I think post 37 is completely logical. If you reduce or take away benefits from the people who have paid the most into a system and give them to the prople who have paid the least, because they need them more…that’s welfare. I have no problem with that, actually, but call it what it is, if you are going to change the system.
I don’t read post 37 that way.
@busdriver11, what do you call it when we give money to those who have the most and don’t need it? Crony capitalism?
Posts #39 & #40 captured the implications in my post #37 exactly. Thx!
The way SS system is structured now, low earners already get the highest returns per their contribution, vs high earners. When you means-test SS so that higher contributers get ZERO return, watch their political support disintegrate.
FYI
What’s your rate of return on Social Security?
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89H0YG20121018
Really?
You wrote let’s call social security a welfare system before social security is a welfare system.
That’s a good link.
"I don’t read post 37 that way.
@busdriver11, what do you call it when we give money to those who have the most and don’t need it? Crony capitalism?"
I think we have a different definition of what “giving” money means. You consider allowing people to keep more of their own money as opposed to paying it in taxes, as giving people money. I consider giving money to be cutting someone a check, paid for by other taxpayers.
Big difference philosophically, whether giving is allowing one to keep more of what’s theirs, as opposed to taking from others and sending a check.
However, I support no deductions, all income taxed the same, and lower graduated rates, so it’s hard to argue deductions.
SS is presently not the same concept as “Welfare”.
For SS, individuals or married couples who have not contributed a threshold number of quarters (40) into the SS system do not collect benefits. SS is a benefit that is EARNED
For Welfare, there’s no contribution required.
We live in a society. We have rules and regulations. We could just have anarchy. Then we would see how much Bill Gates is worth. 
We have people writing the rules. Those who write the rules have income that is taxed one way, a majority of people’s income is taxed other higher ways.
To me…that is taking.
@busdriver11, I know you like saying if we took everything from the rich it wouldn’t help the the poor. I am not advocating that we do this. We don’t have to take everything from the rich to make a difference. 6 members of one family have the same wealth as 90 million Americans.
It is not just income tax loopholes that exist. Estate tax loopholes are pretty big too. For example, Sheldon Adelson shielded several billions of dollars by using a GRAT.
To me…the fact that a GRAT exists is a huge handout to the wealthy.
When income and wealth are taxed differently there is a taking. If we don’t tax in one area, we are going to tax a different area and different people will pay the taxes.
Well, as long as the extraordinarily wealthy are allowed to continue buying politicians, they can keep writing the tax code. I don’t see either side trying to stop that.
@mom2collegekids , no way would I continue that relationship. Nope. Too stressful to feel like being dragged into her personal life. Nope.
I agree with VaBluebird, no way getting that involved in her personal life. I’m finding someone else to do the job. When I have time, I’ll post my story of someone taking advantage. Never again!
Neither side is trying to stop this. Candidates from both sides are bought. There is still taking going on…
There is one presidential candidate who isn’t bought by the money interests. He is not going to win.
I’ve barely worked since I’ve been married and I will get half of my husband’s benefit when I apply. There are millions of us non working spouses who will collect simply because we are married.
I absolutely agree w you that passive income should NOT have privileged tax treatment over earned income. It’s the higher earned-income people that are getting screwed the hardest by the tax code.
It’s a travesty that an airline pilot working his/her butt off for a $200k salary owes more income tax than a trust fund baby working on his/her tan earning $200k interest on investments.
I wanna be a trust fund baby, too. Anybody want to adopt me?
mom2collegekids, you have a great heart, but we knew that already! Good for you for shaming her into quitting smoking! And staying involved, despite the wear on the soul that is part of that sort of relationship.
I have a similar story with someone who has worked for me a bit ending up homeless and camping in my back yard with her animals for a few months. There was similar dysfunction which led to the homelessness. I saw smoking as the absolute worst problem, with the cost of cigarettes being the biggest drain on her finances, not to mention health. But there were numerous other instances of poor judgement adding to her financial issues, animal ownership, buying high priced food for them and her. We talked at a point about her being eligible for Social security, and how with a subsidized apartment, she could survive economically. But her lifestyle is too expensive for that sort of basic income, whether from SS or a govt program that assured minimal income. Her heart is good, kind, and she cares for those animals and her plants and mine with great tenderness. Somehow this doesn’t extend to caring for herself now and into the future.
Living within one’s means is no longer a cultural value in too many places. How did we progress from my grandparents careful austerity to the lack of regard for one’s future that I tend to see with my generation and more so with those younger than me?
That being said, there is also a lot of sheer desperation in this country, people who need what a good blue collar job used to pay, and should not have to work numerous minimum wage jobs to pay rent and feed themselves. Helping out that population would float other boats.
“There is one presidential candidate who isn’t bought by the money interests. He is not going to win”
True, but there are worse things than being bought off by money. Like being completely disinterested in national defense and foreign affairs. And providing everything to everyone for “free”, at massive cost to middle class taxpayers, and causing more multi-trillion dollar deficits. Without a decent national defense (and massive debt is a threat to national stability), the rest of it doesn’t matter much.
@busdriver11, with all due respect, I know you haven’t read the tax proposals of the candidates. If you did read the proposals that are out there so far, you wouldn’t have written your post.
I am not going to get into this stuff as much as I used to here. I have lost interest.
I am surprised I have participated in this thread.
I have not closely read tax proposals of all the candidates. The reality is, many of them are quite sparse on details, and seem to change periodically. I realize that tax proposals are just bids to attract whatever their voter base is by pretending it won’t hit them, so I don’t really take them at their word. However, it seems obvious that if you are going to advocate trillions of dollars worth of freebies, you are going to have to stick it to the vast middle class. That’s where much of the money is.
I wonder about this. Not too much but I do wonder.
What is crazier?
A ridiculous post? Or somebody who likes a ridiculous post?
I haven’t come to a conclusion yet.
Given that the top 3% control more than half of all wealth in the US, I don’t think the “vast middle class” have anything to worry about.