|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:12 PM Original message |
Idea for a Democratic alternative to social security reform |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:14 PM Response to Original message |
1. Being the advocate for a progressive tax system that I am,... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tigress DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:26 PM Response to Reply #1 |
71. Can someone tell me how raising the cap on SS is viewed as welfare? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
beyurslf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:16 PM Response to Original message |
2. Drop the cap and exempt the 1st $10,000 in income from the tax altogether. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cidliz2004 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:16 PM Response to Reply #2 |
69. How about all of the people for this reform simply DO NOT ACCEPT PAYOUTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tigress DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:21 PM Response to Reply #2 |
70. Well, it would bring in the most money from those who can afford it, but.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:16 PM Response to Original message |
3. Leave the cap at 90K but place the tax on all income above 200k |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:17 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. so income between 90k and 200K would be exempt? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:19 PM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Yeah,...to give a bit more strength to the middle class. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:29 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. that particular income exemption doesn't achieve that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 01:13 PM Response to Reply #6 |
16. You are correct. I was just pandering to the folks in the upper part of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 01:15 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. So you want to make Social Security into |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 01:33 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. I don't want to make Social Security into anything |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 02:20 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. Your idea of best way to fix it was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 03:04 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. It is a financial INSURANCE program |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 03:09 PM Response to Reply #20 |
22. If it is insurance, then people who |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 03:15 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. You do know we are talking about SOCIAL SECURITY right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 03:29 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. Social Security was not designed to be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:14 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. I never suggested chaining who go the benefits. That is all yours |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:19 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. Yes, any wages above $90K are not subject to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:34 PM Response to Reply #26 |
30. I believe this thread was about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:38 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. Simple - because if people you present the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:41 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. And aWoL's plan to cut benefits and give wall street a few hundred |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:46 PM Response to Reply #34 |
37. Is this the "his plan is bad, so mine isn't" argument? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:48 PM Response to Reply #37 |
39. Why does my plan have to be fair and his doesn't? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:51 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. If you are presenting an alternative - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:54 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. I am sorry. Increasing the income is not better than cutting benefits? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:01 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. First of all, you forget that the $90K+ people still pay in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:13 PM Response to Reply #44 |
66. You were the one arguing against retirement welfare |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:42 PM Response to Reply #40 |
53. You are arguing with yourself? *LOL* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:43 PM Response to Reply #53 |
54. testing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:00 PM Response to Reply #39 |
43. Correction |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:07 PM Response to Reply #39 |
46. It's a "standard" application, perception-manipulation "rationalization". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:36 PM Response to Reply #26 |
31. Bottom line: you object to those who most benefit fairly CONTRIBUTING,... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:39 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. Great - tell that to the audience outside of DU |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:46 PM Response to Reply #33 |
36. Good gawd. Are you telling me ALL AMERICANS are driven by greed? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:47 PM Response to Reply #36 |
38. You may object - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:55 PM Response to Reply #38 |
42. Since when has the welfare of our nation, our people become an "evil". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:06 PM Response to Reply #42 |
45. I don't know if you're serious - but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Just Me (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:16 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. Do you believe YOU possess the whole reflection of humanity? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:18 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. So you're saying you don't want to do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:34 PM Response to Reply #47 |
50. qwghlmian is right on one key point: welfare is a losing cause |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tigress DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:08 PM Response to Reply #26 |
65. But 200K earners aren't hit with FICA on 100% of their income - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:29 PM Response to Reply #24 |
28. How about corporate welfare for Wall Street? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:45 PM Response to Reply #28 |
35. As soon as you have people who have not paid |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:22 PM Response to Reply #35 |
49. there is already a differential |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:39 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. If the exemption is kept low - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 06:09 PM Response to Reply #52 |
56. a couple of questions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 06:23 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Let's see - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 03:34 PM Response to Reply #58 |
64. gradual conversion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 08:17 PM Response to Reply #64 |
72. My reason for belief in marketplace |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-06-05 12:14 AM Response to Reply #72 |
74. I object strongly to raising the percentage taxed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tigress DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:15 PM Response to Reply #19 |
68. How does raising the cap from 90K to 200k change SS? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 08:22 PM Response to Reply #68 |
73. If all you do is raise the cap - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tigress DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-07-05 02:27 PM Response to Reply #73 |
76. Except that with a HUGE amount of money, if we put a lot in now... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cidliz2004 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 04:15 PM Response to Reply #3 |
67. Now now now! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
zapp (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:45 PM Response to Original message |
7. It's not REFORM its Privatization!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 09:52 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. the fund will be short by 2041 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
orpupilofnature57 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 10:31 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Unfortunately the obstructionist, runs the country for the opportunists. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zynx (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 10:55 PM Response to Reply #8 |
11. The 2042 number is bullshit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 11:38 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. regardless, social security is still a regressive tax |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrCorday (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 01:46 AM Response to Reply #7 |
61. It's ROULETTE not reform!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
meow2u3 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 10:48 PM Response to Original message |
10. There's a problem with this proposal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 11:39 PM Response to Reply #10 |
13. I see your point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 11:43 PM Response to Original message |
14. Here's the ONE problem with increasing the cap |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-03-05 11:47 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. yes, I absolutely support that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 03:06 PM Response to Reply #14 |
21. How many small businesses pay their employees more than 90K/Yr? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 10:34 PM Response to Reply #21 |
59. A lot if |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 01:28 AM Response to Reply #21 |
60. What I mean is that it's unfair to increase their SS taxes because... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cattleman22 (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:28 PM Response to Original message |
27. This proposal risks having SS become welfare and not insurance |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 04:34 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. please see post #28. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:39 PM Response to Original message |
51. Question: when was the $90K cap determined? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
qwghlmian (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 05:52 PM Response to Reply #51 |
55. The $90K cap is for 2005. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Feb-04-05 06:10 PM Response to Reply #55 |
57. thanks n/t. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrCorday (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 01:51 AM Response to Original message |
62. Okay, this is all really confusing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
imenja (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Feb-05-05 01:59 AM Response to Reply #62 |
63. Here is what I know about the system |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueInRed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-07-05 12:05 AM Response to Original message |
75. Here's a good article on SS's current situation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon Sep 16th 2024, 03:09 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC