OH-2 Special Election Coverage and Prediction thread...

[AuH2O]

Many Democrats support raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes so the program stays solvent. This is the best choice. The tax rate is not changed in this instance.

Why do you want to phase out Social Security? Do you hate senior citizens?

The budget should be balanced somehow and not on the backs of the lower and middle classes. If Bush and the Republican Congress hadn't been so damn irresponsible, we wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we're in.

Do you hate the middle class? Do you want two hard-working people to be able to pay for their kids' college?

Obviously not if you support raising the SS cap. That's straight up rape for the middle and upper middle class, while the rich (i.e. Hollywood) have so much money they don't care and the poor (the Dem base) doesn't make enough to pay the tax.

Democrats hate Christians, whites, the middle class, the upper middle class, business, unborn children, cars, and all kinds of things, by Scoonie's logic.

[minionofmidas]

Last night was the closest Hackett is ever going to get to being a US Congressman. He certainly won't so much as sniff the Senate.

He's a nobody. All the stars were aligned and the best he could do was lose by less than previous Democrats. Great. You know a party is in trouble when they venerate their 'best loser.'

I think Hackett did well. Granted he didn't win - but I think reducing the GOP majority from 44% to 4% and that is not bad going in what seems to be an overwhelmingly GOP district. In other words, he lost by one hell of a lot less, though you wouldn't think it from your tone. Schmidt ought to have won by a bigger margin than that

You can scorn as much as you want but I don't think Democrats have any reason to be downbeat, as much as you'd like them to be

Dave

3.2% actually.

[TheresNoMoney]

Do you hate the middle class? Do you want two hard-working people to be able to pay for their kids' college?

Obviously not if you support raising the SS cap. That's straight up rape for the middle and upper middle class, while the rich (i.e. Hollywood) have so much money they don't care and the poor (the Dem base) doesn't make enough to pay the tax.

Bullsh*t. You don't know what you're talking about.

First off, EVERYBODY pays the Social Security tax on their first 87,900 of wages/self-employment income. So yes, the poor DO pay Social Security tax. Don't talk about stuff you have no clue about.

Second, raising the cap would only affect the top 3% or 4% of wage earners. This is a lot better than the Bush plan (your plan), which would reduce Social Security benefits for EVERYBODY.

Third, Hollywood only makes up a small fraction of the rich. Most rich people run large businesses or are corporate executives. These people vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Spin away, my hardline Republican friend.

[socaldem]

Many Democrats support raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes so the program stays solvent. This is the best choice. The tax rate is not changed in this instance.

Why do you want to phase out Social Security? Do you hate senior citizens?

The budget should be balanced somehow and not on the backs of the lower and middle classes. If Bush and the Republican Congress hadn't been so damn irresponsible, we wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we're in.

Do you hate the middle class? Do you want two hard-working people to be able to pay for their kids' college?

Obviously not if you support raising the SS cap. That's straight up rape for the middle and upper middle class, while the rich (i.e. Hollywood) have so much money they don't care and the poor (the Dem base) doesn't make enough to pay the tax.

Democrats hate Christians, whites, the middle class, the upper middle class, business, unborn children, cars, and all kinds of things, by Scoonie's logic.

Uh... one of the big problems with our tax system is the fact that people making between 60000 or so and the social security wage cap pay MORE in taxes as a percent of income than some taxpayers over the wage cap....this, perhaps, is why so many support the idiotic flat tax schemes...

Raising the social security tax cap would go some ways to resolving this problem... as for raping the middle class with high social security taxes, that was something that happened in the 1980s when reagan enacted his intial tax cut in 1981 on the wealthiest taxpayers and followed it up with a series of tax increases on the middle class to make up for the revenue shortfall in the later part of the decade...  

Bush's current policy of using the (working-class-supported) social security surplus to pay for general fund expenditures (rather than putting it in a "lock box," as suggested by Al Gore) that are used for corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, and his foolish war is a scandal!  Now, he suggests that the government is to default on social security obligations... talk about class warfare!

[AuH2O]

Actually the very rich are evenly split between the parties.

Also, $90,000 in FAMILY income is not even close to the top 3-4%. I think my family is barely top 10% at well north of $150,000.

Seeing as public colleges can cost $14,000 in VA and private schools are more than $30,000, and seeing as the upper middle class does not qualify for financial aid, this plan would be an attack on them.

But feel free to propose it. I would rather like the GOP to easily win Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire next time around... at least.


Clinton lifted the cap on Medicare taxation. It only cost you 34 seats in the House. I'd like some more.

[socaldem]

Actually the very rich are evenly split between the parties.

Also, $90,000 in FAMILY income is not even close to the top 3-4%. I think my family is barely top 10% at well north of $150,000.

Seeing as public colleges can cost $14,000 in VA and private schools are more than $30,000, and seeing as the upper middle class does not qualify for financial aid, this plan would be an attack on them.

But feel free to propose it. I would rather like the GOP to easily win Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire next time around... at least.


Clinton lifted the cap on Medicare taxation. It only cost you 34 seats in the House. I'd like some more.

Uh, the social security tax cap increase does not apply to family incomes, but to individual incomes...so it would be individuals making $90,000 each... 

Still, you're right that the tax is not a soak the wealthiest 1% tax...  still, the cap needs to be raised, and, I would suggest, perhaps coupled with the AMT fix...

[TheresNoMoney]

Also, $90,000 in FAMILY income is not even close to the top 3-4%. I think my family is barely top 10% at well north of $150,000.

Wow, again you prove you are clueless.

The current cap of $90,000 (2005 wages, $87,900 for 2004 wages) is per earner, not per family as you stated. Therefore, for a family where both parents work the cap is set at $180,000 which places them in the top 4 or 5% in the country.

Of course, you would rather phase out Social Security so we can have more senior citizens living in poverty. Splendid idea that falls right in line with evil Republican beliefs.

And I'm not surprised you come from a well-off family. Most hardcore Republicans do. Explains the disdain for people with less money than you.

But feel free to propose it. I would rather like the GOP to easily win Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire next time around... at least.

What were the approval ratings on Bush's Social Security phase-out plan that he pushed so hard for? 34%?? 35%?? Maybe it's your party that should worry.

[TheresNoMoney]

....  still, the cap needs to be raised, and, I would suggest, perhaps coupled with the AMT fix...

I agree with that.

[Sam Spade]

Dems have a great shot to win the governorship

Yes.

and have a decent shot to beat DeWine.

No.

Agreed.

[TheresNoMoney]

No, it's not by "individual" incomes. A married couple is considered a single economic unit for all intents and purposes.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Please shut up.

[A18]

Please grow up. We need to ban idiotic four year olds like Scoonie.

[AuH2O]

He's also lying out of his ass.

It's somewhat complicated, but family income is VERY relevant to the workings of SS. For instance, a low earner paired with a high earner cannot claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, even though *their* income is low. It doesn't effect everyone the same, depending on a variety of factors, but nonetheless raising the cap would be a tax increase on large number of families.

[TheresNoMoney]

He's also lying out of his ass.

My god. You have no shame.

Everyone knows that the $90,000 cap is per earner. This is well known fact.  Each person in a family gets Social Security tax on the first $90,000 of wages/self-employment income. 

Next you're going to tell me that the sky is red and the Earth is flat. I mean, this is just basic knowledge.  Come on.

[AuH2O]

He's also lying out of his ass.

My god. You have no shame.

Everyone knows that the $90,000 cap is per earner. This is well known fact.  Each person in a family gets Social Security tax on the first $90,000 of wages/self-employment income. 

Next you're going to tell me that the sky is red and the Earth is flat. I mean, this is just basic knowledge.  Come on.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Acting like it's "obvious" doesn't obscure that.

[Sam Spade]

Before this thread got hijacked with some nonsense that I don't care about, it was fairly amusing to see the reactions of the partisans reading way too much into one special election race.

Honestly, I still don't know what all this race means, whether it means something big, something middling, or whether it means anything at all and neither should anyone else, except for maybe the powers-that-be. (unless maybe we can get our hands on some precinct-by-precinct data and still probably not then)

I have adjusted my predictions slightly in accordance and will wait patiently until the 2005 Gubernatorial elections to make any necessary changes from those races.

[TheresNoMoney]

It's obvious that you cannot be reasoned with.

If you're going to continue to deny basic financial knowledge then I can't begin to have a discussion with you.

This is just ridiculous.

[AuH2O]

Do you even file tax returns?

[Smash255]

It is per worker.

[AuH2O]

Then why do couples get 1 check?

And why are they subject to the same maximum monthly benefit?

[Moooooo]

Honestly, I still don't know what all this race means, whether it means something big, something middling, or whether it means anything at all and neither should anyone else, except for maybe the powers-that-be. (unless maybe we can get our hands on some precinct-by-precinct data and still probably not then)

I have adjusted my predictions slightly in accordance and will wait patiently until the 2005 Gubernatorial elections to make any necessary changes from those races.

It means we're taking back the house, the senate, and the white house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~@$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Giant Saguaro]

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not and I figure most Dems will have a huge list of differences, but I wouldn't get too, too carried away about this one, remembering the special election last June, in '04, for one thing. Some had thought that Herseth's win was a mandate on the White House and what not and a sign of things to come and it turned out it wasn't. Maybe this one is, maybe it's not.

I think Hackett's approach was to come off as a straight/tough-talking populist leaning conservative-leaning dude who was gonna get in there and tell them all where to go and what to do with themselves when they got there. He succeeded with the rural folks but not so much with the city folks. It was a great strategy. Ultimately, though, this election was a referendum on the people running and the partisanship of the support and not that much more. If anything, it might have been more about the governor than Bush because from what I can tell he did more linking her to the governor than Bush - he just called Bush names.

And in the end, Mr. Hackett waged a fantastic campaign, but his services are needed more in Iraq than DC.

[jimrtex]

First off, EVERYBODY pays the Social Security tax on their first 87,900 of wages/self-employment income. So yes, the poor DO pay Social Security tax.

It is impossible for a government insurance program to provide a retirement benefit anywhere near $90,000.  So the government should be up front to high income people that they should not expect SS to maintain their current lifestyle into retirement.  Either they are going to have invest in their own future, or expect a drastic drop in spending when they retire.

So it is a lie that this increased tax is going for their retirement.  And to the extent that it does, it will increase the drawdown of the trust fund which will have to paid out from general revenues.  

So you are going to add 10% or more to the marginal tax rate of people with earned income (put not those who run hedge funds or get royalties from movies) promising that they will be paid back with interest when they retire.  But they won't be getting the money back, and will likely have to pay more in income taxes when they retire.

It would be better to increase the tax rate on the first $20,000 (this can be done entirely on the employer-paid portion, while maintaining the current minimum wage).  Then the FICA tax above $20,000 should be made entirely optional.

Government counselors would be available to explain the program and to certify coverage of employees.

[jimrtex]

in the 1980s when reagan enacted his intial tax cut in 1981 on the wealthiest taxpayers

The marginal rate on $35,000 in 1981 was 50%.   On top of this was FICA, so figure another 15%.  State income tax at 6%, and then sales tax on any of the 30% that remained.  Remember this was a period of hyperinflation, so that if one fortunate to keep up with inflation in pre-tax dollars, it was nowhere close to keeping up after taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Duke]

AuH20 has clearly confused the personal income tax and the FICA tax.  FICA, which funds social security, is per earner.  Personal income taxes can be filed jointly by married couples.

Scoonie is only technically right that the poor pay FICa taxes.  They pay the tax, but then they get an EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) Which is specifically designed to offset the impact of FICA taxes on the poor.  The poor pay, but most get it all right back in the EITC.

[socaldem]

First off, EVERYBODY pays the Social Security tax on their first 87,900 of wages/self-employment income. So yes, the poor DO pay Social Security tax.

It is impossible for a government insurance program to provide a retirement benefit anywhere near $90,000.  So the government should be up front to high income people that they should not expect SS to maintain their current lifestyle into retirement.  Either they are going to have invest in their own future, or expect a drastic drop in spending when they retire.

So it is a lie that this increased tax is going for their retirement.  And to the extent that it does, it will increase the drawdown of the trust fund which will have to paid out from general revenues.  

So you are going to add 10% or more to the marginal tax rate of people with earned income (put not those who run hedge funds or get royalties from movies) promising that they will be paid back with interest when they retire.  But they won't be getting the money back, and will likely have to pay more in income taxes when they retire.

It would be better to increase the tax rate on the first $20,000 (this can be done entirely on the employer-paid portion, while maintaining the current minimum wage).  Then the FICA tax above $20,000 should be made entirely optional.

Government counselors would be available to explain the program and to certify coverage of employees.

That is a good point...to the extent that social security is a viable social insurance program rather than a welfare program, its tax structure can not be overly progressive...

However, it is problematic that someone making say 70,000 may pay a higher % of income in taxes that someone at 100000... perhaps the income tax rates needed to be adjusted accordingly...

Certainly in 1980 some reforms to the federal income tax was necessary, particualrly because of the inflation of the period.  I'm somewhat skeptical of the rate you've mentioned, though.  I tend to think Reagan's rate reductions went quite a bit too far, particularly on the upper income levels.  They certainly did not resolve--and, in fact, exacerbated--the government's revenue problems.  I think the Clinton retrenchment on these rates was good policy and see no legitimate economic justification for Bush's marginal income tax rate reductions, particularly since we may face deflationary, not inflationary risk....