Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

[Phyllis Diller]

Again. They are capped in benefits, they are capped in contributions therefore. It is an insurance investment, not a vehicle for redistribution of funds. Your jealousy is not the measure of a good insurance investment.

Maybe they shouldnt be capped in payouts. Maybe your viewpoint is upside down?

 

[Damocles]

It is like walking into a store and paying for a loaf of bread. It costs them and us the exact same for that loaf of bread. By your reasoning it would only be 'fair' if they paid the same percent of their total income that you do for that loaf of bread. That is absurd.

This. Your measure of jealousy, Zappa, is not a good measure of reality.

 

[Damocles]

Maybe they shouldnt be capped in payouts. Maybe your viewpoint is upside down?

They are capped in payouts. That was the fricking point.

So you are saying they should pay on every cent and then be able to pull out in that same percentage later?

 

[zappasguitar]

Again. They are capped in benefits, they are capped in contributions therefore. It is an insurance investment, not a vehicle for redistribution of funds. Your jealousy is not the measure of a good insurance investment.

Like all actuary tables you work with averages.

That's not what I asked.

You claimed everyone in the top 2% is self-employed.

I'd like some proof please.

 

[Damocles]

That's not what I asked.

You claimed everyone in the top 2% is self-employed.

I'd like some proof please.

I made no such claim. I spoke of actuary tables thus speaking of the averages that I list in that post you quoted in your answer here. You simply, and deliberately IMO, "misunderstood" what I said in the hopes that I would allow you to argue against something I did not say.

Your insistence that they must purchase the exact same product as you at a higher price simply because of their earnings is based solely in jealousy, not in "fair". As SF put rather simply earlier, it would not be "fair" to make the "rich" pay the exact same percentage of their earnings for a loaf of bread so that you weren't paying more for the loaf by percentages.

 

[zappasguitar]

This. Your measure of jealousy, Zappa, is not a good measure of reality.

Of course, central to Damo's "jealousy" claim is his ignorant belief I want all SS bene's capped at current levels.

I have already stated on this thread that is not the case...but why should he bother reading what I wrote when it might inconvenience his latest attempt at marginalizing what I have said?

 

[apple0154]

Spoken like a true globalist eugenics elitist fiat currency illuminati clone...

We'll have to work on an abbreviation or acronym. Much too long.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I pay a lower SS tax rate than the richest 2%?

Really? Because the SS tax rate is set at 4.2% for everyone, so the rate I pay is equal to the rate the richest 2% pays.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimits/index.html

Everyone's income is taxed for SS purposes up to 100%?

Then why does someone making $5,000,000.00 only have to pay taxes on the first $106,000?

That's no where near 100%.

if you actually read my question the first time you would know i was talking about your income taxes.

you're distorting my argument or you don't understand what is being said. everyone essentially pays the same for SS. you pay less than someone making 100K, but for a intents and purposes, those making over 106K pay at the same rate you do. your argument that all their income should be taxed is unavailing as you don't want all your income taxed at their higher rates on their income over a 100K. SS is an insurance, the benefits you may recieve are capped. you, however, want people to pay SS on all their income just because you don't make more than a 100K. they get the same benefits and they actually pay more SS taxes than you because you don't make over a 100K. so its puzzling why you're complaining about how much they pay.

sounds like money envy to me

 

[Phyllis Diller]

We'll have to work on an abbreviation or acronym. Much too long.

GEEFCIC rolls off the tongue.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It is like walking into a store and paying for a loaf of bread. It costs them and us the exact same for that loaf of bread. By your reasoning it would only be 'fair' if they paid the same percent of their total income that you do for that loaf of bread. That is absurd.

excellent point

 

[Phyllis Diller]

if you actually read my question the first time you would know i was talking about your income taxes.

you're distorting my argument or you don't understand what is being said. everyone essentially pays the same for SS. you pay less than someone making 100K, but for a intents and purposes, those making over 106K pay at the same rate you do. your argument that all their income should be taxed is unavailing as you don't want all your income taxed at their higher rates on their income over a 100K. SS is an insurance, the benefits you may recieve are capped. you, however, want people to pay SS on all their income just because you don't make more than a 100K. they get the same benefits and they actually pay more SS taxes than you because you don't make over a 100K. so its puzzling why you're complaining about how much they pay.

sounds like money envy to me

It's effectively NOT THE SAME RATE when the full amount is not taxed you ignorant dillhole.

 

[zappasguitar]

Not true. You only are going by the employee contribution, not the employer contribution. Those who are self-employed (the richest) pay both the employer and employee contributions.

I made no such claim. I spoke of actuary tables thus speaking of the averages that I list in that post you quoted in your answer here. You simply, and deliberately IMO, "misunderstood" what I said in the hopes that I would allow you to argue against something I did not say.

Your insistence that they must purchase the exact same product as you at a higher price simply because of their earnings is based solely in jealousy, not in "fair".

That's you...making just that claim above...

Funny, but I don't see you making any distinction between the self-employed rich and the rich who might hold a regular job...

Don't blame me for your grammatical inaccuracies.

 

[Damocles]

Of course, central to Damo's "jealousy" claim is his ignorant belief I want all SS bene's capped at current levels.

I have already stated on this thread that is not the case...but why should he bother reading what I wrote when it might inconvenience his latest attempt at marginalizing what I have said?

I did ask this earlier as well. So you want to "save" it by allowing them to draw from SS at the same percentage that they put in, you want zero limit on benefits?

 

[Damocles]

That's you...making just that claim above...

Funny, but I don't see you making any distinction between the self-employed rich and the rich who might hold a regular job...

Don't blame me for your grammatical inaccuracies.

This ignores previous posts where I spoke of the actuary tables and how this is an insurance product. One does have some expectations that participants will not be deliberately disingenuous and take posts in a written thread out of context. We're holding a conversation, there is no need to rewrite every fact over again in each post.

 

[Damocles]

It's effectively NOT THE SAME RATE when the full amount is not taxed you ignorant dillhole.

For the product, it is the same. We do not charge people more for a loaf of bread (good example SF) based on what percentage of their income will be spent on the bread. This is fundamentally the same thing. You expect them to pay more for the exact same product solely based on jealousy of earnings. Now, if you don't cap their benefits then it would be "fair" but it wouldn't fundamentally change the problems that exist with the current program.

 

[zappasguitar]

if you actually read my question the first time you would know i was talking about your income taxes.

you're distorting my argument or you don't understand what is being said. everyone essentially pays the same for SS. you pay less than someone making 100K, but for a intents and purposes, those making over 106K pay at the same rate you do. your argument that all their income should be taxed is unavailing as you don't want all your income taxed at their higher rates on their income over a 100K. SS is an insurance, the benefits you may recieve are capped. you, however, want people to pay SS on all their income just because you don't make more than a 100K. they get the same benefits and they actually pay more SS taxes than you because you don't make over a 100K. so its puzzling why you're complaining about how much they pay.

sounds like money envy to me

This thread is a discussion of SOCIAL SECURITY taxes.

Want to debate income taxes...start a new thread and give it a go.

btw...if YOU had read the thread, you'd see where I have stated that if the rich are taxed at 100% of their income for SS, then their SS benefits at retirement should also increase.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This thread is a discussion of SOCIAL SECURITY taxes.

Want to debate income taxes...start a new thread and give it a go.

btw...if YOU had read the thread, you'd see where I have stated that if the rich are taxed at 100% of their income for SS, then their SS benefits at retirement should also increase.

tff...you were discussing it, but then you backed yourself into a corner and now its - we can't discuss income taxes!!!!!!!!

SS taxes are directly related to income, yet you don't want to talk about it.

since the benefits are capped at this time, then they shouldn't pay more than the 106K. deal with it.

 

[Damocles]

This thread is a discussion of SOCIAL SECURITY taxes.

Want to debate income taxes...start a new thread and give it a go.

btw...if YOU had read the thread, you'd see where I have stated that if the rich are taxed at 100% of their income for SS, then their SS benefits at retirement should also increase.

Again. The only way to make that "fair" would be to not cap any benefits at all, allowing them to draw by percentages of input. This would not fundamentally change the current problems in the program.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

tff...you were discussing it, but then you backed yourself into a corner and now its - we can't discuss income taxes!!!!!!!!

SS taxes are directly related to income, yet you don't want to talk about it.

since the benefits are capped at this time, then they shouldn't pay more than the 106K. deal with it.

SS is related to income, but not income taxes. Its a different issue.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's effectively NOT THE SAME RATE when the full amount is not taxed you ignorant dillhole.

it is the same rate. the rate is the same for EVERYONE up to 106K. they still pay more than you because you don't make anything near 106K. you want to whine because you don't make that kind of money so all your income is taxed. boo hoo. the rate is exactly the same.