Personal Liberal Responsibility?

[Aloha Hoosier]

Dumb . . . ending a discussion without defining the test for determining whether the means someone has is "no or low" income is flat out irresponsible.

What's wrong with talking about this? You're basically saying that we can't discuss policy changes that we all have a good idea might be needed.

I'd bet you're not really concerned about "no or low" at all . . . you just want to make sure that your "I get mine" is intact, irrespective as to whether you have sufficient means from other sources. Well . . . good for your success. But you don't get to go to the head of the line to drink from the public trough when you've got a bottled water service at your house.

Pffffffttttt!!!!!

We can talk about it. What do you mean by means testing? How much would benefits be reduced for those over whatever means limit is established? How can means testing possibly be sold to some significant portion of the country that paid the most into this system that they will get little or nothing back from it? My point is that I don't think that is possible and it will only be another issue to further divide the country. Granted it was poorly designed from the start so we have to address future insolvency, but means testing is probably never going to be part of that. In my opinion of course.

 

[Stuffshot]

OK. 45% top marginal rate to start, to see where that gets us . . . my hope is that we can manage things well enough to pay down some of that debt. If not, we might have to kick the highest marginal rate up . . . .

I'm OK with the over $1 million salary being subject to social security - as an experiment. I'd like that to be based on gross salary - not adjusted for anything - with a stipulation that we can revisit this issue after 4 years in case an adjustment needs to be made to keep the system solvent. Frankly, I'm not sure that there's a good rationale for no social security taxes on income between $142,800 and $1 million . . . but if that's what floats this boat, OK.

I would also agree that we need to means test social security, but that needs to be done annually, so that someone whose investments peter out can still get access to their social security benefit . . . I suspect that's not controversial but it needs to be said . . .

. . . one of the forehead-lining things about approaching retirement is the advice I've gotten from my advisors to use either earned income or my investment monies to live until age 70, in order to max out my social security income. Why? Because I'll get an automatic 8% annual return on waiting, and in their view the markets likely won't return that much during the same time period . . . in other words, for each year I wait to take social security I'll get a higher return than they project I'll get if I were to keep my money invested, and the higher return is guaranteed. (I'm going to guess this 8% kicker was designed to make the social security benefit match the then-historical returns from the stock market.) So . . . instead of playing the markets, not only would I suggest that we means test eligibility annually, I'd also cap the benefit . . . either at a maximum of the initial full benefits amount (about age 66, give or take a few months for someone like Uncle Mark) or perhaps a floating return for years after the maximum benefit to come closer to what the markets might provide at the time . . . maybe cpi + 4% or 5% or something . . . we'd have to look to the experts for that number.

Re: "the over $1 million salary."

SS taxes only earnings from labor, I recall. Zuckerberg, for example, would not even be touched by this proposal, because he is paid in Google/Alphabet stock. I don't think recipients of interest and stock/mutual fund distributions must pay SS tax either. There might not be that many earners of $1 million who are actually subject to SS taxes.

 

[hoot1]

In judging how well U.S. citizens are doing economically, one of the factors I use is how dependent each generation is on Social Security. . The Baby Boomers, for example, lived through the most prosperous periods in our history. Nevertheless, almost half of them are highly dependent on Social Security as illustrated in this article which in part states,

While Social Security benefits are a great addition to your retirement income, they shouldn't be your primary source of income. However, 49% of baby boomers say they expect Social Security to be their main source of income during retirement, according to a survey from American Advisors Group, and only 12% said they'd get most of their retirement money from their personal savings.​

My fear is that future American generations may not have all the competitive advantages in the global marketplace which the Boomers had. On top of this, Social Security benefits may have to be reduced. What kind of America will exist in the decades ahead ?

 

[HillzHoozier]

And that's different from a business borrowing money to "make more money"? I'll tell you; one is subject to bankruptcy protection and the other isn't. Your rant might make sense if you were willing to change that dynamic . . . otherwise, it's just hot air into the ether . . . .

Im not against that dynamic, as long as everyone is prepared for the consequences, not just on the borrower, but future borrowers when interest rates climb, etc.

 

[stollcpa]

That's a hard no. Means testing will never happen. Soak high income people for $100s of thousands over their working years and then give them nothing back in their no or low income years - I don't think that would ever fly.

At some point those folks are going to pay.

 

[Sope Creek]

Re: "the over $1 million salary."

SS taxes only earnings from labor, I recall. Zuckerberg, for example, would not even be touched by this proposal, because he is paid in Google/Alphabet stock. I don't think recipients of interest and stock/mutual fund distributions must pay SS tax either. There might not be that many earners of $1 million who are actually subject to SS taxes.

Correct. I'm happy to toss that into the mix . . . but if you do, that will fundamentally change the theory behind social security. Income that isn't "earned income" in IRS parlance would want a return . . . are you ready to open social security to Zuckerberg?

BTW, the way accountants and lawyers get around that is by positing a salary to someone like Zuckerberg. Ask stoll . . . and ask him about how he might recommend creation of both defined benefit and defined compensation plans for family employee businesses, to help reduce taxes while providing future income to his clients and their families . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

We can talk about it. What do you mean by means testing? How much would benefits be reduced for those over whatever means limit is established? How can means testing possibly be sold to some significant portion of the country that paid the most into this system that they will get little or nothing back from it? My point is that I don't think that is possible and it will only be another issue to further divide the country. Granted it was poorly designed from the start so we have to address future insolvency, but means testing is probably never going to be part of that. In my opinion of course.

Social security already has means-testing of a sort with its rules regarding to government employees who aren't subject to social security. I'd start there for ideas and see if applying that principle to other sources of income such as private pension payments and MAWs from 401ks and IRAs gets us anywhere . . .

. . . it's doable, it just takes will and some creativity.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I take no responsibility/blame for stupid people believing the lies deliberately told by a despot desperate to hold on to power that a majority of voters never approved of him having in the first place...

You swapped my point for post-election vote issues.

MY POINT was that dehumanizing people and treating them like Deporables who cling to guns and religion for 4 years, callling them stupid racist child-cagers, has consequences too. Applyig double standards to virtually every political issue has consequences too.

"Things will get better after my enemies change or preferably die" is not really a path out of our current situation.

 

[Sope Creek]

You swapped my point for post-election vote issues.

MY POINT was that dehumanizing people and treating them like Deporables who cling to guns and religion for 4 years, calling them stupid racist child-cagers, has consequences too. Applyig double standards to virtually every political issue has consequences too.

"Things will get better after my enemies change or preferably die" is not really a path out of our current situation.

Keep that in mind the next time you support someone who wants the world to burn.

 

[hoot1]

You swapped my point for post-election vote issues.

MY POINT was that dehumanizing people and treating them like Deporables who cling to guns and religion for 4 years, callling them stupid racist child-cagers, has consequences too. Applyig double standards to virtually every political issue has consequences too.

"Things will get better after my enemies change or preferably die" is not really a path out of our current situation.

The entire Hillary Clinton quote about the deplorables goes as follows,

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?”​

​

Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”​

​

She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”​

​

“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.​

At least Clinton correctly prefaced her remarks by calling them "grossly generalistic" which of course they were.

 

[hoot1]

You swapped my point for post-election vote issues.

MY POINT was that dehumanizing people and treating them like Deporables who cling to guns and religion for 4 years, callling them stupid racist child-cagers, has consequences too. Applyig double standards to virtually every political issue has consequences too.

"Things will get better after my enemies change or preferably die" is not really a path out of our current situation.

It was Barack Obama who mentioned clinging to guns and Bibles in the Pennsylvania primary race against Clinton, The entire quote in reference to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses goes as follows.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."​

Upon hearing the remark by Obama, Clinton called Obama an "elitist".

The Pennsylvania voters may have forgiven Obama as he carried the state twice in general elections.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Social security already has means-testing of a sort with its rules regarding to government employees who aren't subject to social security. I'd start there for ideas and see if applying that principle to other sources of income such as private pension payments and MAWs from 401ks and IRAs gets us anywhere . . .

. . . it's doable, it just takes will and some creativity.

Federal government employees pay social security. In fact their SS benefits are considered part of their retirement plan. Previously they didn’t pay and they had larger pensions. This changed more than 20 years ago, maybe 30.

 

[UncleMark]

Ennhhh . . . sort of, but not really . . . .

https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds

Those "trust funds" are nothing more that the name they've slapped on the accounts. Money is not held in trust or anything of that nature.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Those "trust funds" are nothing more that the name they've slapped on the accounts. Money is not held in trust or anything of that nature.

that's always been my understanding. it's truly an intergenerational transfer of wealth/dough

 

[UncleMark]

That's a hard no. Means testing will never happen. Soak high income people for $100s of thousands over their working years and then give them nothing back in their no or low income years - I don't think that would ever fly.

I wouldn't favor means testing either. I don't know that it would make all that much of a difference. If nothing else you could claw some of it back by making it taxable income for high earners. But even then you wouldn't be making much of a difference.

I still don't understand the reluctance to do the simplest and most equitable thing, either lifting or dramatically raising the income ceiling. That makes all the other rigmarole unnecessary.

 

[Sope Creek]

Those "trust funds" are nothing more that the name they've slapped on the accounts. Money is not held in trust or anything of that nature.

Used to be held in a separate trust . . . I believe that Tip and Reagan broke open the piggy bank as part of the social security rescue deal back in the day . . . BICBW . . . .

 

[UncleMark]

Used to be held in a separate trust . . . I believe that Tip and Reagan broke open the piggy bank as part of the social security rescue deal back in the day . . . BICBW . . . .

Still, "trust" is just a name for an account with money in it. The whole notion that contributions were held in trust for the beneficiary is still bogus. That's how it was sold and marketed, but it was never true.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Keep that in mind the next time you support someone who wants the world to burn.

Like who? I've never supported such a candidate.

Unike many here, YOU are smart enough to discern the difference between/not equate (for example) “objecting to Pelosi being a hypocrite” and "supporting Trump."

This issue has less to do with Trump than most lefties will admit. They NEED to paint with the broadest Trump-brush possible - because they know deep down that it is simply deplorable to act the way they do. I'm talking about people who end friendships because people won't rend their clothing and promise to urinate on Trump's grave! Just not voting for the man is not enough - you have to burn a building with his name on it or be canceled. But if the Trumpers DESERVE it, the left doesn’t have to look at the log in their own eye.

 

[mashnut]

Like who? I've never supported such a candidate.

Unike many here, YOU are smart enough to discern the difference between/not equate (for example) “objecting to Pelosi being a hypocrite” and "supporting Trump."

This issue has less to do with Trump than most lefties will admit. They NEED to paint with the broadest Trump-brush possible - because they know deep down that it is simply deplorable to act the way they do. I'm talking about people who end friendships because people won't rend their clothing and promise to urinate on Trump's grave! Just not voting for the man is not enough - you have to burn a building with his name on it or be canceled. But if the Trumpers DESERVE it, the left doesn’t have to look at the log in their own eye.

If it makes you feel better, I have a feeling that the people who won't be your friend are doing it because of your personality, not because of your voting habits.

 

[Stuffshot]

Like who? I've never supported such a candidate.

Unike many here, YOU are smart enough to discern the difference between/not equate (for example) “objecting to Pelosi being a hypocrite” and "supporting Trump."

This issue has less to do with Trump than most lefties will admit. They NEED to paint with the broadest Trump-brush possible - because they know deep down that it is simply deplorable to act the way they do. I'm talking about people who end friendships because people won't rend their clothing and promise to urinate on Trump's grave! Just not voting for the man is not enough - you have to burn a building with his name on it or be canceled. But if the Trumpers DESERVE it, the left doesn’t have to look at the log in their own eye.

You're starting to sound arrogant for no purpose.

The liberals just fulfilled their personal responsibility by defeating Trump and regaining control of the Senate. Nonetheless, Trumpers in Congress, militias and elsewhere are still spewing that the election was stolen, Then, you come to their defense by claiming "lefties" are making arguments that are too broad. Your namecalling, attacks, insults and harping on imaginary issues are just defenses of Trump and Trumpers.

You guys lost the election.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

If it makes you feel better, I have a feeling that the people who won't be your friend are doing it because of your personality, not because of your voting habits.

I only have 4 people on the planet I don’t consider friends.

One died in prison.
The other three post here.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

You're starting to sound arrogant for no purpose.

The liberals just fulfilled their personal responsibility by defeating Trump and regaining control of the Senate. Nonetheless, Trumpers in Congress, militias and elsewhere are still spewing that the election was stolen, Then, you come to their defense by claiming "lefties" are making arguments that are too broad. Your namecalling, attacks, insults and harping on imaginary issues are just defenses of Trump and Trumpers.

You guys lost the election.

There. You did it again.

Pointing out your hypocrisy is NOT the same as supporting “Trumpers.”

Where did you get your education?
You think wrong.
Try harder.

 

[Sope Creek]

Like who? I've never supported such a candidate.

Unike many here, YOU are smart enough to discern the difference between/not equate (for example) “objecting to Pelosi being a hypocrite” and "supporting Trump."

This issue has less to do with Trump than most lefties will admit. They NEED to paint with the broadest Trump-brush possible - because they know deep down that it is simply deplorable to act the way they do. I'm talking about people who end friendships because people won't rend their clothing and promise to urinate on Trump's grave! Just not voting for the man is not enough - you have to burn a building with his name on it or be canceled. But if the Trumpers DESERVE it, the left doesn’t have to look at the log in their own eye.

*snicker* . . . you only complain about Pelosi et al . . . you never complain about any GOPers . . . unless they happen to agree with Pelosi et al. Your negative makes for a pretty clear picture, MTIOTF . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

I only have 4 people on the planet I don’t consider friends.

One died in prison.
The other three post here.

Well, all that being what it is, I nevertheless consider you a friend. I'll even buy breakfast next time . . . .

 

[Lucy01]

You're starting to sound arrogant for no purpose.

The liberals just fulfilled their personal responsibility by defeating Trump and regaining control of the Senate. Nonetheless, Trumpers in Congress, militias and elsewhere are still spewing that the election was stolen, Then, you come to their defense by claiming "lefties" are making arguments that are too broad. Your namecalling, attacks, insults and harping on imaginary issues are just defenses of Trump and Trumpers.

You guys lost the election.

The election was stolen and the news media was involved!

 

[bawlmer]

The election was stolen and the news media was involved!

I hear the new MAGA flagpoles include pitchfork attachments.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

No.

So you checked the first box.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I hear the new MAGA flagpoles include pitchfork attachments.

Personally I would put all the MAGAnuts, terrorists, Tidepodders, tic tokers, toilet seat lickers, Antifa, and other rioters and looters from the summer into a domed stadium, lock the doors and let them go at it with rocks, bottles, molotov cocktails, flag poles and laser lights.

Call it the "Self-Cleaning Oven Bowl"

Televise it pay per view with the proceeds funding C19 vaccine rollout and rent assistance.

 

[Bowlmania]

You're starting to sound arrogant for no purpose.

The liberals just fulfilled their personal responsibility by defeating Trump and regaining control of the Senate. Nonetheless, Trumpers in Congress, militias and elsewhere are still spewing that the election was stolen, Then, you come to their defense by claiming "lefties" are making arguments that are too broad. Your namecalling, attacks, insults and harping on imaginary issues are just defenses of Trump and Trumpers.

You guys lost the election.

Yeah. He needs to change his name to "MyTeamIsOutTheDoor."

 

[Cortez88]

If irony wasn’t dead, we’d ponder about those who voted for Trump twice and hoped he’d win again, and yet take no responsibility for the destruction that has followed.

 

[Lucy01]

I hear the new MAGA flagpoles include pitchfork attachments.

You are as guilty as anyone for promoting election fraud!

 

[bawlmer]

You are as guilty as anyone for promoting election fraud!

 

[HooDatGuy]

Somebody shot Tulsi??? I'll kill the muthafvcker.

What is it with you and this dime store Nikki Haley? She's got bad skin and yellow teeth. The lady looks like she's been through the wars, literally.

 

[UncleMark]

What is it with you and this dime store Nikki Haley? She's got bad skin and yellow teeth. The lady looks like she's been through the wars, literally.

She's no AOTF bimbo, I'll grant you that.