Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

[zappasguitar]

you still haven't answered my question about why you should have a lower tax rate, yet you want them to pay more taxes...how is that fair?

everyone's income is taxed for SS purposes up to 100%. everyones. regardless if you make a billion dollars or 5000 dollars. what is so wrong with that? you just want to redistribute wealth. you want to punish them for making more than you.

I pay a lower SS tax rate than the richest 2%?

Really? Because the SS tax rate is set at 4.2% for everyone, so the rate I pay is equal to the rate the richest 2% pays.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimits/index.html

Everyone's income is taxed for SS purposes up to 100%?

Then why does someone making $5,000,000.00 only have to pay taxes on the first $106,000?

That's no where near 100%.

 

[Damocles]

People should still pay SS on their full salary, dont you think damo? Why shouldnt they?

Again, why should they? This is an insurance program, not a tax program. Nobody wants to be forced to buy a product, whether from the government or from any other source where they are only guaranteed to lose money.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

Again, why should they? This is an insurance program, not a tax program.

Why shouldnt they?

 

[Damocles]

I pay a lower SS tax rate than the richest 2%?

Really? Because the SS tax rate is set at 4.2% for everyone, so the rate I pay is equal to the rate the richest 2% pays.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimits/index.html

Everyone's income is taxed for SS purposes up to 100%?

Then why does someone making $5,000,000.00 only have to pay taxes on the first $106,000?

That's no where near 100%.

You only pay half of what goes into SS, while the "richest" pay all of what goes into SS for themselves. Basically they already pay double, as their "employer" is themselves.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

You only pay half of what goes into SS, while the "richest" pay all of what goes into SS for themselves. Basically they already pay double, as their "employer" is themselves.

The rich pay all of ss? are you making up facts again damo?

 

[Damocles]

Why shouldnt they?

Because nobody should be forced to purchase an investment vehicle that is a loser, let alone one that is a pyramid scheme.

 

[zappasguitar]

you want them to pay more, yet you don't want to pay their tax rates....how is that fair?

Everyone pays the SAME ADJUSTED RATE of 4.2% SS tax on their income.

I don't get where you get this crazy idea that people pay different SS tax rates.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimits/index.html

 

[Damocles]

The rich pay all of ss? are you making up facts again damo?

No, nimrod. Self-employed (the richest), pay both employer and employee contributions. Double what you pay as a wage-slave.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

Because nobody should be forced to purchase an investment vehicle that is a loser, let alone one that is a pyramid scheme.

Thats a different issue. Since we HAVE the program, why shouldnt people pay in according to their income?

 

[Damocles]

Everyone pays the SAME ADJUSTED RATE of 4.2% SS tax on their income.

I don't get where you get this crazy idea that people pay different SS tax rates.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimits/index.html

Not true. You only are going by the employee contribution, not the employer contribution. Those who are self-employed (the richest) pay both the employer and employee contributions.

 

[Damocles]

Thats a different issue. Since we HAVE the program, why shouldnt people pay in according to their income?

They do, as an insurance. The insurance is only meant to cover a specific amount, hence the ceiling.

 

[zappasguitar]

You only pay half of what goes into SS, while the "richest" pay all of what goes into SS for themselves. Basically they already pay double, as their "employer" is themselves.

Wrong again Carnac.

I am self-employed...Been that way for a decade now.


I pay the same rate as the "richest".

 

[Phyllis Diller]

Not true. You only are going by the employee contribution, not the employer contribution. Those who are self-employed (the richest) pay both the employer and employee contributions.

Being self employed is their choice. Choices have consequences. Remember, conservatism?

 

[zappasguitar]

Not true. You only are going by the employee contribution, not the employer contribution. Those who are self-employed (the richest) pay both the employer and employee contributions.

See post #172.

Don't assume...it makes you look bad.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is a tax break, superfreak. A large portion of a rich persons income is exempt from SS taxation. How is that fair? you dont understand fairness.

It is fair in the ways I just stated....

They pay SS tax on the first $106,800 they make.... so do you.

They get capped on total SS bene's just as you do.

 

[Damocles]

Wrong again Carnac.

I am self-employed...Been that way for a decade now.


I pay the same rate as the "richest".

Likely because you would be considered "richer" than most contributors. Again, your feeling of jealousy is not a good measure of a solid insurance program. They are capped in benefits, they are capped in contributions.

 

[zappasguitar]

No, nimrod. Self-employed (the richest), pay both employer and employee contributions. Double what you pay as a wage-slave.

So every single person in the top 2% of wage earners is "self-employed"?

Cite?

 

[Damocles]

So every single person in the top 2% of wage earners is "self-employed"?

Cite?

Again. They are capped in benefits, they are capped in contributions therefore. It is an insurance investment, not a vehicle for redistribution of funds. Your jealousy is not the measure of a good insurance investment.

Like all actuary tables you work with averages.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Funny...I don't see too many lining up to agree with you.

I said they would agree with you. Their income being taxed in the exact same manner as everyone else's. Hence, SS on the whole thing and income taxed at the same rate as everyone else too.

I want my income taxed at the same rate as my income?

Huh??

My fault on that one. I meant your income would be taxed at the same rate as THEIR income tax.

Riiiiiiight...so someone making $5 million a year pays SS taxes on the whole $5 million?

Under your plan of everyone being taxed the same. Yes. It would be.

Riiiiiiiiiight...it's not a tax break...it's just another "creative" way the rich don't have to pay taxes on 100% or their income.

Again... they pay exactly the same for the SS benefit that you or I do. That is NOT a tax break.

It is like walking into a store and paying for a loaf of bread. It costs them and us the exact same for that loaf of bread. By your reasoning it would only be 'fair' if they paid the same percent of their total income that you do for that loaf of bread. That is absurd.

 

[zappasguitar]

It is fair in the ways I just stated....

They pay SS tax on the first $106,800 they make.... so do you.

They get capped on total SS bene's just as you do.

No one is suggesting that if the tax cap is raised on the richest that their benefits remain the same.

Pay in more, get more back in bene's.

The discussion is how to keep SS solvent so those who make less will be able to get back what they paid in over the years...and the simplest solution is to raise the cap.