CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 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. I will say you have alot of new ideas and I appreciate hearing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 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. If you got the timing benefit of deferring taxation until money is spent (as opposed to when it is earned) I suspect the proposal would not be revenue neutral. I could be wrong, though. My over arching point is that, given our current national debt and national deficit, we need some combination of more tax revenue and less spending if we're to ever have any hope of getting that under control. I'm not against a consumption tax, per se. I just haven't been persuaded that it would address our marco-economic woes any better than our current system of income taxation. And doubling "sin taxes" is fine with me, but its a really regressive form of taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 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. I may when considering the other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 hmm, economic experience....a state senator from illinois with a law degree and two years in the senate, versus the former chairman and longtime member of the senate commerce committee Az you are admitting the Chairman of the Commerce Committee doesn't know about economics? Will McCain release his medical records soon? 10% of 72 year olds have alzheimers. Enquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 10% of 72 year olds have alzheimers. Enquiring minds want to know. 10% of liberals have severe brain damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 10% of liberals have severe brain damage 87% of all statistics are made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 right What's so funny? Every time the suggestion is made that SS needs to be means tested, you can hear every right winger from Maine to San Diego screaming about losing their "entitlement" that "I paid in for". There's no difference between them and a welfare queen. The bottom line is that SS was made an entitlement when it should have been a safety net. Surely you wouldn't mind having greatly reduced contributions each paycheck, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 10% of liberals have severe brain damage That's extraordinarily generous of you, Bill. Are you sure you didn't miss a zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 What's so funny? Every time the suggestion is made that SS needs to be means tested, you can hear every right winger from Maine to San Diego screaming about losing their "entitlement" that "I paid in for". There's no difference between them and a welfare queen. The bottom line is that SS was made an entitlement when it should have been a safety net. Surely you wouldn't mind having greatly reduced contributions each paycheck, would you? I read somewhere, i think, that McCain might support means testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) That's extraordinarily generous of you, Bill. Are you sure you didn't miss a zero? Yeah, I'm pretty sure. There are some left-of-center people here whose opinions I really do respect. And I'm also pretty sure that 99% of Randull's Tailgate posts are retarded left-wing propaganda. Edited March 20, 2008 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 What's so funny? Every time the suggestion is made that SS needs to be means tested, you can hear every right winger from Maine to San Diego screaming about losing their "entitlement" that "I paid in for". There's no difference between them and a welfare queen. The bottom line is that SS was made an entitlement when it should have been a safety net. Surely you wouldn't mind having greatly reduced contributions each paycheck, would you? what is funny is that you said that every time somebody tries to put SS on "firm footing", republicans start screaming about their entitlement. when the truth is the exact opposite. who killed SS reform in 2005? weren't no republicans. if we want to change the subject to particular partial "fixes", i agree that means testing ought to be considered. a lot of people of all political stripes disagree with that idea, because it basically destroys the whole idea that made SS so popular in the first place, that everybody essentially gets out of it what they put in. SS never would have happened in the first place if not for the widespread support based on that simple idea. so resistance to that particular idea ought to be understandable. but my position is, if you truly want to fix this and not just kick the political football back and forth, you can't take anything off the table that might help keep the damn thing from going broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 what is funny is that you said that every time somebody tries to put SS on "firm footing", republicans start screaming about their entitlement. when the truth is the exact opposite. who killed SS reform in 2005? weren't no republicans. if we want to change the subject to particular partial "fixes", i agree that means testing ought to be considered. a lot of people of all political stripes disagree with that idea, because it basically destroys the whole idea that made SS so popular in the first place, that everybody essentially gets out of it what they put in. SS never would have happened in the first place if not for the widespread support based on that simple idea. so resistance to that particular idea ought to be understandable. but my position is, if you truly want to fix this and not just kick the political football back and forth, you can't take anything off the table that might help keep the damn thing from going broke. Including removing the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Including removing the cap? sure. look, any solution that is accepted by the whole congress and the whole country will have a couple left-wing tax-the-rich ideas in it and a couple right-wing slow-the-damn-spending-down ideas. it's simply not going to happen without some give and take. you'll probably have to choose between removing the cap and means-testing, though...both would be quite the doozy. if you make $200K, you gotta pay twice as much but you get back nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) sure. look, any solution that is accepted by the whole congress and the whole country will have a couple left-wing tax-the-rich ideas in it and a couple right-wing slow-the-damn-spending-down ideas. it's simply not going to happen without some give and take. you'll probably have to choose between removing the cap and means-testing, though...both would be quite the doozy. if you make $200K, you gotta pay twice as much but you get back nothing. But given that a lot of people would get back nothing, the paycheck payments would be massively reduced. It would be a similar principle to house insurance. If you pay e.g. $80 / month for that, it would take you 100 years to fork over $96,000, which is probably less than half of your house value. Almost everyone never needs their house insurance to any meaningful extent but have the knowledge that their house can be replaced even though they will never pay in anywhere close to the value of it. While the usage of SS would be greater, you can see how the regular payments could be way less than they are now. Medicare is a different ball of wax. I'd be interested in any potential solutions to THAT one that don't involve Logan's Run. Edited March 20, 2008 by Ursa Majoris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 10% of liberals have severe brain damage So then you think putting someone in charge of commerce who's ignorant of economics is a good idea? Makes perfect sense. It's Bush's legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 But given that a lot of people would get back nothing, the paycheck payments would be massively reduced. It would be a similar principle to house insurance. If you pay e.g. $80 / month for that, it would take you 100 years to fork over $96,000, which is probably less than half of your house value. Almost everyone never needs their house insurance to any meaningful extent but have the knowledge that their house can be replaced even though they will never pay in anywhere close to the value of it. While the usage of SS would be greater, you can see how the regular payments could be way less than they are now. Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 What's so funny? Every time the suggestion is made that SS needs to be means tested, you can hear every right winger from Maine to San Diego screaming about losing their "entitlement" that "I paid in for". There's no difference between them and a welfare queen. I would have no problem giving up everythign I've paid in over the last 20 years if we decided to scrap SS tomorrow and start over with a viable solution, private or otherwise. I really don't plan on ever seeing the $ anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I would have no problem giving up everythign I've paid in over the last 20 years if we decided to scrap SS tomorrow and start over with a viable solution, private or otherwise. I really don't plan on ever seeing the $ anyway. Not scrap it so much as reconstitute it for necessity. The payoff for most would be greatly reduced contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 me me me its all about me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 me me me its all about me If you take responsibility for you, you, you, then you shouldn't need the government to take care of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 If you take responsibility for you, you, you, then you shouldn't need the government to take care of you. I agree. Get the corporate lobbyists out of Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I agree. Get the corporate lobbyists out of Washington. But earlier in this thread you were supporting small businesses being bought out by large corporations. So which side of the fence do you sit on? Seriously get all lobbyist out of Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 But earlier in this thread you were supporting small businesses being bought out by large corporations. So which side of the fence do you sit on? Seriously get all lobbyist out of Washington. I never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Sorry, i misunderstood your post and deleted mine before you replied. Mea culpa. Umm, I don't know what to do here. Has this ever happened before? Anyone know how to respond when someone else admits they are wrong? I don't know whether to crap or go blind, so I guess I'll just close my eyes and fart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I never said that. You are obviously a supporter of Obama, who wants to raise taxes by 12.4% on small business owners. It sounds like you don't like small business owners, and would rather them sell out to larger corporations, and take the long term capital gains on their companies and retire early. What did I miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts