|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 13, 2008 11:33:38 GMT -6
Democrat Barack Obama would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which he says would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio on Friday that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income." The payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9199VUG0&show_article=1Obama old fashion tax and spend, wants new tax on rich Obama is returning to a type of class warfare that has not been seen since LBJ.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 13, 2008 11:56:49 GMT -6
Take from the rich and give to government.
Why does the social security contribution cut off once you reach a certain income level?
Because it is theoretically an insurance program and not a welfare program. There is a limit to how much a person can receive in yearly benefits so there is a limit to how much a person has to pay in contributions.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 13, 2008 12:08:05 GMT -6
Is Obama giving up the pretext that SS is anything but a tax?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 13, 2008 12:18:13 GMT -6
I doubt anyone on the board is surprised to hear that, behind Obama's bring-us-together and heal-our-nation rhetoric, the actual policies will be 1960's welfare-statism, unsupported by 1960's ecomomic strength. Still, electing John McCain would be just as bad, if not worse.....
I think it is a given that the good times for “the rich” are over; and probably for the rest of us as well.
And let’s don’t forget, your EMPLOYER pays the same amount into Social Security that you do.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 13, 2008 15:58:32 GMT -6
I'll take tax and spend over borrow and spend any day of the week - it is much more fisacally responsible - even more is cut spending and pay down the debt, but that can not occur without raising taxes
The wealthy benefit more from the privileges of a free society, and therefore have a moral obligation and responsibility to contribute back to it - who said this? some radical leftist?
Nope none other than republican Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 13, 2008 16:55:20 GMT -6
I'll take tax and spend over borrow and spend any day of the week Me too. On this issue, I completely agree with Obama. Exactly. The rich are the biggest benefactors of our government, the biggest recipients of Corporate welfare, and the biggest recipients of the Fed's "liquidity" injections. The rich get far more of the benefits, while contributing much less in proportion. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson spoke extensively on this point. And they're just as right today, as they were back then. The SS cap should definitely be removed, as well as rolling back the tax cuts on investment income, so it's taxed at the same rate as wages. It's time to stop robbing from the lower 98%, and giving it to the richest 1%.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 13, 2008 18:08:30 GMT -6
The only class warfare going on is the one the plutocratic class is waging on the rest of us
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 13, 2008 23:10:08 GMT -6
heh.. not my employers. My last 2 "employers" held me on as a contractor, a phenomena that is becoming a lot more prevalent. And yes, you notice it come april 15th...
|
|
|
Post by rwc on Jun 13, 2008 23:50:11 GMT -6
Though not a Obama or McCain supporter, I fully agree with Obama on this issue.
As for class warfare, its been going on for some time if you look at the pounding our working and middle-class has recieved at the hands of corporations and its flunkies in gov't.
Both are shrinking and our manufacturing and technology sectors as well.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 14, 2008 2:06:55 GMT -6
you know... this whole class warfare thing is just bullshit to begin with. If there was a way to improve the economy by taxing the lower brackets, I'd be all for it. - sure it would seem "unfair"but if i knew it would lead to higher wages down the line, i'd say get'r done! Unfortunately, previous experience has dictated otherwise. Class responsibilty isn't the issue, using a methodology THAT WORKS is.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 14, 2008 9:13:29 GMT -6
Indeed, in a simplified and general sense:
New deal - higher taxes, a progressive tax structure = sustainable steady growth, less disparity of wealth, sustainable govt budgets, shared prosperity for 4 decades
Voodoo - lower taxes, regressive tax structure = specualtive bubbles, repeated recessions, greater disparity of wealth, record deficits for 3 decades now
II'll take the former over the latter thank you, time to put this failed supply side economics on the scrap heap of history where it belongs
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 14, 2008 11:52:01 GMT -6
while i agree with your general sentiment blueneck, history does say otherwise about recessions: www.cnbc.com/id/20510977/ so it's a little more complicated than new deal vs voodoo. One interesting thing to note: Only three presidents (since WWII) have been able to govern without having to suffer a recession- Clinton, Carter, and LBJ. (although there was a recession that started the exact month reagan took office)
|
|