Well, if they paid into the system that they're forced to help pay for by paying taxes, why shouldn't they be covered with the same benefits as anyone else?
On the flip, if I were financially independent, I'd be self insured. I would never submit a bill to any social program. It would be my way of contributing in a charitable manner. Still, anyone contributing to the system has every right to its benefits.
Whomever gave me a negative vote, why don't you explain why you feel that people paying into a system shouldn't have a right to its benefits. Why should they be excluded?
The whole Social Security/Medicare plan is a Ponzi scheme;...Built on the assumption of an ever increasing base of people contribing to the pot. Now that the work force is stable or shrinking, the government has done a about face and declares that the plan is a benifit, not cast in concrete and can be modified or eliminated. This is after people have been contributing their whole work lives.
Once, the bulge in the python, the baby boomers has passed the system will return to normalacy.
People who have contributed to the system should have the option of collecting the benifits they have paid for others.
If Social Security had been kept to the original plan with a mandated dedicated fund that could not be touched by politicians for any reason; and the remittance of benefits paid exclusively to those who actually contributed; Social Security would be solvent today and well into the future.
Medicare should never become a means tested program, if you pay into it you are entitled to it. A better way would be to adopt a national health policy similar to that in the U.K. that provides universal health care, can be done by a tax that covers the cost. Oh, I know this will set of howls from Republicans, but if you set the rate at 3% of gross income with no exceptions with every dollar going directly for healthcare it will eliminate the deductable and can be easily achieved. Take a look at what your individual costs are for insurance and calculate that as your percentage you pay now for coverage. For the people whose gross income $100,000 per year it's $3,000, if you have a gross income of $25,000 it's $750. It's simple and it's fair. It's time to take insurance companies and PHARMA out of the equation and provide universal coverage.
I agree, Ed that would be reasonable. All you gotta do is figure out how to keep the politicians' grubby little fingers out of the pie, and break the unholy alliances they have with big pharma, big insurance and corporate hospital groups.
The tax stays flat because you don't cap it like Social Security Taxes currently does, actually removing the caps from Social Security would instantly make the program solvent, but again Republicans will howl.
Ed,
I like the idea of removing the SS tax, but be honest, how many Democrats have pushed for that?
I have yet to hear Obama push that idea either since a lot of Dems make over the cap.
And since the SS tax is on both the employee and employer, I don't hear business people pushing for it, and many of them are Democrats.
I'm not in favor of removing the SS tax, I am for lifting the cap on the level of income it is collected on. Having the tax capped at the current level without even an automatic adjustment to keep pace with inflation is nonsense and one of the primary reasons that the fund has the appearance of running low on resources. Republicans voted last month against continued tax cuts for 97% of working Americans while steadfastly holding out for permanent additional tax cuts for the 3% then complain about deficits....face it they are BS artists that have convinced working men and women that they are working to reduce the deficits when the reality is all they are working on is reducing the taxes of the very wealthy and their corporate patrons.
Ed,
What vote are you talking about. There was NO vote to raise any one's taxes in the House. The Senate might have voted to raise taxes "on the rich", but not the House. At this time the Republicans are saying no tax increase, and want to keep the decade old Bush tax cut.
It will be interesting to see what both sides do with the SS tax cut due to go back up. Do you raise it back to where it was?
There is nothing more dangerous to a free society than class envy. There was no vote from the house of representatives for a tax increase on ANYONE.
No matter how you cut it, the top 25% wage earners pay over 70% of all taxes, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the cash comes from those with money anyway you look at it, and the bottom 50% comparatively pay little of the actual revenue. This shell game politicians banter about tax rates is just that a political game.
If you really want a FAIR tax system, make a flat tax (Same for every one) and exempt the first $30K and NO OTHER exemptions from taxation for EVERYONE. Force the Government to operate with 19% of GDP and take politics totally out of the tax system.
By exempting the first $30K , you effectively take care of the working poor, and taxing everything above that at 19% effectively forces the government to work within a balanced budget. Just like any household or business, it would shift the arguement to what government should fund rather than who's money they should take. Any federal borrowing should require a super majority of both houses which would force a debate before a single penny is ever borrowed.
SS & Medicare could then be separate and held to a basic percentage based on actual dollars required to be solvent.
Judith, a Flat tax does not necessarily lower tax rates, it takes the political games out of the tax code. In fact, some (Even the Weathly some) would infact be paying more in actual taxes. It is apples and oranges.
The current tax code is not at all about revenue, it is about buying political favor through deduction and tax credit. In many cases it gives tax returns to people that actually pay no taxes at all. (Don't throw the payroll tax out there either) the payroll tax is SS and medicare. By giving a holiday to payroll taxes you are in effect taking money out of SS and medicare, not income tax.
A flat 19% rate (with exemption on first 30K) without other deductions makes the tax system totally fare
add 3-5% for Medicare and SS without any deduction and everyone pays their fair share, for everything.
The complexity of our tax code is nothing more than redistributing wealth and still leaving budget shortfalls, and incidently, David Stockman has been discredited by many economist including Milton Friedman.
No intention stated here of debating the tax code. I found the article insightful and explains so much of how we are in this mess to begin with. Incidentally, was Stockman discredited by the same Milton Friedman in the article?
"In a piece entitled “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” a clever play on the biblical image of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Stockman outlines four major Republican breaks with discipline that set the stage, then compounded, American bankruptcy, beginning with Milton Friedman convincing Nixon to default “on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world."
Judith, But you left out the rest of the paragragh
"Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale." (BTW Since the article was wriiten the shortfall has doubled to nearly $16 Trillion)
You are correct however, we could discuss tax policy endlessly, but all would be in vane if we first do not address spending. If in your household you continued to spend endlessly on things that you want instead of what you need, eventually you will be able to afford neither.
While you found it insightful to point out an article that insinuates it was solely the GOP that broke discipline and then compounded the American Bankruptcy, you overlooked that included the 40 years of prior of deficit spending that created the dilema in the first place. This really isn't a GOP vs Dem issue, both parties equally contributed to an unsubstainable spree of pandering, spending and crony capitalistic attitudes used the tax code to buy votes, while foresaking the reality that everything comes with a cost.
Mark, I'm not understanding how the rest of the paragraph relates to your comment that Stockman was discredited by Friedman, as the sentence I quoted did. Others find Stockman very relevant even if Friedman does not. Regardless, as I originally stated, the article is very informative as to the causes behind the fiscal problems of the federal government. The fact that the presidents cited happened to be Republicans is mere coincidence I'm sure.
And they should be able to
And they should be able to opt out, if they want to.
Well, if they paid into the
Well, if they paid into the system that they're forced to help pay for by paying taxes, why shouldn't they be covered with the same benefits as anyone else?
On the flip, if I were financially independent, I'd be self insured. I would never submit a bill to any social program. It would be my way of contributing in a charitable manner. Still, anyone contributing to the system has every right to its benefits.
Whomever gave me a negative
Whomever gave me a negative vote, why don't you explain why you feel that people paying into a system shouldn't have a right to its benefits. Why should they be excluded?
The whole Social
The whole Social Security/Medicare plan is a Ponzi scheme;...Built on the assumption of an ever increasing base of people contribing to the pot. Now that the work force is stable or shrinking, the government has done a about face and declares that the plan is a benifit, not cast in concrete and can be modified or eliminated. This is after people have been contributing their whole work lives.
Once, the bulge in the python, the baby boomers has passed the system will return to normalacy.
People who have contributed to the system should have the option of collecting the benifits they have paid for others.
You have to decide if it is a
You have to decide if it is a health care program or a welfare program.
If Social Security had been
If Social Security had been kept to the original plan with a mandated dedicated fund that could not be touched by politicians for any reason; and the remittance of benefits paid exclusively to those who actually contributed; Social Security would be solvent today and well into the future.
Medicare should never become
Medicare should never become a means tested program, if you pay into it you are entitled to it. A better way would be to adopt a national health policy similar to that in the U.K. that provides universal health care, can be done by a tax that covers the cost. Oh, I know this will set of howls from Republicans, but if you set the rate at 3% of gross income with no exceptions with every dollar going directly for healthcare it will eliminate the deductable and can be easily achieved. Take a look at what your individual costs are for insurance and calculate that as your percentage you pay now for coverage. For the people whose gross income $100,000 per year it's $3,000, if you have a gross income of $25,000 it's $750. It's simple and it's fair. It's time to take insurance companies and PHARMA out of the equation and provide universal coverage.
Ed, While you make it sound
Ed,
While you make it sound nice, it will never stay a flat rate tax. They will always say somebody has to pay more and some should get it for free.
I agree, Ed that would be
I agree, Ed that would be reasonable. All you gotta do is figure out how to keep the politicians' grubby little fingers out of the pie, and break the unholy alliances they have with big pharma, big insurance and corporate hospital groups.
The tax stays flat because
The tax stays flat because you don't cap it like Social Security Taxes currently does, actually removing the caps from Social Security would instantly make the program solvent, but again Republicans will howl.
Ed, I like the idea of
Ed,
I like the idea of removing the SS tax, but be honest, how many Democrats have pushed for that?
I have yet to hear Obama push that idea either since a lot of Dems make over the cap.
And since the SS tax is on both the employee and employer, I don't hear business people pushing for it, and many of them are Democrats.
I'm not in favor of removing
I'm not in favor of removing the SS tax, I am for lifting the cap on the level of income it is collected on. Having the tax capped at the current level without even an automatic adjustment to keep pace with inflation is nonsense and one of the primary reasons that the fund has the appearance of running low on resources. Republicans voted last month against continued tax cuts for 97% of working Americans while steadfastly holding out for permanent additional tax cuts for the 3% then complain about deficits....face it they are BS artists that have convinced working men and women that they are working to reduce the deficits when the reality is all they are working on is reducing the taxes of the very wealthy and their corporate patrons.
Ed, What vote are you talking
Ed,
What vote are you talking about. There was NO vote to raise any one's taxes in the House. The Senate might have voted to raise taxes "on the rich", but not the House. At this time the Republicans are saying no tax increase, and want to keep the decade old Bush tax cut.
It will be interesting to see what both sides do with the SS tax cut due to go back up. Do you raise it back to where it was?
Has Obama asked for the SS tax cap to be lifted?
There is nothing more
There is nothing more dangerous to a free society than class envy. There was no vote from the house of representatives for a tax increase on ANYONE.
No matter how you cut it, the top 25% wage earners pay over 70% of all taxes, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the cash comes from those with money anyway you look at it, and the bottom 50% comparatively pay little of the actual revenue. This shell game politicians banter about tax rates is just that a political game.
If you really want a FAIR tax system, make a flat tax (Same for every one) and exempt the first $30K and NO OTHER exemptions from taxation for EVERYONE. Force the Government to operate with 19% of GDP and take politics totally out of the tax system.
By exempting the first $30K , you effectively take care of the working poor, and taxing everything above that at 19% effectively forces the government to work within a balanced budget. Just like any household or business, it would shift the arguement to what government should fund rather than who's money they should take. Any federal borrowing should require a super majority of both houses which would force a debate before a single penny is ever borrowed.
SS & Medicare could then be separate and held to a basic percentage based on actual dollars required to be solvent.
http://flaglerlive.com/8577/d
http://flaglerlive.com/8577/david-stockman-reagan-nixon-bush-trickledow…
Judith, a Flat tax does not
Judith, a Flat tax does not necessarily lower tax rates, it takes the political games out of the tax code. In fact, some (Even the Weathly some) would infact be paying more in actual taxes. It is apples and oranges.
The current tax code is not at all about revenue, it is about buying political favor through deduction and tax credit. In many cases it gives tax returns to people that actually pay no taxes at all. (Don't throw the payroll tax out there either) the payroll tax is SS and medicare. By giving a holiday to payroll taxes you are in effect taking money out of SS and medicare, not income tax.
A flat 19% rate (with exemption on first 30K) without other deductions makes the tax system totally fare
add 3-5% for Medicare and SS without any deduction and everyone pays their fair share, for everything.
The complexity of our tax code is nothing more than redistributing wealth and still leaving budget shortfalls, and incidently, David Stockman has been discredited by many economist including Milton Friedman.
No intention stated here of
No intention stated here of debating the tax code. I found the article insightful and explains so much of how we are in this mess to begin with. Incidentally, was Stockman discredited by the same Milton Friedman in the article?
"In a piece entitled “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” a clever play on the biblical image of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Stockman outlines four major Republican breaks with discipline that set the stage, then compounded, American bankruptcy, beginning with Milton Friedman convincing Nixon to default “on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world."
If so, it explains why Friedman would.
Judith, But you left out the
Judith, But you left out the rest of the paragragh
"Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale." (BTW Since the article was wriiten the shortfall has doubled to nearly $16 Trillion)
You are correct however, we could discuss tax policy endlessly, but all would be in vane if we first do not address spending. If in your household you continued to spend endlessly on things that you want instead of what you need, eventually you will be able to afford neither.
While you found it insightful to point out an article that insinuates it was solely the GOP that broke discipline and then compounded the American Bankruptcy, you overlooked that included the 40 years of prior of deficit spending that created the dilema in the first place. This really isn't a GOP vs Dem issue, both parties equally contributed to an unsubstainable spree of pandering, spending and crony capitalistic attitudes used the tax code to buy votes, while foresaking the reality that everything comes with a cost.
Mark, I'm not understanding
Mark, I'm not understanding how the rest of the paragraph relates to your comment that Stockman was discredited by Friedman, as the sentence I quoted did. Others find Stockman very relevant even if Friedman does not. Regardless, as I originally stated, the article is very informative as to the causes behind the fiscal problems of the federal government. The fact that the presidents cited happened to be Republicans is mere coincidence I'm sure.