Twenty-five years from now, I'm not sure the country will exist.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Rpmwwe The country we knew 25 years ago does not exist. So I am fairly sure 25 years from now, if we are still around, that it will not look anything like what we think of now when we think of America. If America is still around, I am sure we will have some kind of social program, as socialism seems to be the path we are heading down.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Between the Social Security tax 12.4% of wages and the total Medicare tax 2.9%, I pay 15.3% of the first $113,700 that I make in 2013. Except that my work has not been that steady and I will not make the maximum this year. Whatever the final number is, I will pay 15.3%. Let's say I make $100,000 this year, that means I would pay $15,300 in FICA and Medicare costs. Someone making $250,000 will pay $17,396.10 in 2013. Someone making $500,000 will pay $17,396.10 in 2013. Someone making $1,000,000 will pay $17,396.10 in 2013. Someone making $10,000,000 will pay $17,396.10 in 2013. Someone making $100,000,000 will pay $17,396.10 in 2013. We can easily save Social Security if the rich are asked to pay their fair share. The right wing will tell you that if we ask the rich to pay more for Social Security, they will create less jobs here in the U.S. This is just another one of the big lies. Money spent expanding a business is not subject to Social Security contributions.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Not unless "We the People" demand Washington change.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Change as TripleD posted.
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
There is one little flaw in your thinking here Triple D. The average American does not make $100,000 a year to most people in this country you are the rich, if you make that much. Second the payout when you start collecting S.S. is based on what you paid in, with a cap set. I don't make $250,000, I don't even make $100,000, but how is it going to help for the higher income people to pay more when there is a cap on what one can collect at retirement. To be fair the payout for them would have to be increased which would only make the system payout more. The biggest problem with s.s. other than the money they robbed it of is the cola's that they put in place back in the Johnson era I believe. When a return on an investment is down, the amount of money you can draw off that money, and keep your principle, goes down it, does not increase. The whole system may have been set up to be substantially sound, but the changes to it over the years, have left sound financial principles.
What happens when you run out of rich people's money TripleD?
And explain to me, as it relates to Social Security, why rich people should pay more? Do you understand what SS is supposed to be or do you just support the Ponzi scheme that it is?
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
TripleD, were you sitting in your Soviet government class yesterday when you told me I need to take some American government courses?
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
TripleD, your only going to make a $100K this year? That's terrible! You need to get an EBT card and an Obamaphone to help you get through these tough times. Go ahead, you're certainly entitled to them.
I guess, I wonder if they should also have their benefits increase accordingly? That math has shown by numerous actuaries not to work...then are you saying that the people who make more by working more hours or through using their house to borrow to help grow their business should pay for those who don't...not really that easy!
Well, honestly, I hope TripleD makes as much as he can. I don't feel that anyone should be held back from being successful.
What I don't agree with is that we should change to prop up what Johnson and the liberals did to take all the money from the trust fund. The trust fund should be put back in place and funding at no less than companies are required for their pension plans.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Funny...I see the disagree child is back.
And, always remember that Teddy, a republican, started progressivism to put controls on companies who were in his eyes working employees too many hours. He felt it was Constitutionly a way to protect the people but it opened the door to the government control of about everything.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
concerned, I agree it does appear we are heading down that path but the major flaw with socialism is that it depends on capitalism for sustenance. Obviously, if enough business leaves the U.S. because of outrageous socialism taxes, then the system will fold. The government is already borrowing huge sums of money to supplement tax revenues. I don't see anything good coming out of that...borrowing even more money to compensate for even more diminishing tax revenues is guaranteed disaster.
My guess, the dollar will become near worthless and federal government will really shut down. Unfunded mandates upon the states by Congress could be a huge source of conflict. The U.S. will break down into smaller entities based on agreements and alliances made between state and local governments. There will be some problems and conflict as the map and government organization is re-drawn. As Grant pointed out in another post, it won't necessarily be an apocalyptic scenario. That will depend on how people react (I'll assume places like Detroit and New Orleans will definitely be screwed, but small towns like Salem could get by with minimal problems).
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Think about this, if we had the internet and I would have posted such comments 25 years ago, then I would have certainly been branded a crackpot as there was no perceivable threat of collapse. To say there is a perceivable threat of collapse today has nearly become mainstream. Take a look at all of the online survivalist, emergency preparedness, and weapons training businesses that are thriving along with the popularity of TV programs that cover that subject matter. They didn't exist 25 years ago. I used to be hopeful that our course would be righted but I have lost faith in that idea.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The dooms day scenario !
A shout out to DDD. Two things (1) The rates you quote are for a self employed person; an employee pays half that and the employer has to pay the other half. (2) Medicare rate is not capped so the Medicare tax for $1,000,000 would be $29,000 with one half ($14,500)paid by employee
Whizkid, You are correct. I was trying to make things too simple. I should have used 12.4% for self employed and while a W-2 only pays 6.2% out of his or her gross pay, the contribution for that person is still 12.4%. If you have every been offered a contract choice between w-2 and 1099 or corp to corp, you would find that the w-2 hourly rate is often lower because of this. The actual contribution numbers for individuals who incorporate is actually worse as that individual can declare his or her own w-2 wage resulting in an even lower overall rate.
They should do what they did with medicare starting this year and add an additional contribution for those making over $200,000.00. Beginning January 1, 2013, Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s Medicare wages that exceed a threshold amount based on the taxpayer’s filing status. Employers are responsible for withholding the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on an individual’s wages paid in excess of $200,000 in a calendar ye
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |