Barack makes this a good news day..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_el_pr/obama_social_security

One big plus in his favor as I discern my vote.

 

And he didn't even to use his AK.

 

Until McCain/the Repubs start running ads saying Obama favors "raising taxes," while getting the working class voters to ignore the "on incomes over $250,000" part.

And yes, voters can still fall for that trick.

 

This is going to hit a lot of people on this board really hard.

 

Alright. So I have a couple questions, I'm kind of confused on.

STORY QUOTE: "The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to wages between that amount and $250,000. But all annual salaries above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan, Obama said."

- - - Have people making more than $250,000 not been paying this tax at all? Or is it an added 6.2 percent increase on them?


STORY QUOTE: "Obama was vague about what forms of income would be affected, saying, "We should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase so that the change doesn't burden middle-class Americans." Campaign aides said the additional tax, like the current one, would apply only to wages and salaries and not to other forms of income such as investments."

- - Does he think only those making over $205,000 a year are investing in the market? Because when he says the additional tax wouldn't be applied to investing, he makes it sound as though he isn't going to raise any taxes on investors. When in fact he is aiming to raise capital gains taxes - WHICH WOULD HURT MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE PRETTY HARD!!!


STORY QUOTE: "Obama also criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts.
"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg." "

- - I think everyone needs to sit back and look at this statement for what it is. A joke. I for one am very interested in investing part of MY TAX MONEY into a separate account. As someone in my early 30s I am utterly pissed off that I cannot have the option to do whatever I want with MY MONEY. This is not privatization of social security, this is offering choice. I always thought that was one of the Democrats buzz words. I guess that only applies to the killing of innocent babies. I don't need Obama or any other politician holding my hand and telling me what I should and shouldn't do with MY hard earned money. You are not my daddy. I don't want you to be my daddy. Just give me MY MONEY back and let me invest or blow it any way I see fit.
I love how this article says that "Obama criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts." As if letting us do what we want with OUR MONEY is immoral or should be mocked.

I don't care which side of the aisle you are on. If you believe in this elitist bullshit that the government knows best what to do with your money and you aren't allowed any options to invest for your future the way you want because daddy Obama is looking out for you - YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES!

 

People making $102,000 have been paying 6.2% of their entire earnings.

People making $30 million have been paying 6.2% of $102,000.

I think it's fair enough that they pay taxes on everything they make.

 

Privatizing social security would certainly be great for the financial institutions in this country.

And financial institutions have a great track record, especially recently, for being honest and straightforward with Americans. I'm sure they would never defraud people out of their retirement incomes.

 

Because, while you might do a good job investing your tax dollars, other people, who aren't as smart or as lucky as you, may end up investing their dollars in newspaper stocks, or Enron, or something to that effect.

Those people, then, will have no money toward their retirement. I guess you would prefer seeing them on the streets or starving, or end up with worse health problems, which, because they don't have their retirement money, will be coming out of your pocket. Then your taxes, will be going towards their pockets, in the form of government shelters, food stamps and hospital payments.

Wouldn't it be better that the Social Security that people pay into for their retirement help them in when they retire, rather than having to pay for another person's retirement?

 

Thank you.

I agree

 

Like it or not, this is undoubtedly the way Social Security is going to turn. The absolute reversal in the number of companies offering pension plans and the skyrocketing number of companies putting 401 (k) plans in their place is putting more and more of the burden and responsibility for retirement funds on Americans themselves.

It saves businesses millions and, as a result, is NOT going to change. Once Social Security goes that route, it will never change back either.

 

See the thing is, you are still trying to drill the untrue point home that this would be forced on people.

IT IS UP TO THEM IF THEY WANT TO DO THIS.

 

You are absolutely right. Whether you like it or not this will eventually be the way it goes in the future. And while I like the idea and some don't, it is still in an "It's up to you" phase. I want to start building my nest egg now.

Give me that option if I want it.