Conservatives want to raise taxes and kill SS and Medicare

[Earl]

Democrats want to push Grandma off the cliff, in a wheelchair.

[Flash]

well.....there's the OP......he seemed to imply it was more likely a crime against humanity......

The "getting rid of Social Security" is a frequent scare tactic by liberals on JPP. Both sides always use exaggerate predictions--Social Security and Medicare, red wave, depression, communism, authoritarian, Nazi, investigations that will convict Trump and Biden......

A 30% sales tax would be pretty drastic although it is largely offset by the monthly rebate and not having income tax and payroll tax deducted from paychecks. It is still a bad idea, but much less dramatic than posters would like us to think.

[Flash]

I'm sure if you look at the fine print of the MAGA's proposal, purchases of luxury items, such as yachts and planes will be exempt. They've got to blow their rich doners.

No items are exempt including food. Like any bill, the completed version will be very different than the original. But, it has no chance of passing. The Fair Tax idea has been floating around for years.

[PostmodernProphet]

A 30% sales tax would be pretty drastic

shall we start the discussion about exaggeration with the fact the bill states 23% and your still talking about 30%......

[Flash]

shall we start the discussion about exaggeration with the fact the bill states 23% and your still talking about 30%......

If you buy something for $100 and with tax the total is $130, what percent did you pay in taxes?

[Concart]

The "getting rid of Social Security" is a frequent scare tactic by liberals on JPP. Both sides always use exaggerate predictions--Social Security and Medicare, red wave, depression, communism, authoritarian, Nazi, investigations that will convict Trump and Biden......

A 30% sales tax would be pretty drastic although it is largely offset by the monthly rebate and not having income tax and payroll tax deducted from paychecks. It is still a bad idea, but much less dramatic than posters would like us to think.

The problem with a sales tax is that it taxes sales, not income. Since the top earners don't spend anywhere near the percentage that low earners do, the tax is extremely regressive. I also seriously doubt that employers would give workers an immediate 8% increase across the board.

No, 'getting rid of social security' is not a scare tactic. It was literally proposed by the chairman of the GOP election committee. Sunset in five years.

[Flash]

The problem with a sales tax is that it taxes sales, not income. Since the top earners don't spend anywhere near the percentage that low earners do, the tax is extremely regressive. I also seriously doubt that employers would give workers an immediate 8% increase across the board.

Higher income do not spend as much on essentials, but they spend a lot more on discretionary items. Luxury spending is a major part of consumer spending and is growing rapidly. It has grown 47% since Covid. It would also tax items not taxed under the current system like inheritance, lawsuit settlements when that money is used to purchase items.

For lower income the monthly rebate should cover most or all of their spending so they pay very little taxes. It also provides a type of minimum monthly income.

No, 'getting rid of social security' is not a scare tactic. It was literally proposed by the chairman of the GOP election committee. Sunset in five years.

Because one Republican proposed something does not mean he could get the Republican House members to vote to get rid of SS. It would be political suicide and they know it. Senior citizens are a major part of Republican voters and SS is sacred.

Sunset laws means the item comes up for renewal every five years. In most cases the agency is renewed. My state has sunset laws and almost nothing is actually allowed to sunset. I think we got rid of the Pink Bollworm Commission in 1978.

Getting rid of SS is a scare tactic because nobody seriously think it will happen.

[Concart]

Higher income do not spend as much on essentials, but they spend a lot more on discretionary items. Luxury spending is a major part of consumer spending and is growing rapidly. It has grown 47% since Covid. It would also tax items not taxed under the current system like inheritance, lawsuit settlements when that money is used to purchase items.

For lower income the monthly rebate should cover most or all of their spending so they pay very little taxes. It also provides a type of minimum monthly income.



Because one Republican proposed something does not mean he could get the Republican House members to vote to get rid of SS. It would be political suicide and they know it. Senior citizens are a major part of Republican voters and SS is sacred.

Sunset laws means the item comes up for renewal every five years. In most cases the agency is renewed. My state has sunset laws and almost nothing is actually allowed to sunset. I think we got rid of the Pink Bollworm Commission in 1978.

Getting rid of SS is a scare tactic because nobody seriously think it will happen.

And the Senate wouldn't approve it. That point is moot. They WANT to do it. They just can't. You don't think it will happen? Wait until we see the GOP proposal to end the debt ceiling fight. I GUARANTEE cuts or privatization of Social Security will be in that bill. Why sunset Social Security if you intend to just renew it. You are totally misjudging the intent of the GOP.

As to you first point, they do not spend anywhere near all of their discretionary income, thus this becomes a highly regressive tax. It is a fact.

[Nordberg]

Higher income do not spend as much on essentials, but they spend a lot more on discretionary items. Luxury spending is a major part of consumer spending and is growing rapidly. It has grown 47% since Covid. It would also tax items not taxed under the current system like inheritance, lawsuit settlements when that money is used to purchase items.

For lower income, the monthly rebate should cover most or all of their spending so they pay very little taxes. It also provides a type of minimum monthly income. It is absolutely certain the super wealthy want Soc. Sec, down.


Because one Republican proposed something does not mean he could get the Republican House members to vote to get rid of SS. It would be political suicide and they know it. Senior citizens are a major part of Republican voters and SS is sacred.

Sunset laws means the item comes up for renewal every five years. In most cases the agency is renewed. My state has sunset laws and almost nothing is actually allowed to sunset. I think we got rid of the Pink Bollworm Commission in 1978.

Getting rid of SS is a scare tactic because nobody seriously think it will happen.

And rights fall for the trap the wealthy use again. The powers of America are not interested in you. They just want more money, and this will do it. The banker Putsch of 1933 was an attempt to stop FDR from Soc. Security and unemployment benefits. They have been after those programs since they were initiated. You guys are being suckered.

[NiftyNiblick]

Conservative politicians love sales tax because it's regressive and hurts the poor the most.

They hate income tax because it's progressive and hurts the oligarchs the most.
At least it would if they didn't get away with multiple forms of tax evasion.

[Flash]

And the Senate wouldn't approve it. That point is moot. They WANT to do it. They just can't. You don't think it will happen? Wait until we see the GOP proposal to end the debt ceiling fight. I GUARANTEE cuts or privatization of Social Security will be in that bill. Why sunset Social Security if you intend to just renew it. You are totally misjudging the intent of the GOP.

As to you first point, they do not spend anywhere near all of their discretionary income, thus this becomes a highly regressive tax. It is a fact.

Republicans don't want to end SS

The Fair Tax is not so regressive since lower income receive all their taxes back with the rebate. I'm not supporting it, just trying to explain.

Privatization would be a better way to handle SS but that is difficult to do today. Workers would have a bigger retirement, could leave that money to their family, and the government would not be stuck with that big expenditure. But today's workers can't put that money into a retirement account because it is needed to pay current benefits.

How would you pay for the shortfall (30%) in SS benefits when the surplus is gone (about 2037)?

[NiftyNiblick]

Republicans don't want to end SS

The Fair Tax is not so regressive since lower income receive all their taxes back with the rebate. I'm not supporting it, just trying to explain.

Privatization would be a better way to handle SS but that is difficult to do today. Workers would have a bigger retirement, could leave that money to their family, and the government would not be stuck with that big expenditure. But today's workers can't put that money into a retirement account because it is needed to pay current benefits.

How would you pay for the shortfall (30%) in SS benefits when the surplus is gone (about 2037)?

It's very simple. The one sure tax. You print up lots of money, thereby devaluing the existing money for those who have it.
It's automatic wealth redistribution. No comment on whether it' a good or bad thing, but it's easy to do and sometimes has been necessary.

[Concart]

Republicans don't want to end SS

The Fair Tax is not so regressive since lower income receive all their taxes back with the rebate. I'm not supporting it, just trying to explain.

Privatization would be a better way to handle SS but that is difficult to do today. Workers would have a bigger retirement, could leave that money to their family, and the government would not be stuck with that big expenditure. But today's workers can't put that money into a retirement account because it is needed to pay current benefits.

How would you pay for the shortfall (30%) in SS benefits when the surplus is gone (about 2037)?

Privatization would be a disaster. Investment is gambling, and very few people are good at it. It is a recipe for fraud and abuse, and for most people, they will lose their collective asses. Opposed in every possible way imaginable. Privatization ends Social Security. And yes, that's what Republicans want to do. When they tell you that, you need to believe them.

Close the gap by raising the limit and imposing the tax again after a certain income level is reached. Reduce benefits for the wealthiest individuals. Potentially raise the retirement age to reflect increased life expectancy for those who reach retirement age. SS will still be able to pay 77% of current benefits beginning in 2034 even with no changes. That means the shortfall is not 30%, it's 23%.j

[Flash]

And rights fall for the trap the wealthy use again. The powers of America are not interested in you. They just want more money, and this will do it. The banker Putsch of 1933 was an attempt to stop FDR from Soc. Security and unemployment benefits. They have been after those programs since they were initiated. You guys are being suckered.

And you are just trying to scare people by making them think somebody wants to stop their SS. What people wanted in 1933 is evidence they obviously have no support or power to accomplish this. Congress has continued to add additional benefits to SS. You say somebody wants this but when has anything been introduced in Congress that would end it. Even the attempt to partially privatize it under Bush was a big failure because they couldn't even get Republican votes for it. I don't think it even made it out of committee.

You say they have been after those programs, yet, they continue to grown under both Democrats and Republicans. It is hard to end government programs--we are still subsidizing angora sheep from WWI.

[Flash]

Privatization would be a disaster. Investment is gambling, and very few people are good at it. It is a recipe for fraud and abuse, and for most people, they will lose their collective asses. Opposed in every possible way imaginable. Privatization ends Social Security. And yes, that's what Republicans want to do. When they tell you that, you need to believe them.

Close the gap by raising the limit and imposing the tax again after a certain income level is reached. Reduce benefits for the wealthiest individuals. Potentially raise the retirement age to reflect increased life expectancy for those who reach retirement age. SS will still be able to pay 77% of current benefits beginning in 2034 even with no changes. That means the shortfall is not 30%, it's 23%.j

The S&P 500 is not risky in the long-run. Take any year after about 1950 and ten years later it has gained. It goes up and down, but still results in a larger lump sum than would pay more than SS averaging about 10% a year. You don't have to be good at it to buy an index fund. Keep the money in that fund after retirement and it continues to grow even after withdrawing living expenses.

The latest trustee report says by 2035 the system will be able to prove 80% of benefits, so only a 20% shortfall.

The Republicans had a majority in House and Senate and president on several occasions. If they have wanted to end those programs so long why didn't they attempt it? Bush did not try to end SS. They did not end or reduce spending in any program.