TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'd like to make every taxpayer actually write and sign a check every month for what they actually pay in taxes. Can you imagine the uproar when they had to write a check for 13% of their gross just for Social Security? This was the true genius of Roosevelt. He hid the impact of taxation from the average citizen, as they can't miss what they've never held; and in the process he turned ever business owner in America into a slave, mandating that they submit to forced, unpaid labor as a tax collector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This isn't due to a tax increase, it's because they let the 2% payroll credit on social security lapse. You should actually thank Obama for the increased revenue over the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 we all got boned the instant Obama took office in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This was the true genius of Roosevelt. He hid the impact of taxation from the average citizen, as they can't miss what they've never held; and in the process he turned ever business owner in America into a slave, mandating that they submit to forced, unpaid labor as a tax collector. And then employers were forced to become experts at health care and retirement plans, cause you know, when I go into business making widgets or selling software or collecting trash, knowledge of what health insurance people should have and how to go about getting it just comes naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) I wonder how many baby boomers are in this thread? How many will actually benefit from this because the program will stay afloat to help them as they age? I know it is easy to just hate everything that government or Obama does but look at the facts. Over the next 15 years 80 million people will become eligible for ss benefits. Joining the existing 60 million that already do. So what would the decision be for people? Continue to support social security or end the program altogether? It has been a known threat for a while that the baby boomer generation would wreak havoc on the system and we are seeing preparation for it. Am I happy about losing the extra money? Of course not. Do I understand why it is happening? Yes, and I think I just pointed it out to those of you that just want to piss and moan. Edited January 9, 2013 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I wonder how many baby boomers are in this thread? How many will actually benefit from this because the program will stay afloat to help them as they age? I know it is easy to just hate everything that government or Obama does but look at the facts. Over the next 15 years 80 million people will become eligible for ss benefits. Joining the existing 60 million that already do. So what would the decision be for people? Continue to support social security or end the program altogether? It has been a known threat for a while that the baby boomer generation would wreak havoc on the system and we are seeing preparation for it. Am I happy about losing the extra money? Of course not. Do I understand why it is happening? Yes, and I think I just pointed it out to those of you that just want to piss and moan. It's great to want nice things. It's entirely different to afford them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I wonder how many baby boomers are in this thread? How many will actually benefit from this because the program will stay afloat to help them as they age? I know it is easy to just hate everything that government or Obama does but look at the facts. Over the next 15 years 80 million people will become eligible for ss benefits. Joining the existing 60 million that already do. So what would the decision be for people? Continue to support social security or end the program altogether? It has been a known threat for a while that the baby boomer generation would wreak havoc on the system and we are seeing preparation for it. Am I happy about losing the extra money? Of course not. Do I understand why it is happening? Yes, and I think I just pointed it out to those of you that just want to piss and moan. I've been saying forever that I'd rather take that money and put it in my own personal retirement fund. I'd have more money when I retire. Instead, I doubt SS will even be available when I retire, so I'm throwing money down a rathole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I've been saying forever that I'd rather take that money and put it in my own personal retirement fund. I'd have more money when I retire. Instead, I doubt SS will even be available when I retire, so I'm throwing money down a rathole. I agree completely with your idea and feeling. The issue with it is that there would be a gap if the entire nation switched over. Older people would have no time to set up or begin saving. The system would fail (even though it more than likely will anyway) leaving many older American's without cash. This would either flood the welfare system or put a lot of stress on the next generation of these families. What needs to happen to allow the system to survive is pushing back the age of collection. Life expectancy has increased to 75 for men and 80 for women. Allowing people to begin collecting at 62 puts the expectation on the system for 13 and 18 years respectively. If that was pushed down to 10 years I think the system would be much more viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'd like to make every taxpayer actually write and sign a check every month for what they actually pay in taxes. Can you imagine the uproar when they had to write a check for 13% of their gross just for Social Security? Its interesting, wiritng that check is much more persuasive than just having it withheld or withdrawn. I think people would **** if they have $100,000 given to them in cash, and then asked unvoltarily to take out a chunk about 20% and give it someone else... I wonder how many baby boomers are in this thread? How many will actually benefit from this because the program will stay afloat to help them as they age? I know it is easy to just hate everything that government or Obama does but look at the facts. Over the next 15 years 80 million people will become eligible for ss benefits. Joining the existing 60 million that already do. So what would the decision be for people? Continue to support social security or end the program altogether? It has been a known threat for a while that the baby boomer generation would wreak havoc on the system and we are seeing preparation for it. Am I happy about losing the extra money? Of course not. Do I understand why it is happening? Yes, and I think I just pointed it out to those of you that just want to piss and moan. I think most people would like to see SS be a true safety net program, meaning it helps Americans who truly need it live a dignified end to their lives. I think most people here would prefer to put money away for the retirement and not need SS, there fore over the decades maybe its not 80 Million going on the program, maybe is 15 Million. To just collect money so everybody int eh Nation gets a "Pension" is not really a safety net program, its a pension program. I probably won't need SS when I retire (based on my current savings trend), so do I really need a Federal Pension? If there were less people n the program, less tax would need to be collected... This is one of the reasons why I think it shoud be further means tested... were sending checks to people for spending/play money, that needs to be fixed... I agree completely with your idea and feeling. The issue with it is that there would be a gap if the entire nation switched over. Older people would have no time to set up or begin saving. The system would fail (even though it more than likely will anyway) leaving many older American's without cash. This would either flood the welfare system or put a lot of stress on the next generation of these families. What needs to happen to allow the system to survive is pushing back the age of collection. Life expectancy has increased to 75 for men and 80 for women. Allowing people to begin collecting at 62 puts the expectation on the system for 13 and 18 years respectively. If that was pushed down to 10 years I think the system would be much more viable. thats the issue with these programs, once they start, how do you humanely end them? Somebody is getting screwed out of decade of earnings, so they never come up for reform or significant changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Immidiatly create a laddered out approach to the current system. First step is to make everyone currently under the age of 45 aware that they will not be receiving a nickle, and will have to plan and save for their own retirements. Next step is to tell everyone over the age of 60 that they will not see any changes in their guarenteed benefits. Every age in between those two should be laddered down, and the system should be phased out. SS taxes should be used in their current form to fund the system until everyone on the roles has passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I wonder how many baby boomers are in this thread? How many will actually benefit from this because the program will stay afloat to help them as they age? I know it is easy to just hate everything that government or Obama does but look at the facts. Over the next 15 years 80 million people will become eligible for ss benefits. Joining the existing 60 million that already do. So what would the decision be for people? Continue to support social security or end the program altogether? It has been a known threat for a while that the baby boomer generation would wreak havoc on the system and we are seeing preparation for it. Am I happy about losing the extra money? Of course not. Do I understand why it is happening? Yes, and I think I just pointed it out to those of you that just want to piss and moan. SS age should be pushed to something like 72. Even if I accept the program (I don't), the purpose of SS was never to supplement people's retirement. It was to help people who could no longer work at the end of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 SS age should be pushed to something like 72. Even if I accept the program (I don't), the purpose of SS was never to supplement people's retirement. It was to help people who could no longer work at the end of their lives. I'm assuming you haven't made it to my second post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 First step is to make everyone currently under the age of 45 aware that they will not be receiving a nickle, and will have to plan and save for their own retirements. Agreed - although I think you also need to give them a break and add, "We will only withhold X% compared to X+Y% for people who will be collecting." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Agreed - although I think you also need to give them a break and add, "We will only withhold X% compared to X+Y% for people who will be collecting." I've said many times, I would be happy to call it even with the government right this very moment: I stop contributing to SS and get no benefits when I retire, and they can keep everything I've given to date. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to turn that offer away. Edited January 9, 2013 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I've said many times, I would be happy to call it even with the government right this very moment: I stop contributing to SS and get no benefits when I retire, and they can keep everything I've given to date. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to turn that offer away. Agreed. Heck, I'd be willing to still contribute 1-2% if I got to keep the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 What, thank him for the deficit increase? Making the tax less progressive? Paying off his supporters? I guess this is what you'd expect when a person comes from this background: Wow, is Illinois and Chicago great or what? Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago? Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago. 221 killed in Iraq AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US. President: Barack Hussein Obama Senator: Dick Durbin House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr. Governor: Pat Quinn House leader: Mike Madigan Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) Mayor: Rahm Emanuel The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course, they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any! It's clearly the GOP's fault for not being there to say 'no' to the Democrats when they want to spend recklessly. I certainly can't be the fault of the Democrat political machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 This isn't due to a tax increase, it's because they let the 2% payroll credit on social security lapse. You should actually thank Obama for the increased revenue over the past few years. actually this is correct, but good luck getting people to believe it i didnt vote for obama either time so hes not my guy, but im surprised how badly he misplayed this one issue. as you can see by this thread, most people automatically blame obama for the hit they have taken on their take home pay, as if he enacted new taxes on them. but that payroll tax holiday was never supposed to be permanent, it was an economy stimulator when things were so bad, it was obama that was putting money BACK into their pockets they normally wouldnt have had. the timing of it expiring was just really bad for obama and im surprised he hasnt done a better job either timing it better or educating the public where it comes from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 actually this is correct, but good luck getting people to believe it i didnt vote for obama either time so hes not my guy, but im surprised how badly he misplayed this one issue. as you can see by this thread, most people automatically blame obama for the hit they have taken on their take home pay, as if he enacted new taxes on them. but that payroll tax holiday was never supposed to be permanent, it was an economy stimulator when things were so bad, it was obama that was putting money BACK into their pockets they normally wouldnt have had. the timing of it expiring was just really bad for obama and im surprised he hasnt done a better job either timing it better or educating the public where it comes from I think everyone does understand it. How is it any different than saying he let the Bush tax cut for the top "lapse"? Those we "temporary" too, just lasted a little longer, and he fought to prevent the lower rates from increasing for another 5 years. You say tomato and I say tomato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 actually this is correct, but good luck getting people to believe it i didnt vote for obama either time so hes not my guy, but im surprised how badly he misplayed this one issue. as you can see by this thread, most people automatically blame obama for the hit they have taken on their take home pay, as if he enacted new taxes on them. but that payroll tax holiday was never supposed to be permanent, it was an economy stimulator when things were so bad, it was obama that was putting money BACK into their pockets they normally wouldnt have had. the timing of it expiring was just really bad for obama and im surprised he hasnt done a better job either timing it better or educating the public where it comes from This is only true if all law is intended to be permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Wadahfuk I have been a small biz owner for years I'm now paying double that being self-employed. That's a 4% increase folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts