Posted on 03/18/2019 11:48:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A CT demoncrat wanting to raise taxes for everyone so CT taxpayers won’t be alone in their misery.
Democrats: driving jobs into the ground.
More BS about the employer vs. employee “split”. The employee earns the entire amount. An employe must be capable of earning his entire range of compensation plus earn a profit for the owner. If not the employer has no economic reason to hire them.
This myth is perpetrated in order to keep people from understand how much they are really paying. If tomorrow the employer paid the entire 14.8% wages would decrease by the additional amount being absorbed 7.4%.
The Social Security Fun was once a upon a time a “Restricted Fund” then the democrats I believe in the Johnson era voted it to be an Unrestricted Fund. This meant Congress borrowed money from it and NEVER paid a penny back. Congress just kept passing this issue to the next Congress every year and here we are!
If you try to explain Profit Margin to a Liberal, all they hear is ‘profit’. To them ‘profit’ means you have more than you need.
Surprise surprise
Many small businesses operate on narrow profit margins. And for many businesses of all sizes, the payroll expense, the costs of paying the hired help, is by far the biggest expense of operating the business.
Liberals just don’t understand, that you can’t just keep increasing taxes incrementally, without any consequences.
The destruction isn't unintentional. Liberals consider small business to be "petite bourgeoisie".
Not to mention millions to people here legally..that are ripping us off.
“It would undo the benefits of the tax cuts that took effect last year and are allowing small businesses like mine to hire, raise wages, and expand.”
All by design, Comrades. All. By. Design.
Having lived through the 0bamacare ABORTION while managing a business, I can see that the Dems cannot WAIT to crash our economy again, if given half the chance. Jerks.
I believe after Trump wins 2020 election he will be able to tackle some of these programs such as Social Security and Welfare I’m sure he got a plan to fix these programs.
Not really. You are just going to make it disadvantageous to have employees in the United States, and to operate a business oriented towards income instead of capital gains. That pretty much guarantees that the "low income types" stay poor since the small business owners will switch their strategy for success away from anything that requires employees and towards investments.
We are on a slow boat to Venezuela. It’s just a matter of how soon we get there. Mustn’t spook the passengers, you know.
What are you talking about? The cap is at $118,000.
The Green New Deal would take it all. No worries after that. We'd become Venezuela.
They need to start taxing all the funds the illegal send home at 50%.
Course they won’t do this because they want to bleed America dry.
If they got the tax increase, then within two years, they’d be reading the economic stats showing employee actual take home has gone down over two years, and claiming that a federal remedy needs to be done. Of course such a claim will be ignoring the fact that the payroll tax increase will be the reason the take home pay had not risen. but such facts are not the concerns of the Dims when they are trying to expand federal regulations, federal taxes and poorly designed federal “solutions”.
The current generations now actively working did not design the stuffing of the social security “trust funds” with IOUs - that allowed the money to be spent instead of truly invested - and they should not be the first to have money now taken from them, to try to account (pay off) those IOUs. BEFORE payroll taxes are increased on the young - the children and grandchildren of current social security benefits, social security benefit payments ought to be adjusted - down.
What the Dims are proposing is in affect generational economic warfare - the seniors being bailed out by their children and grandchildren for a problem the generations of the seniors created. It’s wrong.
I want a graduated and phased in cut off, over ten years, of any new participants in social security, whereby in the eleventh year all persons who become employed for the very first time do not join the present social security but instead enroll in two new plans - a defined contribution retirement plan with their and their employers contribution going to a private defined contribution plan of the individual’s choice, and a “social income” insurance plan, which would insure an as needed retirement income floor, not a proportionate “entitlement” that everyone gets something from.
It may mean that instead of any higher payroll tax, we have to change the formula for “taxing” social security, to effectively tax it more than is done at present considering TOTAL income a social security recipient gets. THAT might even result in someone whose TOTAL income is greater than X??? losing all their social security (some very rich retired former politicians come to mind). Why? (1) It is in keeping with the “progressive” attitude in the social security benefit formula already. Very high earners seldom get back the same % of what they actually put in than do very low earners. (2) I think the older generations need to pay for the mistake they allowed to happen “on their watch”. (3) The perverse and likely intended effect of the higher payroll tax will be (a) taking money that could go into employers and employees contributions to their own pension plans, that instead has to pay for the higher payroll taxes (b) and it will cause the calculation of benefits to produce higher benefits than now, and (c) - (a) and (b) together might be an intentional way of crowding out more of the private pensions. Repeated additional increases of the FICA taxes could gradually cause private pension to be less of retirement income than today, with more, and maybe someday all, dependent on social security alone. That would make the Dims happy.
All the Dims are doing is putting another patch on the Ponzi Scheme, and like all Ponzi Schemes, putting the price mostly on those coming into the scheme; to pay for debts that have to be paid off for the pay outs that the scheme already owes current benefit recipients (THEIR MONEY IS GONE - REPLACED WITH IOUs).
ASS is a generational transfer from the poor/young to the rich/old. True but it is the foundation we have created.
“The major Social Security tax increases done during the Reagan era, were supposed to put Social Security on a sound financial footing. And that plan may well have worked, except for the fact that the tax money paid into Social Security, which was supposed to be dedicated to that purpose, was drained away through this “interfund borrowing”, or whatever technical term describes taking those funds and using for other purposes.”
Social Security NEVER had any mechanism to actually INVEST social funds, in any true OUTSIDE investment. The structure had it from the beginning that any “excess” FICA tax revenue - revenue exceeding what was needed at the time to pay then current benefits - was to be put in IOUs from the treasury department. They all along called than scheme an “investment”.
If you have two sets of books for all your finances, and you take money recorded in one book, replace it with an IOU, and spend it, THAT IOU is not an “investment”.
But two accounts of the one single federal government doing that exact same thing is also not performing an investment either. ALL that does, just as it would if you did it to yourself, is move to the future a time when you will have to get new sources of money to pay back the IOUs you owe to yourself - if you want and need the accounts you stuffed them to be whole.
THE FUTURE IS NOW for social security, because earlier generations of us left in debt, not with a truly secure, OUTSIDE invested “trust fund”. Instead of cashing in bonds sold to us by corporations, we have one side the federal general ledger telling another side of the federal general ledger - “hey, I want the cash for your IOU”.
No doubt! MAGA! :)
Here come the robots.
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.