my SS money when I die.

You can kiss continuing SS benefits goodbye when you kick off, except
for your widow.
She may give that to your kids if she wants to. You'll be dead.
But any old person's SS benefit helps their kids, either by them
inheriting more when the old fart dies, or by not having to support them
when they're alive. That SS money benefits the entire family.
Of course some kids wouldn't or couldn't support their old folks.
Which makes SS even more indispensable.
SS isn't there for you, it's there for everybody.

snip

You can go to tax stats, look at the raw data and do the computations
based on the percentages but you will still end up with about the
same numbers.

Why would you do that? Actuaries and professional economists have
already done it, and prove your contentions about the effect of removing
the cap to be just wrong.
Total cap removal with increased benefits takes care of 95% of the
shortfall. SS benefit calculations are highly progressive, and even
with increased benefits for those paying on uncapped income the added
revenue reaches 95% of the shortfall.
Total cap removal and capping benefits where they are produces 120% of
shortfall. But that would be called "commie," so is out of the
question. Nobody wants to hear more endless crybabying from those who
are opposed to SS because - like you - they say they don't need it.
Total cap removal and some adjustment of benefits on the high end would
attain 100% of shortfall.
So is not a serious problem, except to the extent it's crybabied.
You'll provide some of that, I'm sure.
BTW, "unfunded mandate" figures are a real crock of **** when revenue
streams aren't considered.
People commonly have personal unfunded mandates of hundreds of thousands
of dollars in the form of mortgages. They also have revenue streams,
though not nearly as secure as the U.S. government's.
Talking about shortfalls in out years is legitimate.
I agree SS should be paygo - after the trust fund is paid back by other
gov taxes. Preferably mostly from the "wealthy," which is where most of
the "stolen" SS taxes went to according to wealth distribution
statistics.
If SS had always been paygo, other tax rates would have been higher
without the SS taxes going into the general revenue bucket.
As it is, with no increased SS tax revenue, trust fund exhausted in
2033, SS will still pay ~75% of current benefits until 2086 under paygo.
That's the 2011 75-year projection. It could have already changed.
Not the end of the world, and there are many solutions if necessary,
including squeezing the wealthy through means testing and higher taxes.
Removing the SS income the cap is just one example.
And that would be as close to a flat tax as you'll see. But since
benefits rates are highly progressive, it's not a regressive tax.
Personally, I think nothing should be done with SS until we are close to
exhausting the trust fund. Because any surplus revenue will just go
back into the general fund, repeating the same bad practice of SS
funding non-SS expenditures and keeping other taxes artificially low.
Time to get real with taxes.
In the end, the people will be well-served, and the crybabies will
crybaby. You can take that to the bank, if you can find the way to get
there through your tears.
Your chicken little attitude will be ignored by the powers that be, and
problems will be addressed sanely. It won't stop crybabies, which are
always part of the background noise.