BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:38:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:53:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

We are already spending 166% of revenue, how is adding to that deficit
"trivial"?

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.

I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)

And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.