Muscatine

US > Iowa > Muscatine IA metro > Muscatine IA > Muscatine > Are you a socialist?

Are you a socialist?

nedl
Valued Neighbor
Muscabamastan
5426 Posts

Are you a socialist?

I used to think that Franklin D. Roosevelt was the ultimate liberal, I was wrong. There is a new liberal in town who appears to be willing to rewrite the history books and the very foundations of our economic system. Perhaps you agree with this philosophy, but I think it is important to be sure you understand exactly what that means.

Let's talk Social Security. Oh wait; let's first talk about pandering to seniors first and the social engineering that goes with it. Here is a statement of what Obama will do from the Obama website, "Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns."

So if you are a senior (I assume that is age 65), you cannot afford to pay taxes, but if you are 45 and earn less than $50,000 you can, or if you are a single parent and earn less than $50,000 you pay taxes, but your mother on Social Security (with perhaps a few hundred thousand net worth) does not pay. A married couple earning $49,000 in 2008 pays $6,548 in income tax by the way, so it appears that we are not only taking from the rich, but the middle class as well.

When FDR put in Social Security he made it quite clear that it was not welfare, but a base upon which people could build their own security, a base, not the sole source of income, a system funded by the people who would benefit.

Now Obama wants to change that in dramatic ways. He proposes that people with incomes of $250,000 or more pay Social Security taxes on that income in addition to the regular tax on the first $102,000 of income (in 2008) as does everyone else. It's unfair that middle class people pay Social Security taxes on all of their income and high earners do not, he says.

Unfair? Unfair?

Has anyone told Obama that the Social Security benefit is based only on the taxable wages? For example, a person earning no more than $40,000 will receive a monthly benefit of $1,142 at age 66 in 2009, that is 34.2% of their earnings. If you earn $102,000 the benefit is $2010 or 23.6% of earnings and for those who earn $200,000 the benefit is $2255 (the maximum possible in 2009) or 13.5% of earnings. Only the people who earn $102,000 or more pay the maximum tax and they also get to pay the Medicare tax on 100% of their earnings with no limit.

As you earn more, you earn more in terms of a Social Security benefit; that works (and hey, while you are doing that you can get married to a different person every ten years and each of them will all get a part of your Social Security as well- what a deal!).

Obama sees his plan as a way of "extending the life of Social Security." Did he stop to figure that only 3% of all workers make more than $250,000 a year?

But the real point is, do we want a society that is more and more socialistic, and less of each indiducal benefiting from his or her own efforts and more of benefiting from someone else's labors? I hope not, but there are many out there who see this populist view as fair, I see it as destroying initiative and self reliance and progress and increasing dependence on government.

Yes, there are people who need help, who must rely on public support and assistance and they must receive it, but do we set our goals so low that we establish policies intended to simply increase this dependency?

How much do you want the government to do for you? How much of what you have do you want someone else to pay for? How much do you want a fair chance to make over $250,000 a year (so you can help those who don't perhaps)?

Muscatine

Are you a socialist?

Incorrect username and password combination.