T1B

Jsc810 wrote:

Robert Reich wrote:That leaves two possibilities that “entitlement reformers” rarely if ever suggest, but are the only fair alternatives: raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes (in 2013 that ceiling is $113,700), and means-testing benefits so wealthy retirees receive less. Both should be considered.

Robert Reich is just a dumber version of TVO in 10 years

Mace wrote:

Mikey wrote:Social Security is not paying out more than it collects, BTW. So I'm not sure how it suddenly started contributing to the deficit.

You might want to re-check your figures, Mikey, because I just got a $25 bump in my check. :)

Damn, I guess we DID go over the fiscal cliff.

Cuda wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The agenda of the GOP is to attack Medicare and Social Security. If cutbacks in reckless spending are in order--and i agree they are--then let's get serious about cutting the pentagon budget. There is not a single war or attack right now in which we have any business. Not one.

in terms of "bang for the buck" nukes are way more cost æffective than drones, btw

Describe "cost-effective" in this sense. Considering the damn things are now hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima variety, a single nuke attack anywhere would cause a colossal environmental disaster besides the basic carnage. In short, it would be economically suicidal as well as everything else.

A real place to start cutting spending would be the astonishingly expensive submarines. Since there are no more old-fashioned wars with big armies needing convoys of supplies fighting each other, there has in fact been no need for a submarine since the end of WWII. The "deterrent" angle is specious since the entire Cold War itself was fake. There was never any threat by the Soviets at all that required any sort of roving nukes under the waves. Now this would save us hundreds of billions right away just in the planned new subs.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The "deterrent" angle is specious since the entire Cold War itself was fake. There was never any threat by the Soviets at all that required any sort of roving nukes under the waves.

Interesting theory. I don't suppose you have any facts that would back that up?

Note, I said "facts", not tin foil hat conspiracies that it was all about enriching the military/industrial establishment at the expense of the down trodden teeming masses.

The fact is that WW III and Armageddon didn't happen so you will have a difficult time proving a negative. Deterrence may have well happened and the MAD strategy may have been the reason.

88 wrote:

Social Security for self-employed individuals is a 12.4% tax on incomes up to $113,700 in 2013, which equals $14,098.80.

I assume you're deducting the employer-equivalent portion.

So what? 12.4% barely keeps former employees from eating dogfood in senior years. What better way to pass off costs on a customer.

War Wagon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The "deterrent" angle is specious since the entire Cold War itself was fake. There was never any threat by the Soviets at all that required any sort of roving nukes under the waves.

Interesting theory. I don't suppose you have any facts that would back that up?

Note, I said "facts", not tin foil hat conspiracies that it was all about enriching the military/industrial establishment at the expense of the down trodden teeming masses.

The fact is that WW III and Armageddon didn't happen so you will have a difficult time proving a negative. Deterrence may have well happened and the MAD strategy may have been the reason.

Excuse me, Wags, but what facts would you need to stop your "duck and cover" exercises? The Russkies never showed the slightest interest in invading China or America..or any part of Europe that wasn't clearly detailed in the Yalta agreement. What.? ..did you miss the big fake-out again?

Psst..when a solid-steel 47-storey modern skyscraper just implodes in the most perfect controlled demolition in history--because of a "fire"....start asking questions :wink:

The slightest interest in invading China or America? Perhaps not, just as we have shown no interest in invading Russia or the erstwhile Soviet Union. The nuke buildup, however, wasn't about the threat of boots on the ground. It was about MAD, which doesn't require any invasions.

I assume you can recall that little incident whereby the Soviets endeavored to plant nuclear missiles on a little island lying only 90 miles off of the U.S. mainland? What was that? Now, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that turning Fidel Castro's bidet into an end-of-days launch site wasn't a part of the Yalta accord.

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:

Social Security for self-employed individuals is a 12.4% tax on incomes up to $113,700 in 2013, which equals $14,098.80.

I assume you're deducting the employer-equivalent portion.

What are you talking about?

Most people understand the term "self-employed" to mean that there is no employer. If you are employed by an employer (i.e., not self-employed), 6.2% of your income is deducted from your payroll check for Social Security. Your employer contributes the other 6.2% (to reach the total of 12.4%).

Maybe you should speak with your accountant.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... are-Taxes)

Self-Employment Tax Deduction
You can deduct the employer-equivalent portion of your self-employment tax in figuring your adjusted gross income. This deduction only affects your income tax. It does not affect either your net earnings from self-employment or your self-employment tax.

You get to deduct it from your income tax, decreasing your total tax burden. Depending on how you look at it, it decreases the effective percentage of your SE tax