It's like Aloha said: too many people who allowed themselves to be told what to think by Trump.
Support Nikki Haley!
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
That’s obvious to anyone that isn’t a slavishly devoted Trumpster. Note that dbm often posts clips of Trump or Trump’s tweets as if what Trump is saying is as true and profound as Jesus in the Bible (for the faithful). He does it when any rational person knows what Trump is saying is false. We have at least 5 posters other than dbm that are as slavishly devoted. I have no doubt that if Trump told them to stop posting here, they’d stop posting here.
Sadly for them, Trump cares exactly nothing for them.
They can’t bring it up because DeSantis is better in those areas and showed leadership during Covid. Trump was weak and took a back seat to Fauci and the establishment.
Last edited:
Haven't paid a lot of attention to Des...4% polling support doesn't justify any time spent researching these things.
That doesn’t make sense based on your use of certain terminology
If they endorsed a candidate who wasn't yours before the primary, you'd have a fit.
Haley's ideas on reforming Social Security are good but could be better. Raising the age for young people is probably needed. I still think this needs to take into account the job being done. If someone hangs drywall from 20 to 65, I am not sure they should have to wait until 70. Office workers, sure. A points system that rewards physical labor would be my first choice. But this part of her plan is better than where we are from the standpoint of the program surviving.
The other half, reducing the growth of benefits for the wealthy is also better than where we are, but could also be improved. It isn't just the growth, I'd phase out benefits entirely. I'm not understanding giving Bill Gates Social Security, checks, period. We can debate who is wealthy, but there is a wealthy line somewhere.
I'd also eliminate the maximum amount that Social Security tax is paid on, and if not, up it. But I know that is a non-starter in the Republican Party.
I am glad someone is willing to discuss this, something must be done. Cuts will have to happen, and in my view, increases will have to happen. In the end, some of both and the program is solvent.
The other half, reducing the growth of benefits for the wealthy is also better than where we are, but could also be improved. It isn't just the growth, I'd phase out benefits entirely. I'm not understanding giving Bill Gates Social Security, checks, period. We can debate who is wealthy, but there is a wealthy line somewhere.
I'd also eliminate the maximum amount that Social Security tax is paid on, and if not, up it. But I know that is a non-starter in the Republican Party.
I am glad someone is willing to discuss this, something must be done. Cuts will have to happen, and in my view, increases will have to happen. In the end, some of both and the program is solvent.
Agree with much of that. Job part is too hard as people change careers. My dad got his mba and did business work then in his 40s became a construction worker
It's simply an actuarial adjustment, needed. No need to to convert it into a welfare program.
I believe the projected 2033 shortfall is $440.1 billion. Below is a pdf, not sure how it will link. If that is accurate, I'm not sure reducing raises to the Gates types and raising the age of retirement for current 21-year-olds will do it. I am not sure what actuarial change would work by 2033, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Bill Gates and Elon Musk do not need a social security check.
It shouldn't be too hard to design a formula to reduce benefits to people with a track record of very high income for decades. If you have been in the highest income tier x number of times, your SS benefit is reduced by y.
x - y
20+ years 100%
15-19 yrs 80%
10-14 yrs 50%
5-9 yrs 20%
Adjust those numbers as needed to approach sustainability. If it doesn't quite get you there, adjust age of benefits slightly, maybe correlated with life expectancy figures. 65 used to be old age and it isn't any more.
It shouldn't be too hard to design a formula to reduce benefits to people with a track record of very high income for decades. If you have been in the highest income tier x number of times, your SS benefit is reduced by y.
x - y
20+ years 100%
15-19 yrs 80%
10-14 yrs 50%
5-9 yrs 20%
Adjust those numbers as needed to approach sustainability. If it doesn't quite get you there, adjust age of benefits slightly, maybe correlated with life expectancy figures. 65 used to be old age and it isn't any more.
And yet ~15% of their lifetime earnings have been confiscated ostensibly for that purpose by the government.
Not even in the same area code of 15%. Today the tax is on the first $160,000 (it has been less). So make $1 million and $840,000 is not taxed. Then it is only on earned income, all their stock income pays no social security.
Below is what the founder of Home Depot, a Republican donor, said:
“What the hell is a guy like me (doing) getting $3,500 a month from the government?” Langone, whose net worth Forbes pegs at more than $7 billion, said of his monthly Social Security benefits. “That’s outrageous. I shouldn’t get a nickel.”
Most of their incomes were well above the amount for which SS is taxed, though.
Raising that cap would be another way to get way more $$$ into the SS system.
I applaud Nikki Haley for not totally ducking this issue.
edit: Marvin said the same thing...
He can give it back. I posted the link here several times. It’s a safe bet that no one here has ever used the capability.
Instead of bitching that guy could give it back too.
I can think of many much better charitable causes than the US Treasury.
Last edited:
He could, but is billionaires getting $3000 checks from the government really the hill to die on? How many people really want to fight for someone worth $7 billion to get that money?
Provide an opt out option for everyone that doesn’t want a payment. I’m all for it.
Billionaires don't usually have the quality of "not wanting" any type of payment.
Require an opt out for everyone who doesn't need such a payment.
That requires a definition of "need", but I think it's doable. Such as defining need based on income reported in a person's tax-filing history.
Nope. Not for it. Those that paid into it deserve something back. Besides you liberals will say I’m rich and don’t deserve anything back. Screw that noise.
Let the whiners show they’re serious about not wanting a payment and allow them to opt out.
ok 15% of their earned income up to the first $160000/year for their lifetimes. So what? Forced wealth redistribution is wrong, period. Most of Americans live in the upper echelon of the world, I don't see all the "soak the rich" politicians and their voters acting like the rest of the world is entitled their earned income.
That depends on the individual. Sure, knowledge workers can keep going for a long time past 65 if their mental health allows. Brick layers, not so much.
I'm not sure how you factor that into the rules, but it should be factored in.
No one is entitled to someone else's money just because they have more of it.
Those that paid into it deserve something back, in an ideal world. But to keep ithe system solvent, some not fully desirable options need to be considered. The math needs to add up.
Make no mistake, if you have <$3 million (or so) in liquid assets, I wouldn't want to deprive you of a SS payment.
But I also don't really want to establish a new system of means-testing, so I would try to use existing info the IRS already has, such as reported lifetime income. If you have made >$10 million (say) over your working career, I think you could make do without SS payments. Maybe there could be built in exceptions such as a personal bankruptcy or being a victom of Madoff-like massive fraud.
I intend to retire at 63, but not take Social Security immediately. I’ll wait two or three more years.
His "bitching" might help achieve change. Giving his money back won't matter. Although it would be cool if he did.
So... You are against programs like welfare, food stamps, public transportation, etc? All of these programs disproportionately benefit the poor and are funded mostly by the non-poor.
The system design was fatally flawed from the start. It’s a legal government Ponzi scheme. We should replace it with a hybrid Thrift Savings Program (TSP) for all - not just for federal workers. It would quickly become super popular and would be sustainable.
However, it’s screwed now and something needs to be done. I’m not for taking away benefits involuntarily, but allowing a voluntary opt out, on a yearly basis, would reduce payouts by some amount, maybe by a lot. It would help some. Probably something that could be passed too. Your involuntary idea very likely would never pass.
Also, I wouldn’t trust you liberals not to lower the threshold enough to take my benefit payment too. 😉
Bill paid in, Bill should get to draw out, plain & simple. The wealthy shouldn’t be penalized so the UncleMarks of the world can buy a carton of smokes…
If the Union for Concerned Scientists number is right, we are going to be $440 billion short in 2033. I am not saying it is right, if anyone has other numbers I'll be glad to use them. We aren't closing that gap with only voluntary contributions. Heck, we aren't closing that gap by only taking away billionaire's Social Security. We aren't closing that gap by making 18-year-olds work until 90.
But taking away billionaire social security is low-hanging fruit. If you take away the money from the woman that worked her entire life as a coffee shop waitress and has almost no savings, she's going to need other government money to survive. So while it might technically help Social Security stay solvent, it is still a drain on the overall financial health. Taking away Gates' Social Security won't have him applying for other benefits afterword.
I don't know your position, maybe you will accept some higher revenue for Social Security. But I am skeptical that is getting through congress ever. It is going to be hard in 2033 to tell Mark (and me, I will be 73 then and retired one way or another) that we must go back to work because retirement has been moved to 80.
We have to cut, we have to increase, to close $440 billion. I'm just not seeing the logic in cutting people that we will then have to provide other assistance to.
LOL, much money do you think would roll in? It's like the imaginary people that check off the box on their tax form to make a donation to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
Are you in favor of collecting SS on income above the current limit?
Are you one of the anti-elite people (you know all the rhetoric about the elites our killing America). I know Aloha isn't, but several Trump supporters on the right here are. If you are, I don't get how people can rail against the elite but get angered if anyone suggests they pay more in taxes or get less out. And billionaires are elites.
I'm not trying to tax them into poverty, destroy their companies, or anything else. But we must do something to close a HUGE gap in social security. Are you saying that should come from the retired coal miner, the retired auto mechanic, and the retired construction worker instead of the billionaire?
I don’t want to take anyone’s benefits from them and neither will Congress. Of course a voluntary opt out option won’t fix it, but it’s a start and I think it could possibly pass easily. Then start doing other changes that will help. Ideally, replace it with something like I’ve proposed repeatedly. It could be sold and I’m convinced it would be popular.
you just gave me something to live for
