define "fair"
is it a dollar amount?
a percentage?
suppose we managed to get the wealthy to pay 90% of their income - other than lining corrupt politicians pockets, where does that money go?
Did you or your family vote for Obama?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
define "fair"
is it a dollar amount?
a percentage?
suppose we managed to get the wealthy to pay 90% of their income - other than lining corrupt politicians pockets, where does that money go?
Don't you know the difference between disability and Social Security genius?
Morpheus
New member
They are already represented, so your second sentence is moot. Nowhere does taxation and representation have any basis in proportionality. Do you know why the Constitution was written. Technically all are supposed to get equal representation regardless of station. Your faction has done a great deal to derail that principle though.
So now do you know the purposes (plural) of taxation? Primarily it is to supply revenue to facilitate the operations of government. But a secondary recognized purpose is the regulation of the economy for the general good of the nation at large. Tax code is one tool that was used to build the middle class. As I pointed out in an earlier post, establishing a very high tax rate for all income over some specified high level spurred investment in industrial infrastructure and labor through increased wages. It was only after those restrictive rates were greatly lowered that hoarding resumed, infrastructure crumbled and wages stagnated. Without the motivation to reinvest the wealthy found it easy to put all the profits into their pockets at the expense of the long-term health of their industry and workers. Some economists have always said this, but many more get paid very well to teach otherwise.
Consider this, when the highest tax rate was 91% that meant that for every dollar someone made over a certain level (back then it was $100,000, now it would be much higher) $0.91 would go to the government and you would keep only $0.09 for yourself. even after the rate was lowered to 70% you eould only keep $0.30 of every dollar of income over $100,000. if you took that same dollar and reinvested it your wealth would still increase, but not in savings. it didn't make sense to save the $0.09 or $0.30 when you could increase the value of your business much more by reinvesting. That high rate incentivizes investment leading to growth. After that upper rate was lowered to below 30% the incentive shifted to saving, slowing growth.
For those who claim that high taxes disincentivize investment, they just don't know history. The greatest growth in this nation's history occurred when those high tax rates were in effect. Once they were lowered growth slowed and workers' wages stagnated.
I apologize but these videos are rather long, but worth seeing even if you disagree.
| Inequality for All | |
| Capitalism Hits the Fan | |
Morpheus
New member
Disability is a Social Security benefit for those physically or mentally unable to work and their dependents. So it is a cut to Social Security directed at the most vulnerable in society.
OCTOBER23
New member
As a Canadian, I think that people were deceived about his Birth History
and his True Religion. I think that because he is a Sunni Muslim and bowed
before the Sunni Saudi King , that he was a Manchurian Candidate set up by
the Oil Rich Saudis for the purpose of promoting ISLAM across America
and thus weakening your God Given Constitution of Freedom of Religion.
and his True Religion. I think that because he is a Sunni Muslim and bowed
before the Sunni Saudi King , that he was a Manchurian Candidate set up by
the Oil Rich Saudis for the purpose of promoting ISLAM across America
and thus weakening your God Given Constitution of Freedom of Religion.
A high school education is no longer enough to provide a living wage in the 21stC so college can been viewed as an extension of the public education system
In times of high unemployment or retraining the workforce to adapt to new technologies, investing in college is a far better investment than the alternative.
Last edited:
Morpheus
New member
Part of the problem is that the expense of job training has been transferred from business to the individual. In the past businesses had training positions and apprenticeships where employees learned many of their skills on the job. Building trade unions and union contractors still do. But the trend in the past few decades has been to expect the employee to arrive with most of the basic skills and training. That has led to the boom in business and technical schools. Now individuals go into debt to get training that they used to get on the job. Like taxes, corporations have lobbied and manipulated to shift their costs to workers.
Social Security is for those who worked throughout their lifetime
and have retired! Disability is for people who have physical or
mental problems and are unable to work, temporarily or
permanently! There's a distinction between the two!
TracerBullet
New member
A person of even average intelligence would have read my post and noted that the majority of it was detailing the unequal taxation rate.
Morpheus
New member
What part of "Social Security" don't you understand? It is one agency and one fund. The disability portion allows someone to begin collecting early if his health makes him unable to work up to his normal retirement age. It also supplies support to minor dependents if a parent becomes disabled the same as if a parent retires normally or dies.
It appears that your confusion is considering SSA retirement as the extent of Social Security, when it is only one part of the program. Social Security is an umbrella agency that covers many programs. Retirement is only one of those programs.
Furthermore, disability retirement IS retirement. One is only eligible if they are adjudicated to be totally disabled and that disability is expected to last at least a year or result in death. Typically though it is rarely granted unless the applicant is adjudicated to be totally and permanently disabled. It is not a temporary disability program. Benefits are based on hours worked over your working lifetime just like regular retirement, except they are not reduced as in early retirement. You receive 100% of the benefit amount earned.
There is also Supplemental Security Income that pays benefits based on financial need. It is separate program under Social Security.
So Social Security is much more than just retirement insurance. Maybe it would be easier to understand if each part is listed with their full name.
Social Security Retirement
Social Security Disability
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Supplemental Security Disability Insurance
http://www.ssa.gov
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/#sb=2
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/
http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify4.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/
http://www.ssa.gov/survivorplan/#sb=4
Morpheus
New member
How about, the money would go to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and reduce the deficit. Both these are the result of 35 years of shifting the tax burden off of corporations and the wealthy and partially onto the middle and low classes. What wasn't piled onto us was turned into the deficit. The wealthy and corporations then took their tax savings and loaned the money to the government to be repaid with interest. All of those massive tax cuts were essentially a brilliant scheme to turn a liability into profits at the expense of the rest of us. You want to talk about class warfare...that was class warfare. Then they took a portion of those profits and used it to buy politicians (lobbying) so they could continue to change policy, including tax policy, to their favor even more.
So crumbling infrastructure, record deficits and an overburdened middle class are the results of 35 years of wealthy-friendly tax giveaways.
I'm really not interested in what you have to say! Spread your
unique talents elsewhere! Besides, you're a liberal! Enough of
you! Bye!
WizardofOz
New member
Spoiler
Morpheus
New member
"You can't handle the truth!"
Next time you refute someone it might be a good idea to know what you're talking about first. An honorable person would at least have the humility to admit when he has made a mistake. I really don't care; it's your character in question.
Now you can try Fox News. They will only tell you what you want to hear.
[Edit]. As to that character - really; a negative rep because YOU were wrong! What a joke.