And this is a bad thing why?

$300k households are now middle class? I'm not so sure about that....

FEAR!!! FEAR!!!!

The Commies are coming to take your Escalade! Dirty Commies.

Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis."

Can someone explain to me how this would anger anyone? I thought it was a well known fact.

Tat'dGreaser: Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis."

Can someone explain to me how this would anger anyone? I thought it was a well known fact.

As a liberal, I wasn't angered.

submitter: wealthy

Daddakamabb: As a liberal, I wasn't angered.

That just caught me off guard.

The money has got to come from somewhere, and it looks like the cap on the amount of wages that can be taxed is going to be lifted.

I suspected this.

The Social Security plan was originally to pay a "living wage" to those who retired, who had WORKED all of their lives. Therefore if you earned your money from investing, there is no reason to give you social security payouts based on the earnings from investing, so the limit on income that could be taxed was set near the top of what a WORKING person would earn.

In addition, the payout start age was 62, and the average lifespan when the plan started wasn't very far from that. So, most people died before collecting. Now, that's not the case any more.

Seriously, the government is full to the brim with this kind of nonsense. When they want to take your money they will.

You voted for them.

Outlaw_Rudy: $300k households are now middle class? I'm not so sure about that....

Dude, $60k is barely enough to afford a house in a modest neighborhood if you are making a car payment as well. I wouldn't consider anyone middle class unless they made six figures these days.

fuzzwell: The money has got to come from somewhere

Maybe the government could quit spending so much.


Naaaah. Too easy.

Nobody should be making more money than I think they need.

fuzzwell: You voted for them.

It doesn't matter who you vote for; both major parties are tax and spend. The myth of the fiscal conservative republican party is just that, a myth.

That being the case; I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on social programs for the betterment of the poorest among us rather than on pointless wars that only benefit large corporations.

Dancin_In_Anson: fuzzwell: The money has got to come from somewhere

Maybe the government could quit spending so much.

That's crazy talk right there.

Economist James Buchanan described government as a lifeform. The purpose of any life form is to survive and grow and multiply. It learns to find the food sources it needs to grow, and will defend itself againsts any attacks on its food supply.

What he failed to mention is that after a certain amount of growth, the lifeform becomes a parasite. Specifically: a blood-filled tick.

Talon: It doesn't matter who you vote for; both major parties are tax and spend. The myth of the fiscal conservative republican party is just that, a myth.

That being the case; I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on social programs for the betterment of the poorest among us rather than on pointless wars that only benefit large corporations.

Because we know which party has a record of where they spend.

Dancin_In_Anson: fuzzwell: The money has got to come from somewhere

Maybe the government could quit spending so much.

SILLYNESS!

Dancin_In_Anson: Maybe the government could quit spending so much.

Maybe it will rain beer and we can get drunk for free...

lunchinlewis: Nobody should be making more money than I think they need.

And just who would determine your needs?

Do you honestly think George Bush, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Cheney or any other congressperson is going to play by the rules? Do you really think Nancy Pelosi would cut back on her makeup budget?

Wake up. Congress has their own medical care, they have their own retirement. Neither of which they have to work 20 or 30 years for like the rest of us. Republican or Democrat, they are politicians who have managed to make waaaay too many people think the other party is the root of all evil.

How dare we raise taxes on those with the most ability to absorb the effects without changing their lifestyle in the slightest!

Dancin_In_Anson:

Maybe the government could quit spending so much.

Naaaah. Too easy.

No more "Wars of Choice?" What will future Republican presidents do for fun?

Apeboy: And just who would determine your needs?

My sarcasm, let me show it to you.

2wolves: No more "Wars of Choice?"

So you agree that lower spending (from where ever it may be) instead of higher taxes is the key. Glad to see you on board.

lunchinlewis: Apeboy: And just who would determine your needs?

My sarcasm, let me show it to you.

Oh, I see it now.

Outlaw_Rudy: $300k households are now middle class? I'm not so sure about that....

they only have modestly sized boats. can you imagine the shame at the yacht club?

So basically, the more successful you are in life, the more you should be punished...that seems to be the message here.

This "He makes lots of money, so make him pay more in taxes because he can afford it" mentality is wrong. Everyone in this country, reguardless of how much money they make should pay the same percentage in taxes, not a higher percentage as they become more successful. I make less than $30k/year, my girlfriend's father makes more than $200k/year, I honestly believe he and I should be paying the same percentage in taxes. Yeah, that means he's got more money than I do, but he's also earned that money, he's worked for it, so it's his.

Great Janitor: This "He makes lots of money, so make him pay more in taxes because he can afford it" mentality is wrong. Everyone in this country, reguardless of how much money they make should pay the same percentage in taxes, not a higher percentage as they become more successful. I make less than $30k/year, my girlfriend's father makes more than $200k/year, I honestly believe he and I should be paying the same percentage in taxes. Yeah, that means he's got more money than I do, but he's also earned that money, he's worked for it, so it's his.

You probably are. You're paying payroll taxes on your full salary, he's paying it on only half. If he's like most people making more than $200k a year, a fair portion of his money comes from capital gains, which are taxed lightly compared to income from work. And he's almost certainly making use of tax-advantaged (read: government-funded) retirement programs such as a 401(k), and, very likely, you are not. You spend a much greater proportion of your income on consumer goods, and therefore pay a much greater percentage of your income as sales tax.

Taxing the total tax burden put together, it's entirely likely that you and he pay the same percentage.

Talon: It doesn't matter who you vote for; both major parties are tax and spend.

Not true.

As a life-long conservative, the current administration's policy of spend and don't tax has made me just a wee bit nervous.

The article is junk. It is as if Murdoch wants to trash the Wall Street Journal as fast as possible.

The cap on Social Security taxes has always been problematic. There is no mystery that Social Security has funding issues and rolling benefits way back is not popular. The author of the article is so lazy that no alternative is proposed. The implied solution is to let the program go with the existing revenue structure and necessarily slashed benefits. This probably means much later retirements to start with. Is Mr. Luskin going to be able to convince Americans to retire much later so that the tax structures will properly favor him and his rich buddies?

I'm all for lower spending. Lets start by not subsidizing Israel or the UN.

Foreign ownership of American media should also be illegal.

And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich - and, truth be told, the middle class - paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.

Interesting, well put.

Great Janitor: So basically, the more successful you are in life, the more you should be punished...that seems to be the message here.

This "He makes lots of money, so make him pay more in taxes because he can afford it" mentality is wrong. Everyone in this country, reguardless of how much money they make should pay the same percentage in taxes, not a higher percentage as they become more successful. I make less than $30k/year, my girlfriend's father makes more than $200k/year, I honestly believe he and I should be paying the same percentage in taxes. Yeah, that means he's got more money than I do, but he's also earned that money, he's worked for it, so it's his.

Woah woah woah -- you stop it with all that talk about fairness and equality in here. That's not allowed.

SusanIvanova:
You probably are. You're paying payroll taxes on your full salary, he's paying it on only half. If he's like most people making more than $200k a year, a fair portion of his money comes from capital gains, which are taxed lightly compared to income from work. And he's almost certainly making use of tax-advantaged (read: government-funded) retirement programs such as a 401(k), and, very likely, you are not. You spend a much greater proportion of your income on consumer goods, and therefore pay a much greater percentage of your income as sales tax.

Taxing the total tax burden put together, it's entirely likely that you and he pay the same percentage.

That is just naive and scary.



You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

I hate the idea of redistribution and extreme disparities in the progressive tax. I recognize we need a progressive tax, but that doesn't mean I like it.

The fact of things though is that we have been on an 8 year spending bender and someone is going to have to pay. With the economy the way it is, forcing the lower classes to carry the burden will destroy the economy and leave large swaths destitute. Sorry Bush sucks, but we have to make up for it. I'd rather we face the music now than push it down the road and see what kind of terrible beast it can morph into.

Let the redistribution of wealth continue! More windfall taxes for successful businesses!

Great Janitor: So basically, the more successful you are in life, the more you should be punished...that seems to be the message here.

This "He makes lots of money, so make him pay more in taxes because he can afford it" mentality is wrong. Everyone in this country, reguardless of how much money they make should pay the same percentage in taxes, not a higher percentage as they become more successful. I make less than $30k/year, my girlfriend's father makes more than $200k/year, I honestly believe he and I should be paying the same percentage in taxes. Yeah, that means he's got more money than I do, but he's also earned that money, he's worked for it, so it's his.

I'm all for that as long as we tax wealth and not income or assets. Wealth will be defined as any money received in a year from any source such as employment, investments, rental income, inheritance, etc... Everybody gets taxed at the same rate, but they get taxed on every dollar that comes to them and there can be no exceptions, no loop holes, no tax credits, etc..., but do you really think our society is capable of applying something like this fairly?

"When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn't there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?"

/Agree

Dancin_In_Anson: Maybe the government could quit spending so much.

So we should vote for the party of limited government and personal freedom?

Wow this "Barak" guy sounds scary. I guess I'll have to vote for Barack instead.

Generation_D: Foreign ownership of American media should also be illegal.

Partisan too. I just realized what someone above had already said - this article comes from a Murdoch paper.

No longer interesting. Not sure what it's leaving out, but the answer is probably "whatever would make this less worthy of my ire and more worthy of consideration and actual discussion."

Screw Murdoch and his biased media outlets.

Semi-threadjack: I'm screenshotting the greenlights for today, so I can repeatedly bash Fark Independents^tm ranting, "WHOLE POLITIX TAB AM MCCAIN BASHING THREDS!!`1 LIBRUL ECHO CHAMBUR!!!11" over the head with them.

The mods should cap it off with a back-to-back-to-back NRO or LGF greenlight trifecta.

Yeah those $5.9+ million dollar earners are really gonna suffer through a slight tax increase. I'd feel wrong voting for a man who rolls back tax cuts on the mega-rich in favor or funding social programs and paying down on the national debt.

Cry more emo-blicans.

So, *are* there any other ideas on the table to save social security? Or are we just going to let it die? What is McCain's plan?

Serious question.

unlikely: Generation_D: Foreign ownership of American media should also be illegal.

Partisan too. I just realized what someone above had already said - this article comes from a Murdoch paper.

No longer interesting. Not sure what it's leaving out, but the answer is probably "whatever would make this less worthy of my ire and more worthy of consideration and actual discussion."

Screw Murdoch and his biased media outlets.

Yea...bunch of kooks over there at the WSJ. Crazy right wing paper! I heard they actually build in subliminal messages into the articles too.

What happened to "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market." (new window) Guess that went out the window with his promise to stay in the public financing system.

TFerWannaBe: So, *are* there any other ideas on the table to save social security?

Well we could cut benefits or raise the retirement age, but that would encounter massive political resistance from the one group who turns out to elections in droves year after year: old people.

There are only so many trillions of dollars America can go in debt, borrowing money to pay rich peoples taxes, before even rich people start to suffer.
I don't know what the exact number of trillions is I just hope the current collapse of the dollar and concurrent rise of commodity prices is the enough to wake people up and not the beginning of the end for American prosperity.

Let's recount this week's ObaMao back-pedaling:

-Changed his position on the Capitals Gains tax.

-He reversed his position on FISA immunity.

-He flip-flopped completely on re-negotiating NAFTA

-He changed his position on a semi-automatic handgun ban.

Barack Obama is a Waffle House.

Seriously congress . How about ending social security altogether , start paying us back and let us provide our own retirement .

/much rather rely on my own carefree spending habits than that of congress

TFerWannaBe: So, *are* there any other ideas on the table to save social security? Or are we just going to let it die? What is McCain's plan?

Serious question.

Just like military base closures and raising the price of a stamp you are going to have to take it out of the hands of politicians because they are too chickenshiat to actually do something that's right and not politically expedient.

Bush and his sycophants on this thread are in for a reckoning.

Please explain how the stocks HAL and XOM have gone up, when the rest of the market has gone down.

Bush and the Republicans are a scam.