My Taxes are too low!

Originally posted by zeeblebot
isn't there a line where you can donate to the US govt?

Yes, it's called the suicide hotline.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Don't assume that all progressives want to maximize the supply of single-family housing.

A lot of progressives dislike the rampant growth of suburban sprawl that is due in part to so many people buying single-family homes with large lawns all around them. Other progressives want to preserve open spaces and protect the environment from excessive develop ...[text shortened]... government ended all the programs that artificially increase the number of houses being built.

I suppose the socialist model we see in Europe is appealing as well to the progressives. Everyone lives in row houses close to work and takes public transportation, much like plantation owners housing their slaves close to the cotton in the meagerest of conditions. 😀

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Nothing that says Boston Tea Party like paying low taxes with representation.[/b]

The folks in MA already had their Tea Party when they elected Soctt Brown. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose the socialist model we see in Europe is appealing as well to the progressives. Everyone lives in row houses close to work and takes public transportation, much like plantation owners housing their slaves close to the cotton in the meagerest of conditions. 😀

Pretty accurate description there.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Pretty accurate description there.

Indeed. After all, we all know that progressives think our houses are too big and our cars are too big and we pass too much gas etc etc. The socialist ideal then is to minimize our materialist existence in favor of becoming productive workers for the fatherland.....and, at the same time, taking Beano to minimize our "emissions".

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. After all, we all know that progressives think our houses are too big and our cars are too big and we pass too much gas etc etc. The socialist ideal then is to minimize our materialist existence in favor of becoming productive workers for the fatherland.....and, at the same time, taking Beano to minimize our "emissions".

I actually travel about 200 miles by public transport every day. I bring a tree and start hugging it during the trip.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The idea of taking a large portion of the money being spent on Social Security and devoting it to Medicare is very interesting.

One of the big problems in the healthcare debate is what to do about people under 65 who are chronically ill and can't get private insurance to cover their expensive healthcare needs. The easiest thing would be to expand Medi ...[text shortened]... Tea Party and other reform groups to accept radical changes to Social Security and Medicare.

If Social Security only went to poor people, why would anyone contribute anything to a retirement plan ever? People would also be gifting their other assets to their children or to trusts at age 64 so as to become eligible for social security, just as they do now to become Medicaid eligible.

Besides, I've been promised my whole life that the payroll tax I pay is being put away for me when I retire. I'm not interested in being ineligible to reap those benefits just because I have a 401(k).

Social security benefits should be reduced by raising the age of eligibility and removing the ultra-favorable rules in favor of spouses. My grandfather didn't retire until he was 83. So, when he did, he got enormous social security checks. That was certainly fair. His benefits merely got compressed into a shorter life expectancy. But then when he passed away, my grandmother took over his benefits even though she herself would have been entitled to a small fraction of those benefits. That rule doesn't make any sense.

If the payroll tax picked up at $250k and sensible cuts were made in benefits, there would be no question about the viability of social security.

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. After all, we all know that progressives think our houses are too big and our cars are too big and we pass too much gas etc etc. The socialist ideal then is to minimize our materialist existence in favor of becoming productive workers for the fatherland.....and, at the same time, taking Beano to minimize our "emissions".

Most elite progressives don't think "our" houses are too big and that we all consume too much. They think that your house is too big and that you consume to much. Their enormous houses and extensive consumption are just the right size, thank you.

Edit: Sorry, try as I might, I just can't go a day without taking an implicit shot at Al Gore. It's like a reflex.

Originally posted by uzless
Higher taxes are coming. Don't you worry. My guess is after the next election. If obama wins, he'll have no problem raising taxes since he's out of office after that anyway.

Congress raises taxes, not the president.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose the socialist model we see in Europe is appealing as well to the progressives. Everyone lives in row houses close to work and takes public transportation, much like plantation owners housing their slaves close to the cotton in the meagerest of conditions. 😀

An Equal Opportunity Generalist, and equally accurate to both sides of the pond.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose the socialist model we see in Europe is appealing as well to the progressives. Everyone lives in row houses close to work and takes public transportation, much like plantation owners housing their slaves close to the cotton in the meagerest of conditions. 😀

I'm not advocating any kind of socialist model here. I'm just saying that we should phase out the existing "socialist model" that insists that the government should be intervening to get as many people as possible into single-family housing.

Originally posted by sh76
If Social Security only went to poor people, why would anyone contribute anything to a retirement plan ever? People would also be gifting their other assets to their children or to trusts at age 64 so as to become eligible for social security, just as they do now to become Medicaid eligible.

Besides, I've been promised my whole life that the payroll tax I pa ...[text shortened]... ts were made in benefits, there would be no question about the viability of social security.

One of the problems with social security is that there's this idea that just because you've paid taxes into it, you somehow deserve something from it. Social Security is not supposed to be some sort of fancy government-run savings plan. Do we really need to have the "nanny state" doing this?

the official name of the plan uses the word insurance. It's supposed to be insurance. When you pay for fire insurance, you're actually hoping you never need to "benefit" from that insurance. But you buy it so you won't have to worry about fires. Social Security should be the same way. It's there in case you need it. But no one complains about being ineligible to reap fire insurance benefits just because they didn't play with matches and prevented a fire from occurring.

As for sneaky tactics where people give away all their assets so they'd be able to receive benefits - I would imagine that this is a problem for all means-tested benefits. But no one is suggesting that we give food stamps to everyone. I'm sure there are ways of penalizing those who use deceptive tactics to become "eligible" for benefits they don't deserve.

Originally posted by sh76
Most elite progressives don't think "our" houses are too big and that we all consume too much. They think that your house is too big and that you consume to much. Their enormous houses and extensive consumption are just the right size, thank you.

Edit: Sorry, try as I might, I just can't go a day without taking an implicit shot at Al Gore. It's like a reflex.

You forgot pushing everyone to have the same health care and retirement benefits EXCEPT the elite in government.


I suppose they have never heard of the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Of course, if they did it would be the end of the progressive oppressive ideology.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
One of the problems with social security is that there's this idea that just because you've paid taxes into it, you somehow deserve something from it. Social Security is not supposed to be some sort of fancy government-run savings plan. Do we really need to have the "nanny state" doing this?

the official name of the plan uses the word insurance. It's s who use deceptive tactics to become "eligible" for benefits they don't deserve.

Social security should be enough to live on -- not enough to subsidize extravagant vacations. What you paid in should have nothing to do with what you get out. You get out enough to keep you alive. If you didn't save (or gave it all away), you can rent an apartment and live. That's all it will cover.

So the motto should be: save because SS ain't going to be much.

* and I agree with the notion that is it insurance -- you only get it if you need it.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
One of the problems with social security is that there's this idea that just because you've paid taxes into it, you somehow deserve something from it. Social Security is not supposed to be some sort of fancy government-run savings plan. Do we really need to have the "nanny state" doing this?

the official name of the plan uses the word insurance. It's s ...[text shortened]... who use deceptive tactics to become "eligible" for benefits they don't deserve.

You're not required to buy fire insurance, so the analogy fails.

It would be inequitable to take 6.2% of people's incomes every paycheck for many years while telling them they would be eligible for X amount of benefits at retirement and then at the last minute tell them that "hey, we've changed our minds; you don't get anything because you're too well off".

Actually, Social Security was designed, in part, to be a fancy government run savings plan. The idea being that the average worker couldn't or wouldn't save a sufficient amount to insure an income he could live on after retirement. Thus, a system was set up whereby retirees would have some level of income hopefully sufficient to live on. Why this is so terrible in some people's minds is a bit of a mystery to me; despite any flaws, SS has drastically reduced the level of poverty among the elderly and so accomplished its main goal.