What’s at Stake for PBS Viewers? Budget Cuts Could Harm More Than Big Bird and Elmo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jtauke said:
Good lord, you must be fun at parties.

Enjoy working yourself into the grave.
Click to expand...
This is because he has the illusion that he’ll be in the same physical and mental shape at 65, as he is as 20 years of age.

Young people often think their immortal. :D.

Jim
 
DarkNight said:
Why do you keep pushing the Libertarian agenda? All of the articles you refer to are from Libertarian organizations and therefor have a Libertarian bias. You are not up-front about that important detail.

Social Security is not equivalent to “the dole”. I have worked over 40 years and I love what I do. Unfortunately companies are becoming “corporate” - no longer caring about the employees, I haven’t had a raise in over 7 years, not even a cost of living increase. But my company expects me to work harder to get less as they get more. In talking with friends, this attitude is rampant among many industries.

I would have gladly continued to work - I loved what I was doing and the people I worked with. But management has made me miserable, to the point of falling into deep depression and requiring medical help to climb out of it. My health continues to suffer. I can not get another job given my age.

But you consider me lazy for not continuing to work for backstabbing employers.
If that is what all Libertarians are about then I am glad to remain completely independent of any party line.
Click to expand...
His is not a true libertarian agenda. Libertarians believe that confiscation of property without proper return is a violation of rights.
 
JonNC said:
His is not a true libertarian agenda. Libertarians believe that confiscation of property without proper return is a violation of rights.
Click to expand...
You are saying that all libertarians believe that we are due a refund of all the taxes we have paid? Can you provide some proof of that claim?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
This is because he has the illusion that he’ll be in the same physical and mental shape at 65, as he is as 20 years of age.

Young people often think their immortal. :D.

Jim
Click to expand...
When did I ever suggest such a thing? Also, what makes you think I am young? If I chose to, in a few years I could collect the dole myself.
 
jtauke said:
Good lord, you must be fun at parties.

Enjoy working yourself into the grave.
Click to expand...
What would make you think I am going to work myself into the grave. Have you never heard of saving for retirement? It’s a unique concept called personal responsibility that the defenders of the welfare state should try sometime. Forcing others to sacrifice for you is much easier than taking responsibility.
 
JonNC said:
And there you are. It is not a tax. It is FICA: federal insurance CONTRIBUTION act
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has determined that it is a tax. Can you cite any court decisions claiming otherwise?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The Supreme Court has determined that it is a tax. Can you cite any court decisions claiming otherwise?
Click to expand...
The legislation intended it to be a contribution.
Again, you keep responding to the flaws in the program, flaws I think you and I agree on. It should never have seen the light of day, but it is there, promised as a retirement supplement. You pay in, you receive a benefit at a certain age. That’s the way it was set up.
Calling it welfare and claiming those who now receive it as lazy does nothing to help you cause.
 
JonNC said:
The legislation intended it to be a contribution.
Again, you keep responding to the flaws in the program, flaws I think you and I agree on. It should never have seen the light of day, but it is there, promised as a retirement supplement. You pay in, you receive a benefit at a certain age. That’s the way it was set up.
Calling it welfare and claiming those who now receive it as lazy does nothing to help you cause.
Click to expand...
I am really disappointed that you didn’t do your homework on this one. If Congress intended it to be a contribution, then why did they call it a tax in the actual legislation? Below is from the Social Security Act of 1935.
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
Click to expand...
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 « per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 « per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Only f I am redistributing my own money to myself
Click to expand...
You will have to explain what you are talking about. Are you arguing that social security recipients get their own money back, no more no less?

I take it you now concede that the social security payroll tax is indeed a tax, since that was the intent of the legislation.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You will have to explain what you are talking about. Are you arguing that social security recipients get their own money back, no more no less?

I take it you now concede that the social security payroll tax is indeed a tax, since that was the intent of the legislation.
Click to expand...
Of course not. The intent was a contribution, a premium. I regularly get paperwork that states how much I have “invested”, and my projected return if I collect at age 62, 66, or 68.

Sadly, we don’t usually get our money back, if one compares SS benefits to the return on investment if the owner of that money had been allowed the basic American freedom to invest it even in rather safe investments.

heritage.org/social-security/report/the-straight-talk-about-social-security-act
 
JonNC said:
Of course not. The intent was a contribution, a premium. I regularly get paperwork that states how much I have “invested”, and my projected return if I collect at age 62, 66, or 68.
Click to expand...
If the legislators intended it to be an annuity, why did the call the required contributions a tax? The law clearly calls it a tax, can you cite some evidence from the initial legislators that they really didn’t intend what they called a tax to actually be a tax?
Sadly, we don’t usually get our money back, if one compares SS benefits to the return on investment if the owner of that money had been allowed the basic American freedom to invest it even in rather safe investments.
Click to expand...
heritage.org/social-security/report/the-straight-talk-about-social-security-act
Click to expand...
Actually, it depends on a number of factors. Early recipients by and large did very well. However, as time goes on benefits will become less generous. And of course, it is not an annuity because the government can change benefits at any time, just as they can with food stamps or with TANF.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If the legislators intended it to be an annuity, why did the call the required contributions a tax? The law clearly calls it a tax, can you cite some evidence from the initial legislators that they really didn’t intend what they called a tax to actually be a tax?

Actually, it depends on a number of factors. Early recipients by and large did very well. However, as time goes on benefits will become less generous. And of course, it is not an annuity because the government can change benefits at any time, just as they can with food stamps or with TANF.
Click to expand...
All good reasons to oppose forcing young people from participating without control over their own money. However, the idea that those who paid in are not entitled to their promised return is the logic of a progressive
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top