[quote=PatentGuy]
I can stand going back to the Clinton tax rates to help appease the “renterclint” types out there who unabashedly want to take as much money from “the rich” as they can. Does not matter what for, or whether good policy in the long run. Just simple-minded class jealously. But, the comment about how the unlimited payroll tax will “save” social security?!? Yeah, right. It will “save” nothing, and will cost a few jobs including people who were otherwise paying into social security. A tax is a tax. What you call it is meaningless. The money will simple be squandered or well-spent, depending on how you view the way government spends money, for example, on foreign wars).
[/quote]
PatenGuy,
the “renterclints of the world”? I now represent a whole group of simple-minded class haters.
I was playing devil’s advocate to accentuate the point that Ex-SD’s message of Obama taxing us ALL at 40% was flat out wrong. I never really said I was for wealth redistribution. I just want some spin-free debate. Admittedly, I am for saving social security. So in the case of the payroll tax, I guess I am “pinko” leaning. Is there any other way to keep SS beside increasing tax revenue? Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated.
What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.
