bigsixfive 328 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Obama: Clinton Also Considering $1 Trillion Social Security Tax Hike on Wealthyby Associated Press Wednesday, January 16, 2008 HENDERSON, Nev.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is accusing rival Barack Obama of proposing a $1 trillion tax increase with a plan to require high income earners to pay more Social Security taxes. Clinton outlines the charge, which she previously has made, in a mailing to voters ahead of Saturday’s presidential caucus. Obama tried to describe his position at a campaign stop outside Las Vegas on Wednesday, saying the worst part about the mailer is that Clinton has said she would consider doing the same thing he wants to do. He said he thinks requiring high-income earners to pay more Social Security taxes is the best way to prevent a cut in benefits. Currently, workers pay Social Security taxes on the first $97,500 in income  anything above that is exempt. Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. He was not specific about what he would do. “There might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax,†Obama said. Clinton told reporters later Wednesday that at times Obama has advocated lifting the payroll tax completely, which could affect a Las Vegas police captain, a school superintendent and many of the people she represents in New York who have advanced in their careers but live in high-cost areas. “It doesn’t just fall on the wealthiest of Americans … It would be a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle class families, and I think there are better approaches to solving the long-term challenges we face in Social Security,†she said, without elaborating. Three months ago, Clinton told an Iowa voter privately that she would consider raising the income limit as long as there was a “gap,†with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation. The idea of a gap was first proposed in the campaign by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Clinton’s flier says she would provide middle class tax relief, “address Social Security without putting burdens on hard working families or seniors†and “strengthen Social Security and the economy by returning to balanced budgets.†The mailer says Obama has “a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America’s hard working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families’ hard-earned dollars to Washington.†link 1) I love when the government tells me what I can and can't afford. Nothing else can raise my blood pressure to dangerously high levels than reading crap like that. 2) So Hillary's grand plan is to not increase the already ridiculously high tax burden on those in the $100K to $200K range, but still obtain the $1T mark.... so she's going to have to either tax the living crap out of the $200K+ crowd, or do that AND raise the taxes on the under $100K crowd. Either way, she's screwing people. Guess what - if I've established, say, a $250K income level by marketing and selling some product and these wannabe economists try to take $20K MORE of my income... my prices just went up to maintain my income level. That means all the lower income people they pander too are now paying more for my product. Crap this stuff ticks me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 "Three months ago, Clinton told an Iowa voter privately that she would consider raising the income limit as long as there was a “gap,†with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation." what about those making under $97,500? geez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 This "tax hike" is so misleading...the proposals is nothing more than an attempt to close a loop in the system... i.e. currently, workers pay Social Security taxes on the first $97,500 in income  anything above that is exempt. Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. This makes sense to me. Why would people who make millions and millions only have to pay tax on the first 97.500 when the average person pays SSI tax on ALL of their income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BZ770 2 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Everyone should pay the same % across the board. That is what would really make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 This makes sense to me. Why would people who make millions and millions only have to pay tax on the first 97.500 when the average person pays SSI tax on ALL of their income. Because they freaking EARNED it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I earn my money and I get taxed...on ALL of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 But currently, they don't get any more Social Security benefits than those making $97,500 or less. If they pay Social Security taxes on more than $97,500 they get to collect more benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 I earn my money and I get taxed...on ALL of it. Exactly. Taxes are fine. They're necessary. EVERYONE should have to pay them. But don't force people to pay into a failed retirement system where they will never see another dime of their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 There is a fundamental concept that I believe in — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that's what makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. I live in a country where the unbelievable is possible. I live in a land of opportunity. If I make it big one day, I'll have no problem not realizing a "return on my investment". My investment will rather be back into the country that gave me the chance to live out my dreams. Just a difference in philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 I share your concept as well, but as intended, SS has nothing to do with that. Its a retirement program that failed because the government allowed (all of) those funds to be used in a welfare manner without justification or reason by the funded recipients. SS is actually a remarkable thing if used as intended (privatized). As it is now, you pay in a ton of money over your lifetime, and that money is like a snowball rolling downhill when it gets invested. Say you put in $200 a month for 40 years - you SHOULD have millions of dollars to draw from when you retire.... oops, they spent it on something elsewhere. Well, lets go with that little bit that they do give you, which probably amounts to $125 a month. You die at 75, but you still have some money left over that you paid in, despite the government sticking its hand in it any time it feels the need. Well, the governement, the model of efficiency, decides it knows what to do with that money and it puts it back in the general fund. As intended, your money would gain interest, and you'd have access to ALL of it. When you die, the government wouldn't get it, your family would. Instead of passing on bills to your children, you pass along a small fortune. Think of the wealth that would accumulate after a generation or two! Also, welfare programs, as intended, are good. Sometimes people get knocked down and need a little help to get back on their feet, that's fine. But there's a limit... well, there should be. Generosity only goes so far, you wait too long and you'll look like a fool for trying to help someone. The welfare system should only help those who are committed to helping themselves - not the people that massively abuse it. Obviously, there are still exceptions, such as tragic events that cause a disability, but nearly all welfare checks today do not go to those truely in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 There is a fundamental concept that I believe in  I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper  that's what makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. If only the people taking advantage of your concepts shared the same ideals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.