1. those who reach the cap pay higher shares of taxes already - and currently spend some time and effort minimizing their exposure to it. hike their nominal rates, and you will only see an increase in resources poured into avoidance.
2. it still doesn't fix the massive gaping holes in social security.
3. which, to be fair. will never be a problem if we don't fix Medicare - because the government will have collapsed.
it was part of them admitting that future expenditures would have to be reduced. however, feel free to take a look at the unfunded liabilities that the trustees mention in their annual report, and make sure you read it in the context of Medicares. apparently the White House is gearing up to make an alteration in the COLA adjustment part of that. which I think is unfortunate because it misses an opportunity to make Social Security a better deal for our low-income workers, and as I understand it still leaves it long-term unsustainable... but depending on how it's done it could kick the can a good ways down the road.As a proud dues paying member of "the AARP", I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to show me where they said ďthat there is no way to tax our way to paying for Social Security ď.
this is incorrect. we are constitutionally obligated to pay our debt instruments to china, japan, bondholders so on and so forth. internal obligations we are not. it's like "borrowing" from your savings account. try telling a judge that you have to pay back your money market before you pay your mortgage lender.They used the money and left a pile of IOU.s .A friggen deb,t is a debt, be it to China, Saudi Arabia,Japan....
this is incorrect. my idea on fixing social security involved an entirely optional switch to a privatized account. you can read about it here (Social Security Fix). In addition, we may need to slowly increase the retirement age to 67, and link benefits in the old formula to inflation rather than CPI. Republicans are trying to seek a way to reform the entitlements so as to reduce the effect on current or soon-to-be seniors. That was the point of Ryan's Medicare proposal, which pushes the switch out 10 years. as opposed to the President's Medicare plan, which starts cutting benefits for current seniors in 2014.In this case the promise was made.In some cases a half century ago; now your OK with wanting to to renege on A promise to our seniors(who paid the into SS their whole working lives ).
their share of taxes has gone up during the last few years as it is. the undertaxed class at current isn't the wealthy, it's the middle class. I don't like that, because I am middle class, and don't want to see my taxes go up. I would rather we grow the economy; which would have the happy effects of not just increasing revenue, but employment, wages, and standards of living.Your ok with paying debts that we borrowed as long as we donít to increase the tax load of the people that have seen their wages ACTUALLY INCREASE during the recession.
the Republican Budget which passed the House and died in the Senate actually repealed the subsidies, loopholes, and credits to which you are referring. just without raising effective tax rates. that's what the fight is over - not whether we should keep the loopholes and subsidies, but whether we should raise effective tax rates.Gotta keep them subsides for them oil companies rolling in, otherwise they wont be able to claim the title of the most profitable CORPS. On this little speck of dust in the cosmos that we call planet earth.
doesn't work like that, sadly. production begats production. believe it or not, more 63 year olds in the workforce is a good thing for the economyActually, I think that if they would lower the that would entice more of us geezers to retire earlier and make many more good paying jobs available for younger folk.