HUFFINGTON POST Article

What did I plagiarize, CBJ7? You continue to be delusional.

What did I plagiarize, CBJ7? You continue to be delusional. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

so to speak

fair tax inst YOUR idea like you said it was

No, it is the plan I support. You just have trouble with comprehension. And then you try to pretend you handicap is an asset. It isn't. It just makes you look stupider. And please post where I said it was my idea. I don't think I said that at any time.

lol


you damn sure said "my plan"

nice try though

It is "my plan." I support it completely. The same can be said that Gary Johnson is "my candidate". Or that QT is "my gas station".

You are just pointing out the irrelevant in hopes that you ignorance will not be noticed. It didn't work.

I do think we mostly agree. The means testing could indeed be done, but it would be very difficult to so so fairly. I still think it is a bigger foul to change the rules significantly once it is too late for the person to realisticly react. A person retires at age XX, haveing decided that with SS he or she can live at a certain standard of living. They played completely within the rules, saved, did everything we think they should have. A year later they get told that 30% of their income will disappear (that is not a wildly out of line number), but it is too late for them to go back and get a job remotely close to what they were making. I know age descrimination is illegal, but it is still rampant.

Had they been told before they retired and had to work a couple years longer, I have far less issue. I think something that says anyone with 3 or 5 yrs of the current SS dates is uneffected for means testing, and start phasing in the age and means testing at that point would be tollerable to many. Originally Posted by Old-T

Like I said I do NOT think means testing is "fair". You are correct that we are changing the rules on people. My only problem is I cannot see taxing a family with kids making $60,000 to $80,000 a year, which is probably pretty typical if both work, so that a retiree that makes $100,000 plus can get their social security benefits. It is completely unfair to the retiree who lived responsibly and planned so that they could have that income but which is the lessor evil?

I could agree with a phased in approach but we also need to phase in a transition of the social security program to get rid of the current ponzi scheme. I don't know if it is possible to do both.

CJ7 - have you been trained to argue against any conservative idea regardless of its merit or how crazy your objection is? Watching the whole used car back and forth issue was so silly. Of course used car prices will rise. All the way up to the point where people perceive the value of buying a new car is better. That is close to how it works today and just in case you have not noticed a lot of people in the 98% buy new cars today. I suspect a lot of them will continue to do so since they are paying all of the taxes that are built into the price of the car now.

Like I said I do NOT think means testing is "fair". You are correct that we are changing the rules on people. My only problem is I cannot see taxing a family with kids making $60,000 to $80,000 a year, which is probably pretty typical if both work, so that a retiree that makes $100,000 plus can get their social security benefits. It is completely unfair to the retiree who lived responsibly and planned so that they could have that income but which is the lessor evil?

I could agree with a phased in approach but we also need to phase in a transition of the social security program to get rid of the current ponzi scheme. I don't know if it is possible to do both. Originally Posted by Laz

I would have no real issue with the person making $100K, but the issue is where to define "rich". Most people I hear ralking about "means testing" for SS are talking much lower numbers, more like half that.

I also agree we need to find a more fundamentally sustainable underlieing economic approcah for SS, though I don't subscribe to everyone runs their own; that only works if there is truly a willingness to let the lazy/unlucky die. If there is a "safety net", it isn't always the right thing to allow the trapeese artist to tie their own net.

I would have no real issue with the person making $100K, but the issue is where to define "rich". Most people I hear ralking about "means testing" for SS are talking much lower numbers, more like half that.

I also agree we need to find a more fundamentally sustainable underlieing economic approcah for SS, though I don't subscribe to everyone runs their own; that only works if there is truly a willingness to let the lazy/unlucky die. If there is a "safety net", it isn't always the right thing to allow the trapeese artist to tie their own net. Originally Posted by Old-T

I would have a problem at amounts that low also. The reality is means testing by itself is not the solution but it should be one aspect of it.

There are two options for the future. One is as you describe. Everyone on their own and let them starve. Not a good option. The other could be a little more rational. The taxes collected go to an account for that person. the money is NOT available for ANY politician to use for any purpose. It is forced retirement savings which is not perfect but keeps us from letting people starve. There will still be those that fall through the cracks and a welfare program can be established for that. Maybe taxing the remainder of the retirement accounts heavily after the owner/beneficiary and spouse are dead can provide funds for that.

The biggest challenge will be finding the process to transition to that while still funding current and future Social Security obligations. The cost will probably have to be spread out over a couple of generations because they will be funding their own retirement while also paying for past government irresponsibility.

I agree it will be challenging, but it's something that is badly needed. As are several other large pieces such as the whole federal personnel system--and I am not talkinging the pay as much as all the other things that are broke.

I just don't know if Congress--under either party--will ever have the stomach to do real, thoughtful, hard work.

I just don't know if Congress--under either party--will ever have the stomach to do real, thoughtful, hard work. Originally Posted by Old-T

This remains the biggest problem. Neither party can or will do what is necessary since the second they try the other party has members that will use it against them. A perfect example is what happened to Bush in his effort to partially privatize the program. I am not sure his idea was that great but he was attacked badly for even trying.

The republicans are not innocent if you look at how they characterized the medicare cuts in the presidential campaign. What Obama did with the money was wrong but the cuts were probably not that bad.

I doubt that the current people running the two parties are capable of actually doing the right thing and coming up with intelligent solutions. That begs the question of is there a way for an outside force to influence the process in a way that forces a change. It would require an enormous amount of money. The solutions are the easy part. Getting public support so that Congress has to act is the hard part.

CJ7 - have you been trained to argue against any conservative idea regardless of its merit or how crazy your objection is? Watching the whole used car back and forth issue was so silly. Of course used car prices will rise. All the way up to the point where people perceive the value of buying a new car is better. That is close to how it works today and just in case you have not noticed a lot of people in the 98% buy new cars today. I suspect a lot of them will continue to do so since they are paying all of the taxes that are built into the price of the car now. Originally Posted by Laz

IMO the fair tax has its merits and its pitfalls. The "conservative" idea LETS TRY THIS like COF wants to seems a little far fetched ... A new tax system isnt exactly a new pair of shoes ... my argument is and was based on the middle class and the fairness of a flat 23% tax imposed on a family making 40K a year. The majority of their income is spent because they HAVE to to live, depriving them of any disposable income with a higher tax rate seems fair to you? Of course they could buy someone elses old shit and avoid being taxed but isnt that wealth redistribution when a single guy making 200K a year gets to buy new stuff, and put his disposable income in a stock portfolio or invest otherwise? In this very thread your supporting the middle class with lower taxes, then BINGO you arent ... and my argument is silly?

good to know, thanks.

Read and understand the FairTax. That family will be much better off than under our current system.

Read and understand the FairTax. That family will be much better off than under our current system. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

again, thats what you say

the conservatives also say trickle down economics works like a charm creating jobs and growing the economy ..


looked around lately?

Remain ignorant, CBJ7. You're obviously happier that way.