John McCain may want to rethink his strategy of putting "Joe the unlicensed, non-taxpaying plumber" on the campaign trail with him. Especially in places with lots of retirees (like Florida). With respect to Social Security, Joe says: "Social Security is a joke... never believed in it, don't like it."
Joe would rather see the elderly fend for themselves and eliminate the single most effective poverty elimination program in history.
Oh, and he doesn't want to have to pay back the "$10 trillion" economic mess the Republicans handed us. So, instead of taking the tax cut that Obama would give him, he prefers to give away more money to the super rich and big corporations under McCain's tax plan and make it two or three times that. Hmmm... his logic is truly dizzying.
This guy is as scary as he is uninformed. It is increasingly clear that he doesn't represent middle- or working-class America in the slightest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
OBAMA + DEM CONG = USA RIP
How can you claim that Joe "doesn't represent middle- or working-class America in the slightest". Joe IS the middle, working class. Are you honestly saying that, because he doesn't agree with you, he's fundamentally flawed?
Most working class and middle class folks (in fact most Americans period, regardless of class) support Social Security. If he doesn't, then he isn't representing mainstream America. Couple that with the fact that he is not, in fact, a licensed plumber and that he doesn't pay his taxes (as most of the rest of us do), and I stick by my assertion that he does not represent mainstream working- and middle-class Americans.
Oh, and his logic is fundamentally flawed because he apparently has made a big deal about voting for whoever will give him a tax break. As it turns out, Obama gives him a tax break, McCain doesn't. So, yeah, his logic is fundamentally flawed.
I stick by my assertion that he does not represent mainstream working- and middle-class Americans.
It's absurd to claim that the man does not represent himself. Talk about fundamentally flawed logic.
As it turns out, Obama gives him a tax break, McCain doesn't. So, yeah, his logic is fundamentally flawed.
I'm fairly certain Senator McCain's tax proposal would not only give Joe the Plumber a tax break, it would give him a larger tax break than Senator Obama's plan. CERTAINLY, if Joe bought this business and started making over $250K, he would pay more taxes under Senator Obama's plan than Senator McCain's plan.
Hi Bill,
You can say he "represents himself". What I am saying is he doesn't represent middle America when he says "social security is a joke." Most Americans favor social security, so he is not representing their views (as much as he and Sen. McCain would like to think he does).
Finally, you say you're "fairly certain" that McCain's tax plan would give him a tax break. McCain gives NOTHING to the middle class. That's Obama's whole point... He will give 95% of the country a tax break and repeal the Bush giveaway to the richest Americans. McCain's plan does nothing except extend those giveaways to the folks who need it least. McCain has never refuted the point that his plan does nothing for average taxpayers.
Also, for those who do make over $250,000 yes their taxes would go up (by a mere 3%!), and that is NET income, not gross. And, if you're a business owner that is after all your business write-offs, depreciation, equipment, etc. So, at that point you're talking about folks who are really much better off than the vast majority of Amricans and who can afford to pay a little extra.
Are you honestly suggesting that the wealthiest Americans (after riding the gravy train for the last eight years) really need a tax break, but middle class folks don't?
That is precisely why McCain is losing, and Obama is winning this race.
Most Americans favor social security
Can you back that up with actual polling data?
While we're on the topic of Social Security and logic, why is it that the middle class favors Social Security? Social Security guarantees younger, median-income workers a negative real return. You could do better than that by investing your FICA dollars in TIPS. It makes absolutely no sense for the middle class to support Social Security.
McCain gives NOTHING to the middle class.
The Tax Policy Center (among others), disagrees with your assessment of the situation. Senator McCain's tax plan does not give as big a tax cut to the middle class, but it does give one.
Also, for those who do make over $250,000 yes their taxes would go up (by a mere 3%!)
Probably not. That extra 3% Senator Obama is proposing would be a payroll tax. And, as John Edwards could tell you, it's not all that hard for the wealthy to avoid payroll taxes.
Are you honestly suggesting that the wealthiest Americans (after riding the gravy train for the last eight years) really need a tax break, but middle class folks don't?
No. But the tax break that the middle class needs is from PAYROLL TAXES, not income taxes. In 2007, a family of four could make $42,850 without paying one cent of income tax. That's more than twice the poverty guideline. And that's just assuming the standard deduction. If their itemized deductions exceed $10,700, they could make even more and not pay any income taxes.
Actually, I do have polling data on social security. Go to: http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
80% of respondents surveyed said the government should have a program to prevent poverty among the elderly (strangely they didn't call it "social security" and that data is from 2005).
By huge margins respondents favor Democrats over Republicans to handle social security issues and more recently huge numbers of respondents are against privatizing social security (certainly the market crash has shown the folly of that idea).
80% of respondents surveyed said the government should have a program to prevent poverty among the elderly
Well then they don't want Social Security. Social Security is not an anti-poverty program for seniors. It's a variable annuity, plain and simple. You pay in and you get paid out. And, as I'm sure you know, how much you get paid out depends entirely on how much you paid in.
Furthermore, Social Security is an abject failure as an anti-poverty program for seniors. Without Social Security, there would be roughly 13.7 million seniors living in poverty. With Social Security, there are still 3.5 million seniors living in poverty. That's only a 75% success rate. And how many hundreds of billions of dollars a year do we pay for that dismal success rate?
huge numbers of respondents are against privatizing social security (certainly the market crash has shown the folly of that idea).
Actually, the recent market crash demonstrates that investing in stocks still beats Social Security. Even with the 20% YTD loss in the S&P 500, its real, annualized return over the past 35 years has been 5.38%.
Today's retirees would be much better off if their FICA dollars had been invested in the S&P 500. That's a fact. There's no guarantee that will be the case in the future. But the S&P 500 has a long history of steady returns. In contrast, Social Security has a long history of increasing taxes and lowering benefits. I know which one I prefer.
Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty program in history. Your own statement is that without Social Security we would have 13.7 million seniors living in poverty. Is that really what you are advocating?!
The problem with your investment idea is for the people retiring TODAY. If you are the one who is taking money out of your invested accounts today, you're the one who is taking a 20% loss (maybe more depending on how long the recession lasts). So, it's going to really force today's seniors to make some tough choices if that is what they are relying on. A steady check from social security looks pretty good by comparison.
Obviously, if you can invest over time and if you have time, then that is a good idea. The point is to both invest and save social security to provide secure retirement for the elderly.
And, your analysis fails to recognize the many millions of low-income and poor people who will never be able to save substantial amounts for retirement. They need social security.
Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty program in history. Your own statement is that without Social Security we would have 13.7 million seniors living in poverty.
I can trivially construct a more effective and more cost-effective anti-poverty program for seniors. Take those 13.7 million seniors in poverty and give each of them enough money to be out of poverty. That's 100% effective and the maximum cost is $10,210 * 13.7M = $140B. That's assuming each senior lives alone and has 0 income (not realistic assumptions, but they develop the upper bound). That's roughly... 22% of what we spend on Social Security.
The problem with your investment idea is for the people retiring TODAY. If you are the one who is taking money out of your invested accounts today, you're the one who is taking a 20% loss
It's only a 20% loss if you bought the security at the beginning of the year. If you bought it back in, say, 1973, it's a very different story. A $1 investment in the S&P 500 in 1973 would sell for $32.39 today. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $6.57. That's HARDLY a loss, even if it was worth 20% more at the beginning of the year.
And, your analysis fails to recognize the many millions of low-income and poor people who will never be able to save substantial amounts for retirement.
Yet you seem to believe those millions of low-income and poor people have no problem paying ever-increasing Social Security taxes. Of course they can't afford to invest for retirement AND pay Social Security taxes. But there's still no doubt they would be better off if their FICA dollars had been invested in the S&P 500. This is not an opinion, it's absolute fact.
Post a Comment