Social Security is a societal program which benefits society. It is NOT an IRA and should not be confused with one by equating benefits. To do that is a fallacy as well as intellectually dishonest since it attempts to ignore the societal aspect of Social Security. Please note the name of the program. It is not Your Individual Retirement Benefit.
In point of fact you get the benefit of living in a society where older people have a decent standard of living and you benefit in that situation as it benefits the entire nation.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
In areas like Luxemburg, they imports > aggregate output.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Anyone blasting that as BAD FOR AMERICA is a moron, plain and simple.
Tiki Bar! Woot!
Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate
IF, after we have reduced spending to its Constitutionally mandated limitations we still need Tax Increases to cover our expenses, then I'd be all for it. However, the political types will never even consider that type of reduction in spending because we'd see just how much excess income the US Government would have at the current tax rates.
there are reasons way beyond obumble's ability to comprehend why tax rates on LTCG (inflation for example) and dividends (double taxation) are lower than on earned income
he is pandering based on politics and his proposals are not based on rational economic facts