Pubic Option

morans2

h/t Pam’s House Blend

30 Comments

rougment

about 11 years ago

The stupider, the angrier it seems. Maybe some kind of graph would be in order?

There must be a point at which intelligence gets so low that an apoplectic, rage-induced heart attack is right around the corner.

Danny G

about 11 years ago

It is hilarious watching the Perfectoids make fun of protesting.  Priceless.

Mistystarr

about 11 years ago

Now I know you meant Morons and not Morans..unless you were trying to be funny.

Sjixxxy

about 11 years ago

I just assumed "Moran" was a refernece to the old "Get a brain! Morans!" protest sign.

http://www.glamdring.org/modules/gallery/albums/misc/morans.jpg

ironic1

about 11 years ago

Misty, what Sjixxxy said.  "Moran" has become internet shorthand for illiterate protesters.

Dave Sorensen

about 11 years ago

Those socialist nazis are gonna kill Granny! And she's gonna have to stand in line to get killed! And she won't be able to choose the doctor that kills her! And they're gonna raise taxes to pay for killin' her...

Chester Dark

about 11 years ago

I'd like a pubic option in my health care, please

wormbreeder

about 11 years ago

I thought it would have been Bill Clinton's health care plan that had the pubic option.

Blogger Doctors

about 11 years ago

Our diagnosis is acute deletism, aggravated by underlying stupidism.

adam

about 11 years ago

Huffpost has a selection of photos. I liked the "Angry Mob" one best.

Bret

about 11 years ago

Teabaggers.  Ha!

mevdev

about 11 years ago

No matter how much good is done there will always be these loud bastards calling for no taxes. As much as I hate to have a huge standing military I am okay with services and programs to help everyone.

mevdev

about 11 years ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6940820

Get a brain morans! Go USA!

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

It's wag the dog peeps!!! The health care debate is just a smoke screen for the cap on Social Security and the tax base that is on full tilt boogie for anybody who makes over $105,000.00 per year. 

The Government needs to first get the money then pay the bills not the other way around. Well unless you are deciding the fate of granny or how you get money for your campaining.

Peace
Todd Gremmels

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

Thanks for the post C-Freak!! I love you and your incredible perception!!

Peace
Todd Gremmels

Mistystarr

about 11 years ago

lol..now that fits.

RabieMedia

about 11 years ago

These must be the same dudes who demonstrate in support of Israeli massacres in Palestine. The Zionist Pubic Option at its best! 
You've got to be part of the "Pubic Option" to follow AIPAC. 

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Dave Sorensen

about 11 years ago

Todd Gremmels- I'm not tracking. What are you saying about " ...the cap on social security and the tax base..." etc.?

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

Dave,
     Social security is capped at $80,000.00 a year. What that means is that if you make $105,000.00 or a million dollars a year you still pay the same as the person that makes $80,000.00.

According to Rep Jim Oberstar if you eliminate the cap you would not only have enuff to pay for medicare but you would have enuff to pay for health care for most of the working class.

The other issue is that the federal tax rolls backward from $80,000.00 so that when you get to $105,000.00 you pay approx 5% in taxes.

These are glaring issues that are never talked about.

But I can do the math and so can you.

Peace
Todd Gremmels

Dave Sorensen

about 11 years ago

Todd- Got it, though I think the cap is a bit higher than that, it does make for a regressive tax. You're right- they talk about cutting services, but not about eliminating the cap on SS taxes. Also, something like 60% of major corporations pay ZERO federal taxes. So it goes.

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

It needs to stop Dave and it is the main bone of contention in all this blah-blah-blah.

peace
Todd Gremmels

PS I am thinking that mayor is to short sighted-maybe I should run for congressperson or State Rep.

Shane

about 11 years ago

The idea of removing the Social Security cap is political bullshit.  If you remove the cap on witholdings, the corresponding cap on benefits also should be removed.

You make more money you pay more in, once you hit 65 you would take more out. It ends up being a wash.  People who make over the cap income can save for their own retirement and do not need Social Security. Hence the cap.

Do the math.

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

People like Congressman Oberstar have done the math and the result is more money for the people that need it.

In retort if you make so much money then why do you need the Social Security back?

Also removing the cap on benefits would defeat the purpose of spreading out the money for the people that need it.

Social security and Medicare just need a few tweeks in their incomes not a reduction in service.

Todd Gremmels

about 11 years ago

Sorry I missed a point and it is that the cap on benefits would not be removed hence not being a wash as well the people who need it would get it.

Dave Sorensen

about 11 years ago

I've never heard  anyone mention removing a " cap on benefits". The point is: this is a regressive tax- the rich pay a minute fraction of their income and the rest of us pay a significant chunk towards SS. By the way, Mr "anti-tax" Ronald Reagan raised the payroll tax on working people while cutting taxes on corporations. Thanks Ron. Also: "Passive income" ( I love that phrase), such as stock returns,  pays no SS tax.

Nick

about 11 years ago

5% tax rate on $105,000??  I'm firing my tax guy!  Who can I go to, to get that rate and not go to jail???

Resolutionary

about 11 years ago

You said, "Do the math."  That's all a tax policy geek needs to hear.

Social Security tax is paid on 6.2% by both employee and employer on EARNED income up to a cap (in 2009) of $106,800.  The cap is indexed to inflation and increases every year.

A flat tax is a tax paid at the same percentage by people of all incomes.  A progressive tax is paid at higher rates by people who earn more, and a regressive tax is paid at higher rates by people who earn less.  Social Security is generally a regressive tax.

Mathew works at Wal-Mart and makes $18,720/year.  He pays $1,161/year in social security taxes or 6.2% of his gross income.

Mark is a self employed contractor who makes $50,000/year.  He pays 6.2% or $3,100 for his employee contribution but he's also regarded as the employer, so he must pay another 6.2% or $3,100 for a total contribution of $6,200 or 12.4% of his gross income.

Luke is a Goldman Sachs investment banker who is still sells credit default swaps.  Luke is paid a $450,000 salary and a $500,000 bonus.  He pays 6.2% of his income up to the cap of $106,800.  This means he pays $6,622 in social security or .07% of his gross income.

John is wealthy and does not work.  He earns $170,000 in interest, $385,000 in dividends, $1,200,000 in capital gains, and $320,000 from his commercial real estate, for a total of $2,075,000.  He pays $0 and 0% in social security taxes because he has no earned income.

Resolutionary

about 11 years ago

Oh yeah, and I love teabaggers too. Cheers to Barney Frank for his appropriate and hilarious response.

Resolutionary

about 11 years ago

A quick technical clarification for the benefit of any cringing PDD CPA's out there:

In Mark's example he owes 12.4% on 92.5% of his $50,000 salary which equals $5,735 or 11.5% (opposed to 12.4%) of his gross income.

Now, back to the morans...

Dave Sorensen

about 11 years ago

Thank You ,Resolutionary. Shane's comment about removing the " cap on benefits" makes no sense. Unlimited benefits? Say what?

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Read previous post:
Choose your Cruise

Glass Elevator rocked Homegrown. Aug 29 is the next chance to see the band again along with Uptown Boys and...

Close