Posted on 03/07/2005 10:19:16 AM PST by crushkerry
Actually the bottom 50% pay about 3.6% of the total income taxes collected. My daughter had a gross income of $60,000 and paid more in FICA than income taxes.
Maybe that actually saves money.
If I'm getting $700/mo for waiting until I'm 67, and I live until my life expectancy of 75, that's $67,200 (8 yrs x 12 months x $700)
If I get $400/mo for starting at age 62, that's $62,400 (13 x 12 x $400).
The longer we live, the more money that option may save.
(Those dollar figures were total guesses, admittedly. If the lower benefit is 80% of the full payout, then the numbers would be radically different than for my 57% shown above))
I take it you're for slavery reparations too? Your reasoning says you should be. Oh, wait a minute, that would mean taking even more of your tax dollars, so you have to be against it. But, if your father or grandfather did something wrong, surely you should be held liable for it, right? Oh, wait a minute, that would be hard on you personally; no way you would agree to it. Are you sure you're not a Democrat at heart?
A couple of you have indicated that the older folks are the problem, not the career politicians that hid what they were doing for so long in order to subjugate the People in general. I find it interesting how you are so ready to shove it up others backsides if it means something better for you, but you are also so set against the same type thing happening to yourselves. I happen to be one of the group that president Bush indicated might be either left alone or even come out not as good as others (52 and those already 55 would be protected at the same rate, while I may be in a group that actually has benefits cut and there's not much time to make up for it under a system where I might only be able to invest 2-4%. Never the less, I am all for reform because it is the best thing for the country in general. Of course, hearing some supposed "conservatives" so willing to have others retirement years turned upside down if it will benefit their own whiney asses gives me pause.
A couple of you have indicated that the older folks are the problem, not the career politicians that hid what they were doing for so long in order to subjugate the People in general. I find it interesting how you are so ready to shove it up others backsides if it means something better for you, but you are also so set against the same type thing happening to yourselves. I happen to be one of the group that president Bush indicated might be either left alone or even come out not as good as others (52 and those already 55 would be protected at the same rate, while I may be in a group that actually has benefits cut and there's not much time to make up for it under a system where I might only be able to invest 2-4%. Never the less, I am all for reform because it is the best thing for the country in general. Of course, hearing some supposed "conservatives" so willing to have others retirement years turned upside down if it will benefit their own whiney asses gives me pause.
Hagel should have the guts to go ahead and make it official and change his affiliation to the Democrat party. We don't need RINO's like him. He is an embarassment to Nebraska.
Your reply reeks of a Dim-style rhetoric. if you wish to criticize, criticize with substance instead of platitudes. Perhaps you had trouble understanding my line of logic; if so, I would be happy to explain it sentence-by-sentence, if you want to feed me the hard to understand parts.
Please do explain my "poor reading comprehension", I'm curious about how you made the leap to that conclusion.
Ahhh, why bother. As uncle Izzy used to say, "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
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.