General Discussion

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

33. so when the rich reach retirement age, cut them a check for their...

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:45 PM

Dec 2013

.....contribution. Pay them back their full investment. End of story. It was an insurance policy against the possibility they would be poor elderly.

The same with medicare. At eligibility age, pay back their contributions in full. They have plenty of money for private insurance and don't need taxpayers to foot the bill for their scooters or dialysis.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should Social Security benefits be taxed? [View all] BlueCheese Dec 2013 OP

They weren't taxed until Reagan, & taxes were stepped up under Clinton. I don't think they El_Johns Dec 2013 #1

hell no SummerSnow Dec 2013 #2

No. But otherwise all sources income (wage, dividend, capital gains, interest) should be taxed same on point Dec 2013 #3

It should be taxed based on total income madville Dec 2013 #4

People with over a million $ saved for retirement should pay 100% tax on SS. L0oniX Dec 2013 #5

that makes no sense - did they not contribute? DrDan Dec 2013 #6

It's not an investment fund. L0oniX Dec 2013 #7

you contribute - you collect once you reach a certain age - that applies to EVERYONE DrDan Dec 2013 #8

The Koch thieves collecting SS is a stupid idea. WTF! L0oniX Dec 2013 #9

if they pay into the program, then they should get a check once they reach DrDan Dec 2013 #10

Well then there should not be a cap. They get a break? L0oniX Dec 2013 #12

I agree with eliminating the cap - terribly regressive DrDan Dec 2013 #13

Do you even know the reasons why SS was started? L0oniX Dec 2013 #14

if you raised the top income tax rate on their wages and income, I would have no problem with that DrDan Dec 2013 #15

The history of SS is easy to find and the intent of its use is very evident. L0oniX Dec 2013 #16

from the beginning, social security was established to provide (among other things) DrDan Dec 2013 #18

No one contributed as it was first started yet they collected because it was designed for the needy. L0oniX Dec 2013 #20

you are correct - no contributions when SS started . . . however, there were also DrDan Dec 2013 #40

I don't really care about being correct. I try to care about people who need help. L0oniX Dec 2013 #41

so I am confident you realize Social Security initially paid ONLY a retirement benefit DrDan Dec 2013 #43

so when the rich reach retirement age, cut them a check for their... grasswire Dec 2013 #33

Social Security pays for more than a "retirement" check - contributions from the wealty are needed DrDan Dec 2013 #37

It was started as a tax on workers to fund their own retirement security program -- not as a welfare El_Johns Dec 2013 #21

Read up... L0oniX Dec 2013 #31

I have read a great deal. The way a program is funded is crucial to its designation as a "welfare" El_Johns Dec 2013 #32

"SS was established as a program to benefit workers" It's not exclusive to workers. L0oniX Dec 2013 #36

It IS exclusive to workers. Only the widows/widowers & children of workers who paid into the El_Johns Dec 2013 #39

I agree if the Koch brothers or Bill Gates paid into SS doc03 Dec 2013 #47

What makes you think the Kochs paid any significant amount of SS tax, since they inherited El_Johns Dec 2013 #25

It's a Metaphor ...but that may be a challenge to assume with me not actually saying so. L0oniX Dec 2013 #27

I don't understand your sentence: El_Johns Dec 2013 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Dec 2013 #51

No, they shouldn't and weren't until Reagan. trof Dec 2013 #11

I amlimited to how much I can take out of my 401K hollysmom Dec 2013 #17

Same here I am single and my pension puts me over $25000 so that makes doc03 Dec 2013 #48

I have to pay income taxes on mine madokie Dec 2013 #19

Bipartisan "reform" El_Johns Dec 2013 #22

Changes originate out of Congress madville Dec 2013 #24

Bipartisan Congresses signed on to both, under both R & D presidents. El_Johns Dec 2013 #26

I was working full time while collecting Social Security. RebelOne Dec 2013 #23

Additionally, the deduction they take out for Medicare is based upon..... northoftheborder Dec 2013 #29

No (nt) bigwillq Dec 2013 #30

For people who make a lot, yes, but 25K is too low treestar Dec 2013 #34

Absolutely not! llmart Dec 2013 #35

taxing social security more? why not go after religious organization tax beachbum bob Dec 2013 #38

No I don't believe it should Packerowner740 Dec 2013 #42

No, absolutely not. ananda Dec 2013 #44

When raising taxes, WJC made a maximum of 85% of social security benefits subject to taxation, indepat Dec 2013 #45

I am a single retired steelworker, I get a pension that certainly isn't doc03 Dec 2013 #46

Up to $100,000 other taxable joint income should be tax free Omaha Steve Dec 2013 #49

That is like me taking a cut of my kid's allowance. indie9197 Dec 2013 #50