No mo sosec

February 21, 2005

OK, I’ll be the first one to say it. To be perfectly honest, I don’t actually FEEL like paying more social security tax. Yes, it makes me a selfish pig. I feel bad. But not bad enough to, for instance, support raising the contribution limit from $90K to $140K. I’m afraid I must respectfully submit that the left-leaning pundits fuck that noise.

Hey, I didn’t break Social Security. Why should it be fixed on my back? If the current retirees were willing to take a somewhat more means-tested benefit… and the Boomers were willing to take a rather higher retirement age… then maybe I’d be willing to raise the contribution limit a little. But the other generations need to pony up first. Till then, I’m certainly not volunteering.

7 Responses to “No mo sosec”

  1. james Says:

    You’re not the first one to say that, and taxes aren’t being raised on Social Security because it’s actually *broken*.

    Just cause the current administration says something is broken, doesn’t mean it is. Hint: it isn’t.

    Raising taxes on SS is some braindead hand-waving to get you to equate SS = evil/less-money-for-you, and it looks like it works on a lot of people.

    p.s. just when you thought that babyboomers are greedy retirees, wait until the instant 20something millionaires of the late 90s get there

  2. Troutgirl Says:

    Hey James, I’ve read a lot of lefties who say it isn’t broken… but all of them admit that some tweaking needs to happen sooner or later. Are you saying it doesn’t at all?

    Hopefully I’ll be dead by the time the late 90’s types get there. 🙂

  3. james Says:

    It’s just no broken in the way that the administration says it is. Tweaking: that is something that should and will happen to SS no matter who is president, because economics change over time.

    But this tweaking has already been happening, continually, since the start of SS.

    I’m sure you’ve read some details, but it’s not just “lefties” that say it’s not “broken”, even some Republicans aren’t happy with that description, and they are just as concerned as Democrats about the President’s proposed solution to the non-problem.

  4. Kevin Says:

    Hmmm, raising the limit is not a bad idea and for the most part fixes things for sometime to come. Its been done before and can be done again.

    Means testing is not what social security is about and it kinda does have that now. Hey you wanna keep working and make over x dollars a year, guess what Soc. Sec. will reduce your benefit.

    Yeah the system is not as broke as the President makes it seem ( now Medicare really is), so healthy debate is good and rushing in now is foolish.

    Question for ya, do you use plastic, aluminum, get glossy magazine subscriptions, ever used windowed envelopes, drank from a green glass bottle. Well unless you are pefect you are contributing to our landfills and waste and current and future pollution ills. But hey, let some other generation deal, “Why should it be fixed on my back?”.

    Just a thought…

  5. luke Says:

    non-problem? Bush is spending us into deficit after deficit after deficit while all of these future bombs are waiting to blow up and you say there’s not a problem? there’s a huge problem, and a large part of it is with Bush. another large part is the increase in life expectancy that continuously occurs with technological progress. and don’t forget the huge overhead in administration.

    there are lots of problems. but the only REAL solution is to change the way the system works. it’s funny that the tax method of SS is horrible, and the distribution of benefits is horrible. I don’t think a single person would advocate for these same kinds of taxation or distribution were they not tied to the sacred cow of SS.

    especially with his 90K->140K shit, you are not taxing the rich with that, you are taxing the upper-middle, and lower-upper class. the majority of those earners are SMALL business owners, providing the kind of localized jobs that liberals love. but hey, let’s go ahead and tax them some more, pushing more down and more up away from that range.

    by the time liberals would be done taxing people and re-distributing to people, we’d have about 10 people making trillions and the government handing out the scraps from those trillions to everyone else.

  6. CW Says:

    There is a lot of serious disinformation going on about Social Security.

    First of all, there would be plenty of money for everyone to get theirs back if the politicians hadn’t taken the trust fund surplus and spent it elsewhere. That was your and my money that they simply stole and spent on pork.

    Second, at this point (assuming you are under 40), there’s essentially nothing that can be done to guarantee you will get your money back, because there are so many baby boomers in line ahead of you, and not enough people of your generation paying in.

    The reason people say “Social Security isn’t that broken” is because it isn’t – for the baby boomers. They’re going to get their money. But if you’re under 40, you won’t see a nickel unless they privatize it and get it away from the greedy politicians.

    Of course that doesn’t work for the baby boomers, so it won’t happen.

  7. GrumpY! Says:

    more to the point in california the geezers are the same ones who passed themselves a huge pay raise via prop 13…they gave themselves permission to not pay their way for a generation. its a valid point that people who have been paying $250 a year in property taxes and who will be selling their homes for seven figures should not be asking for my help since they decided my kids can go f themselves on education funding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: