Skip to comments.
GOP Senator Under Fire from the Right
Human Events Online ^
| March 29, 2005
| Robert Bluey
Posted on 03/29/2005 12:48:56 PM PST by hinterlander
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
To: hinterlander
A Republican senator promoting the idea of a payroll tax increase is under fierce attack by some conservatives.He should be under attack by all conservatives...
2
posted on
03/29/2005 12:50:31 PM PST
by
frogjerk
To: hinterlander
Let's pass Ryan/Sununu already!! Come on!!
3
posted on
03/29/2005 12:55:51 PM PST
by
TonyXL
To: hinterlander
PALS
4
posted on
03/29/2005 12:56:44 PM PST
by
kingattax
(If you're cross-eyed and dyslexic, can you read all right ?)
To: hinterlander
Graham seemed to have a bright future in SC but he must have been masquerading as a conservative. He would be fine as a Maine Republican but he won't last long in SC now.
5
posted on
03/29/2005 12:59:52 PM PST
by
Arkie2
To: hinterlander
SOCIALISM:
You have 2 cows. The State takes one and gives it to someone else.
COMMUNISM:
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you milk.
FASCISM:
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you the milk.
NAZISM:
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREACRACY:
You have 2 cows. The State takes both, kills one and spills the milk in the sewage system.
CAPITALISM:
You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
6
posted on
03/29/2005 1:00:33 PM PST
by
sure_fine
(*not one to over kill the thought process*)
To: hinterlander
Idiot Graham! Raise taxes to "fix" Social Security? Then what? Raise them again and again later? I hope this guy's ass gets bruised by the door next election.
7
posted on
03/29/2005 1:01:02 PM PST
by
Jaysun
(I must warn you, I am a black belt in bullshitsu)
To: hinterlander
If we have to have a social securiy system, then everyone who earns money has to pay for it. I don't think there should be any limit at the top end for payroll taxes. I think that everyone should pay the same proportion of payroll to the system. Otherwise, it is a regressive tax that hits disproportionately at the bottom of the income scale. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is higher at the bottom of the income scale, it would seem as if the top is somewhat insulated from taxation. Why is it that those who earn the least end up paying the most? I would rather see a flat rate imposed on every single dollar.
8
posted on
03/29/2005 1:03:17 PM PST
by
webheart
(Pajamarazzi Rules!)
To: webheart
I would rather see a flat rate imposed on every single dollar. I take it, then, that you would also advocate that high-wage earners (i.e., those earning above the current "cap") be credited for the entirety of their annual wages when it comes to calculating their Social Security benefits?
9
posted on
03/29/2005 1:06:35 PM PST
by
DSH
To: webheart
Why not cut the taxes for people at the low end and middle as a means to ensure that everyone "pays the same proportion?" If you are for a flat tax, why not support that alternative instead of feeding even more money to the tax eaters!? At the same time, we can cut benefits and phase out this ponzie scheme the honest way. Deal?
To: hinterlander
"Sen. Lindsey Graham's proposal to lift the $90,000 cap on payroll taxes to pay for Social Security reform has prompted the conservative Club for Growth to blanket his home state of South Carolina with television ads accusing the first-term Republican of proposing a "huge tax hike" that would hurt families and small businesses."
Wow. The "Club for Growth" plays for keeps for their masters.
11
posted on
03/29/2005 1:08:49 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: webheart
You said: "Why is it that those who earn the least end up paying the most?"
Flat out untrue!
The rich in America are an endangered species, being taxed out of existance by the tax and spend liberals.
We need to promote investment not punish it. Lay off the wealthy please. They are not the problem.
To: Shermy
Because lifting the cap is nothing but a scam. The politicians know SS is morally and financially bankrupt - yet their only "solutions" is to keep raising the cap, keep raising the retirement age, and cutting benefits.
No wonder the GOP is commonly referred to as "The Stupid Party."
13
posted on
03/29/2005 1:12:03 PM PST
by
12 Gauge Mossberg
(I Approved This Posting - Paid For By Mossberg, Inc.)
To: TonyXL
Let's pass Ryan/Sununu already!! Come on!!
I'm with you. The only thing is, I'm not clear as to how much they'd allow to be paid out from the accounts once you retire.
14
posted on
03/29/2005 1:12:22 PM PST
by
Jaysun
(I must warn you, I am a black belt in bullshitsu)
To: Jaysun
To: webheart
Doesn't matter what you want. The politicians are going to spend the money on pork-barrel projects and government programs anyway.
To: hinterlander
Obviously the solution is to double the tax on those making less than $90,000 because they are mostly Democrats.
17
posted on
03/29/2005 1:18:24 PM PST
by
ex-snook
(Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose..)
To: webheart
You pay a percentage of your money into Social Security and are supposed to get that money back when you retire. If you pay more money into Social Security then you just get more money back. What does raising the cap do? Nothing, it is a zero gain gimmick.
On the other hand are you proposing wealth redistribution where you take more from the "wealthy" and give them less back than what they put in?
18
posted on
03/29/2005 1:21:21 PM PST
by
mikesmad
To: webheart
Why should I pay more in if I have no chance of ever receiving my principal back, much less any earnings? Tellya what....just give me my money back and I'll opt out. Don't even pay me any earnings, just what I've put in. We'll call it even, mm'kay?
Or would you prefer..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", hmm?
19
posted on
03/29/2005 1:21:59 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(Heteronormative and PROUD!!)
To: hinterlander
I see. So at retirement they would want you to buy an annuity from your personal account that pays the minimum SS benefit, and whatever is left over belongs to you tax free. (also SS is off the hook for whatever they might have paid you). I like it. Even a 5% rate of return more than doubles the amount that SS would have for you. Thanks.
20
posted on
03/29/2005 1:23:17 PM PST
by
Jaysun
(I must warn you, I am a black belt in bullshitsu)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson