All Republicans Want To Take Away Your Social Security

[iuwclurker]

Ds should pound on that in every election from here to eternity. Antidote for the R spin machine lies (socialist, guns, abortion).

Undermine the senior vote, the most stable voting base for Rs. (Or maybe second now to conservative evangelicals.)

 

[Marvin the Martian]

To an extent that was tried in Florida. Trump said specifically that he wanted to make the elimination of the Social Security tax permanent. With zero revenue, how long would social security last? But people still voted for Trump.

If the DNCC ever took one piece of advice from me, make the special election a referendum on one part of the GOP 2017 tax plan. On January 1, 2021, 2023, and 2025, there will be tax hikes on people making under $75,000. If the Republicans cared about little people, why did they pass a plan with three tax hikes on little people and none, zero, nada, on people making millions. I would put that in every commercial, on every billboard. Why did they raise taxes on working people but not CEO's?

 

[Hoosiers47614]

Social Security is a failing program that already costs more than is paid into it and is expected to be insolvent by the middle of the next decade. Just because a bad system is politically popular does not mean that bad system should be defended and supported by politicians.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Social Security is a failing program that already costs more than is paid into it and is expected to be insolvent by the middle of the next decade. Just because a bad system is politically popular does not mean that bad system should be defended and supported by politicians.

There are many solutions to the Social Security shortfall, https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/balance-options

Something like a .5% tax hike, raise the maximum income level for taxes by $30,000 or so, and a short raising of age and small COLA decrease and it all works out. There are small prices on both sides of cost and revenue.

 

[hoot1]

Social Security is a failing program that already costs more than is paid into it and is expected to be insolvent by the middle of the next decade. Just because a bad system is politically popular does not mean that bad system should be defended and supported by politicians.

Is it a bad system or a good idea backed by a funding system which hasn't been updated to meet a changing demographic?

 

[hondo314]

Social Security is a failing program that already costs more than is paid into it and is expected to be insolvent by the middle of the next decade. Just because a bad system is politically popular does not mean that bad system should be defended and supported by politicians.

ya, it’s way more fun to watch grannies starve

 

[Hoosiers47614]

ya, it’s way more fun to watch grannies starve

Life would be so much easier if all political issues were zero-sum games and completely without nuance, wouldn't it? Then you could actually argue that not supporting a government program that is clearly in need of major reform, at the very least, equated to wanting people to die without it being patently absurd. Alas, that is not the case.

 

[mainway_toys]

Social Security is a failing program that already costs more than is paid into it and is expected to be insolvent by the middle of the next decade. Just because a bad system is politically popular does not mean that bad system should be defended and supported by politicians.

Let me guess... You're going to replace it with some as-yet unrevealed private plan that is both vastly better AND far less expensive, right? Also blah blah tort reform blah blah state lines.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In a government that works, we would hand half the shortfall to Dems and say find it in spending cuts and half to Republicans and tell them to find it in additional revenue.

 

[hondo314]

Life would be so much easier if all political issues were zero-sum games and completely without nuance, wouldn't it? Then you could actually argue that not supporting a government program that is clearly in need of major reform, at the very least, equated to wanting people to die without it being patently absurd. Alas, that is not the case.

lol. Alas, this is a zero-sum game for the tens of millions of folks who paid into it and rely on it. Failed system or a system constantly under attack by the one of the parties? Like when W wanted to dip our toes into privatization? Was that reform? Or when Trump used an executive order to cut (if re-elected...lol) SS tax? More reform?

maybe you should think before making zero-sum statements?

 

[meridian]

If the clueless Pubs succeed in dismantling social security, what would happen to the zillions of dollars I have put in the system?
Do I
1) lose all?
2) get half of them back?
3) get all in a lump sum?
4) get all in a lump sum + interest accrued to date?

If the answer is 4), where will the money for the interest come from?

 

[mcmurtry66]

If the clueless Pubs succeed in dismantling social security, what would happen to the zillions of dollars I have put in the system?
Do I
1) lose all?
2) get half of them back?
3) get all in a lump sum?
4) get all in a lump sum + interest accrued to date?

If the answer is 4), where will the money for the interest come from?

i don't think it will happen. at least i hope it doesn't. so many americans count on that money as a lifeline. if something happens who knows. it's an intergenerational transfer of cash so presumably those of us who paid in would just be F'd

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

If the clueless Pubs succeed in dismantling social security, what would happen to the zillions of dollars I have put in the system?
Do I
1) lose all?
2) get half of them back?
3) get all in a lump sum?
4) get all in a lump sum + interest accrued to date?

If the answer is 4), where will the money for the interest come from?

It goes to people who have less than you, you undeserving capitalist pig.

You didn’t build that.

Selfish upper-half-ers like you need to have ALL your stuff taken away and re-distributed to the people, and then you should sent to a re-education college where you learn about the benefits of true social justice, as determined by the local committee.

 

[StelioKontos]

It goes to people who have less than you, you undeserving capitalist pig.

You didn’t build that.

Selfish upper-half-ers like you need to have ALL your stuff taken away and re-distributed to the people, and then you should sent to a re-education college where you learn about the benefits of true social justice, as determined by the local committee.

Book Burning 101

 

[Courtsensetwo]

If the clueless Pubs succeed in dismantling social security, what would happen to the zillions of dollars I have put in the system?
Do I
1) lose all?
2) get half of them back?
3) get all in a lump sum?
4) get all in a lump sum + interest accrued to date?

If the answer is 4), where will the money for the interest come from?

In your case...one of my couches.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Ds should pound on that in every election from here to eternity. Antidote for the R spin machine lies (socialist, guns, abortion).

Undermine the senior vote, the most stable voting base for Rs. (Or maybe second now to conservative evangelicals.)

What if neither side lied? I mean, no one falls for the lies...of wait...I forgot about the looney leftists and the trumpy trumpians.

They believe what ever FOX and MSNBC tells them.

 

[ribbont]

Ds should pound on that in every election from here to eternity. Antidote for the R spin machine lies (socialist, guns, abortion).

Undermine the senior vote, the most stable voting base for Rs. (Or maybe second now to conservative evangelicals.)

Pubs should be advocating the use of Trust Funds into the market, like Clinton wanted. If that means a temporary tax increase for, say 10, 15, or 20 years, it might be worth it in the long. Or a move towards privitization like Bush wanted.

Should the Social Security fund be invested in the stock market? It’s complicated

Proponents say that doing some stock investing would improve the program’s long-term outlook.

www.marketwatch.com

 

[Charlesroast]

To an extent that was tried in Florida. Trump said specifically that he wanted to make the elimination of the Social Security tax permanent. With zero revenue, how long would social security last? But people still voted for Trump.

If the DNCC ever took one piece of advice from me, make the special election a referendum on one part of the GOP 2017 tax plan. On January 1, 2021, 2023, and 2025, there will be tax hikes on people making under $75,000. If the Republicans cared about little people, why did they pass a plan with three tax hikes on little people and none, zero, nada, on people making millions. I would put that in every commercial, on every billboard. Why did they raise taxes on working people but not CEO's?

The good old Budget Reconciliation Act is certainly a handy way to avoid the filibuster by kicking the required budget balancing magic (shell game) down the road. Do you expect the long delayed Cadillac tax to kick in in 2022 or will the improvements to the ACA address this problem? I expect the tax increases that were included in the 2017 Tax reform to satisfy the BTA to be punted regardless of the outcome of the Georgia runoffs, don’t you?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The good old Budget Reconciliation Act is certainly a handy way to avoid the filibuster by kicking the required budget balancing magic (shell game) down the road. Do you expect the long delayed Cadillac tax to kick in in 2022 or will the improvements to the ACA address this problem? I expect the tax increases that were included in the 2017 Tax reform to satisfy the BTA to be punted regardless of the outcome of the Georgia runoffs, don’t you?

I suspect something will be done. But the GOP had a choice, they could have set a future tax increase against millionaires, or against the little guy. They chose the little guy. That's the point I would hammer home in Georgia.

 

[Charlesroast]

I suspect something will be done. But the GOP had a choice, they could have set a future tax increase against millionaires, or against the little guy. They chose the little guy. That's the point I would hammer home in Georgia.

The point of my response was the future “taxes“ in both the ACA and the 2017 Tax Reform were part of the shell game played in today’s “governance”. FWIW here is a short piece regarding Federal income tax revenues by individual income level.

Federal Income Taxes by Income Bracket

Those earning less than $50,000 per year make up the bulk of tax returns, but a relatively small share of total individual income tax revenue.

www.stlouisfed.org

 

[IU_Hickory]

Let me guess... You're going to replace it with some as-yet unrevealed private plan that is both vastly better AND far less expensive, right? Also blah blah tort reform blah blah state lines.

No, I think he is going to have Mexico pay for it

 

[hondo314]

The point of my response was the future “taxes“ in both the ACA and the 2017 Tax Reform were part of the shell game played in today’s “governance”. FWIW here is a short piece regarding Federal income tax revenues by individual income level.

Federal Income Taxes by Income Bracket

Those earning less than $50,000 per year make up the bulk of tax returns, but a relatively small share of total individual income tax revenue.

www.stlouisfed.org

good read. More proof that long-term capital gains is where it’s at.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Life would be so much easier if all political issues were zero-sum games and completely without nuance, wouldn't it? Then you could actually argue that not supporting a government program that is clearly in need of major reform, at the very least, equated to wanting people to die without it being patently absurd. Alas, that is not the case.

actually, that's exactly the case.