Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give
you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.


Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and then
we'll talk. Fair enough?






Mike wrote:

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
economic expert?


Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

On Jun 30, 3:41*pm, "Mike" wrote:

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and then
we'll talk. *Fair enough?

Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 3:41 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and
then
we'll talk. Fair enough?

Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.

I'm just not stupid enough to answer loaded questions, Mr. economic/legal
expert.

You continually employ your childish tactic of diversion by snipping out
relevent text, and then you want to fault someone else for dismissing
irrelevant nonsense?

Are you even old enough to vote?

Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 3:41 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then
we'll talk. Fair enough?

Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.

I'm just not stupid enough to answer loaded questions, Mr.
economic/legal expert.


So what is your level of stupidity?

Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to
pay into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on
totally throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by
FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to
opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.


Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then we'll talk. Fair enough?


I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.










Mike wrote:

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
economic expert?


Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate
a higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to
pay into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on
totally throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by
FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to
opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.


Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then we'll talk. Fair enough?


I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.

I don't answer loaded questions.

Answering the question would imply the discussion only involved a small
minority of the population in a specific circumstance and it most certainly
did not, Mr. expert.

It's no different than you not answering if I asked if you've stopped
beating your wife. Some questions don't deserve answers.

I'm sure you guys think you're clever by asking loaded questions, but you
aren't. You're simply someone who has to resort to childish rhetoric which
simply provides more evidence your points were invalid to begin with, as if
anyone needed more.

Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living
longer. The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is
because the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that
amount don't contribute to increased future distributions.
Allowing people to pay into SS at higher income levels than they
can ever collect on totally throws out the idea that its a
"savings" plan as sold by FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS
tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several
times more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that
doesn't allow the gov't control over your money so it will never
fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped
by contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is
reduced at higher contribution levels, but again this is always
as it has been. Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people
to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of
things.

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then we'll talk. Fair enough?


I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.

I don't answer loaded questions.


It's a simple question. Just yes or no will do.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living
longer. The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster.

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is
because the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that
amount don't contribute to increased future distributions.
Allowing people to pay into SS at higher income levels than they
can ever collect on totally throws out the idea that its a
"savings" plan as sold by FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS
tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several
times more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that
doesn't allow the gov't control over your money so it will never
fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped
by contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is
reduced at higher contribution levels, but again this is always
as it has been. Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people
to "opt out"
defeats the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of
things.

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
and then we'll talk. Fair enough?


I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.

I don't answer loaded questions.


It's a simple question. Just yes or no will do.

Most loaded questions are.