JJ Husker

I agree with all of that 100%. However, if we don't delve deeper than the general idea that those are good things and poor people need more help, we can skate right past reality and overlook the limits of finite resources or the repercussions on the big picture. I'm not some cold hearted greedy evil bastard that just wants more for me and less for the needy. I know there are huge numbers that need and deserve help. Unfortunately this world has always tended towards general poverty. Yes, there are those "haves" who can afford to provide assistance more than others. I think it's only prudent to explore what that looks like and a little more technically how it should work otherwise we have no idea if our general thoughts of "these are good things" and "these people need help" jive with what we can actually do about it. As an example, if I gave $10 to every panhandler with a sign that I pass daily, I may soon run out of money. For some people that amount could be $1 or $10 or $500. It still doesn't change the facts that there are people that need help, it is good to help them, and those that can provide the help have financial constraints. Both sides of the equation have to be considered.

If I get time sometime today, I am going start anther thread related to this subject. The idea being that everyone can breakdown a couple different income levels and assign percentages where there think 100% of that income should go. Say a person makes $100,000, how much to each of the different taxes, how much to healthcare insurance and costs, food, housing, savings (if any) etc. I think it will be interesting to see people's ideas and differences at the 50k, 150k and 1M levels. I will probably specify for a family of 4. So you can be thinking about that in anticipation of my awesome topic idea;-)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "good deal" and you may have a way different interpretation of what "unfair" is. One definition of fair would be, I put a dollar in and I get a dollar out. Fair can get conflated and subjective real quick when you start talking about other people's money or about this group but not that group. Maybe we should flip the cap and lower it. Exempt the first $50k of income from SS tax for everybody. Just one idea.

If my income was $1M per year, I wouldn't have a problem and wouldn't being crying about it. But it is way too easy to say for anyone to say that about some hypothetically significantly elevated income level. People at $40k can say it about me, and people in my shoes can say it about the $1M level. I can make a really good case about how those between $100k and $200k income levels, particularly small business owners, are already being overly taxed. The tough part of it is, I dont ever get to even collect as actual income all the money my tax form says I made. To use round numbers, let's say Bob collects $100k in the form of a paycheck and his books show a $50k profit for a $150k gross income. Part of the problem is Bob likely never sees much of that $50k as his business can't afford to distribute 100% of profits. There are capital expenditures, cash flow concerns and bankers to keep happy. About the best a guy can hope for is to be able to distribute about 50% of the book profit and guess what, that is almost all eaten up by paying the taxes on it. So it is really like Bob only made $125k but got taxed for $150k. How much does that really leave for Bob after we figure all the taxes and he cant collect all the income he's being taxed on? I'm not exaggerating these things. I may be using rough numbers but I'm not falsely misleading on any of it. The middle and upper middle class are being taxed quite heavily IMO. So, when you say just remove the cap at $118k, I sort of feel like my only purpose here is to be kept alive for the harvesting of my body parts. Really, I and many in the similar situation are already paying more than enough, more than is fair, more than should be required. It's not as simple as saying but you make 6 times what Joe does so here's another bill to pay.

I'm not a believer in a minimum wage increase doing much good. I wouldn't say I'm opposed to raising it, I just think the benefit of that small increase gets offset by the mutiple small cost increases it will cause for those who it is intended to help. Hypothetically let's increase minimum wage $1.00 per hour. That gives that person an additional $2,000 per year. Those increased wages also will mostly get passed on to consumers. So if this person works at McDonalds, McD's starts charging a little more for everything on their menu....and so does every other business that is now paying more in wages. Are the people who got this wage increase immune to rising costs for virtually everything they have to buy? The answer is that $2000 raise pretty much just got wiped out with increased costs on everything. I wish raising the minimum wage would do some good for low income people but I really don't think it does much at all. My other thought is that minimum wage type jobs are not meant to support a family. Teenagers and some young single people also need jobs and a source of income. Sorry but not every job can be expected to be sufficient for raising a family or even for being enough for one person to really live on. The key is to grow the economy and create higher paying jobs. Not falsifying things and trying to make a burger flipping job enough. We need those types of jobs but they have their limits for what we can expect from them. Using your prior example, I don't think a person working 40 hours at a minimum wage job should expect that to be enough. One of the basic problems with our economy is that it has shifted so far to the service industry (typically minimum wage type) and away from higher paying manufacturing jobs etc. We buy cheap crap from overseas and whine about the lost jobs and and somehow think we now need to pay the mother of 2 more to hand food out a window for 40 hours a week rather than paying a pimple faced teen less to do it for only 10 hours a week just so he can have a little spending money. Sorry, rambling, way too tired.

Let's say more realistically, Bob is self employed and makes $138,000. Bob pays; 6.2% of 118 employee share $7136 6.2% of 118 employer share $7136 2.9% of 138 both shares of Medicare $4002 $18,274 total ss and Medicare Plus another roughly $47,000 fed & state Income tax. So round numbers $65,000 total out of $138 leaves him $73,000. Effective rate 47%. While Joe paid a little more than $1200 and has about 18,000 left. One of them paid about $65k the other maybe $2k. Bob still has $73k left while Joe only has $18k left. When that apparently isn't enough, is the solution still to take even more from Bob? I mean there is $55k left until they are left with the same amount. What if that isn't enough? BTW, I am not claiming the 47% effective tax rate is correct. It is a bit less than that with deductions and whatnot. But it's not a lot less than this example. As you say, they both have the same value as humans. But one of them paid 32 times more real dollars and about a 40% higher percentage but Bob still has more leftover.... Should the concern be removing the cap and getting another $2480 out of Bob?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)I know I'm not gonna convince you of anything but... still replying.Let's say hypothetically Bob makes $138,000 and Joe makes $20,000. Joe's paying in $1,200. Bob's paying $7,316. Joe has $18,800 leftover. Bob has $130,684 leftover (yes, I know there are other taxes). To Joe that $1,200 he just paid in might mean he can afford to go to the dentist or a doctor or keep his car on the road. To Bob it's not vital for survival. Bob can easily afford to pay another $1,200 and what Bob's losing isn't causing him to be one step away from disaster. This is kind of how I see it. If Joe should have to pay 6.2%, so should Bob. His $1,200 is a lot more vital for survival than Bob's $7,326 or even $8,526, and he's paying it. Now there is an argument in there for earning that much money based on hard work and skills and all that. I can see that argument and agree with it to an extent. But if I see 2 people working 40 hours a week from age 22-70 or 18-70, I don't see one of them as being worth 7 times more than the other as a human being. That's why I'm okay with people who make more money paying more taxes. With SS the people earning more should at least pay the SAME proportion. I don't necessarily disagree with much of that. My point is, why are we focused on taking more dollars from Bob when the primary problem seems to be Sam (who is taking the money from both of them) who apparently is mismanaging the funds. And we can't ignore the other amounts also being taken and the proportional disparity. If it is fair to take the same proportion for social security, when that means taking more from Bob, then shouldn't the other taxes being taken also be in the same proportion? Joe is basically paying zero percent on his remaining $18,000 while Bob is paying 30some percent on his 130. It's fair one way but not the other? At what point do should we stop looking at the percentages and start considering how many total dollars are being taken from Bob and subsequently wasted by Sam? BTW, I agree with you that both Bob and Joe are of equal value as human beings and both are deserving of receiving equal distributions from the program. What if there are enough Bobs but Sam screws it up? Is the solution always just to take more from Bob? What happens when there are more Joes than Bobs?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)

Why aren't we questioning the efficiency of the system rather than simply saying more, more more? If I had been in control of my social security money, there would be enough to provide a real retirement income for myself and probably 5 others. Why do we accept that it's okay for our government to turn that into a crappy pittance for about 4 people?

We can agree on that. The song Tax Man by SRV comes to mind.

Sure, just soak the people who can afford to pay more, right? How is it fair to further tax someone for a benefit they won't recoup and that will not pay them more than those under $100k?Social Security was supposed to be for retirement income not just another means of transferring wealth. I pay in plenty, most of which I'll never see in return. Why should I pay even more to help keep a failed system solvent? I'm 53 years old and have paid thousands upon thousands into SS. I would still opt out today and kiss all of it goodbye if they promised they'd never take another dime from me. I'd like to ask this of all people who lean right, not just you and not just people who use the board.Are we not better as a society when we look out for the poorest among us? I think things would be a lot worse for all of us if we didn't do that. Also, I don't have faith in enough people doing it of their own volition. I would gladly pay the full 6.2% when my salary goes over the max. There are a lot of things my taxes pay for that I don't benefit from but society as a whole benefits from, and I'm fine with paying. Anyhow, I know you aren't saying this right now, but there are many Republicans who support a flat tax. Why are those same people not calling for a flat pay into social security tax? A flat pay of social security tax would mean no cap on it. Because right now: If you make $200,000, you pay 3.66% of your income. If you make $118,000 you pay 6.20% of your income. I don't hear the flat tax people wanting that. Probably because it would raise taxes on the people who earn more money and not increase taxes on people who make less money. Funny how that works. I don't have any problem paying a reasonable amount to help the poorest and neediest. Problem is it doesn't seem like a reasonable amount. It seems like it gets sucked down an endless hole and doesn't do any good. I could give away every last cent I make and it wouldn't make the slightest dent in it. So, considering that, there should be a reasonable amount that can be earmarked from my income for this purpose. How much of my work and effort should I be happy to give up? Is 35% to 40% enough? That is about where it is with federal and state income tax and fica. You want more? Also, there is a little problem with your numbers. I'm self employed so I also get the privilege of paying the employers matching share. So that basically doubles my SS contribution immediately. Mind you, this is for a program that is supposed to insure MY retirement income. They take multiple tens of thousands from me and trickle it back so slowly that I will never live long enough to get 30% of it back. Exactly how many people does this one person need to support? How many is fair? How much is enough? And btw, not all of it stops at the cap. The Medicare portion continues. I'm really tired right now and can't recall what all the actual percentages are.

I've always wondered why people seem to be so obsessed with the 500 mile radius considering there are a helluva lot more, and better, players outside that radius. Sure, pickup a few gimmes in the radius but, other than a few easier recruiting jobs, wouldn't we be best served going after more and better wherever they may be? Seems like concentrating on that radius is code for that's the best we can hope for.

Sure, just soak the people who can afford to pay more, right? How is it fair to further tax someone for a benefit they won't recoup and that will not pay them more than those under $100k? Social Security was supposed to be for retirement income not just another means of transferring wealth. I pay in plenty, most of which I'll never see in return. Why should I pay even more to help keep a failed system solvent? I'm 53 years old and have paid thousands upon thousands into SS. I would still opt out today and kiss all of it goodbye if they promised they'd never take another dime from me.

Hmmmm, I wonder why we have a constantly and rapidly increasing debt. Republicans cut taxes and all politicians (notably Democrats) spend more money than is available. Just doesn't make any sense. Maybe a smart person could come up with 2 solutions.

I disagree. If Nebraska is continuously 9-3 or 10-2, and routinely in the talk for legit conference and national championships, and we win a few along the way, say in a 10 year span, I doubt anyone will be saying 9 wins ain't good enough. The key is, we gotta at least be winning conference titles every now and then. In a 10 year period, say 2017-2026, if we can win 2-3 conference titles and consistently in the mix nationally, I'd be perfectly happy with that. Pretty sure that was implied. Nobody is complaining about winning 9 or 10 games. The problem is ONLY winning 9 or 10 against the worst of our schedule and nothing more to go with it. Of course losing a couple of those 3 or 4 losses in spectacular fashion doesn't help either. Re-read @Boneyard's reply above. I know what that one comment of his says. But, I think I've read enough of his other posts to know that the tune would be different, if like you said, we were regularly in contention for winning the division and conference and sniffing at the playoffs even once in awhile. We all complain about 9 wins because, around here, that is code for the pinnacle of what this program has accomplished over the past way too many years. Not too many (although there are a few) who are satisfied with the lack of meaningful wins and championships. It's not the 9 or 10 wins per se that are the problem but the complete lack of anything more.

I disagree. If Nebraska is continuously 9-3 or 10-2, and routinely in the talk for legit conference and national championships, and we win a few along the way, say in a 10 year span, I doubt anyone will be saying 9 wins ain't good enough. The key is, we gotta at least be winning conference titles every now and then. In a 10 year period, say 2017-2026, if we can win 2-3 conference titles and consistently in the mix nationally, I'd be perfectly happy with that. Pretty sure that was implied. Nobody is complaining about winning 9 or 10 games. The problem is ONLY winning 9 or 10 against the worst of our schedule and nothing more to go with it. Of course losing a couple of those 3 or 4 losses in spectacular fashion doesn't help either.

I agree except you have to go back to 2003 to find a season where we lost less than 4 games. So, 10-3 really wouldn't be "old". It would be a feat we haven't accomplished in 13 years. Unfortunately it's not looking likely.

Yet he's one win away from having a better season than Bo did in 7 years....even with two blowout losses.See how easy that was? 10-3 without a conference championship game is not better than 10-4 with a conference championship loss. That said this is Riley's 2nd season. Better is a relative term. In this example, is it better to eat a dog turd from Labrador or from a Golden Retriever? 10-3 without a CCG or 10-4 and embarrassingly blown out in CCG.......I might take the 10-3 personally. So Labrador turd it is.

It means jack. However, it could sort of payoff for Nebraska if he gets a raise or a higher paying job because of it. That could reduce the amount we have left to pay on his contract. So,go Bo.

Sugar can be used to offset too much salt but ya gotta be careful and it may affect the flavor profile. I've never had venison and biscuits so I'm not sure what all you got going on there. This might be off the wall but could you soak the salty venison in milk first? I do that with beef liver before I pan fry it to tone it down a bit. Seems like it might also reduce saltiness.

Maybe you haven't noticed.....we already have a couple half generations of undereducated morons running around this country and it has nothing to do with defunding public schools, quite the opposite actually. Public funding has been increased and mostly wasted trying to get these underachievers up to some remedial level of almost acceptability so that the schools can "prove" they did their job. Nevermind that the high achievers have to suffer from being forced to share the same classrooms with these losers.Maybe someday people will learn that funding for schools has relatively little impact on the ability to educate kids compared to the parenting they are subjected to and their socioeconomic status. If I had a nickel for every kid that millions of dollars of funding was never going to help anyway..... We should be teaching most of these students how to be good parents because the other stuff isn't going to matter without it if they don't break the cycle of how they are being raised. I also wanted to go back to the bolded. I don't agree with this at all. We don't all of a sudden have "half generations" of people running around the country uneducated that we didn't have before. There were always uneducated people in this country and we always will. That's just part of living amongst a population of 300 million people. Our system is somewhat different than much of the world in that we at least ATTEMPT to educate everyone. But, in reality, that is an impossible task. Some people don't have the mental capacity to be educated. Others have piss poor parents who don't set them up to be educated. Others just flat out don't want to do what it takes to be educated. These facts haven't changed. What I DO think has changed is the world around these people in that a) it's much harder now for an uneducated person to get a decent job and sustain themselves...c) everyone now days is affected much more by forces not geographically around them which magnifies the problems when various groups don't understand one another...and c) with technology now, uneducated people have become a much more vocal and effective group politically and, they can be manipulated much easier. Now, that last statement may send some people off the edge but that doesn't make it any less true. You may be right. My bolded comment was based on my purely anecdotal experiences, particularly those I've seen associated with my kids schools and what they've told me about the students that attend their schools. In our area there seems to be a scarily large amount of students and parents who don't seem to really give a rip if their kids get educated or not. The school system seems to be no more than a big, free daycare for them. They don't attend teacher conferences, don't seem to encourage their kids to do their homework, don't attend their school activities, and seem to be the first in line to blame the teachers and schools for their own failures. Relatively few of these kids seem to overcome the bad parenting they have been dealt. For the longest time I thought it was an income/wealth issue but it isn't. The poorer kids who have engaged parents seem to do much better. And I know it isn't the teachers or quality of education they are receiving because our kids and many others do extremely well. Sure it's tougher when money is tight but the biggest influence I see that affects their education outcomes is how their parents help or hinder the process. So anyway, me saying a couple half generations of undereducated morons was more bluster than fact. It's just what it seems like to me. Amen. Hallelujah! This is why I don't necessarily agree with vouchers. If you and your child "really" want to do well, you will. If you OR your child don't care, a voucher to a private school won't change it. Since we are going anecdotal, I currently have a student in my class that went to public school K-7. His mom put him in a private school in Omaha because he was getting in trouble and not doing his work. Two years later, he is back in public high school because his mom felt she was wasting money paying tuition for him to not do his homework and get in trouble. This information was from his mother at a parent-teacher conference. Would private schools be able to deny the acceptance of students under a voucher system? If so, I guess the above situation could be avoided and the school could only let in the best and brightest. But I'm not sure what the repercussions of that would be to the kids "left behind". In favor of vouchers, I would have to say that there are underperforming schools. There are many situations where the parents are engaged but the schools are not doing the job or providing the appropriate opportunities. I see no reason to prevent students and parents from being able to select the best choice for their particular situation. Vouchers would especially help lower income people escape bad schools. Rich people can pretty much afford to go wherever they wish. I think it would help put everyone on a more level playing field.

Well we laugh at you because you couldnt even beat out HRC and Trump with your grassroots write in campaign. ;-)

1984 Reagan - won 1988 Bush - won 1992 Bush - lost 1996 Dole - lost 2000 Bush - won 2004 Bush - won 2008 McCain - lost 2012 Romney - lost 2016 None of the above - lost 4-5 BTW, I have voted for some democrats in local and state elections. Don't think I ever have for a federal position though. Special thanks to huKSer for providing the easy cut & paste entry.