ADVERTISEMENT

Feenstra introduces social security bill

The reality is this, the old liberal mantra about just up the taxes on the rich is nothing but a scam. The 1% (rich) in this country pay 99% of all the taxes anyway. You can only get so much milk out of a cow and increasing the taxes on the 1% in this country every other day will ultimately backfire.

The SS fund is going dry, collecting benefits as young as 62 is ridiculous the minimum age must be raised somewhere between 66 - 70. I would prefer it be 70.

People working longer provides many benefits, it allows them more time to save for retirement, it allows them more time to contribute to social security and extends the life of the SS fund.

Social Security disability is in need of 100% total overhaul, you have perfectly healthy people in their 20's and 30's ripping off the system collecting disability when only a 6 month diet would get them up and off of collecting our tax money.
I will absolutely agree with you on disability. 💯 agree. It should be harder to get and once you’re on it should be reviewed more often. There should be a list of conditions that automatically qualify and then others you can apply.

The rich don’t pay 99% of taxes. Not even close. If you include all taxes it isn’t even close to 50%. The right trots this rich pays the majority of taxes when they want to cut for the rich but they conveniently only include one specific set of tax, federal income tax. Ignoring all the regressive taxes that the non rich pay
 
I will absolutely agree with you on disability. 💯 agree. It should be harder to get and once you’re on it should be reviewed more often. There should be a list of conditions that automatically qualify and then others you can apply.

The rich don’t pay 99% of taxes. Not even close. If you include all taxes it isn’t even close to 50%. The right trots this rich pays the majority of taxes when they want to cut for the rich but they conveniently only include one specific set of tax, federal income tax. Ignoring all the regressive taxes that the non rich pay
First part of your post I heartily agree with .

As to the second part about “the rich” they still pay a hugely disproportionate share of the total revenue and they are only using every legal deduction and avenue of deferment the current laws allow. If you don’t like that then work to get the laws changed or support one of the various fair tax alternatives.
People love to throw out the Warren Buffett Secretary story which he cleverly threw out there but if you wanna see some screaming then just wait until someone introduces a bill to tax unearned/deferred/passive income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gus is dead
First part of your post I heartily agree with .

As to the second part about “the rich” they still pay a hugely disproportionate share of the total revenue and they are only using every legal deduction and avenue of deferment the current laws allow. If you don’t like that then work to get the laws changed or support one of the various fair tax alternatives.
People love to throw out the Warren Buffett Secretary story which he cleverly threw out there but if you wanna see some screaming then just wait until someone introduces a bill to tax unearned/deferred/passive income.

They live better that 99.999% of the worlds population...they should be paying 90% of the fvcking taxes
 
First part of your post I heartily agree with .

As to the second part about “the rich” they still pay a hugely disproportionate share of the total revenue and they are only using every legal deduction and avenue of deferment the current laws allow. If you don’t like that then work to get the laws changed or support one of the various fair tax alternatives.
People love to throw out the Warren Buffett Secretary story which he cleverly threw out there but if you wanna see some screaming then just wait until someone introduces a bill to tax unearned/deferred/passive income.
All income should be taxed when realized. All taxes should apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulldogs1974
I will absolutely agree with you on disability. 💯 agree. It should be harder to get and once you’re on it should be reviewed more often. There should be a list of conditions that automatically qualify and then others you can apply.

The rich don’t pay 99% of taxes. Not even close. If you include all taxes it isn’t even close to 50%. The right trots this rich pays the majority of taxes when they want to cut for the rich but they conveniently only include one specific set of tax, federal income tax. Ignoring all the regressive taxes that the non rich pay
Federal Income tax is "always" what Biden and his ilk are referring to when they spout off about raising taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gus is dead
So, I agree that the rich pay most of the taxes in this country.

But, I don't understand the Bold #1 part, at all. Claiming unearned income as income?

Bold #2 - Borrow against assets to avoid paying taxes on income? Huh?

Bold #3 - Corporations cannot "simply pass on their tax burden to consumers". Oh, they can try, but the market and competition drives prices. Please note that prices didn't drop when corporate tax rates went down.

Not trying to bash your assertions. Simply trying to understand them.
The dems like to complain that wealthy people pay less in taxes that their secretary, housekeeper, etc. That is untrue. People in American as required by the Constitution, only pay taxes on income. So if someone owns a lot of stocks or other assets, may be considered rich on paper but they only pay taxes on any income they make. That is how Buffet claims his secretary makes less than him, everything she makes is income where Buffet doesn't pay taxes on his investment gains unless they are realized. So the left's newest attempt to change America is to try and tax unearned income. Like gains from the market or an increase in value of real estate holdings, etc. Those are not taxable per the Constitution, unless and until that income is realized. It is also completely unworkable, so if ones stock portfolio goes down, can he/she get a credit from the IRS for their unearned loss?

My comment about the rich not paying taxes on borrowed money. This is one area where the rich have a advantage. They can borrow money against stock or real estate holdings and that money is considered a loan not income so they avoid taxes. But again, anyone can do that but most people don't have enough personal wealth to take advantage. But they have to pay interest, etc. as well.
 
Top 1% of earners pay 40% of income tax, but, yeah, we don’t tax rich people. JFC.
Not at the percent the middle class pays. They remain billionaires while a lot of the middle class lives paycheck to paycheck. Yet here Republican voters are, wanting to take away their own SS. Damn, again, the wealthy love the way you think.
 
It’s always a matter of choice/opportunity/circumstances.
I retired and was looking forward to it and planned all sorts of projects and stuff. After a year I was so bored I just jumped at a part time job that I did for three years and enjoyed. After COVID I decided I should get out and about while I was still in reasonable health so I retired again at 71. I made friends there who were in a similar situation and just wanted to earn a few dollars to pay for travel. The point is that more of us are living longer and are willing able and interested in remaining in the workplace.
Exhibit A is our current ballot choices in November.
Congress recognizes this and has already raised the age at which we’re required to start the 401/IRA RMD.
The truth is it’s not the 1930’s anymore and life expectancy has extended and the workplace has drastically been altered.
They want us to work until we die. Every other country people work to live. Here, Republicans want us to live to work. We get a lot wrong all in the name of making wealthy people more money.
 
The dems like to complain that wealthy people pay less in taxes that their secretary, housekeeper, etc. That is untrue. People in American as required by the Constitution, only pay taxes on income. So if someone owns a lot of stocks or other assets, may be considered rich on paper but they only pay taxes on any income they make. That is how Buffet claims his secretary makes less than him, everything she makes is income where Buffet doesn't pay taxes on his investment gains unless they are realized. So the left's newest attempt to change America is to try and tax unearned income. Like gains from the market or an increase in value of real estate holdings, etc. Those are not taxable per the Constitution, unless and until that income is realized. It is also completely unworkable, so if ones stock portfolio goes down, can he/she get a credit from the IRS for their unearned loss?

My comment about the rich not paying taxes on borrowed money. This is one area where the rich have a advantage. They can borrow money against stock or real estate holdings and that money is considered a loan not income so they avoid taxes. But again, anyone can do that but most people don't have enough personal wealth to take advantage. But they have to pay interest, etc. as well.
The ONE area where they have an advantage? Holy crap!
 
People are living longer.
People are working longer
The fund itself is drying up and those changes will help keep it solvent.
Just because they live longer doesn’t mean they are able to work. People pay into that since they were teenagers. Ridiculous to make them work until they are frail and losing it mentally.
 
Not at the percent the middle class pays. They remain billionaires while a lot of the middle class lives paycheck to paycheck. Yet here Republican voters are, wanting to take away their own SS. Damn, again, the wealthy love the way you think.
What’s amusing is you use the phrase ‘take it away’, as though the Ponzi would’ve worked if only the proceeds hadn’t been absconded with.
Newsflash, the Ponzi was never solvent from the day it was created. That’s why the early generations made out like… bandits.
 
Just because they live longer doesn’t mean they are able to work. People pay into that since they were teenagers. Ridiculous to make them work until they are frail and losing it mentally.
You’re right.
Much wiser to abolish the tax and establish a tax free savings account that people put 10% of their income into. Then they’ll have a property right to the asset, the economy will have the benefit of real savings, and the beneficiary can enjoy real returns on their investment.
Far superior to the empty promises waiting at the end of FDR’s Ponzi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abby97
Don’t raise the rate, just take the cap completely off, if you want to raise the rate, then increase what someone making over 150k gets back in ss

I am willing to just take the cap off and leave the rate untouched and find out where that gets us.

If it doesn't get us far enough than we certainly should start looking for additional income. I might consider a capital gains surcharge or something like that so that the nation's billionares can contribute personally to social security. Since most of them don't make much money in terms of wages, they likely don't contribute a lot personally to SS. That is one place where we might be able to get additional income.

I'm not entirely opposed to raising the rate on money over a certain amount either but I'm not sure it would be necessary to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
The dems like to complain that wealthy people pay less in taxes that their secretary, housekeeper, etc. That is untrue. People in American as required by the Constitution, only pay taxes on income. So if someone owns a lot of stocks or other assets, may be considered rich on paper but they only pay taxes on any income they make. That is how Buffet claims his secretary makes less than him, everything she makes is income where Buffet doesn't pay taxes on his investment gains unless they are realized. So the left's newest attempt to change America is to try and tax unearned income. Like gains from the market or an increase in value of real estate holdings, etc. Those are not taxable per the Constitution, unless and until that income is realized. It is also completely unworkable, so if ones stock portfolio goes down, can he/she get a credit from the IRS for their unearned loss?

My comment about the rich not paying taxes on borrowed money. This is one area where the rich have a advantage. They can borrow money against stock or real estate holdings and that money is considered a loan not income so they avoid taxes. But again, anyone can do that but most people don't have enough personal wealth to take advantage. But they have to pay interest, etc. as well.
I don't think that's true. I think he was saying the tax RATE he paid on his taxable income was lower than his secretary.

The majority of Buffet's income (I'm guessing here) is probably qualified dividends and capital gains. Those are taxed at 15%-20%.

His secretary, if single, starts paying at the 22% rate at just $44,000. Besides that she has to pay 7.65% social security and Medicare tax on her salary. So, she is paying at a rate close to 30%.

I've not heard a reference to paying income tax on unrealized capital gains, but I have heard of a Wealth Tax - a tax on Net Worth. And you are right I believe, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you can tax wealth. Although I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about sales tax, or gas tax or even real estate tax, but we certainly have those.

I've never thought of a loan as some sort of tax avoidance technique, for the simple reason you have to pay it back.
 
I am willing to just take the cap off and leave the rate untouched and find out where that gets us.

If it doesn't get us far enough than we certainly should start looking for additional income. I might consider a capital gains surcharge or something like that so that the nation's billionares can contribute personally to social security. Since most of them don't make much money in terms of wages, they likely don't contribute a lot personally to SS. That is one place where we might be able to get additional income.

I'm not entirely opposed to raising the rate on money over a certain amount either but I'm not sure it would be necessary to do that.
Under the current SS system, increasing the cap (or taxing other income) would also raise the benefit for those people. So, it might help short term but in the long term we'd probably be in a similar position.
 
Under the current SS system, increasing the cap (or taxing other income) would also raise the benefit for those people. So, it might help short term but in the long term we'd probably be in a similar position.

I would say adjust it, maybe increase their benefits a bit but not so much that they arn't a net addition.
 
We paid over 50k in just federal income tax last year. I can assure you my wife and I are paying my fair share as well as a few others thank you very much.

What you have been told isnt true. You are buying into manufactured data pimped by the democrat party.
 
According to Warren Buffet, his secretary pays a higher rate than he does…..most corporations pay very little if any taxes….Rifler….other than your obstinanced, you have very little to stand upon here.
Wow dude. An anecdote. You're good at debate.

If all your money comes from capital gains then perhaps this is true. But this isnt the case for almost all normal Americans. And that is who is asked to pay the taxes.

Define 'rich' for me and define 'fair share' and we can discuss. But these amorphous terms are good for a sound bite but have no actual meaning. Which is the goal honestly.
 
Last edited:
Not at the percent the middle class pays. They remain billionaires while a lot of the middle class lives paycheck to paycheck. Yet here Republican voters are, wanting to take away their own SS. Damn, again, the wealthy love the way you think.
When the system (SS) pays out more to you than you ever put in, the fund is bound to run out.

Should people only get back as much as they contributed with lets say a 1% Government match?
 
The “rich” should pay a majority of taxes, dumbass….they are the ones with the money! They should probably pay more…..why should a working stiff who punches “in and out” daily pay a higher percentage of his/her wagers than a “rich” person? Why shouldn’t a corporation pay income taxes? Corporations are nothing more than tax dodges…..we all understand that!
Are you one of the idiots that believes corporations pay taxes? LOL! Corporations only collect taxes, they never actually pay taxes. Taxes are always added into the price of their product, it does not come out of their income. I worked in accounting at Rockwell, every time we priced any product, we had a line item for taxes. We never reduced out income to cover additional tax rate hikes.

The purpose of corporate taxes is so that moron democrats don't realize they are getting screwed.

Most democrats I know actually like being morons, because when I tell them ho bad they are getting screwed by all these taxes, it makes them feel bad. Democrats hate when they hear the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abby97 and goldmom
Just because they live longer doesn’t mean they are able to work. People pay into that since they were teenagers. Ridiculous to make them work until they are frail and losing it mentally.
Like our two ballot beauties for President?
 
Yea, fvck him too...fvck any rich prick that's gaming the system

See how that's done
Yell it all you want but they are hiring accountants and tax lawyers who help them find deductions that have been put in place by our government.
Tell me you don’t know that? Do I think it’s swell? No but I’m not a millionaire either.
 
Not at the percent the middle class pays. They remain billionaires while a lot of the middle class lives paycheck to paycheck. Yet here Republican voters are, wanting to take away their own SS. Damn, again, the wealthy love the way you think.
I’m wealthy, and yes, I love the way I think.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT