Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:43:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be forced
on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of trash cans,
and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

What sort of program would you propose to keep our nation from
drowning in insolvent seniors?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:43:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be forced
on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of
trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

What sort of program would you propose to keep our nation from
drowning in insolvent seniors?


If you want me to answer your questions you'll have to answer mine first.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.

Let's see here. Less than 5% of the population makes more than $102K. It's
probably closer to 3-4%.

So what's your definition of wealthy, economic expert?

2% of the population?

1% of the population?

Less?

I would venture to guess that around 90% of the population considers someone
who makes almost twice the average household income is wealthy.

Furthermore, I know lots of people with less than $102K in wage income that
have much better planes than 172s.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:

SS was a great idea. It's original intent was simply to insure old
people wouldn't be eating out of trash cans, which was widespread at
the time. Of course, I happen to think old people eating out of
trash cans isn't a great idea. If you don't share that sentiment, I
can certainly understand why you'd think SS wasn't a great idea.


You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of
trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
"Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.

I don't.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors. *

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one.

We're not talking family income here, but individual income:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/income.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00
according to the Census Bureau.[3] The median income per household
member (including all working and non-working members above the
age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[4] In 2005, there were
approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01%
of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7%
fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20%
earned less than $20,032.[7] The aggregate income distribution is
highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning
roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle
incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total
earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which
had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to
increase slowly in the 1970s, and has since increased more
quickly.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two
income earners, had incomes exceeding $40,705. Households in the
mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had
incomes between $22,000 and $57,657.[10]

You probably couldn't even get a lone [sic] for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.

-Robert

You're probably right.

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.

Mike wrote:

You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out
of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
"Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.

I don't.


What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?

What do you believe "sic" means?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the elgibility
age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer. The
SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income, and
the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow the
gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give you a
hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at higher
contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out" defeats
the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.

Larry Dighera wrote:

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.


Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.

What leads you to believe that I believe it is not a tax increase?

Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give
you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.


Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?


Mike wrote:

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
economic expert?


Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?