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

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

"And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate
are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior
citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or
rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they
need," Obama said.

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.


On the flipside, they could grind the destitute seniors into gravy and
feed them to the prisoners and the homeless.

Soylent Granny is PEOPLE.

There's definately room for improvement; my grandmother is a two-time
war widow (her first husband died in combat and her second husband died
as a result of being a POW) and she gets less in benefits from the
government than her sister, whose husband was a noncombatant veteran.

Of course, the ex-POW --had shrapnel in his brain and contracted
hepatitis at Stalag 17B-- wasn't even considered disabled until after he
died at which point they determined he should have had
100% disability all along.

-c

On Jun 30, 3:21*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...





On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
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?

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
Perhaps he should be running for office.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic expert.
Here it is again:

"Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
tax we are paying will increase."

So first you say "we" and now you say "my". *So which is it?

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Anyone who makes ore than the current limit of $97,500/yr. Again, how
is more money coming out of my check and going into SS not a tax
increase? I'm really interested in the logic here.

-Robert

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:

You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out
of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
"Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.

I don't.


What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?

Not the same one you do, obviously.

What do you believe "sic" means?

Are you really that dense?

On Jun 30, 3:31*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

Actually it's not even that. *Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

And collects $0 in SS retirement benefits.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome,


Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.


-c

On Jun 30, 3:36*pm, gatt wrote:

Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.

Wait, I'm not following. What does average income have to do with
wealthy income levels?

-Robert

"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, 3:02*pm, "Mike" wrote:

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.

Let's see here. *Less than 5% of the population makes more than $102K. *It's
probably closer to 3-4%.

What does 5% have to do with the fact that Obama said he's going to
increase SS taxes? Are you saying that if the tax doesn't affect you
its not a tax?

-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" wrote
in X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07:


But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'

Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
boot.

On Jun 30, 3:11*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
Mike wrote:

What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?


The 10th amendment..
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

-Robert