of course schnurrbart ignores

[kraft-t]

10% of nothing is still nothing.

[Democratforlife]

I thought you have said you are still actively farming? You want to compare 1040 returns. I have made alot of money over the years and still give 10% to charity. I bet you a 100 bucks you won't want to compare returns. Come on, put your money where your mouth is, bub. Come on scrooge.

[kraft-t]

Yeah Just post a copy of your return. You don't even have guts enough to use your own name and you are going to publish your tax return here. I don't think so and i am sure as not going to give you my tax return.

[Democratforlife]

Shame on you. It is Christmas day.

[verbatime]

This has nothing to do with a tax cut but the trans Canada Keystone XL pipeline which obamma put off untill after the election will now have to be decided on in 60 days.

[Red Steele]

and for the record, in one of his brighter moments, Kraft also originally saw the decoupling of social security taxes through a widespread payroll tax cut as a dangerous thing to do when social security was running into the downhill side of this multigenerational ponzi type scheme, and running out of funds.  Kraft was against the payroll tax cut before he was for it, back in 2010. Kraft is trying to be a John Kerry waffler on this issue.

Low income working people, with children, have  not been paying social security taxes for a long time already, though. Because of how the earned income credit was set up, most or all of their contributions, as well as the employer contributions, are refunded to them annually via an "earned income credit" of sometimes thousands of dollars. And higher earning people have carried the program since inception, due to how the benefits are calculated. Social security is a good deal for people that make up to about $40,000 per year. You get a return on your contributions that rivals bank interest or more, especially when figuring in the disability insurance component. For higher earners, it is a terrible deal and effectively a welfare tax. Thus, there should not be a cap if it is to be fair. A lower percentage tax, on all income would be fair if welfare is what we really want. No exclusions for investment earnings, or capital gains, or rents. This is not what I think should be done, just pointing out what would be fair if welfare is what is we want.

If only Robert Kennedy had taken a gun down to Lyndon Johnson's room the night that JFK made the politcally expedient, but fatal, calculation to have that loser on the 1960 vice presidential slot. What  a different country we might be living in today. From what I read, Robert was dead set against having the dupliticious Johnson on the ticket.

[kraft-t]

You are correct in that was and is my position that reducing revenues into the trust fund is not a good idea. However we are in extrordinary economical circumstances now and some folks can use that discount for family expenses during this period.

The measure of how much it help the economy is small but how much it helps lower income people is significant in the short term.

In the long term I think increasing revenues for SS is wise as well as expiring the Bush tax cuts. All of them! Tax cuts do not create prosperity as advertised. The job creators are not stockholders in the market. Most of them never create a job. Give tax breaks to people that actually create jobs not those that could and never will.

[Nebrfarmr]

What would be wrong with dropping the rate the 2%, but raise the income cutoff where you stop paying in? The poor would get a break, but the revenues would be there.

[kraft-t]

We need to raise revenues and everyone needs to be involved, me included.

[r3020]

We need to cut spending first. Government is too inefficient and the more money it takes in the more inefficient it becomes. The term black hole comes to mind.