Fair tax solves Social Security problem

[Duff Miver]

Yep, that's right. A fair tax would make Social Security solvent forever.

Here's how social Security tax works now:

Employee share is 4.2% of income up to a maximum of $106,800 income.

So, Joe the plumber earns $35,000 and pays $1470, 4,2% if his income.

Louie the lawyer earns $108,600 and pays $4485.60, 4.2% of his income.

Peter the Hollywood plastic surgeon earns $650,000 and pays $4485.60, 0.69% of his income.

And Elijah, Goldman VP, earns $200,000,000 and pays $4485.60, 002% of his income.

Institute a "fair tax", let Peter and Elijah pay at the same rate as Joe and Louie...Bingo, Social Security problem solved.

Peter and Elijah will still be able to afford their Beemers.

:0074

 

[ssd]

Duff:
I believe that the employer and employee portion is each 3.2% but the percentage does not really matter. Your point is well-taken. Remove the salary cap. I agree.
Institute a Fair tax in replacement for the Income tax and remove all deductions except charitable contributions. Institute a national sales tax on consumption - the people who buy the luxury goods will pay the most tax.

Or, just end the Fed and give the power to print money back to Congress, thereby eliminating the interest we pay to the FED for creating our money and then loaning it to the US. Deficit solved there as well.

 

[Trench]

Yep, that's right. A fair tax would make Social Security solvent forever.

Here's how social Security tax works now:

Employee share is 4.2% of income up to a maximum of $106,800 income.

Good stuff, Duff. :0074

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff:
I believe that the employer and employee portion is each 3.2% but the percentage does not really matter. Your point is well-taken. Remove the salary cap. I agree.

Yep....problem solved. See how easy that was?:0074

However our elected officials will find some way to screw it up. If they solved the problem today, there would be no hobgoblin to scare voters with, no falling sky, no fear-mongering on this issue.

Just FYI, SS tax is 6.2% for employee and 6.2% for employer, although the employee share has been temporarily reduced to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012.

 

[Mags]

Yep, that's right. A fair tax would make Social Security solvent forever.

Here's how social Security tax works now:

Employee share is 4.2% of income up to a maximum of $106,800 income.

So, Joe the plumber earns $35,000 and pays $1470, 4,2% if his income.

Louie the lawyer earns $108,600 and pays $4485.60, 4.2% of his income.

Peter the Hollywood plastic surgeon earns $650,000 and pays $4485.60, 0.69% of his income.

And Elijah, Goldman VP, earns $200,000,000 and pays $4485.60, 002% of his income.

Institute a "fair tax", let Peter and Elijah pay at the same rate as Joe and Louie...Bingo, Social Security problem solved.

Peter and Elijah will still be able to afford their Beemers.

:0074

AGREED! We need to take the cap off the wages, but of course at the same time take the cap off of benefits - so the benefits realized more closely match the contributions made by each worker.

Turn it into a forced 401K system, and away from a income redistribution system. The current method of determining benefits is not fair to those who pay the most.

That is, if you want real fairness..... now, if fairness to you means "socialistic redistribution of wealth", then you should take it a step farther and give no benefits to anyone that made over, say $500K in lifetime earnings and give the rest to those that did not.

 

[Duff Miver]

AGREED! We need to take the cap off the wages, but of course at the same time take the cap off of benefits - so the benefits realized more closely match the contributions made by each worker.

Turn it into a forced 401K system, and away from a income redistribution system. The current method of determining benefits is not fair to those who pay the most.

That is, if you want real fairness..... now, if fairness to you means "socialistic redistribution of wealth", then you should take it a step farther and give no benefits to anyone that made over, say $500K in lifetime earnings and give the rest to those that did not.

Guess what, Maggot - there are many places where I don't want your version of "fairness". Here are a few:

I want universal free education K-12 for all, regardless of the ability to pay. Everyone pays school taxes. Some have a dozen children, some have a few, some have none, but everyone pays school taxes because we as a society benefit.

I want a sound military, everyone pays for it, war hawks and pacifists alike, because we need it as a society.

I want universal health care, everyone pays and uses it as needed because we benefit as a society.

I want the EPA, OSHA, FDC, FBI, USDA and a dozen other agencies because we as a society benefit.

I want good roads and safe bridges, everyone pays, even if they don't own a car.

I want police and fire protection, everyone pays, although only some will need.

And guess what, Maggot - I want you to pay your share. If you are lucky enough to become filthy rich, you'll pay more than the man who mows your lawn. That's the price you pay to live in a decent and civil society.

And, if you are unfortunate enough to need help in life, I want those of us who don't suffer misfortune to give you a helping hand.

And, if fairness means to you "I've got mine, fuck you Jack." then I don't want to share the same country with you. That's not what fairness means to me.

Clear enough?

 

[ssd]

Fair?
Fair to me is giving the father of that 15-year old Afghani boy that those 4 murderers killed in his field an M-16 and putting those four dirtbags in the same field and telling him it is open season on court-martialed GI's.

 

[Duff Miver]

Fair?
Fair to me is giving the father of that 15-year old Afghani boy that those 4 murderers killed in his field an M-16 and putting those four dirtbags in the same field and telling him it is open season on court-martialed GI's.

Yep:0074

 

[Trench]

Clear enough?

Crystal clear Duff...:00x15 and well said, compadre.

 

[Duff Miver]

Crystal clear Duff...:00x15 and well said, compadre.

I thought offering Maggot a "helping hand" was a nice follow-on to "Wake up Maggie..."

Go gettum, Rod :toast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfWl1Fn-FrE&feature=fvwrel

 

[Turfgrass]

Yep, that's right. A fair tax would make Social Security solvent forever.

Here's how social Security tax works now:

Employee share is 4.2% of income up to a maximum of $106,800 income.

So, Joe the plumber earns $35,000 and pays $1470, 4,2% if his income.

Louie the lawyer earns $108,600 and pays $4485.60, 4.2% of his income.

Peter the Hollywood plastic surgeon earns $650,000 and pays $4485.60, 0.69% of his income.

And Elijah, Goldman VP, earns $200,000,000 and pays $4485.60, 002% of his income.

Institute a "fair tax", let Peter and Elijah pay at the same rate as Joe and Louie...Bingo, Social Security problem solved.

Peter and Elijah will still be able to afford their Beemers.

:0074

Quick question...are you in favor of the Fair Tax? I mean the one at www.fairtax.org?

 

[Duff Miver]

Quick question...are you in favor of the Fair Tax? I mean the one at www.fairtax.org?

Not enough information there to form an opinion. Platitudes and claims, but no facts, no numbers, no explanation as to why a tax with the same bottom line produces more growth.

I'd like to know what a panel of impartial economists and actuaries think.

 

[Turfgrass]

Not enough information there to form an opinion. Platitudes and claims, but no facts, no numbers, no explanation as to why a tax with the same bottom line produces more growth.

I'd like to know what a panel of impartial economists and actuaries think.

Here is a lot of information for you in case you really are interested. I believe it's done by impartial economists.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research

If something like this were implemented I believe it would eliminate cronie capitalism and put lobbyists out of business...so I guess it really doesn't have a chance in that respect alone.

 

[bleedingpurple]

AGREED! We need to take the cap off the wages, but of course at the same time take the cap off of benefits - so the benefits realized more closely match the contributions made by each worker.

Turn it into a forced 401K system, and away from a income redistribution system. The current method of determining benefits is not fair to those who pay the most.

That is, if you want real fairness..... now, if fairness to you means "socialistic redistribution of wealth", then you should take it a step farther and give no benefits to anyone that made over, say $500K in lifetime earnings and give the rest to those that did not.

I will admit that I had a few mugs a beer with a few jamisons on the rocks and I probably dont understand you at this point.

You want FORCED 401 K. I thought you were not for froced anything. Less government. I rather have forced health care for all too then

 

[Duff Miver]

Here is a lot of information for you in case you really are interested. I believe it's done by impartial economists.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research

If something like this were implemented I believe it would eliminate cronie capitalism and put lobbyists out of business...so I guess it really doesn't have a chance in that respect alone.

I read that, and, on the surface, it seems to make sense, however....there is disagreement as to whether the claims made are actually true. Here's just one.

Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institute has determined that most low income families will pay more taxes. "Under the Americans for Fair Taxation proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

ie. he concludes that it would be a tax the poor, benefit the rich program.

Experts may disagree based on their self-interest or bias. Certainly the Beacon Hill Institute is biased, and William G. gale may be too.

I'd like to see an evaluation from a neutral/competent source, like the CBO.

 

[Turfgrass]

I'd like to see an evaluation from a neutral/competent source, like the CBO.

Rarely have I seen The Congressional Budget Office called neutral and competent in the same sentence.

Either way, I guess it's just a pipe dream that government would be so transparent.

Good discussion Duff. :0008

 

[Duff Miver]

Rarely have I seen The Congressional Budget Office called neutral and competent in the same sentence.

Back atcha :0074


Hmmmmmm...can you suggest a more reliable arbiter?