Knock the caps off the FICA contributions so rich motherfuckers pay on their entire salaries....just like the poor.


(And, oh, I suppose we could stop pissing away $13b just to build another aircraft carrier when our enemies are using exploding underwear.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-t...hip-2015-6

(July 4, 2015 at 6:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Knock the caps off the FICA contributions so rich motherfuckers pay on their entire salaries....just like the poor.


(And, oh, I suppose we could stop pissing away $13b just to build another aircraft carrier when our enemies are using exploding underwear.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-t...hip-2015-6

If we knock the cap of their contributions, we'll also need to pay them based on their increased contributions. I don't think that would make much difference. How about turning social security back into a retirement program like it was intended to be in the first place?

Cost of living has exceeded what Social Security would provide in terms of retirement.

Quote:If we knock the cap of their contributions, we'll also need to pay them based on their increased contributions.

Who says?  Besides, thanks to that senile old fuck, Reagan, 85% of social security benefits are taxable anyway.

(July 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If we knock the cap of their contributions, we'll also need to pay them based on their increased contributions.

Who says?  Besides, thanks to that senile old fuck, Reagan, 85% of social security benefits are taxable anyway.

Actually I agree with Jeb Bush. If people are living 20 years longer and being healthier longer, I think it's common sense and mathematics to raise the age at which we can collect social security. Giving full social security benefits to 65 year olds today is akin to putting the retirement age at 45 years old when it was established in 1936. Also, the number of workers paying into social security per recipient is much lower today that in earlier years. If we don't get a higher percentage of productive people paying in,then we end up with the situation we have now. It will just go broke or benefits will be reduced.

(July 4, 2015 at 6:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Knock the caps off the FICA contributions so rich motherfuckers pay on their entire salaries....just like the poor.


(And, oh, I suppose we could stop pissing away $13b just to build another aircraft carrier when our enemies are using exploding underwear.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-t...hip-2015-6

We could also tax the rich more generally, and take money out of the general tax funds.  Rich people getting lower tax rates for their different forms of income is ridiculous and obscene.  The more you make, the higher the percentage of your income you can afford to give up.  Hell, if a billionaire had to pay 90% of his income in taxes, he could still live like a king.

The rich need to be taxed much more than they are at present.  They benefit the most from the system in place (that is how they got their money), so they should be the ones paying the most for the system we have.

(July 5, 2015 at 4:23 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Who says?  Besides, thanks to that senile old fuck, Reagan, 85% of social security benefits are taxable anyway.

Actually I agree with Jeb Bush.  If people are living 20 years longer and being healthier longer, I think it's common sense and mathematics to raise the age at which we can collect social security.  Giving full social security benefits to 65 year olds today is akin to putting the retirement age at 45 years old when it was established in 1936.  Also, the number of workers paying into social security per recipient is much lower today that in earlier years.  If we don't get a higher percentage of productive people paying in,then we end up with the situation we have now.  It will just go broke or benefits will be reduced.

Rather than make people work harder longer, remove the limited income which can be FICA-taxed.

Rich people won't miss an extra couple of hundred dollars a year ... but old folks will certainly miss every hour spent in labor rather than retirement.

Money is replaceable. Time isn't.

Life expectancy has risen by around 16 years since implementation of social security, but I've seen various studies that indicate we would only have to raise the social security tax by 0.9% (so 0.45% for both employer and employee, still much less than the average employer contributes in other developed countries, so it won't impose a competitive disadvantage). That's a less than a half percentage point increase for workers (even if you're a low wage worker ... it would be barely noticeable).

So I definitely support keeping the age at 67 and just raising the tax (I think a ten or eleven year retirement after forty years of working is the least people should get). Moreover, you also have to consider quality of life at an advanced age. While we do a good job of keeping people alive (because we can treat disease so much more effectively than we could in the 1930's), we don't really have many ways to mitigate the debilitating effects of human aging.

Hopefully we'll get better at this in the future (there's some promising studies out there), but we have to base our assumptions on current science (not speculative science). It's probable that we'll be able to extend human life by literally extending the lifespan of our cells, but we're not there yet, and it's not 100% certain that we will be (or for that matter, it's not 100% certain that merely extending cell life will result in significant life extension). When/if that day comes, then obviously we'll need to have a much different conversation about social security (and many many other things)

So finally we hear from the corporate prick-loving scumbag.  And what does the upper 1% demand?  Work harder you slaves!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/09...tail=email

Quote:Jeb Bush Says Americans Need To Work Longer Hours

Fuck you.