Bernie Sanders Bill to Lift Cap on Social Security Tax

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Jul 24, 2014.

  1. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist Supporter

    Sep 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    +1,523 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Didn't we discuss the "geography of giving" chart before and how it seems that Christian tithes are counted among the charitable giving? I think that's why you see poor southern states and Utah among the nation's leaders in giving. Extra-church giving is what interests me more.
  2. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa Supporter Supporter

    Sep 7, 2009
    Likes Received:
    +988 / 16 / -7

    #24 Jersey

    Yeah, we did....that was in a thread about Christians.

    I didn't mean to change the trajectory of this conversation - I was merely responding to Bob's comment that he "knew" rich people gave a higher percentage of their income to charity than did those with a lower income.
  3. Hamar

    Hamar In the Starting Line-Up

    Nov 23, 2011
    Likes Received:
    +582 / 4 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    We periodically see reports on when SS will run dry... Why don't we ever see reports on when welfare and food stamps will run dry? Are they limitless?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 15, 2006
    Likes Received:
    +1,133 / 7 / -3

    Blah, blah, blah.... except that those changes didn't fundamentally change the programs structure. i.e. it didn't prohibit anyone who pays in, from collecting what they've been promised. Further, in the 80's, 68 was the new 65, much like yesteryears 68 is now today's 74. People live longer now, than they did before.
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa Supporter Supporter

    Mar 19, 2006
    Likes Received:
    +1,619 / 18 / -11

    If it didn't fundamentally change the program it would not have had the intended effect, RW. Telling people they now had to work three more years than they'd thought for the same benefit -- as reduced by not collecting those three years -- is precisely what it does, breaks the original promise.

    Now, as you say, people are living longer, so it was necessary from an actuarial point of view. Or seen from a younger point of view, baby boomers found a way to collect until they died, and have the kids work longer.

    Either way, the program did change very significantly when they raised the retirement age. From the points of view of wealthy people, this would also be a significant change. From others' points of view, it would simple maintain the solvency of the trust fund without other tweaks.

    It is one workable proposal. There are other ways to do it. Social Security is a lighter lift than medicare.

  6. Bobsyouruncle

    Bobsyouruncle In the Starting Line-Up

    Dec 27, 2012
    Likes Received:
    +2,717 / 30 / -13

    Hardly, I describe a government created by the US in the Constitution. You need to explain why not only did the government I describe work, but it became synonymous with liberty, it became the model of western governments, it became the destination for the overwhelming majority of immigrants, and it became the greatest economic success in the world. It did not become Somalia. Then explain why your vision of large government focused on redistribution has proven repeatedly to be oppressive and authoritarian.

    Am I governed? Yes, did I give my consent to these programs? No. So this is clearly untrue.

    Do we have consent of the governed, or representative democracy? Last I checked that meant up to 49% did not consent. Consider what "Rights" mean. Are they subject to a vote? Should freedom of speech only exist while 51% support it?

    Our government was created on the idea that rights exist prior to government and are not up for vote.

    All the kings subjects had the right to petition the King for grievances. Democracy is slightly better than monarchy but 49% are still subjects ruled over by the other 51%. If you are correct than slavery and segregation were permissible because the majority had a vote in democracy. If I'm correct than they should have been wrong the whole time despite majority support. Obviously we are discussing a bigger principle than simple majority rule here.

    Not exactly, social security was sold as a retirement fund. You pay in, you get it back. This is an attempt to fundamentally change what social security means, or what it meant. This is a program that says you pay in, but I keep the your money. As has been pointed out, this is a tax and the social security dressing is just convenient.

    I have not discussed the morality of government as a whole. I've responded to your post and your call for censorship appears completely out of line.
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2014

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>