[PatentGuy]

I am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).

If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).

As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.

If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.

Guess I’m ranting again.

[PatentGuy]

I am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).

If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).

As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.

If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.

Guess I’m ranting again.

[PatentGuy]

I am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).

If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).

As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.

If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.

Guess I’m ranting again.

[PatentGuy]

I am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).

If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).

As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.

If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.

Guess I’m ranting again.

[PatentGuy]

I am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).

If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).

As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.

If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.

Guess I’m ranting again.

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

My “opinionated rant” was continuing my answer.

I will try to be more concise:

1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“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.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“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.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“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.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“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.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“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.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[Author]

Posts