Social security is not like welfare, we pay into it. It's our money to begin with.
And another thing, just because you retire that doesn't mean you become a couch potato. I suggest to everyone I know to plan your retirement doing something whether it's a hobby, part time work or volunteer. I'm reaching 70 years and still active. I still do a lot of tutoring, been doing it for over forty years, roller skate for ten hours a week, Ice skate three days a week for three hours a day, go out dancing, hang out with friends, meet new people wherever I go.
Since I don't have a family to take care of me in my old age, I rely on my social security checks. I lead a very simple lifestyle.
---Steveng on 4/18/19|
Yes, and if you actually do the math, that's the average tax rate you would end up with with a marginal tax bracket at the high end - the AVERAGE tax rate for one's entire income would be closer to 40%. If you look at Bernie Sanders' proposal, the tax rate is 10% up to to $20K, 15% up to $75K, and 33% up to $250K - just like the current tax rate. It only starts to ramp up higher for people who make over $250K. Nobody who makes over $250K will starve because they pay $80K in taxes.
The reason people can't afford to live in California, NYC, and other large cities isn't because of high taxes - it's because expenses like rent, etc. are astronomically high.
---StrongAxe on 4/17/19|
Socialism means well, but it doesnt take into account the nature of men. Social Security is a perfect example. What happens when we are able to get a Social Security check after working for many years? We quit work and retire.
A welfare check has the same effect for many of those who are on welfare. It becomes a retirement check.
Now since those on welfare dont have to work for a living, they have a lot of idle time. What do they do with that time? Go visit a government housing project for your answer. Seattle and San Francisco have expanded those checks to include the homeless, and look at the results.
As I said, well meaning..but socialism....by helping, is actually destroying these folks lives.
---David on 4/18/19|
ax: Your FALSE PREMISE that you want the good form of socialism - not the bad - ignores the reality that ALL socialism requires the breaking of the Christian proscription against stealing and coveting. If the majority of your neighbors agree to break into the rich neighbor's mansion and steal his stuff, is that OK with you? You call it Democratic Socialism, but its real name is MOB RULE.
Socialism, in whatever form, always requires police state FORCE in order to achieve compliance with its Utopian world view. The result is always the same - millions murdered.
We do NOT owe you free health care. Go back to Canada and wait for them to decide your fate. America protects the individual - not the collective.
---jerry6593 on 4/18/19|
StrongAxe : Once again during that point in time 50's and 60's the tax code was different, the people in that high margin rate had a lot of loop holes, real estate ,depreciation ,loan expenses, so people end up in the 40% range, that's why the economic picture was probably good , High marginal rates = low productivity growth,
So let's tax the rich more : Look what happen in France in 2016 - mass exodus
New york : Mass exodus has already started, The rich are leaving because of taxes, Gov.Cuomo : Say's this is a real as a heart attack ! 41% of people in the five boroughs say they can't live there any more, Wait till they get the bill for free Health Care !
---RichardC on 4/17/19|
Yes, the projected price tag for Medicare for All would be $33 trillion over 10 years. That sounds pretty frightening - until you ALSO calculate the price we would pay by just continuing the way we are currently going. According to the government CMS office (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), our costs for health care would be $45 trillion - so the new plan would SAVE us $12 trillion.
Which would you rather do - pay $33 trillion in taxes to the government so everyone can get health care, or $45 trillion in premiums to private insurance companies so some people can get health care, and those companies can get rich?
---StrongAxe on 4/16/19|
You wrote: Ok A Hypothetical : We tax the rich a the 70% Leaves the rich with 30 cents on the dollar
Again, that is the red herring capitalists throw up to try to instil fear into people. That's NOT how it works AT ALL.
A 70% marginal tax rate does not mean ALL income is taxed at 70% - only income ABOVE $10 MILLION. Income below $10M is taxed at progressively lower rates. For example, the first $10-20K is taxed at zero (your personal exemption), then everything from there up to around $75K is taxed at 10-15%, and so on up.
We had a 90% top tax rate in the 1950s-60s, and the country was at its most prosperous. We even went to the moon! Capitalists weren't whining about being poor.
---StrongAxe on 4/16/19|
Ok A Hypothetical : We tax the rich a the 70% Leaves the rich with 30 cents on the dollar, I think the number out there on this is 72 billion, Ten years that's 720 billion, what do you want to do with the money ? How about Health care, Universal for all, Price Tag 32.6 Trillion for ten years, Better get ready for a historic tax increase,
What Democratic Socialism is, Voting in Socialism, your voting in a Ideology, I don't have something so I can steal your wallet, It's a redistribution of wealth, And were will that end first the guy with 10 mill now, Then guy with 100,000 and down ward . Social program am all for helping people, But they are way to different things,
---RichardC on 4/15/19|
The rich did NOT pay "90% of their income" in the 50s and 60s. In the 50s and 60s, the highest tax BRACKET was around 90%. This means that the first part of it (i.e. your deductions, maybe $10-20K) is taxed at 0%, then the next few thousands are taxed at a slightly higher rate, then the next few, and so on. Under her proposal, only income that was ACTUALLY above 10 million dollars would be taxed at 70%. Under highest tax rates of 70% and 90%, the rich STILL get to keep rich, not just quite a filthy rich as under Reagan's lowered tax rates (and especially not the new Republican plan, under which many multi-billion corporations pay NO tax at all).
---StrongAxe on 4/15/19|
Rich paying 90% income in the fifty's and sixty's : Now that statement is all over the place these day's AOC is using it, and it is a False Statement ! The tax income was 91% in the 50's , The tax code was different back then, Even though the marginal rates was high , No One , Repeat No One pay 91% The top 1% pay at it highest point payed 42% , about what it is today, Today top rich 20% in the country pay 90% of the federal income tax.
---RichardC on 4/15/19|
The very blog topic is disingenuous, as it is based on a false premise - just as "have you stopped beating your wife?" which assumes you HAVE been beating your wife - both "yes" and "no" condemn you.
Leftists don't want COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM. They want DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. These are three COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. They don't want to eliminate private ownership. They just don't want the rich to constantly throw the poor under the bus.
Sanders and AOC don't understand economics?! Republicans passed 1.6 trillion tax cut for the rich, and increased the deficit by 2 trillion - yet blame Social Security, rather their own ruinous policies.
---StrongAxe on 4/14/19|
Socialism is looking for the Utopian Society :
But it will never happen in this world, and taking , Stealing and to covet people property goes against the Ten Commandments ,
Matthew 26:11 - For ye have always the poor with you, but me ye have not always
The word Inequality is use a lot these day's and needs to be address as best as possible, But it always going to be with us.
Capitalism , there is corruption and unevenness does happen, But people think Socialism going to be any different ?
People looking for equally in income , Who's going to measure it ?
---RichardC on 4/14/19|
Typically within two generations history is forgotten. Communism in Russia fell almost two generations ago. In addition, most high schools don't have an economic class, therefore students are not taught the basics. Look at Sanders and AOC who don't understand Economics 101.
---Bill on 4/14/19|