ALPA endorses Clinton

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Why are those who don't make ultra rich money advocating for those who do.....

You are not rich. You probably won't be.... Why do you insist on paying a higher percentage of your tax but you defend those who make millions more than you to pay less?


Wanna be's?

 

[PCL_128]

Bingo!!!

 

[atrdriver]

You want to talk about the dollar amount that they contribute, when the real measure should be the percentage of their own income that they contribute. An upper-class income earner shouldn't be able to pay only 20% of his income while the middle-class family that's struggling to get by has to pay 25%.

Percentages don't pay bills, dollars do. My ex wife used to pay a negative percentage, because she didn't make enough money to pay taxes, and she got a refund because of the earned income credit. There are thousands, if not millions just like that. Their percentage doesn't pay for a thing that government spends money on.

 

[atrdriver]

It's a safety net, not a retirement account.

No, it SHOULD be a safety net. How many millions in this country use it as a retirement account? And should those who planned ahead and don't need that SS money be penalized for their forethought?

 

[atrdriver]

Why are those who don't make ultra rich money advocating for those who do.....

You are not rich. You probably won't be.... Why do you insist on paying a higher percentage of your tax but you defend those who make millions more than you to pay less?


Wanna be's?

According to the Clintons I was "rich", because I made more than 88K. I sure didn't feel rich, but according to the government I was.

 

[PCL_128]

No, it SHOULD be a safety net. How many millions in this country use it as a retirement account?

And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case.

And should those who planned ahead and don't need that SS money be penalized for their forethought?

They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."

 

[atrdriver]

And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case. They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."

Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.

 

[bpapaDC8]

Great thread....

 

[pilotyip]

Not true

Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.

Not true if you do not exceed the yearly cap for SS contribution you will have prorated SS payout. My SS will be about 150% more than my wifes.