social scurity benefits

Lizard

my2hands wrote:

this is wrong... and scrapping it is wrong too... i know it has become popular propaganda with some, especially from the right. but thats because they have their facts wrong

the real issue is the fact that ZERO income over $97,500 gets taxed for social security... thats right folks... you only pay that 6.2 % tax on the first 100k of your income... so that means bill gates is only paying into social security on his first 100k, which means he is apying just about the same as us per year, yet he is worth $50 billion dollars.

so open all income to the 6.2 % tax and we could do a whole hell of a lot with it. but oh no, the ceo making $20,000,000 this year cant afford to pay that 6% :rolleyes:

if you take advantage of this country and its economic system and opportunites then you should help give back to the country...

there is no reason why bill gates only paid about $3,000 more than me in social security taxes last year... that is just bullshit

1) There are social programs to help people—that are tax funded. I don’t think it is asking too much that programs that take out money from your paycheck, supposedly for your future, are at least used by people that paid into it.

2) Gates donates tons of money so I have no problem with him.

my2hands

decides2dream wrote:

why?
it's not like he'll get MORE out of it, so i see no need for him to pay out even more. social security is designed to be supplemental income, as in....ADDITION to your own pension plan, savings, etc. it's also a great safeguard for those who need disability, dependent spouses/children for a worker who dies, etc. i see no need for ANYone to pay more than their 'fair share'....and i believe people like bill gates, sure ridiculously wealthy...but it sure seems that he give and gives and gives...so why should he be FORCED to give anymore?

what the fuck happened to the people of this country?... i guess no one believes in helping their fellow man anymore. "he is rich, so why should he care or help pay his share, since he wont need it"... i am sossry, but i think that is a terrible way to look at this issue. when my father was struck with cancer, that became his only income to survive off of, it is needed, and it is real. i see nothing wrong with a man worth $50 billion paying 6% of his entire income to help the disabled and retiree's that worked their entire life to help make this country "great"... if he can take advantage of this country and its economic system to the tune of $50,000,000,000 then he sure as hell can pay 6% on his entire income just like I do. to think otherwise is just insane, and greedy. IMO

he pays in like the rest of us.

no he doesnt... that is my entire point... he pays .000000001 % of his income into fica, while me and you pay the full 6.2 %


individual greed in this country is absolutely out of control... people thinking the extremely wealthy should not help pay their fair share for social programs and safety nets because they wont have to use them? wow, just flat out wow! what a joke

my2hands

Lizard wrote:

2) Gates donates tons of money so I have no problem with him.

it is much more than bill gates... it is ALL income over $97,500 that doesnt get ANY fica tax that is the problem. think about that for a second. the CEO of Exxon pays just about the same total amount into social security as you and I. even though he makes in one week more than you or i will make in our lifetimes... and % wise it isnt even close... he is paying a fraction of 1% of his total income, and we are paying the full 6.2%

that is just insane to me...and even crazier to me that people defend it?

my2hands

Lizard wrote:

1) There are social programs to help people—that are tax funded. I don’t think it is asking too much that programs that take out money from your paycheck, supposedly for your future, are at least used by people that paid into it.

the whole fraud thing is exactly that, a fraud. people act like it is rampant and out of control. not even close. just like the "welfare mother" scare that caught fire in the 80's and still exists... it is bullshit

the VAST 99% majority of people collecting disability and ss need it, deserve it, and have earned it.

Lizard

Sorry re your dad having cancer. I assume he paid taxes, etc. when he worked, right? then he IS entitled. And he should be -- but the funds for HIM should not be given to those who didn't pay, wouldn't you agree with that? And that is not to say they should not get help. As I said before, there are programs out there to help but for THIS particular program, paid into out of people's paychecks, should not be paid to those who did not.

That's fair, no?

blackredyellow

Am I correct that everyone who has paid into Social Security is entitled to receive it? Since he was brought up here already, would someone like Bill Gates still be eligible for SS once he reaches retirement age?

JOEJOEJOE

my2hands wrote:

this is wrong... and scrapping it is wrong too... i know it has become popular propaganda with some, especially from the right. but thats because they have their facts wrong

the real issue is the fact that ZERO income over $97,500 gets taxed for social security... thats right folks... you only pay that 6.2 % tax on the first 100k of your income... so that means bill gates is only paying into social security on his first 100k, which means he is apying just about the same as us per year, yet he is worth $50 billion dollars.

so open all income to the 6.2 % tax and we could do a whole hell of a lot with it. but oh no, the ceo making $20,000,000 this year cant afford to pay that 6% :rolleyes:

if you take advantage of this country and its economic system and opportunites then you should help give back to the country...

there is no reason why bill gates only paid about $3,000 more than me in social security taxes last year... that is just bullshit

I agree, the limit on SS of $97,500 needs fixing, but keep in mind that the CEO earning $20m pays $290,000 in medicare tax, as does his/her employer.

The odds are, the CEO will never require one penny of medicare benefits, so this does equal the score quite a bit.

JOEJOEJOE

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A better question would be:
When are they going to STOP TAXING it?

WHEN RON PAUL GETS ELECTED!

as of now, they only tax it once your total income exceeds a certain amount. Those whose only income is SS benefits are not taxed.

The taxability of benefits forces the "rich" to "pay back" some of the benefits they receive.

my2hands

Lizard wrote:

Sorry re your dad having cancer. I assume he paid taxes, etc. when he worked, right? then he IS entitled. And he should be -- but the funds for HIM should not be given to those who didn't pay, wouldn't you agree with that? And that is not to say they should not get help. As I said before, there are programs out there to help but for THIS particular program, paid into out of people's paychecks, should not be paid to those who did not.

That's fair, no?

i think the "fraud" issue is a red herring... it is not really a problem. i do not think the system is abused nearly as much as people think it is

my2hands

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

The odds are, the CEO will never require one penny of medicare benefits, so this does equal the score quite a bit.

to me it doesnt matter if the individual will ever need it. it is about the 20 million other folks that will need it.

i pay taxes for my local schools, and i dont have kids. i have no problem paying those taxes, becasue i support my community, my people, and society as a whole. i want good schools for kids to attend, whether they are my kids or not.

decides2dream

my2hands wrote:

what the fuck happened to the people of this country?... i guess no one believes in helping their fellow man anymore. "he is rich, so why should he care or help pay his share, since he wont need it"... i am sossry, but i think that is a terrible way to look at this issue. when my father was struck with cancer, that became his only income to survive off of, it is needed, and it is real. i see nothing wrong with a man worth $50 billion paying 6% of his entire income to help the disabled and retiree's that worked their entire life to help make this country "great"... if he can take advantage of this country and its economic system to the tune of $50,000,000,000 then he sure as hell can pay 6% on his entire income just like I do. to think otherwise is just insane, and greedy. IMO

huh? i absolutely believe and agree in helping my fellow countrymen/women, however, i don't see the need to do so through social security. your payout is based on what you contribute....so i simply see no need for the rich to pay anymore in then they do, b/c they are not going to benefit anymore from it than you or i. that's all. i think there are other/better ways to help those in need.


i am well aware of the needs/benefits of social security. believe it or not, my father was retirement age while i was still underage, and thus i collected social security at the time since i was still a dependent, and i know full well the needs of such.



*btw - late edit. just a thought. my parents worked damn hard and paid in their entire lives. my mother actually continued to work until very recently, and she is almost 80. she actually had to 'watch' her income, b/c if a senior citizen earns over a certain amount...and it's peanuts btw...they then TAX their social security benefits. now THAT is BS. she PAID it in, paid her fair share...and they are going to tax it b/c she actually decides to work more? so yea...there's BS around for all.


also, i find this *outrage* over social security/taxes...a bit interesting coming from someone who once posted the idea of NOT paying income tax as a form of social protest against the government. so, only if you're not rich is that an ok idea? i DO believe in 'fairness'....and i don't think that overall, rich or poor...one or the other should be held to a higher standard. i think taxes should be handled as fairly as possible...and beyond that, people should share/give because they WANT to, not be forced to do so.

my2hands wrote:

individual greed in this country is absolutely out of control... people thinking the extremely wealthy should not help pay their fair share for social programs and safety nets because they wont have to use them? wow, just flat out wow! what a joke

and i DO believe ALL should pay their 'fair share'...i think what one may consider *fair* is what is at issue is all.

my2hands wrote:

i pay taxes for my local schools, and i dont have kids. i have no problem paying those taxes, becasue i support my community, my people, and society as a whole. i want good schools for kids to attend, whether they are my kids or not.

i whole-heartedly agree. we too are childless by choice, and i still happily support our community and school system through our property taxes. we also happen to live in an area with some of THE highest property taxes in the nation, but i still fully believe in supporting schools/the future.

Heineken Helen

wolfbear wrote:

I can't see the program going away, too many people depend on it, although it was never designed for that.

is there a chance it COULD? :eek:

Wow, I read so many posts here... and so many people think welfare is only for those who don't want to work :( and that everyone on welfare is leeching off of taxpayers :rolleyes:

I was amazed first time I went to Turkey to hear that they don't have welfare or disability or anything like that... it occurred to me that were something to happen to put an end to your income, without resorting to crime, you’d probably die. How can they take that away from you? It’s as good as murder.

Heineken Helen

my2hands wrote:

it is much more than bill gates... it is ALL income over $97,500 that doesnt get ANY fica tax that is the problem. think about that for a second. the CEO of Exxon pays just about the same total amount into social security as you and I. even though he makes in one week more than you or i will make in our lifetimes... and % wise it isnt even close... he is paying a fraction of 1% of his total income, and we are paying the full 6.2%

that is just insane to me...and even crazier to me that people defend it?

I agree completely. And I really hate to generalise but this seems to be a uniquely American opinion. You wouldn't hear many Irish people complaining about an idea that would force Sean Quinn to pay the same percentage tax as the rest of us This one always really really confuses me

Heineken Helen

my2hands wrote:

to me it doesnt matter if the individual will ever need it. it is about the 20 million other folks that will need it.

i pay taxes for my local schools, and i dont have kids. i have no problem paying those taxes, becasue i support my community, my people, and society as a whole. i want good schools for kids to attend, whether they are my kids or not.

Exactly... taxes go everywhere... roads (I don't drive), schools (I've no kids), prisons (I don't plan on ending up in one), loadsa things that really I could pick and choose and say 'nah, I don't like that one... I wanna give all my taxes to THIS one instead' :rolleyes: It just doesn't and can't work like that.

and don't tell me that Bill Gates hasn't taken advantage of the odd tax break/government grant?

Heineken Helen

decides2dream wrote:

huh? i absolutely believe and agree in helping my fellow countrymen/women, however, i don't see the need to do so through social security. your payout is based on what you contribute....so i simply see no need for the rich to pay anymore in then they do, b/c they are not going to benefit anymore from it than you or i. that's all. i think there are other/better ways to help those in need.


i am well aware of the needs/benefits of social security. believe it or not, my father was retirement age while i was still underage, and thus i collected social security at the time since i was still a dependent, and i know full well the needs of such.



*btw - late edit. just a thought. my parents worked damn hard and paid in their entire lives. my mother actually continued to work until very recently, and she is almost 80. she actually had to 'watch' her income, b/c if a senior citizen earns over a certain amount...and it's peanuts btw...they then TAX their social security benefits. now THAT is BS. she PAID it in, paid her fair share...and they are going to tax it b/c she actually decides to work more? so yea...there's BS around for all.


also, i find this *outrage* over social security/taxes...a bit interesting coming from someone who once posted the idea of NOT paying income tax as a form of social protest against the government. so, only if you're not rich is that an ok idea? i DO believe in 'fairness'....and i don't think that overall, rich or poor...one or the other should be held to a higher standard. i think taxes should be handled as fairly as possible...and beyond that, people should share/give because they WANT to, not be forced to do so.




and i DO believe ALL should pay their 'fair share'...i think what one may consider *fair* is what is at issue is all.




i whole-heartedly agree. we too are childless by choice, and i still happily support our community and school system through our property taxes. we also happen to live in an area with some of THE highest property taxes in the nation, but i still fully believe in supporting schools/the future.

see you're going by the pick and choose reasoning that I've just mentioned So you think it's unfair that everyone pay the same percentage? That seems to be the ONLY fair way to do it.

Besides, ok since the Bill gates thing isn't working cos it's very unlikely he'll lose all his fortune. To any other millionnaire or even anyone who earns over 100,000... this income is not guaranteed forever. They can lose it all just like the rest of us... and what then?