Thread: to the USPO senior citizens, ahoy!!!!

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Adaher,

thats true, matey...but then again, i've never felt that the wealthy have need or have reason to support many 'o the government policies, 'cept the ones that protect thar own wealth.

thar be precious little that the wealthy need from the taxpayers, and thats true whether yer talkin' about personal security, clean air and water (they can afford to move wharever these conditions happen to exist) healthcare, education...ye name it, they can buy thar own. imma not bein' hateful 'o the wealthy either, matey, but it is what it is. aye?

- MeadHallPirate

While that's true, support for the program has always been broad-based because everyone is entitled to benefits. The wealthy gave up a tiny amount of income and in return when they retire they receive a tiny check(for them it's tiny anyway). But if you change the program so they pay a big chunk of their income in return for a tiny check, that changes things substantially. 17% of voters in 2004 made more than $100,000 and would be affected by lifting the earnings ceiling.

Originally Posted by adaher

While that's true, support for the program has always been broad-based because everyone is entitled to benefits. The wealthy gave up a tiny amount of income and in return when they retire they receive a tiny check(for them it's tiny anyway). But if you change the program so they pay a big chunk of their income in return for a tiny check, that changes things substantially. 17% of voters in 2004 made more than $100,000 and would be affected by lifting the earnings ceiling.

ahoy Adaher,

i make a bit more than that figure, matey, and i'd be okies dokies with payin' more to support the program.

*gets ready to duck*

aye...i know, i know..."if you feel that way, feel free to contribute more, but keep your hands off my money". imma not sayin' ye would say that, but i know that be the stock response from follks who (more likely than not) don't even make as much as meself, meanin', they would be the direct beneficiaries 'o me payin' more.

i don't know what to say matey, but imma disspointed how no one, except Good1, hath offered up thar benefits to be cut...and no one, 'cept fer me, is willin' to pay more to keep these benefits solvent.

its kind 'o a dissconnect.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Adaher,

i make a bit more than that figure, matey, and i'd be okies dokies with payin' more to support the program.

*gets ready to duck*

Most people vote their self-interest on economic matters. In theory, most people support helping out the less fortunate, but programs that are not universal, like welfare and Medicaid, are politically vulnerable. That's why Democrats hate means testing. What they don't get is that higher taxes does the same thing, because it means a lot of voters get less than they pay in. So the program becomes welfare for poorer seniors, and thus as vulnerable as other programs for the poor.

i don't know what to say matey, but imma disspointed how no one, except Good1, hath offered up thar benefits to be cut...and no one, 'cept fer me, is willin' to pay more to keep these benefits solvent.

its kind 'o a dissconnect.

- MeadHallPirate

I think if you ask people under 40, most are already assuming cut benefits. Which makes our primary concern our payroll taxes. We've reconciled ourselves to lower benefits(some don't think SS will be there at all). But we won't reconcile ourselves to higher taxes just to protect Boomer benefits, especially since it wouldn't come with any guarantees about our own benefits.