No connection. The tax cut was income taxes which do not go to Social Security. Social Security benefits only come from SS contributions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GOP Going After Medicare/Social Security
- Thread starter Lesh
- Start date
No connection. The tax cut was income taxes which do not go to Social Security. Social Security benefits only come from SS contributions.
That would not pay for the shortfall. It would even increase spending since benefits would increase based on increased contributions.
Wow. What brand Crystal Ball are you using?
Raise the payroll tax cap and the problem is solved forever
Not true. Raising the cap does not cover the difference. Most of the increased revenue would go to the increased benefits a person would receive because of additional contributions.
Wow. What brand Crystal Ball are you using?
It is not my crystal ball. Several sources have done analyses in exploring solutions and found it does not cover the cost.
Plus, it does not take a crystal ball to know most people get back more in benefits than they pay in SS taxes. So, if you increase tax contributions they will get that back (and more) in benefits.
That would not pay for the shortfall. It would even increase spending since benefits would increase based on increased contributions.
"On his website, Sanders says, “By lifting this cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families, [we] would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments, and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors.”
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/will-raising-the-cap-save-social-security/
It is not my crystal ball. Several sources have done analyses in exploring solutions and found it does not cover the cost.
Plus, it does not take a crystal ball to know most people get back more in benefits than they pay in SS taxes. So, if you increase tax contributions they will get that back (and more) in benefits.
"Increasing or eliminating Social Security’s cap on taxable wages, now $118,500 a year. Raising the cap would help mitigate the erosion of Social Security’s payroll tax base caused by rising wage inequality. Most workers’ taxes would not change, while the degree of increase in high earners’ taxes would depend on whether the cap were raised or eliminated. Raising the tax cap could increase higher earners’ benefits as well, depending on how policymakers treated newly taxed earnings. Changes to the tax cap could close roughly a quarter to nearly nine-tenths of Social Security’s solvency gap, depending on how they were structured."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...ayroll-taxes-would-strengthen-social-security
how about......if you already earn $150k a year in interest and dividends, you aren't getting another $2000 a month from SS.....
Then why should they pay SS taxes if they are getting no benefits? You have made it a welfare program by means testing it. One of the things making SS politically popular was that everybody who pays into the system gets benefits.
Too many people immediately want more taxes to fix the problem rather than cutting SS spending which was not necessary. One of the main problems with SS spending was the decline in the birth rate. In the 1950s there were 42 workers for each retiree collecting SS benefits and today there are 3 workers per retiree.
But Congress kept adding benefits to people who did not pay into the system or paid in only a short time. It was designed for workers who retired. But Congress then began adding more beneficiaries that put a burden on the system. Surviving spouses, widows and orphans, early retirement at 62, annual COLAs, former spouses married at least ten years, collecting on a spouse and then "suspending" to collect higher benefits, and there are more.
Then why should they pay SS taxes if they are getting no benefits? You have made it a welfare program by means testing it. One of the things making SS politically popular was that everybody who pays into the system gets benefits.
Too many people immediately want more taxes to fix the problem rather than cutting SS spending which was not necessary. One of the main problems with SS spending was the decline in the birth rate. In the 1950s there were 42 workers for each retiree collecting SS benefits and today there are 3 workers per retiree.
But Congress kept adding benefits to people who did not pay into the system or paid in only a short time. It was designed for workers who retired. But Congress then began adding more beneficiaries that put a burden on the system. Surviving spouses, widows and orphans, early retirement at 62, annual COLAs, former spouses married at least ten years, collecting on a spouse and then "suspending" to collect higher benefits, and there are more.
There will probably be a compromise, raise the cap and raise the age of retirement and throttle back any increase in benefits.
We knew they would. This has been the Conservative playbook since 1980: explode the deficit with tax cuts that never deliver on promises made of them, then scream about the deficit the tax cuts created, then propose closing the deficit by going after social programs to which they're ideologically opposed, but could never repeal through conventional legislation because they lack the courage, will, and support.
It's fiscal terrorism.
It's fiscal terrorism.
There will probably be a compromise, raise the cap and raise the age of retirement and throttle back any increase in benefits.
Or just repeal the Russia Tax Cut entirely, raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations even higher, remove the cap on taxable SS income, and expand Social Security benefits.
Then why should they pay SS taxes if they are getting no benefits? You have made it a welfare program by means testing it. One of the things making SS politically popular was that everybody who pays into the system gets benefits.
There's no rule that says benefits can't be capped. Anyone getting Social Security today is getting more than they put in just because of inflation. These arguments about "fairness" are so fucking silly.
One of the things making SS politically popular was that everybody who pays into the system gets benefits
And right now, anyone collecting Social Security is getting more than they contributed because of inflation.
So we can definitely remove the cap on taxable income and cap benefits for the wealthy. There's no rule that says we can't do that. Just the arbitrary and ambiguous rules you come up with on the fly to justify your own garbage position.
"Increasing or eliminating Social Security’s cap on taxable wages, now $118,500 a year. Raising the cap would help mitigate the erosion of Social Security’s payroll tax base caused by rising wage inequality. Most workers’ taxes would not change, while the degree of increase in high earners’ taxes would depend on whether the cap were raised or eliminated. Raising the tax cap could increase higher earners’ benefits as well, depending on how policymakers treated newly taxed earnings. Changes to the tax cap could close roughly a quarter to nearly nine-tenths of Social Security’s solvency gap, depending on how they were structured."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...ayroll-taxes-would-strengthen-social-security
Right, all analyses show it does not cover the cost. It if only covers a quarter of the shortfall that still leaves it 75% short. The nine-tenths is better but liberal think tanks tend to be more optimistic on these estimates.
If a person makes $1 million per year that is a huge increase in SS benefits that does not really help the system. And, based on recent changes, that person can collect full benefits while continuing to work with no penalty.
Too many people immediately want more taxes to fix the problem rather than cutting SS spending which was not necessary. One of the main problems with SS spending was the decline in the birth rate. In the 1950s there were 42 workers for each retiree collecting SS benefits and today there are 3 workers per retiree
Right now, the Millennials are the largest generation in American history and are the largest generation in the workforce. The oldest Millennial is about 38. It will also surprise you to learn that people don't live forever, and as the Boomers die off, they will collect less benefits. There's no rule that says we can't temporarily raise the Social Security or Medicare tax to dela with the influx of Boomers into those programs, then lower those rates once the Boomers die and the smaller Gen Xers enter retirement.
Your problem, and the problem with all Conservatives, is that you only see life as a zero-sum game...that there ultimately has to be a winner and a loser. And you think that because your brain is only wired for binary thinking and is fundamentally and functionally unable to grasp complex concepts.
But Congress kept adding benefits to people who did not pay into the system or paid in only a short time. It was designed for workers who retired. But Congress then began adding more beneficiaries that put a burden on the system. Surviving spouses, widows and orphans, early retirement at 62, annual COLAs, former spouses married at least ten years, collecting on a spouse and then "suspending" to collect higher benefits, and there are more.
And your problem is what? There's plenty of money to pay for all of this...it can be simply achieved by lifting the cap on taxable SS income, capping benefits for the wealthy, and then slightly raising the payroll tax to cover the influx of Boomers into these programs. Then we simply lower that rate once the Boomers die off and the much smaller Gen Xers enter retirement.
This isn't that hard to figure out.
We knew they would. This has been the Conservative playbook since 1980: explode the deficit with tax cuts that never deliver on promises made of them, then scream about the deficit the tax cuts created, then propose closing the deficit by going after social programs to which they're ideologically opposed, but could never repeal through conventional legislation because they lack the courage, will, and support.
It's fiscal terrorism.
I agree with this.
Right, all analyses show it does not cover the cost. It if only covers a quarter of the shortfall that still leaves it 75% short. The nine-tenths is better but liberal think tanks tend to be more optimistic on these estimates.
Here's the thing:
After the last 17 years, Conservatives don't ever get to try and impugn the legitimacy of any think tank that does the work of figuring this out. Conservatives have lied to us about their tax cuts. About their trickle-down economic policy. About their fiscal policies. And every single time, Conservatives have been wrong about what they predicted. Every. Single. Time.
So you don't get to try and gaslight what a liberal think tank does, because you have no foundational support for credibility on this, or any subject.
If a person makes $1 million per year that is a huge increase in SS benefits that does not really help the system. And, based on recent changes, that person can collect full benefits while continuing to work with no penalty.
There's no rule that says we can't cap SS benefits for the wealthy.
There's no rule that says we can't lift the cap on taxable SS income.
There's no rule that says we can't temporarily raise the payroll taxes to cover the influx of Boomers into retirement programs.
And there's certainly no rule that says we can't lower that rate once the Boomers die off and the much smaller Generation X enters retirement.
The solution to this problem is so fucking easy, Donald Trump would try to nail it.
There will probably be a compromise, raise the cap and raise the age of retirement and throttle back any increase in benefits.
I know guys who paid more into the system than the cap. People like pipefitters who worked several jobs around the country or world started over with each new job.
I don't think they need to raise the retirement age (it will be 67 soon) but they should eliminate early retirement. Currently, over 70% of SS beneficiaries retire early. I know a lot of people who retire as soon as they hit 62. They would reduce spending by billions.
I know guys who paid more into the system than the cap. People like pipefitters who worked several jobs around the country or world started over with each new job.
I don't think they need to raise the retirement age (it will be 67 soon) but they should eliminate early retirement. Currently, over 70% of SS beneficiaries retire early. I know a lot of people who retire as soon as they hit 62. They would reduce spending by billions.
You need early retirement to get sufficient churn in employment. By holding onto jobs for a few more years, the Boomers are delaying the capacity of the next two generations to advance their careers and increase their income.
Also making people work to age 67 is bullshit anyway. And it forces higher health care costs on the employers because older people generally need more health care than younger ones.