Biden budget would cut deficit by $3 trillion over next decade with 25% minimum tax on richest Ameri

I agree with being concerned with our nation's Social Security system, being built upon a pyramid scheme. I, however, have not investigated the details. I had accepted arguments, coming mostly from the Right, that changes were required, to make the fund fiscally sound. So, when Biden says no cuts to Social Security, and no raising of retirement age-- which is the option I have been favorably disposed toward-- I assume he is planning to shore up the fund, at some point, with more taxes on the rich, as with a "wealth tax," for instance. While I am not against a tax system, which strives to prevent the also unsustainable situation, IMO, of such a large percentage of our national wealth being concentrated in so few hands, with such a wealth chasm, existing in between most citizens, and the class of financial elites-- I do not think it wise to go to that taxation "well," as the solution to all fiscal dilemmas.

Some version of that general idea, I had expressed to our fellow, Seth Bullock, whose response seemed to imply, to my mind, that he felt the system was sound, as it currently is. It was to this notion, I had addressed my comment which you'd excerpted, for your reply, that if that truly is the case, that our S.S. system is not in imminently foreseeable danger, as Repubs have been declaring, for decades, then this "fake news," should be noted by Seth, who had complained of political lying, and whom it is fair to characterize, I think, as being on the Right, and so typically being more sympathetic to Republican politicians, perspectives, and arguments.

But again, all my comments were conditional, upon whatever the truth of the matter, might be, regarding this fund. I therefore thank you, for injecting at least a little factual statistical data, into the discussion.

 

We have two, and they don't get enough attention in a decade to even consider the tiny amount of the Feds contribute to their upkeep And you are not even touching on the amount of federal revenue collected from federal fuel tax.

 

It is insurance. That is exactly what it is.

Look ... You may never need your auto insurance if you're a safe driver and you're blessed with a good deal of luck. But if you do need it, it will pay out to you. With SS, you may not live long enough to receive benefits. But if you do live long enough, it pays those benefits. This is insurance. That is what you're paying for.

But we're paying for more than that. We are also paying into the fabric of our society in a positive way. Why? To begin with, seniors on SS pay the vast majority of that money right back into the economy. That provides employment for younger people. And secondly, before there was SS, what did seniors do? One answer is that they worked until they died. Another answer is that they moved in with their children. And sadly, many relied on charity, destitute.

Now, I don't know how old you are. Maybe your parents or grandparents are still alive. Do you want them to work until they die? Do you want them to move in with you when they are too frail to work? Or do you want them basically destitute, relying on group shelters and charity? If your savings run out in your old age, do you want to burden your children?

SS is a huge factor in preventing these outcomes for seniors who live into their late 70s, 80s, and into their 90s.

We are not friggin Ethiopia. We are the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the world.

And one thing we all have in common is that we all grow old.

 

I’m 60, and if I wanted to start receiving benefits at 62, thus, approx. $2,400 a month, my net benefits (after tax) would equate to approx. $700 a month, and despite the fact that from 1985 to 2019, I paid the maximum amount.

 

You should go to the SS website and create an account. Once you have the account established you can look at their projections as to your estimated benefits.

It's not a "Republican claim". It's a fact. If we want to maintain the level of benefits for seniors into the future, we must raise the retirement age, forcing many people to work until they die, or we can raise taxes. There are no other choices. Well, there is one other choice and that is to cut benefits substantially. And that is a very poor choice.

Most seniors who have worked all of their adult life to the age of 65-67 can survive on SS if they have a modest home that is paid for. It isn't easy, though. They do without all of the extras.

What I have noticed is that neither party really wants to talk about this impending problem, and neither wants to fix it yet. What they want to do is to kick the can down the road (typical of cowardly self-serving politicians) until it's a crisis. And here's what's really sad about kicking the can down the road. If we tackle the problem now, by raising taxes for SS, we reduce the pain of fixing it. If we wait until the money in the SS fund runs out, then we are left with only three choices: (1) dramatically cut benefits for all seniors, (2) dramatically raise taxes, or (3) maintain benefits and resort to huge deficit spending.

 

I've got to think there is something wrong with your calculation. If taxes reduce $2400 down to $700, you're paying about 68% in taxes. Nobody pays that much in taxes.

Secondly, my strong advice is to not take an early retirement. Wait 5 years until you're 67 and take the full retirement. You'll receive nearly a third more for the rest of your life, and that may be for a long time. And, if you're married, and your spouse receives less than you from SS, if you die ahead of her, she will receive the amount of your SS rather than her lesser amount until she dies. In my opinion, the only people who should take an early SS retirement fit into one of two classes: (1) people who by circumstance have no other choice, and (2) people who have saved a retirement fund worth at least $1.5 million, or above. People in this group are people who have saved enough that receiving the maximum SS benefit is not essential.

 

Correction; $1,700 versus $700

 

But you see, I waited until I reached full retirement age, and I am receiving over $700/month more than that after taxes and the Medicare Part B premium are deducted. Don't take the early retirement unless you fit into one of those categories I mentioned.

 

I don't want them. I can't help that the services are often monopolized by a bunch of criminals and then inadequately, inefficiently, and provide, to some degree, at astronomical expense.

I mean, I would pay the mafioso who demands protection money for fear of being beaten up by his goons, and I would probably appreciate the quiet that his efforts bring to the neighborhood, most of the time, except he starts a gang war. But does that mean that he's not a criminal because he provides the overpriced service of protection from other gangs and independent thieves? The state is no different, other than it relies upon your quasi-religious faith that it is righteous while the mafioso is wrong.

 

Well I'd gotten the wrong impression, then, from your original reply, in which you said only that there was no need to raise the retirement age, any higher. I took from that, your not believing there was a solvency issue. So, then, you agree with what I take to be Biden's position: no benefit cuts; no increase in retirement age; tax hikes required (in his next term), to buttress the fund?

 

Never drive on roads, no cops or firemen for you.

 

Then why do it?

 

We don't need more roads we need the ones we have maintained.but there is no glory In repairing a road that's already got some one else moniker on it. And even that costs twice as much as it should because of government res and regulations.

 

Your mistake begins with that assumption. The debt will not drop; it will most likely increase if more tax revenue flows into the Treasury.

 

You'll get no argument from me that the Republicans, when given the chance, spend like Democrats. My point stands. History tells us that giving the feds more tax revenue only increases spending by even more.

 

If it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for those sucking at the public teat, grossly exaggerated propaganda notwithstanding. I've lived in those barracks, and it's not concentration camp like at all, at least after you have completed basic. And even then, it's the other parts of basic that are hard, and should be, not the accommodations. As for disabled vets, et al, I must have said 200 times on this forum that when I make statements like the one you responded to, I am talking about able-bodied persons. In fact, I think I said so to you directly in the not-too-distant past, so knock it off with that bullshit irrelevancy.

 

I am a liberal Democrat so I believe in Social Security, other social safety program, Progressive higher taxes. You are right ending SS benefit is like stealing someone else money. As I said I am Liberal Democrat, I don’t want any thing to end.

Right now GOP can do politicking about balancing budget, not raising debt ceiling, and ending social safety programs etc, because none of them will come to reality. When GOP is in power, they never balance budget, they never cut social programs but they keep politicking about “balancing Budget”.

My point is , every time GOP wants to end all the social safety net, Dems should take up on that and end all social safety net for 2-3 years. let’s see how that will work out after 2-3 years in republican Politics.

 

Only a Citizen should be eligible for social security, or a legal immigrant who has worked for at least, say, 15 years. Or maybe 20. That's a detail that can be worked out if we can get support for it being an American plan for Americans. Or, hell, make all immigrants not eligible to encourage the legals to become citizens, and the illegals to go home or not come in the first place.

 

I have a similar idea.

Let's end income tax withholding, so people have to save up and write a check to Uncle at the end of the year. That way, they come to realize just how much they are actually paying. I can't tell you how many people I've spoken with over the years who think a tax refund is literally free money from Uncle, not realizing it's just a refund for an interest free loan they made to the feds.

They'll never do that, of course, because after the first year under this program, when people finally understand, and have to come up with a very large check using money they probably don't have, there would be a literal revolt. And they, and you, know it.

The greatest motivator someone can get is fear of being homeless, starving, or both. It's the reason we have signs in parks that say, "Please don't feed the animals." Because when you do that, they become dependent on it, and then become dangerous if it stops. Humans are animals, and are no different when they are fed without effort. Fed in this case being an analogy for all sorts of free stuff benefits, which we need to be phasing out, but Biden & Co want to add more and more and more. Free daycare, free college, yadda yadda.

When does it end????????????

 

Whether or not I am personally paying is not relevant. If anyone is paying for Internet services aside from the person receiving those services against their will, that is wrong. And it's straight up theft. Not all taxation is, we have communial expenses that have to be shared, things like military, police, Courts, and the like. But wherever it is possible, reasonable, and a reasonable calculation can be made of an individuals share of those expenses (as one obvious example, a person who does not use public transportation should not be paying for public transportation), then a user fee model is the proper way to go.

A gas tax is to an extent a user fee model, but it doesn't factor in things like efficiency (mpg), how much usage is made (total miles driven), and if applicable, surcharges (tolls) for more expensive car travel lanes like bridges and tunnels that cost way more per mile than a road on flat land.

 

The Democrats are going to do all they can to fast track these people to citizenship. That way they will vote Democrat to get free stuff like Social Security, even though they have paid little or nothing into the system.

Wait for the Democrats to gain both Houses of Congress and the White House, which could happen if Trump takes the Republicans down the tube in 2024. He helped to do it in 2022. All of these illegals will be citizens,

 

Yes. I think the retirement age of 67 is high enough. I favor abolishing the maximum taxable earnings for Social Security (the cap) on earnings which is $160,200 this year. This would effect only 6.44% of the population, and it would be the wealthiest 6.44%.

Another problem with the cap is that it turns the SS tax into a regressive tax that favors the wealthiest Americans - that 6.44%. The reason is that the 94% of people who make $160k or less pay a Social Security payroll tax of 6.2% unless they are self-employed, in which case they pay 12.4%. This means that the more you make over $160k, the smaller the percentage of your income that is paid into Social Security. For example, if you make $160,000, your Social Security tax is $9,920 (6.2%). But if you make $1,000,000, your Social Security tax is still $9,920 because none of your income over $160,000 was subject to the tax. This is an effective tax rate of just under 1%. If a person who earns $1,000,000 is self-employed, they pay just under 2%. So the bottom line is that the middle class and low income levels pay 6.2% of their incomes into SS, while the million dollar earner pays only 1 or 2%.

The argument against raising the tax cap is that there is a maximum amount the SS will pay to anyone, regardless of how much they've earned and put into the system. (This year that maximum is $3627 at the full retirement age of 67.) The argument is that this amount is too distant from what the millionaire would receive in interest and resultant retirement income if he put that money into some other investment. In other words, the argument is that it's not fair to the wealthiest people. Personally, I think that's a hollow, selfish argument because people in the 1% made that money by selling their goods or services to the middle and low income classes of people. I cannot abide the idea of cutting SS benefits to our most vulnerable people so that the 1% can make more money on their investments.

And in spite of the point of view I've expressed here, I consider myself to be a conservative, but a conservative of my own definition.

 

What is wrong with free daycare, free collage.

 

My point is: It should not be structured that way, it should rather be structured as forced savings that is owned by the person whose money was taken out of their earnings.

There is no point repeating your point to me over and over, and there is no reason to not structure it as I stated, save the fact that government wants and needs people to die early so they can steal their contributions.

If SS money had never been allowed to be comingled with the rest of the budget, something that would be a serious crime if a private organization like a bank did it (just look at the banks that failed over the past few days, which is also courtesy of the Federal Reserve's reckless and irresponsible policies of increasing interest so much and so quickly, without even pausing to see if it's helping!

Government could f up boiling an egg!

I am of an age that my parents could certainly still be alive but they are not. Even my grandparents hypothetically could, but they would be approaching record levels of longevity. But, hey, someone has set those records, no?

But, and this may be an underlying theme that is the root of most of my political philosophy, I expect individuals to be responsible! This means doing simple things like preparing for your golden years, something that if they actually owned their ss accounts, and a reasonable compounded interest rate to go along with their contributions, most people would have high 6- to low 7-figure accounts. The reality, however, is that most people (sadly including myself) think they're never going to get old, and they can worry about it tomorrow, except when tomorrow comes, they find a reason to put it off again.

Personally, I was well on my way to a comfortable retirement when I got smacked in the face by a 2x4 that not only almost killed me, it did kill me however temporarily, but it left me in a bind on my future monetary needs. If you factor in my home, which I own outright, I have a net worth in the top 10% of people, but that's largely because I made OWNING a house a priority over renting a big, beautiful one that was way more than I needed with a mortgage anchor around my neck.

That turned out to be the best financial decision I have ever or likely will ever make, because if I had gone the road of buying a big, beautiful home with a mortgage, when my disability hit, that came out of nowhere so was not even remotely anticipated, I would have lost the house, and likely much if not all of my initial investment. I also got a little lucky insofar that I managed to get something below market, and then the housing market in my area exploded, mostly because people were fleeing high tax and high regulation from places like NY, NJ, and CA, so instead of losing that initial investment, it's now worth 3x what it was originally.

But... That accounts for probably 70%, give or take, of my total net worth, and while it's tied up in my home, it's not spendable. We will probably look at a reverse mortgage at some point, which will mean when we're dead and gone, the house will go to whoever wrote the reverse mortgage, but it will also let me have my cake (equity) and eat (spend) it too! We're also looking at possibly moving out to the sticks somewhere since I don't get out much, and once my wife can find a job that allows her to work from home at least most of the time, we'll be able to get more house, and more importantly, one built specifically for me and my disability, for about what we can get out of this one.

However, now that I've given way more personal information than I probably should, my political philosophy doesn't come from 'How does this idea affect me personally?' I would still be opposed to paying off those student loans even if I would be a beneficiary, both because it's not the proper role of government, and also, probably more importantly, because based on the Constitution, POTUS doesn't have the authority to enact such spending, and following the Constitution is something I am willing to give my life for. And there is zero reasoning, not matter how twisted, that POTUS actually can do that absent a Constitutional Amendment that expands the power of the Executive.

Point is that I expect such prior proper planning from everyone, and failure to do so does not constitute a problem for me or anyone else. The phrase, 'You made your bed, now you must lie in it' comes to mind with these topics, which is simplistic, but not at all an unreasonable point of view.

Most people who are poor, are poor because they made bad decisions along the road of life. I am not at all sympathetic to people whose problems are self-inflicted. Failure on your part to properly prior plan, does not constitute and emergency on my part. Just graduating from high school, never mind anything beyond that, can make all the difference in the world. So much, in fact, that I don't understand why we allow people to drop out before they reach the age of majority. Forcing an adult to attend school is something our government lacks the authority to do, but kids have always been something of an exception when it comes to basic Constitutional protections.

It's why a school can search your locker without a search warrant.