What is McCain's Economic Agenda

[westvirginia]

To be replaced with what? If everyone is to save enough to cover their own medical costs from retirement to grave, how will that be enabled?

 

You'd have to phase it out. Even I want SOMETHING in exchange for the 15% I've paid in for 20 years (if you really believe you're only paying 7.5% and your employer "contributes" the other 7.5% then I have some great ponzi's you'd be interested in). Many people have no savings because they've lived all their lives betting on SS. You tell people (like my kids) that they either save or work till they die, I'll bet they'll spend a little more wisely.

[Perchoutofwater]

I really wasn't all that excited about possibly having to vote for McCain until I read that he wanted to cut entitlements and discretionary spending. Now, I'm stoked. Thanks Capt. Grunge.

 

No candidate is a perfect candidate. All candidates have a weakness. If a candidate was perfect, then he wouldn't need a cabinet or advisers. McCain clearly has more experience in every area other than the economy than does Obama. As it is we really don't know if Obama is any sharper than McCain when it comes to economic issues. We also know that the writer of the slash and burn liberal trash that Grunge posted admittedly respects McCain's economic adviser. So that leads me to believe that McCain is the best candidate. Until I read the hack piece put together to get liberals all in a bother, I had actually considered voting for a liberal thinking the economy would be so screwed up in 4 years that we'd end up with a Republican majority in congress and as President in 2012. Now I may just vote for McCain, hoping that half of what was in Grunge's post is true.

[Perchoutofwater]

You'd have to phase it out. Even I want SOMETHING in exchange for the 15% I've paid in for 20 years (if you really believe you're only paying 7.5% and your employer "contributes" the other 7.5% then I have some great ponzi's you'd be interested in). Many people have no savings because they've lived all their lives betting on SS. You tell people (like my kids) that they either save or work till they die, I'll bet they'll spend a little more wisely.

 

SS needs to be phased out. Let people take care of their own, and be more responsible. If people were saving money for retirement instead of buying the biggest house they can get a mortgage for, our economy would be much better off right now.

[Perchoutofwater]

While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year.

 

That right there is enough to make me vote for McCain. I wonder how that would effect capital gains? If Obama is elected and somehow emplaments that, and it doesn't hike capital gains, I'll be selling my company the day after it is put into affect. Hopefully the big corporation that buys it from me will treat my employees as well as I have, but really who cares. I'll be sipping frozen drinks on a beach somewhere. It's funny how the party that is for the little guy wants to run small businesses into the ground, or have them bought out by the big corporations they supposedly hate.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[Bill Swerski]

I really wasn't all that excited about possibly having to vote for McCain until I read that he wanted to cut entitlements and discretionary spending. Now, I'm stoked. Thanks Capt. Grunge.

 

 

SS needs to be phased out.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to using it to pay for Medicare. Very few people can live off of it alone, and it'll be damn near impossible to do so a decade from now.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

QUOTE

While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year.

 

That's per person, not family. And that's the total SS tax rate, not the employee portion which is 6.2%.

 

I'm not opposed to removing the cap on SS taxes if it helps us fix the looming problems.

 

Let's say i make $147,000. That's $50K times 6.2% = $3,100 additional tax.

 

I think at that salary level i would survive.

[Perchoutofwater]

QUOTE

That's per person, not family. And that's the total SS tax rate, not the employee portion which is 6.2%.

 

Which still shafts the self employed. I never would have thought you'd be in bed with the big corporations Grunge.

 

Hey I have an idea, let's tax the working people who have done well more for the SS they will never see. This way we can buy more low income votes. Since the nation as a whole has become lazy and more dependent on the government, we can probably win an election based on this.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[westvirginia]

QUOTE

While Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent tax on all income above $97,000 per year, Edwards would only impose it on those making more than $200,000 per year.

 

That's per person, not family. And that's the total SS tax rate, not the employee portion which is 6.2%.

 

I'm not opposed to removing the cap on SS taxes if it helps us fix the looming problems.

 

Let's say i make $147,000. That's $50K times 6.2% = $3,100 additional tax.

 

I think at that salary level i would survive.

Again, if you don't think you're paying the WHOLE 15% of FICA, you're kidding yourself. Let's say an employer decides they have to have this new position. They decide they have $100,000 to spend on it annually. They take a look, and say P&B (pension & benefits) costs them somewhere around 28% (actually that's a pretty average number). So now they're down to salary of $72,000. BUT, they have to pay the gov't half of the FICA (the famous employer contribution), so they knock that number down to $66,600 and that's the max they are willing to pay for that employee.

 

So you're worth more than what you make, but the government costs you 7.5%. So the employee DOES pay the whole portion. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics will get that.

[Coffeeman]

Is that $97K filing separately, and hopefully higher for married couple filing jointly, right?! Something like $150K, or so I hope. Better be - the $200K sound much more reasonable to me....

[westvirginia]

Which still shafts the self employed. I never would have thought you'd be in bed with the big corporations Grunge.

 

Hey I have an idea, let's tax the working people who have done well more for the SS they will never see. This way we can buy more low income votes. Since the nation as a whole has become lazy and more dependent on the government, we can probably win an election based on this.

 

Ding ding!

 

The Wealth of Nations should be required reading in schools...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Which still shafts the self employed. I never would have thought you'd be in bed with the big corporations Grunge.

 

Hey I have an idea, let's tax the working people who have done well more for the SS they will never see. This way we can buy more low income votes. Since the nation as a whole has become lazy and more dependent on the government, we can probably win an election based on this.

 

Any tax can be seen as unfair by somebody. I hope the candidates from both sides have some more honesty and transparency in presenting their plans to fix the huge present and looming problems. There's going to be sacrifice necessary be everybody to fix the mess we're in.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Is that $97K filing separately, and hopefully higher for married couple filing jointly, right?! Something like $150K, or so I hope. Better be - the $200K sound much more reasonable to me....

 

97K individual

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Is that $97K filing separately, and hopefully higher for married couple filing jointly, right?! Something like $150K, or so I hope. Better be - the $200K sound much more reasonable to me....

 

And this is just an idea he has floated, he hasn't committed to it.

[Ursa Majoris]

Which still shafts the self employed. I never would have thought you'd be in bed with the big corporations Grunge.

 

Hey I have an idea, let's tax the working people who have done well more for the SS they will never see. This way we can buy more low income votes. Since the nation as a whole has become lazy and more dependent on the government, we can probably win an election based on this.

Ever think how ironic it is that the mere mention of putting SS on a firm footing brings screams of anguish from Republicans bleating about the loss of "their" entitlement?

 

SS should not be an entitlement, it should be mandatory state insurance, paying out only on need, same as house insurance. That way we could all pay in a crapload less and it would last pretty much forever.

[westvirginia]

The employer is not going to pass the tax savings onto the employee. Get real.

 

YOU get real dude. You're the one who said above that "That's per person, not family. And that's the total SS tax rate, not the employee portion which is 6.2%"

 

I'm merely trying to point out to you the folley of thinking 6.2% on your income over the cap is all it'd cost you. It will cost you your portion AND your employers portion for the rest of your working life, or until it's repealed. You just don't understand the economics of taxation. You probably think corporations pay taxes too.

 

And even if they did that, what makes you think that all the money raised from that would go into FICA entitlements? They've done a great job of putting that trust fund in a lock box the last 45 years or so, haven't they? You trust these people to fix this? They're just the political descendants of those who fokked it up in the first place!

 

Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But hey, I'm throwing my vote away on third parties.

[Perchoutofwater]

Any tax can be seen as unfair by somebody. I hope the candidates from both sides have some more honesty and transparency in presenting their plans to fix the huge present and looming problems. There's going to be sacrifice necessary be everybody to fix the mess we're in.

 

Go to a consumption tax, exempt staples and rebate the entire % of income for those under the poverty level. The "progressive" tax plan we have now just taxes those who work hard an succeed. It literally punishes you for doing well. All it is, is a scam to get on the good side of the low income earners to gain votes.

[Ursa Majoris]

Go to a consumption tax, exempt staples and rebate the entire % of income for those under the poverty level. The "progressive" tax plan we have now just taxes those who work hard an succeed. It literally punishes you for doing well. All it is, is a scam to get on the good side of the low income earners to gain votes.

Lost 35% of my annual bonus yesterday.

[westvirginia]

Go to a consumption tax, exempt staples and rebate the entire % of income for those under the poverty level. The "progressive" tax plan we have now just taxes those who work hard an succeed. It literally punishes you for doing well. All it is, is a scam to get on the good side of the low income earners to gain votes.

 

Plus the benefit that it taxes any ill-gotten gains, illegal aliens, tourists from socialist Europe, etc...

 

That's why it's called the Fair Tax.

[Perchoutofwater]

Ever think how ironic it is that the mere mention of putting SS on a firm footing brings screams of anguish from Republicans bleating about the loss of "their" entitlement?

 

SS should not be an entitlement, it should be mandatory state insurance, paying out only on need, same as house insurance. That way we could all pay in a crapload less and it would last pretty much forever.

 

As long as you are paying the same amount as I'm paying, I'd go along with that. If we have the same house, in the same neighborhood then we would pay the same for the same coverage. If you make SS like that, I could possibly get behind it. Though I would prefer the government force you to put a percentage of your income into a mutual fund that just invests in T-bills or something like that. That would solve a lot of our problems there. China no longer owns us, SS or the private version of it still exists, and it doesn't screw those that work hard to get ahead.

 

P.S. I'd gladly forfeit any rights I have to ever get SS, if I could stop paying the SS tax from this point forward.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[Azazello1313]

Ever think how ironic it is that the mere mention of putting SS on a firm footing brings screams of anguish from Republicans bleating about the loss of "their" entitlement?

 

right

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

YOU get real dude. You're the one who said above that "That's per person, not family. And that's the total SS tax rate, not the employee portion which is 6.2%"

 

I'm merely trying to point out to you the folley of thinking 6.2% on your income over the cap is all it'd cost you. It will cost you your portion AND your employers portion for the rest of your working life, or until it's repealed. You just don't understand the economics of taxation. You probably think corporations pay taxes too.

 

And even if they did that, what makes you think that all the money raised from that would go into FICA entitlements? They've done a great job of putting that trust fund in a lock box the last 45 years or so, haven't they? You trust these people to fix this? They're just the political descendants of those who fokked it up in the first place!

 

Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But hey, I'm throwing my vote away on third parties.

 

Sorry, i misunderstood your post and deleted mine before you replied. Mea culpa.

[yo mama]

Go to a consumption tax, exempt staples and rebate the entire % of income for those under the poverty level. The "progressive" tax plan we have now just taxes those who work hard an succeed. It literally punishes you for doing well. All it is, is a scam to get on the good side of the low income earners to gain votes.

If the alternative is revenue neutral, all you're doing is spreading the responsibility around differently. Since the poor don't pay much in tax now, and wouldn't pay any tax under your proposal above, what would you really accomplish?

[Perchoutofwater]

If the alternative is revenue neutral, all you're doing is spreading the responsibility around differently. Since the poor don't pay much in tax now, and wouldn't pay any tax under your proposal above, what would you really accomplish?

 

It would allow me to not be taxed on the money I earn until I spend it. So, I could save it, and earn interest on it until such time as I felt like spending it. It would also in affect penalize people from making stupid purchases. So, when the government has to bail out Joe Blow after he blew his wad on a new grille, new rims, and a new playstation, at least in a small way he has already paid for his being bailed out. I'd also go so far as to double the sales tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, and put that additional tax into the medicare program.

[Perchoutofwater]

Wow, by privatizing SS and investing it in T-bills, and going to a consumption tax that doubles the consumption tax on "sin" items, I have in affect bought our country back form China, insured retirement income, found additional funding for medicare, and made the tax fair to all. Of course I'd no longer get the vote I would have from pandering to the poor, but I made our country better off. Don't forget to write in Perchoutofwater when you vote in November.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

It would allow me to not be taxed on the money I earn until I spend it. So, I could save it, and earn interest on it until such time as I felt like spending it. It would also in affect penalize people from making stupid purchases. So, when the government has to bail out Joe Blow after he blew his wad on a new grille, new rims, and a new playstation, at least in a small way he has already paid for his being bailed out. I'd also go so far as to double the sales tax on alcohol, tobacco, and fast food, and put that additional tax into the medicare program.

 

How would this tax apply to businesses? Do they pay the tax themselves on materials to produce their goods? If so, how do American companies compete in the American marketplace with prices inflated with the consumption tax against imported goods from China with no such markup? Or is the markup on the American goods supposed so roughly equal the current markup built in do to corporate income taxes?