You’ve got to consider the source of this garbage, CNBC?! 
I’m in. I probably paid into SS for 55 years! Although I retired at 66 I picked up a part time job and I’m still paying into SS. If they gave me back everything I put in I’d call my wealth mgmt guy and roll it into my retirement income plan. I could increase that monthly income to cover the SS benefit while making money off the increased value of the portfolio!
Where do I sign up?
Right? One of the biggest scams in history. Now they are claiming the money we paid for all these years has been blown on crap having nothing to do with retirement.
I wonder if the congressional pension plan is in danger too?
Hopefully it does get them off that socialist Ponzi scheme so they can get back to the free market insurance paradise they so richly deserve.
1 Like
No. Okay moving on.
Permanently ending the payroll tax is not necessarily a threat to Social Security and Medicare
What CNBC fails to report is, if the payroll tax were made permanent, leaving money in wage earner’s pockets, a small excise luxury tax, maybe 1 or 2 percent, could be placed on specifically selected articles of luxury, which ordinary people cannot afford, to make up the difference, e.g., how about placing a luxury tax on those commercial grade refrigerators, and that outrageously priced ice cream which Nancy Pelosi boasts about?
Of course, this is what Hamilton talks about in Federalist No. 21:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .‘’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
JWK
Yes, I know - they use hard stuff like math and economics. Not everyone goes by more objective stuff like their gut, or what Papa Trump told them
It continues to amaze me how often this OP keeps saying “With Biden unlikely to finish a term” when the CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HOSPITLIZED WITH A ILLNESS THAT KILLS 5% OF THE PEOPLE HIS AGE THAT GET IT and has long term health issues for many others!
I stop reading there.
2 Likes
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” is not how Social Security works. If you paid zero into it, you get zero.
Your socialism would give handouts whether people paid or not.
You can look it up.
1 Like
So when LBJ raided SS to finance his “Great Society” social giveaways was that need?
So far the Prez has been in charge. What is the point you’re trying to make?
The rich paying for the poor?
I thought today’s conservatives were against class envy.
Why should you be entitled to money the rich spend? They earned that money, not you!
I have to admit these “end socialism by creating new socialist policies” are quite amusing…
1 Like
Or “Your socialism President will end (insert socialist program), but my Capitalist President will keep (insert socialist program)”
2 Likes
So good to see you back!
Soshulizm has to end, now! And leave my Medicare alone, commies.
That the premise of the question is wrong. There is ZERO reason that to think that Biden, who is HEALTIER then our current President, wont serve a full term.
Which invalidates the entire rest of the question.
Occasionally I too have a short attention span. But if the subject matter is of interest to me and I have something constructive to add, I will read anyhow.
To some extent, it’s just intellectual curiosity mixed with respect for the author. If I don’t respect the author to begin with… I don’t even start reading and so I don’t need to stop.
Biden healthier? Is that why he is scared ■■■■■■■■ for himself but walked around with a ventilator mask on so that people could not infect him but he could infect them.
1 Like
Have not seen a single picture of biden with a masks with a vent on it. BUt possibile i missed it. Please send link.
What i have seen is BIden following the CDC guidlines. Which is why he IS healtier. Thats not even a opinon. One has Covid, one does not.
Well now, isn’t this special?
In response to a proposed voluntarily paid luxury tax upon specifically selected articles of consumption ___ one which avoids taxing the necessities of life ___ to offset an existing oppressive and inescapable payroll tax upon a wage earner’s paycheck, you condemn the tax as oppressive upon those willing to pay the tax and muse . . . “end socialism by creating new socialist policies”.
Of course, your leftist response confirms what I have been saying for many, many years. When it comes to helping the needy, our communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the needy.
So tell me, JayJay, are you accusing Hamilton of proposing a socialist tax idea which I documented IN THIS POST?
JWK
Joe Biden and the Democrat Leadership want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their healthcare revenue with the millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
