Social Security Changes

[NLOVNIT]

Folks, responses are getting a bit too personal. Please remember this Community Rule:

Do not engage in personal attacks. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

Thank you,
Lori-

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by Dick Noble

I take umbrage with that. I'll give up all $150/mo of mine!

Now we're gettin' somewhere...Mr. Noble is living up to his name!

That's one.

I pitched myself overboard when I agreed to the "not a penny for beer drinkers" proviso, so that's two of us.

Anyone else?

[steelheadbluesman]

Okay, now you're talkin'.... I just quit beer last month, so I can give up my beer money. Hey, that's a fair piece of change...

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by Dick Noble

Taxman, I agree with your input. I'm a retired CPA and I've put in a lot of hours doing tax returns - including free returns through AARP.

Have you looked at VAT (value added tax)? I have wondered about that.

As to "fixing" social security - that is way to complex a subject for an RV forum. Simplistic solutions to complex problems lead to horrid outcomes.

For those who think a national sales tax would be complex, a VAT would make the national sales tax look easy peasy.

[Aguyfromcalg]

Originally Posted by LadyFitz...

For those who think a national sales tax would be complex, a VAT would make the national sales tax look easy peasy.

I'm only jumping in here cause Canada has Value Added Tax. Its not as easy as you may think. First thing what will be the rate of tax?
What would be the business's income level before it has to charge the tax? How much can a business deduct their own VAT expenses against
the amount of VAT they will be requires to pay to the government? Will they be willing to be tax collectors? That's what they will be when they collect the VAT on the amount they charge for their goods or services and then pay that to the government.
Then what about the States? What do you do with the ones that have State sales taxes? Do you now have two taxes at possibly different rates?
Or do you harmonise them into one rate?
And the States that have no sales tax? Will they accept a tax imposed on them?
Will it work? I believe it works for Canada.
In the United States of America that is up to you to decide and vote on.

[Kunysz513]

We may agree to disagree, but unless one fully understands United States history, we cannot appear to solve such a question as taxation. I recommend taking the free course offered by Hillsdale University on the US Constitution and ales read books on the American revolution. Books by Jeff Shaara are well written, easy to read, and historical in context.
These provide a solid background why we saw need to separate from England. Read, take the course and form your own opinions based of factual events.
Too much intrusion into our lives by a government leads to resentment.
SS and taxation issues are rooted much deeper than a simple vat or flat tax can answer.

[Rubix cube]

Originally Posted by RickO

IMO this is one of the major dilemmas we face. Many of us don't want to think that the federal government is in the best position to "invest, hold, and then distribute" our own money to us in retirement but our population as a whole, has not shown the necessary life skills to do it on their own either!

If everyone were to have personal control over investing and then rationing their "SS funds", I have no doubt that we'd have MANY more poor elderly folks living in the streets. That would put us right back where we were before SS.

It's kind of like the old tale of the Three Little Pigs. What do the rest of us do about hose who insisted on building their homes out of straw?

Rick

That is why I maintain Charity is best controlled at the local level. A large Organization simply can not control these sorts of tasks, unless of course it is totalitarian. (None of us want to go there.) If folks feel like they are being taken for a ride at the local level, the culprit gets cut off - FAST!

People need to be accountable for themselves. If you want the straw house (that is build fast and play hard) then be aware of the consequences and accept them. If we go the way we are going, we will run out of options, and then everything will not be funded.

A lack of planning on someone elses' part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on my part. I don't mind giving to Charity, but I don't want the government telling me how much.

[Rubix cube]

Originally Posted by Francesca

This is the same question that you opened the thread with.

I maintain, again, that you have your answer, 391 irrelevant-to-the-question posts later.

No one in this group of Americans will make the smallest personal sacrifice purely for the good of the Nation and Future Generations.

I can appreciate your frustration, Francesca, but your last statement isn't entirely true. There are those of us ready will and able to pay off our part of the nation debt, in spite of never having earned above 100k a year as a couple. I suspect though that some in congress would be willing to spend that credit card right back up to where it is now and past....

I want reform, just as you do. I recognize it is unpalatable for some, as current receipts are the only way they make ends meet. And, the ugly truth is, previous & current politicians have made a fine living selling this bill of goods to us.

Worse yet, at some point, no matter how much we want our government to live up to its promises (and I do understand their frustrations too) when the government simply can't get anymore money, people aren't going to get their payments. We are FAST approaching that event horizon with they way we are currently spending.

I think we need to stop trying to stimulate the economy. It hasn't worked. We need to root out all corruption, overlapping government, inefficiencies and plain wasteful spending, because if we don't, MANY innocents will suffer much worse.

[Rubix cube]

I wish I could remember the name of producer for the 2 hour exercise that Adam Smith, my Representative, invited me to attend. It asked about 40 questions on where you would cut in Federal Government spending, then told how the current spending was distributed, then asked which specific projects areas participants would cut in.

Kind of an exercise on balancing the budget.

It was really very educational. There are opportunity costs in what we think we want.

[wnytaxman]

Many areas of the tax code are there for some level of social change or for some perceived level of social good. The process of social change is not only in the amount of money the feds or states spend, but, to a great extent, on what they do not collect. Right now 60% of the spending by the Federal government is spent on social programs. Social Security and Medicare are two of the largest parts of that spending. I think we have to come up with some plan to save the system from itself and those who would politicize it.

The Occupy Wall Street movement still draws a certain amount of press even though it appears to be an aimless airing of perceived greivances by people who don't seem to understand even the most basic ideas of how businesses, government, or even people function. Perhaps we need to make it known that we won't allow the system to die and that we are willing to see changes to the system.

If an aimless movement like OWS could continue to exist and draw news coverage, maybe it's time we made our feelings known. We make up a lot bigger bloc than the OWS people and we even bathe regularly and have had or currently have a job. Just a thought!

[Crabby Mike]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

The Occupy Wall Street movement still draws a certain amount of press even though it appears to be an aimless airing of perceived greivances by people who don't seem to understand even the most basic ideas of how businesses, government, or even people function.

Maybe so ... but that same description could equally apply to a well-publicized fringe group on the other side of the political spectrum too.

Far too much of our national attention is taken up by those on the extreme right and left (yes, both!) who are more interested in venting their anger and/or forcing their opinions on others, rather than working with those on all sides to craft a solution that is acceptable to the majority.

[Lindsay Richards]

I might point out that the "fringe group" on the right did manage to get 67 members of the house and 2 members of the senate elected in the last election. That isn't done with a huge amount of support of many Americans. Many things can not be compromises upon. How do you compromise on the death penalty for example? The America system is set up for the people to take out of office the people who hold policies they do not think can be compromised with. We are in the process of this seismic change right now. Social Security is such an issue. I think compromise will lead to more of the mush we are in now. I think sweeping changes will be required to fix the problems.

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by Crabby Mike

Maybe so ... but that same description could equally apply to a well-publicized fringe group on the other side of the political spectrum too.

Far too much of our national attention is taken up by those on the extreme right and left (yes, both!) who are more interested in venting their anger and/or forcing their opinions on others, rather than working with those on all sides to craft a solution that is acceptable to the majority.

That's a very good point Mike. The original intent of the Tea Party seemed to be political change and it has been characterized by the Media as a right wing fringe group. My question then would have to be how do we effect change? I think most of us are a few billion short of running for President, so what do we do?

[Rubix cube]

Originally Posted by Crabby Mike

Maybe so ... but that same description could equally apply to a well-publicized fringe group on the other side of the political spectrum too.

Far too much of our national attention is taken up by those on the extreme right and left (yes, both!) who are more interested in venting their anger and/or forcing their opinions on others, rather than working with those on all sides to craft a solution that is acceptable to the majority.

Who, I say who has made this unwarranted attack upon my person ?

You are clearly flummoxed, sir. To compare these two organizations, if I may be so bold as to call OWS as an organization, is blatherskite.

OWS is contumacious, rapscallion & destructive in nature, fighting the police, throwing objects thru windows, raping in their own encampments, defying laws, wanting to change the government by an unconstitutional means, self-proclaimed Anarchists, very small in number and only gets attention by virtue of its violence. I suspect no one is far enough left in IRV2 to represents them. Including yourself.

The other group, is a grass roots organization from both sides of the aisle (Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents - The Hill's Ballot Box). It endorses reduced government spending, cutting taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution through lawful protest. I suspect many here would identify with this group which has characterized by yourself as far right.

I stand ready, willing and able to document ALL statements made. Can you ?

I find their meretricious juxtaposition: invective and purely pecksniffian.