Who's worried about Social Security?

[SHH]

When I said the higher incomes pay a higher percentage...I think you misunderstood...granted I didnt word it very well. I meant that they should be taxed on all of their income. The higher percentage of their income then what they are being taxed at now, (100% of it) not like right now, which is I think 90,000. I mean that, maybe it didnt come across like that so im sorry for that misunderstanding. But, I am still not asking anybody to pay MY way, or for all the wealthy to pay for all the poor, I just think that the wealthy should pay into SS on their entire income, like the rest of us poor schmucks.

[GregFL]

but this brings us full circle.

First, high income earners pay up to 94,200 in income, and future benefits (if any) are calculated on this figure.

If you raise the income limitation and benefit limiation, you just increase the size of the program, not solve any problems.  Hence my joke I left you about the two guys in business....

The scenario you suggested on page two is the one touted in the press by fiscal liberals, just raise up what the rich are paying (and leave their benefits alone).

So, SHH, either way it is a loser. One does nothing to solve our problems, and the other is a special interest grab redistribution of income to the elderly, many if not most who are not needy.

  I hope if you take nothing else away from this exchange, it is that high income earners (which is different than 'wealthy') pay a disproportinate (unfair) percentage of the taxes.  Many do so willingly because they feel they are giving something back, but calling it "fair" and suggesting they should pay more because "why not" is really a slap in the face.

[Anonymous]

but my question would be why should they pay more into SS, because they would then be able to withdraw more.  based on the amount you contribute is the amount you are able to get back.  so it doesnt accomplish the same thing as raising income taxes might, as far as distributing the burden to someone better able to shoulder it.  sure you could raise the number and maybe its even a good idea to do so, but it wont solve anything really.   the reason their was a cap in the first place was someone making over a certain amount wasnt going to "need" ss, so they didnt "assess" against it.  ss being what you put into it you get back out of it(in theory).  i've i put in double what you put in, i get double back out. so bill gates starts contributing 1 million a year to SS, whoa be when he retires, his check will break the postman's back.

and "fair" would be everyone paying the exact same percentage in taxes. fair - would be "fair" to everyone. your arguement truely isnt for fair, its for a perhaps "moral" distribution of the tax burden. which again might be what this society should do, but if you wanted fair, everyone would be 10% (or whatever the number is). then the rich would pay more then the middle and lower incomes. but the exact same percentage.  and that comes closer to meeting the definition of fair.  however, thats i think not pratical or pragmatic for what our society should do, so there is a graduated tax system. you cross a certain threshold, you pay a higher percentage on money earned above that threshold, and so on.  i think the overall society does benefit for this even though those indiviuals dont. i do believe that as a society we need to do this, even though it isnt "fair". i tend to believe that some things in lifejust arnt, but are still a good way of doing things.
for the most part you've just asserted something is fair, without making an actual arguement for why its fair. fair would be to both parties though. any argument i've seen from you has just stated as to why its beneficial to the person who's making less money who does of course have very real burdens in life. burdens which are more difficult to meet then for someone making more money. but that's not an arguement that the system is fair, because to do that I want you to demonstrate how its without preference to "all parties involved", and that you cannot do.  now again, that isnt to say that the way we are doing it now isnt a better idea then a flat rate. i tend to think it is(and i am offering no arguement or facts as to why here, just my gut feel), but i do think that the system is grossly flawed. tax law is way to complicated which posses a significant burden to small business and individuals who have to figure out how to meet their tax obligations. i think they can and should simplify it and that would be an act of government actually doing something useful for thepeople. should i really spend an entire month trying to gather up all the forms and documents neccessary to prove to the irs that i made xyz, and have all these deductiions and my small in home busines qualifies, and i get hurricane money back, and have these medical bills and etc etc etc...ort pay someone to help me meet my obligation ---- years of tax code piled upon modifications and special intest groups over and over again have created a jumbled mess.   and alluding to something someone said earlier to greg, in reference to SS not being a burden to the business who pays half into it as well, thats not exactly true,. sure its cost of doing business, and they will attempt to pass that onto the customer, but also products have ceiling costs that the consumer will not pay more than for that product. so especially for a small business this is a very real expense which makes it harder for them to operate.  they cannot just go and charge anything they want, people need to be willing to pay it(or able). and those costs are damaging there. just like medical insurance premiums as a benefit paid. costs spike, and the money has to come from somewhere. medical insurance went up 20% last year, can you imagine walking into your favorite store tomorrow and everything you paid for yesterday was 20% more?  what about 50% more, hey just covering cost of doing busines. poney up. those cost bleed into other things, now you are paying more to buy your widget and have less money to go to eat with so you dont go out to your favorite local restuarant as much (apparently chillies on this board) so they feel a pinch, fire somone etc etc.  some costs are easily absorbed but at some point thats not so easy.  and our goverment imposes (as do most) and very large financial and adminstrative burden on business, and some of that is neccessary but some of it is not.  business would thrive better and our personal lives would improve if we eleviated the unncessary parts.   somewhere i could swear i remember reading government existed for our benefit....since its "our" governement.

[Anonymous]

and ammusing incident i am remember happened a year or two ago, but i cannot find the article. sharpton was asked by the press what percentage he felt the highest income earners in the country should pay, the top 1% and the percentage he stated (and i cannot find the number) was less then they actually paid at that time.


what you are looking for is the top 1% or (2 or 3) where they make a signiciantly higher income, and i am not talking about the billgates, but more 'average" people, paying enough to compensate for about 80% of the population, and thats just not possible. they can carry a higher percentage burden but also they can only shoulder so much. there are more problems than just increases can and will fix.

[Anonymous]

i say we go the opposite route of the chinese. we make everyone have two kids. (so 4 per couple)
that way we get them to work when they are 14...(cuts out high school, which lowers city budgets thus cutting our taxes while increasing taxable income so the city can build more swimming pools, we need them since my plan is brilliant and we will all retire early)...
now i know what you are thinking, if no high school then these kids are only good for working at DQ, but i think the smart one can earn " passes" and be allowed to only work part time and they can go to school. however - eligibility will be determine during their infancy and early childhood.  children who scream in restuarants or movie theater - will be "fined"  and with enough demerits, lose school eligibilty.  this will of course scare the parents who will not bring their children to these two venues until they are 12 or so.....and thus allow the rest of us to go to the movies or dinner in peace!!!  
those parents too stupid to realize their kids will scream in a restaurant probably created a stupid kid anyways, they'll bring them out, they'll scream, they'll get fined, and off to work they go. thats most of the population i think. kids will be working and since thats' 4 incomes for one household, mom and dad can now retire at 45 and go to the pool (that we built with our freed up tax dollars)
a possible side benefit is the scream kids will probably only get employed at places like DQ and McDonalds, we will figure that out rather quickly and not want to go their any longer (since i doubt their manners have improved, because they have stupid parents incapable of passing on manners, hey i doubt they have them themselves) and so we wont attend those restaurants any longer, which will improve our calory intake considerable, and thus improve our waistlines (especially as we age) and our cholestoral, which will improve our sex lives (hey we look hotter, and no - not the cholesteral part the waist line part, and yes i read virginia wolfe so i believe in stream of conciousness writing even though my spelling sucks), improved sex life, extra calory burn....et c etc, health care premiums drop...we are having more sex, have more money, now we dont need any psychological counselling (previously we had lazy kids, who we were working very hard to support and wanted to smack regularly after a long day at work, or we were seeing small screamign children in restuarants where we went to relax, and were getting a small insight into why postal workers go, well postal, and so we had guilt aboutit and went and saught counselling over the whole dilema)

save money, fly to bahamas....

[Anonymous]

one additional point, we have 4 kids so that of couse there are two paying into SS for each one of us, and thus the pyrmaid scheme that SS needs in order to work really well is maintained.

there are some possible negative environmental effects....over population, polution, garbage, deforestation, but there are no conclusive studies that any of these things have long term negative effects from an impartial, approved, government reconginzed private entity and that is still under study....to be reconveened in 2080.....

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 18:52:00, Anonymous wrote:

"but my question would be why should they pay more into SS, because they would then be able to withdraw more.  based on the amount you contribute is the amount you are able to get back.  so it doesnt accomplish the same thing as raising income taxes might, as far as distributing the burden to someone better able to shoulder it.  sure you could raise the number and maybe its even a good idea to do so, but it wont solve anything really.   the reason their was a cap in the first place was someone making over a certain amount wasnt going to "need" ss, so they didnt "assess" against it.  ss being what you put into it you get back out of it(in theory).  i've i put in double what you put in, i get double back out. so bill gates starts contributing 1 million a year to SS, whoa be when he retires, his check will break the postman's back.



and "fair" would be everyone paying the exact same percentage in taxes. fair - would be "fair" to everyone. your arguement truely isnt for fair, its for a perhaps "moral" distribution of the tax burden. which again might be what this society should do, but if you wanted fair, everyone would be 10% (or whatever the number is). then the rich would pay more then the middle and lower incomes. but the exact same percentage.  and that comes closer to meeting the definition of fair.  however, thats i think not pratical or pragmatic for what our society should do, so there is a graduated tax system. you cross a certain threshold, you pay a higher percentage on money earned above that threshold, and so on.  i think the overall society does benefit for this even though those indiviuals dont. i do believe that as a society we need to do this, even though it isnt "fair". i tend to believe that some things in lifejust arnt, but are still a good way of doing things.

for the most part you've just asserted something is fair, without making an actual arguement for why its fair. fair would be to both parties though. any argument i've seen from you has just stated as to why its beneficial to the person who's making less money who does of course have very real burdens in life. burdens which are more difficult to meet then for someone making more money. but that's not an arguement that the system is fair, because to do that I want you to demonstrate how its without preference to "all parties involved", and that you cannot do.  now again, that isnt to say that the way we are doing it now isnt a better idea then a flat rate. i tend to think it is(and i am offering no arguement or facts as to why here, just my gut feel), but i do think that the system is grossly flawed. tax law is way to complicated which posses a significant burden to small business and individuals who have to figure out how to meet their tax obligations. i think they can and should simplify it and that would be an act of government actually doing something useful for thepeople. should i really spend an entire month trying to gather up all the forms and documents neccessary to prove to the irs that i made xyz, and have all these deductiions and my small in home busines qualifies, and i get hurricane money back, and have these medical bills and etc etc etc...ort pay someone to help me meet my obligation ---- years of tax code piled upon modifications and special intest groups over and over again have created a jumbled mess.   and alluding to something someone said earlier to greg, in reference to SS not being a burden to the business who pays half into it as well, thats not exactly true,. sure its cost of doing business, and they will attempt to pass that onto the customer, but also products have ceiling costs that the consumer will not pay more than for that product. so especially for a small business this is a very real expense which makes it harder for them to operate.  they cannot just go and charge anything they want, people need to be willing to pay it(or able). and those costs are damaging there. just like medical insurance premiums as a benefit paid. costs spike, and the money has to come from somewhere. medical insurance went up 20% last year, can you imagine walking into your favorite store tomorrow and everything you paid for yesterday was 20% more?  what about 50% more, hey just covering cost of doing busines. poney up. those cost bleed into other things, now you are paying more to buy your widget and have less money to go to eat with so you dont go out to your favorite local restuarant as much (apparently chillies on this board) so they feel a pinch, fire somone etc etc.  some costs are easily absorbed but at some point thats not so easy.  and our goverment imposes (as do most) and very large financial and adminstrative burden on business, and some of that is neccessary but some of it is not.  business would thrive better and our personal lives would improve if we eleviated the unncessary parts.   somewhere i could swear i remember reading government existed for our benefit....since its "our" governement.  "

Good post!

Actually, to fit the definition of fair, everyone would pay based on the services they receive, meaning every citizen, give or take, would roughly pay the same amount.  That would amount to approx 6500 per Citizen.  got 10 kids?  Send 10 checks for them, plus yours and your spouse.  Pay your own way.  Everyone has an obligation to pay for the society in which they live. No one has a right under a doctrine of fairness or any other reason to expect others to foot the bill for them.

However...That won't work.  Period.

We need X amount of dollars to provide X amount of services.  Every citizen has an obligation to pay for the services they receive.

But the won't.  They can't.  Therefore we are faced with moral decisions, not "fair" decisions.  Do we let people starve?  Do we really want a nation of angry poor people?  Are hungry americans what we want to see?  Are sections of america living in pestulence and filth really in all of our best interests?

Of course not.  So we accept that the world, our world isn't "fair", and we mitigate this by forcing people to help us create a system that works for the majority.  So we vote money out of the pockets of people that have it to force a betterment of society.

Then it gets strange.  We socially design systems to redistribute wealth to certain segments of society based on arbitrary things like "age".  These people come to expect this and even argue that it is "fair" that almost half of our national budget goes to pay off their votes and their special interests. They even stoop to emotional arguments that don't hold any water, ignoring the fact that many people are paying to benefit a relatively few, and the numbers are grim indeed for the future.

Like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security will come crashing down,the only real question is "when" and the impact of the crash is yet to be known, but suffice to say our society will scarcely resemble the pre SS crash one we currently live in, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Anonymous]

Actually, to fit the definition of fair, everyone would pay based on the services they receive, meaning every citizen, give or take, would roughly pay the same amount

THAT'S ONLY FAIR IN YOUR WORLD, GREG.

[GregFL]

round and round in circles we go.  Do you feel that bold and big letters constitute an argument?

You just don't like the fact that our system isn't Fair.  Does it make you feel better to redefine the word fairness so you can feel better about the realities of our system?

My explanation fits the DEFINITION of fair. Offer an alternative "fair" system, explaining why some should pay the way for others using a doctrine of fairness, or just stop playing games.

[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-25 06:40 ]

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 13:55:00, cleveland wrote:

"I tell you what, this goes to show what Geezers we have all become if the hottest thing on this site in weeks is Social Security and taxes!



Let the debate roll on..."

Its all Ft. Lauderdales fault, I tell ya!  He started this thread.  

Linch him!


 :grin:  :grin:  :grin:










[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-25 08:04 ]

[Ft. Lauderdale]

Hey,  My first job was at a "Dipper Dan" which was like a classy DQ. (so I guess I resemble that remark) I went on to Carvel with a hair net after that.  I guess I would have been one of the dumb ones per the other poster.  Maybe thats why I bought into the Seed so well.   :rofl:

[Ft. Lauderdale]

Gregs just probably getting a little grumpy because his deductables are hitting 18. :grin:

[GregFL]

Hey, my son just graduated college!

My daughter is currently 16, so all is well in paradise.  

However, I still say Lynch Ft. Lauderdale!

It's the only solution, I swear.

 :lol:

[Antigen]

My daughter will be out of town next weeks, so I'll have to go and accept an award for "Attitude, Achievement, & Attendance" on her bahalf at her highschool. She's knockin' em dead academically, making honor roll and taking advanced maths next year. This after hearing from the principal several times what a low opinion he has of homeschooling. He never would answer me when I asked him why. Maybe I'll ask him again at the awards ceremony.



Attendance? Well, I guess they just needed another A word to round it out, eh? W/E.



But I'm particularly satisfied w/ their recognition of her attitude. Despite being an honor role student, she's been suspended at least 3 times this year on zero tolerance violations either for standing down bullies or for making people laugh. This last one was just the final straw for me.



Her "crime" was this. On the way into French class, she noticed the word detestes on the chalk board. So she picked up the chalk and wrote a large, rather rounded "W" underneath it, which may or may not have vaguely resembeled a ball sack. In the referal slip, the teacher described my daughter's art work as "Big hairy balls". When the dean of students, Mr W. (I shit you not!) read it to her, she said "They weren't hairy." Attitude indeed!



So, when the notice of suspension came to me in the mail, I responded thusly.*

"Mr. W."



Dear Mr. W,

I am in receipt of your recent letter. I have to say that I find the content of it somewhat puzzling. I know you suspended my daughter. Naturally I do. I live with her and she?s an honest young woman. How presumptuous that you, a stranger, would think otherwise? But that?s nowhere near as frankly disturbing as the next sentence. You hope to bring about a change in Heather?s behavior? And you want me to collude with you in this??



Have you met my daughter, Mr W? Let me tell you a little bit about her. She is just about the most hard working, responsible, charming, clever and compassionate young woman I have ever met. Day in, day out, she gets herself to school on time and well prepared for classes. She also holds a part time job. After about two years on that job, she decided to give formal schooling a shot, and turned in her notice. In those two years, she so impressed her co-workers that they gave her a going away party. After the cards and cash and cake, the boss came out and informed her that he had rejected her resignation and that, instead, he was giving her two prime shifts per week. She now earns, on average, $7 - $8 per hour, which she manages better than most adults I know.



Do you understand why she has decided to attend your school? Her primary reason was not, as you might flatter yourself to think, because she thinks she can?t get an education or the attendant paperwork from anyone but you. We?ve made sure she knows better than that. No, her primary reason for wanting to attend your school was that you have all the other teenagers locked up there. There is no other access. Kids in this town are either not allowed or not comfortable doing what teenagers are supposed to do in their towns. There are no hang outs where kids go to kill some free time and see what their friends are doing. No drop games at the park. No young couples strolling down the sidewalk, no kids jumping ramps on their bikes. No public concerts or music or even advertisements for them. There is no laughter, no fun, no life outside of the structured, supervised, captive world you seem to insist upon forcing them to accept. Hell, (ooops! Is that a zero tolerance word too?) the elementary kids don?t even get a recess! Who taught you how to deal with kids, Mr. W? Where do you get the idea that it?s good for kids to never laugh, never play, never do a thing unless and until some stuffed shirt instructs them?



Go spend a couple of hours in some of these neighboring towns one weekend and just watch. You?ll see the difference.



So our daughter has agreed to jump through all of the hoops, meet all of the requirements set before her in order to have some kind of access to what social life may be available to her in this sad little town. And you must admit, if you?re honest, that she?s doing a spectacular job. She is, once again, on the honor roll. Are you surprised? I?m not. Not in the least.



Her ?crime?, as I understand it, was to make a joke which ran afoul of your much vaunted zero tolerance policy. This was not the sort of cruel joke that?s only funny if it hurts someone. It was not mean spirited like, for example, all the cheerleaders ganging up on the new girl, humiliating her by throwing spittle covered candy and paper wads at her just to demonstrate that they could do that and no one would intervene. It was just a small, kind gesture intended to alleviate some of the boredom and monotony which you seem so intent on inflicting on these kids. Her ?crime? was to make her fellow captives laugh for a moment. No good deed ever goes unpunished.



These are not 10 year old children we?re dealing with, Mr. W. These are young adults who, whether you like to think of it or not, have to deal with real life issues each and every day in and out of school which are far more disturbing than an ambiguous line drawing on a chalk board. To pretend otherwise is to insult their intelligence and their worth. To punish them for finding ways to make each other laugh, to make the best of a less than perfect situation, to cope with life on their own terms, THAT is offensive. But then, then! To try, as you so frequently do, to get us to join with you and gang up on our own child? Now THAT is patently deplorable behavior. For anyone, but especially for an adult! You should be deeply ashamed of yourself, Mr. W.



We have never asked or wanted you to change our daughter's behavior. And we certainly don?t want her to be more like you. It is our fond hope that, one day, you will see the sense of changing your behavior to be more like some of these kids. But I don?t hold out much hope.



[sig]

Mother w/ tenure



[sig]

Father, also tenured

*some editing for privacy and such.

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there;  lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid.  She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well;  but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?tag=circlofmiamithem&keyword=mark+twain&mode=books' target='_new'> Mark Twain

[Antigen]

Just got the afternoon paper. This is not yet in the online edition, so I'll type it in for ya:

Some Monessen students oppose scheduling change

Frank Davis plans to graduate next week from Monessen Highschool, but he has one last project to take care of before he accepts his diploma. Davis, 19, is on a mission to convince the Monessen school board and administration to reverse a decision to switch from block scheduling to an 8 period school day. The High School established its block scheduling system in 1996 following the opening of the new high school/middle school facility. With block scheduling, students attend 4 90 minute classes each day. Their class schedules change each semester. Davis said students learned about the decision while scheduling courses for the 2006-2007 school term. "The block scheduling has been working, so why do they need to change it?", Davis asked.

Davis began a student petition drive and had friends stand with him outside the Monessen FoodLand to help him solicit signatures in protest of the change. He said about 150 students and 50 city residents have signed the petition.

He plans to present the petition at 7:30 tonight at the school board special meeting.

District superintendent, Dr. Cynthia Chelen, said administrators decided to return to an 8 period schedule because of rising standards related to Pennsylvania system of school assessment testing.

She explained that, with block scheduling, some students may have only one math course each school year.

"There is too much time lapse between when students are having math and English classes,", Chelen said, "they need to have these courses every day."

Although the district has met proficiency standards in terms of average yearly progress and is meeting it's PSSA score requirements, Chelen said administrators must look to the future.

"We're currently holding our own and we did meet our average yearly progress for two consecutive years, but that bar keeps rising," Chelen said. "Our numbers keep getting closer."

Chelen said an average day for students under block scheduling might include math, science, English and physical education. But some students take mostly elective courses and no core classes.

She said the board has studied the issue for several months and decided that returning to an 8 period day w/ 45 minute classes would be best for the students (aka mushrooms) The new plan involves an administrative decision and doesn't require a board vote at a public meeting, Chelen said.

"We would never make a decision like this casually," said board member Marilyn Pivarnik, a retired Monessen school district teacher and principal. "This decision is long overdue."

Pivarnik said block scheduling provides no "continuity" and it makes it harder for students to retain what they have learned.

"If you have Spanish this year and don't have Spanish II till next year, how do you remember what you have learned" she asked ["I dunno, speak it?" I thought]

Highschool principal, Randal Marino, and agrees that students should have daily English and math.

"A student might take math in their freshman year and not have it again till their sophomore year," Marino.

He said the state will add science questions to the PSSA test which re-enforces the decision to employ the 8 period system.

Marino said he has received "mixed reaction" from students and teachers about the change.

"Any time you make a change, there's bound to be concerns," Marino said. "We just felt it was imperative we do this."

Davis doesn't agree. He contends there will be more homework with the change, constant class changes resulting in less teaching time and more cost for the taxpayers.  And, even though he is graduating, he cares about the future of the underclassmen.

"No one even asked the students or even the teachers", Davis said. "This is our school, after all, don't you think they should ask us before they rearrange it?"

Patrick Major, 15, a freshman signed the petition.

"I think it's going to be hard for a lot of the students", he said, "it seemed fine the way it was.

Chelen said the district set aside money for the new books and a tentative budget that requires no tax increase.

The superintendent said she expects some students will be unhappy about the change because they are accustomed to having little or no homework under the block scheduling system.

"I've had many kids go off to college and tell me they weren't used to the heavy work load because they had such a light load here" Chelen said.

School board president, Jack Howell said the decision is a good one.

"Change is always hard to deal with, but in the long run we feel this is the best thing to do", Howell said.

Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor