49% of Americans receive entitlements?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#1 Posted by Jebus213 (10013 posts) -
Where is the sauce for this? Is this based off of the percentage of people who don't pay income taxes? I've been seeing a lot of conservatives say it.
Avatar image for DaBrainz
#2 Posted by DaBrainz (7917 posts) -
Why are you asking us to do research for you? I would start by checking the heritage foundation.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#3 Posted by comp_atkins (34678 posts) -

here it is.

20090514-basic-barbecue-sauce-thumb-500x

Avatar image for Jebus213
#4 Posted by Jebus213 (10013 posts) -

here it is.

20090514-basic-barbecue-sauce-thumb-500x

comp_atkins
Looks good.
Avatar image for Canvas_Of_Flesh
#5 Posted by Canvas_Of_Flesh (4052 posts) -
From the Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/its-worse-than-romney-said-49-on-federal-aid-49-pay-no-tax/article/2508314#.UJvhaGJEW8o): And the percentage of people who don't pay taxes is worse than Romney pegged at 47 percent. According to the Heritage Foundation, it's over 49 percent. This is from a report they just issued: "In 1962, the first year measured in the Index of Dependence on Government, the percentage of people who did not pay federal income taxes themselves and who were not claimed as dependents by someone who did pay federal income taxes stood at 23.7 percent; it fell to 12 percent by 1969 before beginning a ragged and ultimately steady increase. By 2000, the percentage was 34.1 percent; by 2009, it was 49.5 percent. In short, the country is now at a point where roughly one-half of 'taxpayers' do not pay federal income taxes, and where most of that same population receives generous federal benefits." From the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/): 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#6 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

Maybe the number depends on what is considered an "entitlement".

In a sense Social Security is an entitlement in that certain people are entitled to receive benefits. However people receive benefits from SS after age 65 because they paid to support it when they were working.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#7 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.Canvas_Of_Flesh
Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

Avatar image for Canvas_Of_Flesh
#8 Posted by Canvas_Of_Flesh (4052 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.whipassmt

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

I'm not implying that they are undeserved benefits in all cases. Those are just the statistics.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#9 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

From the Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/its-worse-than-romney-said-49-on-federal-aid-49-pay-no-tax/article/2508314#.UJvhaGJEW8o): And the percentage of people who don't pay taxes is worse than Romney pegged at 47 percent. According to the Heritage Foundation, it's over 49 percent. This is from a report they just issued: "In 1962, the first year measured in the Index of Dependence on Government, the percentage of people who did not pay federal income taxes themselves and who were not claimed as dependents by someone who did pay federal income taxes stood at 23.7 percent; it fell to 12 percent by 1969 before beginning a ragged and ultimately steady increase. By 2000, the percentage was 34.1 percent; by 2009, it was 49.5 percent. In short, the country is now at a point where roughly one-half of 'taxpayers' do not pay federal income taxes, and where most of that same population receives generous federal benefits." Canvas_Of_Flesh

The fact that almost half of the population pays no federal income taxes is a very serious fiscal problem. Now I imagine some of that is due to the recession, once the economy gets better more people probably pay taxes.

A few months ago the Bush Institute was promoting a plan to double the rate of economic growth from 2% a year to 4%, and George W. Bush did mention that improving the economy would help the government "with the balance sheet" (doubly so, it would mean both more taxes and less welfare).

Avatar image for C2N2
#10 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.whipassmt

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

People with disabilities receive those benefits as well... When I was in Children's Hospital of Cincinnati a person from the hospital who works with social security approached me and tried to have me sign up for Supplemental Security Income... I didn't do it, but I was only 16 and had never worked a day in my life, yet I was entitled to it if I wanted it... So to argue social security is worthy only because people have worked for it is absurd.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#11 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.whipassmt

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

People pay for the unemployment benefits they end up receiving if they find themselves unemployed.
Avatar image for GamingTitan
#12 Posted by GamingTitan (657 posts) -

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

Avatar image for whipassmt
#13 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.Canvas_Of_Flesh

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

I'm not implying that they are undeserved benefits in all cases. Those are just the statistics.

Fair enough. I think the problem with Social Security is that it may run out for younger workers who may end up paying in to SS but getting nothing out. I think what we should do is reform social security so that a certain percentage of a workers social security taxes, say 5-10%, are put in a special individual account for them that they can't access until they reach a certain age (or in cases of financial difficulties they can get a waiver to access that money), while the rest goes into the general fund to support current retirees.

Also I don't think raising the retirement age is a good way to keep social security solvent. For one reason, we can only expect people to work to a certain age. For another reason, if old people wait longer to retire, less jobs will open up for young workers.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#14 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.whipassmt

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

What about SSI (Supplemental Security Income)? Those are payments to someone even before they could actually retire. They are paid from the general fund and not Social Security. It can be paid to the aged, disabled and those with little or no income.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#15 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.-Sun_Tzu-

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

People pay for the unemployment benefits they end up receiving if they find themselves unemployed.

Actually, it is employers who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, not the workers themselves.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#16 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]From the Wall Street Journal: 26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans) 16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security. 15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps 14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits 4.5% of households received assistance with their rent 1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.C2N2

Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

People with disabilities receive those benefits as well... When I was in Children's Hospital of Cincinnati a person from the hospital who works with social security approached me and tried to have me sign up for Supplemental Security Income... I didn't do it, but I was only 16 and had never worked a day in my life, yet I was entitled to it if I wanted it... So to argue social security is worthy only because people have worked for it is absurd.

I'm not saying that it's worthy only because people worked for it, merely I was saying that for most people the benefits are earned. I didn't know people with disabilities got SS, I knew they got some help (afterall they can't be expected to work if they are unable to), I just figured it was through programs other than Social Security.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#17 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

WhiteKnight77

People pay for the unemployment benefits they end up receiving if they find themselves unemployed.

Actually, it is employers who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, not the workers themselves.

They are taxes that get passed onto employees. They are only nominally paid for by employers.
Avatar image for General_X
#18 Posted by General_X (9137 posts) -

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

GamingTitan
The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?
Avatar image for Canvas_Of_Flesh
#19 Posted by Canvas_Of_Flesh (4052 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

whipassmt

I'm not implying that they are undeserved benefits in all cases. Those are just the statistics.

Fair enough. I think the problem with Social Security is that it may run out for younger workers who may end up paying in to SS but getting nothing out. I think what we should do is reform social security so that a certain percentage of a workers social security taxes, say 5-10%, are put in a special individual account for them that they can't access until they reach a certain age (or in cases of financial difficulties they can get a waiver to access that money), while the rest goes into the general fund to support current retirees.

Also I don't think raising the retirement age is a good way to keep social security solvent. For one reason, we can only expect people to work to a certain age. For another reason, if old people wait longer to retire, less jobs will open up for young workers.

I'm 27 and I fully expect that when I retire I will not receive SS benefits, so I essentially ignore it and instead focus on bolstering my own private retirement fund. I like your solution, which is essentially a government operated 401k, but I feel there needs to be a bigger push towards educating people about the ways they can save for their own retirement. There must be more personal responsibility among the people when it comes to ensuring your own future financial security.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#20 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

GamingTitan

Yeah from what I've seen, the stats show that the wealthiest people (I don't know if it's top 1 or top 5%) pay 29.6% of the taxes and have own 29% of the nation's wealth, So I'de say that is pretty much their fair share.

Furthermore taxing "the rich" (which Obama defines as $250,000 or more for a married couple and $200,000 or more for an individual, Pelosi seems to define it as $1 million or more) at the pre-Bush rates rather than the current rate wouldn't really bring in that much money I've heard. I think the money generated by that would fund about a weeks worth of federal spending. From what I understand Obama has said that he would generate $1.9 Trillion in revenue over 10 years from his planned tax-increases. The deficit has been over $1 Trillion dollars every year since Fiscal Year 2009, so if the deficit stays at it's normal rate (which it might not if the economy recovers and as the Afghan and Iraq Wars end, presuming no new wars start) that would mean the debt would increase by about $11 Trillion (based on an annual deficit of $1.1 Trillion), which would add up to our current debt which is about $16 Trillion. So if the only change to the deficit was Obama's proposed $1.9 Trillion in new revenue (assuming those taxes actually do generate that much money), that would mean that our debt would increase by about $9.1 Trillion and we would end up with a total of $25 Trillion in debt (imagine how much the interest on that debt would then cost in subsequent budgets).

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#21 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"] I'm not implying that they are undeserved benefits in all cases. Those are just the statistics. Canvas_Of_Flesh

Fair enough. I think the problem with Social Security is that it may run out for younger workers who may end up paying in to SS but getting nothing out. I think what we should do is reform social security so that a certain percentage of a workers social security taxes, say 5-10%, are put in a special individual account for them that they can't access until they reach a certain age (or in cases of financial difficulties they can get a waiver to access that money), while the rest goes into the general fund to support current retirees.

Also I don't think raising the retirement age is a good way to keep social security solvent. For one reason, we can only expect people to work to a certain age. For another reason, if old people wait longer to retire, less jobs will open up for young workers.

I'm 27 and I fully expect that when I retire I will not receive SS benefits, so I essentially ignore it and instead focus on bolstering my own private retirement fund. I like your solution, which is essentially a government operated 401k, but I feel there needs to be a bigger push towards educating people about the ways they can save for their own retirement. There must be more personal responsibility among the people when it comes to ensuring your own future financial security.

I really don't know how people can advocate this as a substitute for social security after going through the financial crisis we did. The purpose of social security is security, 401k's don't offer that.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#22 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingTitan"]

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

General_X

The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?

Is that 27% of your income, just in federal taxes, or does that include state taxes as well? 27% is asking a lot, makes government seem a bit greedy, especially when most churches only ask for 10%.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#23 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Actually, it is employers who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, not the workers themselves.

-Sun_Tzu-

They are taxes that get passed onto employees. They are only nominally paid for by employers.

Howso? What Employers need to know about Unemployment Compensation Tax Law shows, that even in Florida that it is employers, not employees paying it.

You, the employer, pay for unemployment compensation through a tax managed by the Florida Department of Revenue. It is one of your business costs. Workers do not pay unemployment tax and employers must not make payroll deductions for this purpose.Quoted Page

While it may be passed on to consumers, the employer has to pay it and it is the same for the rest of the States.

Avatar image for GamingTitan
#24 Posted by GamingTitan (657 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingTitan"]

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

General_X

The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?

you'll get no argument from me about your tax rate being too high. You should be paying less. Cut Govt programs (which might happen here in the next couple months) and get the rate down. Sooo much wasted money.

I keep coming back to the idea of just having a flat tax of say 18%. It's a tough one because i really think both sides have a valid argument. They better getter it figured out soon though and end this deadlock nonsense.

Avatar image for worlock77
#25 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -

[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="GamingTitan"]

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

whipassmt

The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?

Is that 27% of your income, just in federal taxes, or does that include state taxes as well? 27% is asking a lot, makes government seem a bit greedy, especially when most churches only ask for 10%.

What does one have to do with the other?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#26 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Fair enough. I think the problem with Social Security is that it may run out for younger workers who may end up paying in to SS but getting nothing out. I think what we should do is reform social security so that a certain percentage of a workers social security taxes, say 5-10%, are put in a special individual account for them that they can't access until they reach a certain age (or in cases of financial difficulties they can get a waiver to access that money), while the rest goes into the general fund to support current retirees.

Also I don't think raising the retirement age is a good way to keep social security solvent. For one reason, we can only expect people to work to a certain age. For another reason, if old people wait longer to retire, less jobs will open up for young workers.

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm 27 and I fully expect that when I retire I will not receive SS benefits, so I essentially ignore it and instead focus on bolstering my own private retirement fund. I like your solution, which is essentially a government operated 401k, but I feel there needs to be a bigger push towards educating people about the ways they can save for their own retirement. There must be more personal responsibility among the people when it comes to ensuring your own future financial security.

I really don't know how people can advocate this as a substitute for social security after going through the financial crisis we did. The purpose of social security is security, 401k's don't offer that.

I didn't say 401k, I said an individual account still operated by the government, but the funds (5-10% of the person's social security taxes) is reserved to that individual, but the account can't be opened until he reaches a certain age.

Avatar image for homegirl2180
#27 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Though people who have Social Security get that because they paid into it while working, so that is something they earned rather than something that is done out of charity such as unemployment benefits or such.

whipassmt

I'm not implying that they are undeserved benefits in all cases. Those are just the statistics.

Fair enough. I think the problem with Social Security is that it may run out for younger workers who may end up paying in to SS but getting nothing out. I think what we should do is reform social security so that a certain percentage of a workers social security taxes, say 5-10%, are put in a special individual account for them that they can't access until they reach a certain age (or in cases of financial difficulties they can get a waiver to access that money), while the rest goes into the general fund to support current retirees.

Also I don't think raising the retirement age is a good way to keep social security solvent. For one reason, we can only expect people to work to a certain age. For another reason, if old people wait longer to retire, less jobs will open up for young workers.

Well first off, you do pay into it, like Medicare, but you take more out than you pay in (in real terms), hence why everyone's worried about its solvency. They should, the thing is quite literally a Ponzi scheme. You take money from newer investors to pay back previous investors.

As for raising the retirement age, it's mostly a bad idea. But to address your concerns: 1) The suggestion to raise it is due to the fact that people live quite a deal longer now than when it was enacted due to all the advances of modern medicine. 2) But then people couldn't take advantage of a retirement plan as early, so the company could have more funds available to expand and hire more people.

The reason it's dumb to raise the retirement is age, is one of the principle reasons that, IMO, it's stupid to have the system in the first place: it helps the affluent more than it helps the poor. Once people get out of high school and start looking for work and get it, they immediately start paying into SS from that point. These people usually in the lower class. People who are typically a little more affluent or academically skilled go on to college and not work for the next 4 to 6 years, and they start much later in contributing to SS and will end up earning more money for their investment into education. The lower class always lives less long than the middle and upper class. So what you basically have is poor people paying into a system for more of their life, who end up using the benefits for a shorter time than those wealthier than them who do not need the system as much.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#28 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Actually, it is employers who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, not the workers themselves.

WhiteKnight77

They are taxes that get passed onto employees. They are only nominally paid for by employers.

Howso?

Because of price elasticity.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#29 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"] I'm 27 and I fully expect that when I retire I will not receive SS benefits, so I essentially ignore it and instead focus on bolstering my own private retirement fund. I like your solution, which is essentially a government operated 401k, but I feel there needs to be a bigger push towards educating people about the ways they can save for their own retirement. There must be more personal responsibility among the people when it comes to ensuring your own future financial security. whipassmt

I really don't know how people can advocate this as a substitute for social security after going through the financial crisis we did. The purpose of social security is security, 401k's don't offer that.

I didn't say 401k, I said an individual account still operated by the government, but the funds (5-10% of the person's social security taxes) is reserved to that individual, but the account can't be opened until he reaches a certain age.

Reserved where?
Avatar image for General_X
#30 Posted by General_X (9137 posts) -

[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="GamingTitan"]

well the argument is that there should be tax breaks for the wealthy because it is that top 5% of the wealthiest people in america that pay more than half of all the federal tax collected, but then they are told that they aren't doing enough and not paying enough. i would be pissed too if I were them.

It really doesnt seem rite to tell the top 5% who are paying more than half of ALL the taxes that they aren't doing their fare share and that they are the ones who will have to bail out america.

How can someone who pays NOTHING tell someone who is paying the majority that they aren't paying enough?

What if you went out to dinner and didnt have to pay because Bob payed your bill, are you gunna turn around and yell at Bob that he is a jerk if he doesnt leave the tip too? I mean, cmon now~

whipassmt

The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?

Is that 27% of your income, just in federal taxes, or does that include state taxes as well? 27% is asking a lot, makes government seem a bit greedy, especially when most churches only ask for 10%.

Edit: Scratch that, 27% is total income taxed, so I will need to separate out the state taxes and SS when I get home and can check a pay stub.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#31 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="General_X"]The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?worlock77

Is that 27% of your income, just in federal taxes, or does that include state taxes as well? 27% is asking a lot, makes government seem a bit greedy, especially when most churches only ask for 10%.

What does one have to do with the other?

I'm just comparing how much each one asks for. I guess the feds may be expected to ask for more than the churches, since the feds provide the military, which is expensive and churches do not have a military. So maybe 15% would be more reasonable, but 27% is quite too much.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#33 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]They are taxes that get passed onto employees. They are only nominally paid for by employers. -Sun_Tzu-

Howso?

Because of price elasticity.

Way to ignore the rest of the post. You fail to understand how unemployment insurance works and it shows. Have you ever had to receive unemployment? If so, your labor department where you apply for it would tell you the same thing as quoted above, I know the Georgia DoL does when you apply.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#34 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Howso?

homegirl2180

Because of price elasticity.

I think you should be more clear than that. I assume you're referring to the fact that, since the employer has to pay into the unemployment fund, they pay the employer less because of it.

Employers cannot do that. While they can pass the cost on to consumers, they cannot pass it on to employees. As a consumer, you may not even use or buy services from your employer so even then, you might not even contribute to unemployement insurance, I know I do not use the services of my employer (engineering firm as an NDT tech).

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#35 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Howso?

WhiteKnight77

Because of price elasticity.

Way to ignore the rest of the post. You fail to understand how unemployment insurance works and it shows. Have you ever had to receive unemployment? If so, your labor department where you apply for it would tell you the same thing as quoted above, I know the Georgia DoL does when you apply.

I ignored your post because your post was irrelevant. It does not matter at all that employers are nominally paying for a tax. Even if these taxes didn't result in lower wages (they do), they'd still passed on to the consumer, and guess what - all employees are consumers. To say that employers pay these taxes is wrong no matter how you slice it. And it is not true that in all states that employees have no nominal unemployment insurance tax obligation.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#36 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="homegirl2180"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Because of price elasticity.

WhiteKnight77

I think you should be more clear than that. I assume you're referring to the fact that, since the employer has to pay into the unemployment fund, they pay the employer less because of it.

Employers cannot do that. While they can pass the cost on to consumers, they cannot pass it on to employees. As a consumer, you may not even use or buy services from your employer so even then, you might not even contribute to unemployement insurance, I know I do not use the services of my employer (engineering firm as an NDT tech).

So only your employer is paying these taxes?
Avatar image for whipassmt
#37 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="General_X"]The top 5% of the wealthiest people also own the vast vast majority of the total wealth. I currently pay about 27% income tax, and with my income that's the difference between me being able to afford a more comfortable living arrangement, a more reliable car, it prevents me from traveling more, taking more vacations, etc. The wealthiest people pay roughly half that percentage at about 14%, and even if they were paying 27% like I do it would have an absolutely negligible difference on the comfort of their lifestyle. So I ask, why do I, a person who makes a fraction of a percent of what the wealthiest people make, have to pay a higher percentage in taxes when it does affect me more than them?General_X

Is that 27% of your income, just in federal taxes, or does that include state taxes as well? 27% is asking a lot, makes government seem a bit greedy, especially when most churches only ask for 10%.

That's just Federal as of now, but I expect I'll probably get a decent amount back on my Tax Return since I was conservative with my W2, also I am a single person household so I don't qualify for a lot of the breaks that couples and families do (and I'm okay with that).

Okay so you basically have a lot taken out of your pay checks so that you don't end up owing money (and probably get money refunded to you) come April or May.

I don't really know what deductions people can take (as far as families getting breaks that makes sense, allow people with kids to pay less in taxes so they can devote more money to caring for their kids).

What I think the gov't should do (maybe they already do, I don't know) is allow people who make below a certain income, deduct certain car repairs from their taxes. This would help people in the economy since it helps them be able to get to work (which is the main reason the Archdiocese of Hartford started a fund a few years ago, right about the time the recession hit, I think, to help low-income people pay for car repairs), and would also help people pay for repairs that are safety related (e.g. get good brakes and tires).

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#38 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="homegirl2180"]I think you should be more clear than that. I assume you're referring to the fact that, since the employer has to pay into the unemployment fund, they pay the employer less because of it.-Sun_Tzu-

Employers cannot do that. While they can pass the cost on to consumers, they cannot pass it on to employees. As a consumer, you may not even use or buy services from your employer so even then, you might not even contribute to unemployement insurance, I know I do not use the services of my employer (engineering firm as an NDT tech).

So only your employer is paying these taxes?

For me, probably. I do not go out and buy GE industrial gas turbines or buy power from anyone that uses them to generate power (I know Florida Light and Power does, but I don't live in Florida) even though I have inspected parts for them. International Paper is one of our biggest clients, but I grab paper from work for use on the job. They do not make toilet paper. I have no need for fire investigation services nor polymer testing (we do a lot of different types of engineering and testing work). Just saying.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#39 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Employers cannot do that. While they can pass the cost on to consumers, they cannot pass it on to employees. As a consumer, you may not even use or buy services from your employer so even then, you might not even contribute to unemployement insurance, I know I do not use the services of my employer (engineering firm as an NDT tech).

WhiteKnight77

So only your employer is paying these taxes?

For me, probably. I do not go out and buy GE industrial gas turbines or buy power from anyone that uses them to generate power (I know Florida Light and Power does, but I don't live in Florida) even though I have inspected parts for them. International Paper is one of our biggest clients, but I grab paper from work for use on the job. They do not make toilet paper. I have no need for fire investigation services nor polymer testing (we do a lot of different types of engineering and testing work). Just saying.

So none of the employers that operate the stores in your area where you choose to shop at pay the same unemployment insurance taxes that get passed onto consumers?
Avatar image for noscope-ak47
#40 Posted by noscope-ak47 (1318 posts) -

Don't have issues with people that get help that need it. That said for example fat people,smokers,broke people with kids and no income ect I have a huge problem with. The system is broken they have way more old people on SS while younger people are not having many kids so the money is going out faster than it is comming in.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#41 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="General_X"]That's just Federal as of now, but I expect I'll probably get a decent amount back on my Tax Return since I was conservative with my W2, also I am a single person household so I don't qualify for a lot of the breaks that couples and families do (and I'm okay with that).whipassmt

Okay so you basically have a lot taken out of your pay checks so that you don't end up owing money (and probably get money refunded to you) come April or May.

I don't really know what deductions people can take (as far as families getting breaks that makes sense, allow people with kids to pay less in taxes so they can devote more money to caring for their kids).

What I think the gov't should do (maybe they already do, I don't know) is allow people who make below a certain income, deduct certain car repairs from their taxes. This would help people in the economy since it helps them be able to get to work (which is the main reason the Archdiocese of Hartford started a fund a few years ago, right about the time the recession hit, I think, to help low-income people pay for car repairs), and would also help people pay for repairs that are safety related (e.g. get good brakes and tires).

For low income earners or even unemployed, they can take the Earned Income Credit which actually refunds a person more than they actually pay in taxes. Other deductions are mileage to doctors appointments, interest on mortgages, donations to charities. One has to have up to a certain amount of deductions in order to use them. There are many deductions that one can use to pay fewer taxes, but you have to qualify for them and have enough of them.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#42 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So only your employer is paying these taxes? -Sun_Tzu-

For me, probably. I do not go out and buy GE industrial gas turbines or buy power from anyone that uses them to generate power (I know Florida Light and Power does, but I don't live in Florida) even though I have inspected parts for them. International Paper is one of our biggest clients, but I grab paper from work for use on the job. They do not make toilet paper. I have no need for fire investigation services nor polymer testing (we do a lot of different types of engineering and testing work). Just saying.

So none of the employers that operate the stores in your area where you choose to shop at pay the same unemployment insurance taxes that get passed onto consumers?

All employers in GA pay unemployement taxes to the State. I just do not happen to pay for any that my employer pays for me is what I am getting at and what you asked me. I am sure I help pay for others, just not mine (as most people in GA do not help pay for mine (though it may be from others in other States).

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#43 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

Don't have issues with people that get help that need it. That said for example fat people,smokers,broke people with kids and no income ect I have a huge problem with. The system is broken they have way more old people on SS while younger people are not having many kids so the money is going out faster than it is comming in.

noscope-ak47

I don't have a problem helping people that need it, as long as they are willing to help themselves, but as for the others, I do, much as you do.

SS has gotten screwed as it has not used properly or rather administered properly. All money paid into the system should have gone into interest bearing accounts for said individuals, that way, once people were to retire, they were paid from said account. It hasn't been and when Clinton used some of the funds from SS to balance the budget, we have had worse problems.

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office?

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.Linked Article

Source

Wanna know why SS is in trouble, look back to a supposed surplus.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#44 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

For me, probably. I do not go out and buy GE industrial gas turbines or buy power from anyone that uses them to generate power (I know Florida Light and Power does, but I don't live in Florida) even though I have inspected parts for them. International Paper is one of our biggest clients, but I grab paper from work for use on the job. They do not make toilet paper. I have no need for fire investigation services nor polymer testing (we do a lot of different types of engineering and testing work). Just saying.

WhiteKnight77

So none of the employers that operate the stores in your area where you choose to shop at pay the same unemployment insurance taxes that get passed onto consumers?

All employers in GA pay unemployement taxes to the State. I just do not happen to pay for any that my employer pays for me is what I am getting at and what you asked me. I am sure I help pay for others, just not mine (as most people in GA do not help pay for mine (though it may be from others in other States).

So you as an employee still end up paying unemployment insurance taxes at the end of the day, considering how all employers in your state pay these taxes and pass them on to consumers. There's nothing special about the unemployment insurance taxes that your specific employer pays - they aren't put in your own personal lock box and specifically reserved for you in the case that you find yourself unemployed.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#45 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

All employers in GA pay unemployement taxes to the State. I just do not happen to pay for any that my employer pays for me is what I am getting at and what you asked me. I am sure I help pay for others, just not mine (as most people in GA do not help pay for mine (though it may be from others in other States).

-Sun_Tzu-

So you as an employee still end up paying unemployment insurance taxes at the end of the day, considering how all employers in your state pay these taxes and pass them on to consumers.

Your claim was that employers pass that on to their own employees. I aver that that is untrue. That is where this whole exchange started, not that I help pay for someone elses unemployement through goods or services purchased or used.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#46 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]

Don't have issues with people that get help that need it. That said for example fat people,smokers,broke people with kids and no income ect I have a huge problem with. The system is broken they have way more old people on SS while younger people are not having many kids so the money is going out faster than it is comming in.

WhiteKnight77

I don't have a problem helping people that need it, as long as they are willing to help themselves, but as for the others, I do, much as you do.

SS has gotten screwed as it has not used properly or rather administered properly. All money paid into the system should have gone into interest bearing accounts for said individuals, that way, once people were to retire, they were paid from said account. It hasn't been and when Clinton used some of the funds from SS to balance the budget, we have had worse problems.

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office?

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.Linked Article

Source

Wanna know why SS is in trouble, look back to a supposed surplus.

I've seen other sources that dispute that, but I am not sure which one is true. Either way, I think some of the problems with SS started when money from the social security fund was used to help pay for the Vietnam War.

Also I did see a thing on the History channel about infrastructure, at one point it mentioned sewer repairs and other work to prevent water contamination. The TV program said that the EPA mandated municipalities to meet certain standards, but the EPA helped pay for the cost of these projects, however in the 1990s the EPA changed it's policy and stopped helping pay for projects that it required municipalities and counties to perform.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#47 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

All employers in GA pay unemployement taxes to the State. I just do not happen to pay for any that my employer pays for me is what I am getting at and what you asked me. I am sure I help pay for others, just not mine (as most people in GA do not help pay for mine (though it may be from others in other States).

WhiteKnight77

So you as an employee still end up paying unemployment insurance taxes at the end of the day, considering how all employers in your state pay these taxes and pass them on to consumers.

Your claim was that employers pass that on to their own employees. I aver that that is untrue. That is where this whole exchange started, not that I help pay for someone elses unemployement through goods or services purchased or used.

My claim was that employees pay for their own unemployment insurance. Saying that employees don't pay for their own unemployment insurance because employers pass these taxes onto consumers rather than employees does not refute my point in any way, it just recasts my point in a different light. No matter how you look at it, the people receiving unemployment insurance have been paying taxes for that insurance (in some states they are explicitly paying for it, in others it is implicit).