Author Topic: Hillary's Folks  (Read 956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Hillary's Folks
« on: November 16, 2007, 02:10:28 PM »
From last night's debate, the transcript can be found here.

Quote
SEN. CLINTON: -- and then I think we have to have a bipartisan commission. I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle class families and seniors. (Applause.) If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.

But I want to say one final word about Medicare. Number one, Medicare should be able to negotiate for lower drug prices. (Applause.)

BLITZER: All right. Thank you, Senator.

SEN. CLINTON: It was a travesty when the Bush administration did not allow that to happen, and I have a lot of other ideas about how we'll preserve and strengthen Medicare.

BLITZER: All right. So Senator -- so you're not ready to accept that raising of the cap on that, but I know that Senator Obama wants to respond to you.

SEN. OBAMA: I will be very brief on this because, Hillary, I've heard you say this is a trillion dollar tax cut [increase] on the middle class by adjusting the cap. Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 -- (cheers, applause) -- so 6 percent is not the middle class -- it's the upper class.

And you know, this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani -- (laughter, boos, cheers, applause) -- where we start playing with numbers -- we start playing with numbers in order to try to make a point. (Cheers, applause.) And we can't do that. No, no, no, no, no. This is -- this is -- this is too important. This is too important for us to pretend that we're using numbers like a trillion dollar tax increase instead of responsibly dealing with a problem that Judy asked for, and she said she wants a specific answer. And that's what I provided.

But understand, this is the top 6 percent, and that is not the middle class. (Cheers, applause.) BLITZER: Senator?

SEN. CLINTON: First of all -- first of all, I think that you meant a tax increase, because that's what it would be. But secondly, it is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors. I'm not talking -- I mean, you know, it's different parts of the country. So you have to look at this across the board, and the numbers are staggering.

Now, when people say be specific, I listened very carefully to what Senator Obama said when he appeared on one of the Sunday morning shows, and he basically said that he was for looking at a lot of different things and using a bipartisan commission to do it. I think that's the right answer. That is where I have been from the very beginning.

That's what worked back in 1983, when we had a real crisis in Social Security. The government got together. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill put together a bipartisan commission. Then everybody looked at everything at once. It wasn't one person's idea or somebody else's idea. Everybody had to get in a room and say, here's what we're going to do to fix the problem. That's what I want to do because I think that's what will work for America. (Applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: That's --

What is being discussed is a possible solution to Medicare funding in that currently anyone who makes over $97,000 in earned income is exempt from paying payroll taxes on that income above $97,000. This was a nation Maggie Thatcher implemented in the UK as well. So if you make an annual income of $297,000, you pay the same payroll taxes as someone who earns $97,000.

I'd like to know where these firefighters are that make more than $97,000 a year and also would be seriously burdened by having to pay their share of the payroll tax. You want to discuss equity? Why is a dollar made above $97,000 worth more than a dollar made under $97,000?

Methinks that Hillary is full of shit.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2007, 03:28:02 PM »
I'd like to know where these firefighters are that make more than $97,000 a year and also would be seriously burdened by having to pay their share of the payroll tax.

Well, Hillary represents New York, so you'd have to assume New York. California, as well. Cost of living in those areas is also very high.

Quote
Total annual pay for fire captain, now 1,340 positions, will have increased to $103,266 at the top salary step, the Finance Department estimates. Pay for battalion chiefs, 265 positions, will have increased to $130,579 at the top step.
Record pay raises ahead for state firefighters
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2007, 03:39:41 PM »
If one is making above $97,000, paying a small portion of this toward the payroll tax is not an onerous thing. This is true even if one is one of the teensy percentage of extremely well-paid firefighters. Last year I paid $918 on an income of $65260. That is a measley 1.4%.
It is harder to afford the same percentage payroll tax on an income of $20,000, after all.

It is bogus to claim that this tax would be any real burden to people making over $97K.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2007, 03:49:43 PM »
Last year I paid $918 on an income of $65260. That is a measley 1.4%.

The payroll tax is a fixed percentage up to $97k. You did not pay enough, it is currently 7.65%. (Unless you're forgetting part of it - it's shown as two deductions now...)
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2007, 06:26:20 PM »
I don't have a problem removing the cap completely. I also don't have a problem privatizing the whole thing or at the minimum offering privatization  as a choice .


gipper

  • Guest
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2007, 06:46:42 PM »
The critical thing to note is that Hillary's holistic approach and solution do not rule out removing the cap on payroll taxes. She just wants it done comprehensively and pursuant to a consensus. Also, she is being responsible in noting the one trillion dollar price tag on the tax increase (to the extent it's accurate). Such an increase, to a responsible future president, would have a devastating effect on jobs and growth, I speculate. If it can be done without that effect, I'd be all for it.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2007, 10:07:44 PM »
I don't make that much , but I would jump at the chance to escape the SS ystem and take care of myself.  If opting out were allowed many thousands of young peopl would never join in , that the young are being cheated is a poorly conceiled secret and they will opt ou as much as they can as time goes on , they will rebell.


Ropeing in more money form the well paid will delay the collapse of SS not totally prevent it.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Hillary's Folks
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2007, 10:42:13 PM »
Quote
She just wants it done comprehensively and pursuant to a consensus.

She is pandering to her well heeled donors.

Consensus building is for legislators. Decisive leadership is what is needed from the executive.