In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Democrats Social Security 2100 Bill
GilWilson1
Member Posts: 182 ✭
OK I must be missing something, I almost hate to admit it but so far as I read this bill I like it.
What!!????
What!!????
Comments
There's an immediate 2% raise for everyone and a guarentee of a benefit that is at least 125% of the poverty level...all of this is immediate.
Meanwhile, the poor bastards that have to pay for it, the ones taking the full tax burden in 2043, haven't even been born yet.
Boomers will get to screw future generations one last time before going on to their reward.
Since the Dems are behind it, you KNOW it's a commie program and will take away from the people plus making them slaves to the government.
We have enough gun laws, what we need is IDIOT control.
Blood makes you related. Loyalty makes you family.
I thought getting old would take longer. :shock:
I have advocated before that removal of the cap is a no brainer, SS is nothing more than a tax and it is currently a regressive tax. Anyone making more than 132K is getting a 12.6% tax break.
The truth is if we want to pay for education, healthcare, retirement, infrastructure, Military, border control, Etc. Etc. we will have to tax about 50% on everyone or carry debt.
We all want stuff but no one wants to pay for it, Medicare is a great example, one Hospital bill will wipe out every nickel you and your employer ever contributed with interest. But no one wants to have to pay more in.
Under your plan if a guy averages 35k salary a year for his working career (common for today's retirees) and gets $1200.00 a month in SS benefits should a guy that averaged 350K salary a year get $12,000.00 a month if he had paid SS on his entire salary?
No, a millionaire doesn't collect those things, but he pays more than his share into them, advantage to the little guy.
The higher income earners already pay much more in taxes than the little guy, Not just larger amounts but larger percentages of income. The higher income earners get less in return for each dollar sent in in taxes. He is already carrying more with his share of taxes than the little guy.
Now, are you proposing to keep taxing him for SS on his higher income and at the same time decreasing his the rate of his proportional benefits? Since there is a max limit to SS benefits the higher earner would get zero return for those additional contributions. If that is what you are suggesting, that is pure social ism and "spreading the wealth" expanded.
The little guy is already drawing more benefits from SS for his invested dollar than the rich guy. How lopsided should it be? How much social ism do we want? If the rich guy keeps paying on income past the current limits he should get reciprocal return.
With no additional source of funds and projected withdrawals it isn't going to make it. And the argument about stolen money Etc doesn't hold water it is money owed and accounted for.
First since we have ALWAYS had a progressive tax system at least since 1913 or so when I can find data, immediately calling socialism don't fly. If that is the case we were MUCH more socialist when we had top tier tax rates in the 90% range! Our tax system is and has always been progressive in nature.
Fact is the lower income folks actually paid a higher percentage of taxes before 1982 than they do now, I advocate everyone having skin in the game to some extent. BUT when you say paying larger percentages of income you are not taking into account disposable income. Taxing someone who makes 5000 a year is counter productive since they already don't make enough to survive.
Currently with the personal deduction at 12K or so anyone earning that pays no income tax. Most intelligent tax payers don't pay top tier rates they get their income from other designations like distributions, dividends, capital gains, Etc.
I agree with you that we already have quite a bit of social ism, and have had for decades. It seems we are addressing different issues. I am not talking about saving Social Security, I'm talking about saving a nation. I do not see furthering social ism as being beneficial in that regard. We aren't going to reverse any present socialist programs by expanding existing socialist programs.
I am close to drawing social security benefits myself, but I still do not want the program expanded. It needs to run as lean as possible until we can figure out a way to get rid of it. It will take decades to reverse the things that will destroy our system. In the long run I do not think we will stop the destruction. But I am not going to support it's destruction by supporting socialist programs..
The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future. Finally, as Treasury debt securities (trust fund assets) are redeemed in the future, they will just be replaced with public debt. If trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered with no effect on budget deficits.
If there will be a "shortfall" in the future, congress needs to start slowly raising the amount paid in by incremental numbers starting now or wait 10 years and get hit with a "biggie" lump sum.
This isn't rocket science but accurate estimations (like climate change). :P
Read what the Social Security Administration has to say. Look at the estimates, curves, graphs to get a good picture.
It's all about NOW !!! need to take in NOW what is paid out, it's about that simple. Births rates are down, not too many years S.S. payments may "drop" but this "drop" won't be given back in lesser payment because the price will be going up with inflation but number of people on S.S. will be trending down.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future. Finally, as Treasury debt securities (trust fund assets) are redeemed in the future, they will just be replaced with public debt. If trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered with no effect on budget deficits.
If there will be a "shortfall" in the future, congress needs to start slowly raising the amount paid in by incremental numbers starting now or wait 10 years and get hit with a "biggie" lump sum.
This isn't rocket science but accurate estimations (like climate change). :P
Read what the Social Security Administration has to say. Look at the estimates, curves, graphs to get a good picture.
It's all about NOW !!! need to take in NOW what is paid out, it's about that simple. Births rates are down, not too many years S.S. payments may "drop" but this "drop" won't be given back in lesser payment because the price will be going up with inflation but number of people on S.S. will be trending down.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html