Log In | Register
New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman, in his column today, is right to expose the attacks on Social Security as being the work of right-wing ideologues eager to destroy a government program that works, backed by cowardly Democrats who want to show their fiscal "responsibility" by getting tough with future pensioners.
There's Nothing Wrong with Social Security that Taxing the Rich Fairly Wouldn't Fix
Seeded on Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:43 PM EDT
Article Source: This Can't Be Happening- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (11)
Paul Krugman devout idiot and anybody that quotes him is lacking in both research and objectivity. Do your home work. Everything Paul has espoused has cratered because it is all based on liberal reality distortion field dogma.
Have a great day!!!
#1 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:10 PM EDTBut there is a simple solution to even this deception, which is to eliminate the cap on income which is subject to the Social Security tax.
This is not about a private pension fund that’s going bust. It’s about a public pension program that has been raided, that has never been adequate, and that needs to be bolstered now by a tax on the rich. Nothing elaborate mind you. They just need to pay at the same rate that the rest of us do.
- 2 votes
#2 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:13 PM EDTKrugman is an idiot or a left-wing liar, or both.
My wife's SS taxes over 50 years - $50,920 - Current projected return at age 70 is $1229/Mo.
My SS taxes over 50 years - $254,000 - Current projected return at age 70 is $2906.00/Mo.
I will pay five times more in SS and get only 2.5 times more in bennies. And you want me to pay even more. Yeah. Fairness.
#3 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:29 PM EDTThe only thing wrong with Social Security is all the people who are not paying in to it. Make it the primary retirement plan that every one pays into and require the rich who get a break and do not pay on all there income will go a long way to making it solvent.
If some one has the means to add to there retirement let them do so on there own and not require there employer to contribute to it if they do not want to. In my town the Police and Fire men do not pay into Social Security. There plan is payed by the City and they contribute to it and it is bankrupting the City.
- 1 vote
#4 - Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:50 PM EDTI've always thought it wrong that some do not pay into SSI. Some have their own pension plans, so do not contribute. My company has a 401k plan I contributed to and still pay SSi. What's the deal with that?
don-72, I agree with you. Why do we need all those other retirement plans when we have social security? I would pay into to social security account if I could. I don't have one of those K plans. When they were introduced, there was something I didn't like about them that I couldn't put my finger on at the time. Many of my friends lost big in those plans when the economy collapsed. I put my money in CDs and lost nothing. Why they lost I was still making. I agree with you when you say everyone should be paying into their social security accounts and it should be the primary retirement account.
- 1 vote
Ron B, I also agree with you if one chooses to pay into a company's plan, that's their choice. And how does one pay in to SSI other then the deductions their companyny makes? When I contacted SSI directly, they told me that I couldn't contribute directly. Do you know something I don't know or am I misinterpreting your comment?
- 1 vote
Power, I don't know of a way you can pay directly.. I believe teachers for example have their own retirement plan and do not pay into SSI. As far as I know, there is no way for them to, it's some kind of agreement worked out and I think they pay more than they would to SSi.
I just thought it would make more sense if they also paid SSI, they would have 2 incomes and the plan would have more in it. Pension plans used to run out of money and people became destitute, thus SSI was born.
I just thought it would make more sense if they also paid SSI, they would have 2 incomes and the plan would have more in it. Pension plans used to run out of money and people became destitute, thus SSI was born.
Another good point, thanks Ron B.
- 1 vote
I did find this:
Yes, but only for earnings made a) as a minister or b) as an employee of an IRS-approved religion (in existence and able to provide wages since 1950, registered religious disagreement with accepting social benefits, etc.)
Even with these exemptions filed, any work performed for other (secular) employers will be subject to deductions.
Also, you can unfile these exemptions. Doing either of these (unfiling, other employment) will continue to earn you quarterly Soc Sec credits, so it should be apparent that there is no way, at least according to the IRS, to "remove" your SSN, once established
The police and firemen also fall under an approved pension plan, and there may be others.
- 1 vote
#5 - Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:16 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
