How Would Democrats and Republicans Fix Social Security?

That would be you.

You definitely misrepresented my views. You simply made $#!+ up that I had neither said nor implied, and falsely attributed it to me.

 

Then no federal taxation is allowed at all, because no revenue is necessary: the federal government can just issue money to pay its debts and obligations.

<yawn> Do you know what "general welfare" means?

Attempts to redefine taxation as "confiscation" are so completely ridiculous and disingenuous that the US Supreme Court won't even hear them.

You repeat your evil filth.

Wrong, as the dozens of amendments prove.

Voting is not mob rule.

And there is an amendment enabling taxation of incomes however obtained.

Returns defined how? There's the rub...

I know it's one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in US history.

 

Through the JUDICIAL SYSTEM under our laws for crimes. And BTW the system of justice protects the ACCUSED from government abuse of power. And that is what you are granting to our tax system. And this justice you seek is envy based, else what IS it base upon than you belief they have too much and you want it spread around, this "economic justice". Where is that authorized under the Tax and Spend Clause?

Why? If a person has no earned income, they don't pay into Social Security NOR DO THEY COLLECT. You don't earn SS credits with unearned income and you don't collect on it. But the fact is by far the vast majority of the highest earners pay FULLY into the SS every year, the max amount which in the long run they lose money in the deal while those at the bottom get a good return on their contributions and in fact many because of the EITC don't pay in at all and still collect. That's about as progressive as you can get.

You mean the Tax and Spend Clause, which authorizes the Congress to tax certain and limited things to pay for the general welfare of the GOVERNMENT, to pay it's debts and obligations to ensure it's WELFARE. It is not about public welfare which didn't even exist then. The Constitution is designed and specifically protects to property of the private citizens from government confiscations as in redistribution to other people. And equal justice means that applies to EVERYONE. Even the most successful and specifically to avoid the mobs trying to satisfy their envy and jealousy of the most successful through the power of the government.

 

Nope it is responsible for the currency and it's full faith and credit.

As used in the Tax and Spend Clause, I think I just explained it.

All taxation is a confiscation, we don't volunteer it.

"economic justice", OK define it, what exactly is this economic justice you seek and how do you attain it?

Which only reinforced the basic ones.

A Democracy is which is why the founding fathers had to guaranty to the States we would never be one else they would never have joined the United States.

It REQUIRED and amendment didn't it. And if you are going to start taxing wealth as the Dems want that will require one also.

How much you paid in and how much you draw out.

By what measure?

 

Asinine STRAWMAN crap!

NOWHERE did I make that claim!

FTR the ORIGINAL source is Motley Fool but don't let FACTS get in your way.

WHY did YOU go DOWN that RABBIT HOLE when the the POINT was RAISING Social Security taxes to around 8.2%?

Clearly YOU were so FOCUSED on trying to post RIDICULE that you entirely MISSED the OBVIOUS point that I was making.

Priceless!

So after ALL of that WASTED EFFORT on YOUR part YOU just ended up AGREEING that Social Security taxes MUST be RAISED to that level in order to be SOLVENT as STIPULATED in the Motley Fool article that I provided.

 

Wrong. Read the statute. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of OASI, which is "Old Age and Survivor's Insurance."

The operand is "insurance" not investment.

It is not a defined benefit plan within the plain language meaning of the statute, nor is it a defined benefit within the plain language meaning of ERISA, nor is it a defined benefit within the legal definition, nor is it a defined benefit as stated by the courts.

Your understanding is so Kindergarten.

6.2% just like everybody else.

Since you seem to have incredible difficulty grasping the concept, the claim by Göbbelists is that removing the wage cap will save Social Security.

Taxing those 9,941,315 wage earners who earn wages in excess of the wage cap at a rate of 6.2% would yield a total $126 Billion per year, not $126 Billion per person.

However, that data is from 2017. Based on 2020 data, it would yield $179 Billion per year. That is about 1/10th of the total revenues collected.

So, instead of cutting benefits by 35%, they would only need to be cut 31.5% and everyone is "saved."

They do not have a defined benefit.

Whatever ass-clown blog you're getting your info from is wrong. The legal, statutory, and case law definition of "defined benefit" is "fixed amount."

Get it?

The operand in "fixed amount" is "fixed." That fixed amount is known in advance. You cannot know your Social Security benefit until the day you file for benefits.

By law, all defined benefit plans are backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

At most, Social Security is a defined contribution plan, which, legally and statutorily, is not the same thing as a defined benefit plan, and by law, defined contribution plans cannot be backed by the PBGC.

Glad we got that straightened out.

You completely miss the entire point.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, and you refuse to see that Social Security is an insurance plan.

Not only can you not see it, you don't understand it or its purpose and function.

As insurance, Social Security protects you from the curve-balls in Life. Ideally, one has an employer-based retirement plan plus one's own personal savings and investments.

If one or both of those should fail, then you'd be left with nothing but Social Security.

No doubt, the statutory protections Social Security offers are beyond your comprehension.

Social Security benefits cannot be assigned, nor can they be attached, nor can they be garnisheed (except by the federal government to pay personal debts owed to the federal government.)

Your Social Security benefits are protected from divorce. Whether you're divorced one time or 10 times, your current or future benefit is unaffected.

A DPRO will take your federal pension benefits or your State/municipal pension benefits and give them to you ex-spouse. Can't do that with Social Security.

A QDRO will take your money out of Fidelity, or any investment firm or hedge fund, or any bank or 401(k) or 403(b), or your employer/union pension and anything else you've got. Can't do that with Social Security.

If your spouse took 90% of retirement in a divorce (and some do) you'd be begging for Social Security.

 

Use of "insurance" as a means for a retirement benefit is nothing new. I can buy an annuity which is an insurance policy and get a return based on how much I pay for that annuity and I get a defined benefit.

Read the statute the more you pay in the more you get back.

I won't yield near what is claimed and as a matter of fairness and ethics the benefit should be increased accordingly.

You can go look up the DEFINED benefits and even get estimates of what it will be.

It's a GOVERNMENT defined benefit plan of course it is going to have it's government twist to it.

So is an annunity retirement plan, you make distinctions without merit here.

SS is just another retirement plan to go with the others and I have all of them so you aren't telling me anything I don't know. And my ex had the choice to collect off of mine or on her own. It didn't effect mine at all. My retirement amounts from BEFORE my marriage were protected in the divorce only those that were community property were subject to a split. And if SS fails or the benefits cuts those others protect me from that.

 

raise the cap for income taxed

 

"To prove that only insanely jealous people are hell-bent on removing the wage cap."

I pay the tax for every dollar I earn, why shouldn't the rich?

if raising the wage cap 50k means we save social security... do it

 

By flooding in more illegal immigrants to bleed the current social services in order to shore up electoral votes and retain power.

Am I right democrats?

 

illegals don't vote nor get social security

and if they use a fake identity, they pay the ss tax, but never get to use it

 

Fixing SS

Start here:

1. Transfer all SS funds into individual insured brokerage accounts that cannot be used in anyway by government for any purpose - ever.
2. Allow the account holders to choose among listed ETFs to invest the funds.

 

That is false.

I have looked back through the thread and you are right about that. You responded (falsely, of course) to my response to Bluesguy, and I assumed you were he. It was an honest error, not a lie, and I will expect a retraction -- or rather, I would, if I thought you had an ounce of decency in you.

No, your claim is again false. Bluesguy indisputably misrepresented my position, as I have proved multiple times.

Well, that can't be a lie because it is an imperative, which can't be true or false -- but it is an imperative based on a claim that is grossly false. Well played, I guess.

 

Irrelevant. That responsibility in no way prevents the government from issuing currency.

No, you got it wrong.

Equivocation fallacy. Which is why the USSC refuses to hear cases that argue taxes are confiscation. Taxes are considered due process, duh.

Rewards commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. I would attain it in part by abolishing the privileges that can be abolished and taxing away the value of the ones that can't.

Self-evidently false.

A republic is also accountable to voters.

Proving you wrong.

No, it would only require apportionment.

Defined how? Nominal or real? If not nominal, then relative to what index? Over what period of time?

Beneficiaries who escaped poverty.

 

Wrong again. The civil court system is also to "enforce" justice.

Tell it to Julian Assange.

Stop trying to change the subject to me personally.

No, that is a fabrication on your part with no basis in fact. It is also another repetition of the despicable, nauseating evil I explained to you the previous three times you committed it.

The privileged have profited from injustice, and thus definitely have too much.

That is another strawman fallacy. I have not advocated "spreading it around." I've simply noted that if you are going to have a system like SS, it makes sense to make the contributions progressive, and the steeper the progressivity, the better.

<yawn> "In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court invalidated the first Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), a statute that paid farmers to reduce their crop production. The Court expressly took Hamilton’s side of the debate with Madison. It declared, “the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/755

Because the larger the income, the higher the probability that it consists mainly or even exclusively of economic rent.

There is more than one way to obtain unearned income, and it is often called, "earned" in the income tax code.

You mean up to the cap, not fully on all their income.

No, I can get a lot more progressive than that, believe me.

No, that's false. It's the welfare of the republic and its people.

Nonsense.

All constitutional scholarship disagrees with you. It is a long-standing controversy, and no informed person thinks it is not about the public welfare.

Taxation is not confiscation under the Constitution. That is as firmly established as anything in constitutional law.

One hopes.

That's just more of the same disgusting, disingenuous and evil filth.

 

Which is basically BS. SS is a tax and spend plan. The public has been fooled into believing it is insurance but it is unconstitutional for govt to create an insurance program. Congress can do whatever they want to it including cancelling it.

 

That is EXACTLY what YOU did by FALLACIOUSLY IMPLYING that I made I claim that I NEVER made!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!

You can PRETEND to be ANYTHING you want to be on the INTERWEBS!

Priceless!

Yes, because it establishes an OBLIGATION on the government to REPAY We the People for the funds BORROWED by the government FROM We the People.

That OBLIGATION falls under the "FULL FAITH AND TRUST" concept that UNDERLIES our system of currency.

FACTS matter!

 

SCrOTUS says that it IS constitutional!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

FACTS matter!

 

You evidently don’t understand what you posted. You just proved my point. SCOTUS passed it as a tax and spend program just like Obamacare was passed.

 

Which makes it CONSTITUTIONAL!

Next!

 

Argued as an insurance program and sold to the public as same. You haven’t proven anything other than making my point.

 

WRONG again!

YOU made this FALLACIOUS allegation.

Your "point" has been DEBUNKED by the SCrOTUS as provided in the prior link THEREFORE your "point" is NULL and VOID.

 

That you don’t understand what SCOTUS did is not my problem. You proved my point without realizing it.

 

No Social Security IS an Insurance program:

Investopedia

By JULIA KAGAN

Reviewed by
Eric is currently a duly licensed Independent Insurance Broker licensed in Life, Health, Property, and Casualty insurance. He has worked more than 13 years in both public and private accounting jobs and more than four years licensed as an insurance producer. His background in tax accounting has served as a solid base supporting his current book of business.

on October 01, 2021

Excerpts:

What Is Social Security?
Social Security is the term used for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in the U.S., run by the Social Security Administration (SSA), which is a federal agency. Though it is best known for retirement benefits, it also provides survivor benefits and disability income.

(skip)

How Social Security Works
Social Security is an insurance program. Workers pay into the program, typically through payroll withholding where they work. They can earn up to four credits each year.

For 2021, for every $1,470 earned, one credit is granted, until a sum of $5,880, or four credits, has been achieved. That money goes into two Social Security trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund for retirees and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund (DI) for disability beneficiaries—where it is used to pay benefits to people currently eligible for them. The money that is not spent remains in the trust funds.

LINK

 

Justice protection is for the accused read the Constitution.
Assange has had his full constitutional protections in place.
They are your stated positions upon which I am commenting and your desire to take the property of others based solely on the envy they have more and some should be taken and given to others. Your statement

A prime example, what business is it of yours how much they have and how has it affected you at all?
Your "economic justice" being a made up term to justify you wanting to take the property of others simply because they have than you.

United States v Butler

"The fact that the Court struck down the Act despite an expansive interpretation of the Spending Clause reflected the turmoil in the Court at the critical time.[3] It was accepted that Chief Justice Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was about to write a separate opinion to uphold the Act's subsidy provision and to strike down the Act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation, rather than a tax measure, until Roberts convinced Hughes that he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases on agriculture that involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.[3]

An indication that turmoil and the fact that Butler was a turning point in the Court's thinking is that in later jurisprudence, the case has been referenced to support expansion of authority under the Spending Clause (such as Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), and Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619 (1937)) and to dissent from such expansion (such as in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)), O’Connor dissenting. In her dissent, Justice O’Connor noted that Butler had been the last case in which the Supreme Court struck down an Act of Congress as an overextension of its spending power. That was part of a series of cases decided by the conservative Supreme Court of the time, which struck down as unconstitutional parts of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Yes I am well aware liberal courts have tried to reinterpret the Tax and Spending clause. The fact remains the Constitution speaks of three entities, the United States (the federal government), the States and the People. The general welfare clause says United States, NOT the People. The interpretation you support makes the entire rest of the clause redundant and unnecessary because it creates a blank check, that is NOT what the founders envisioned nor the States agreed to when voting to enact the Constitution.

Again if a person has no earned income they do not contribute to Social Security and they do not collect Social Security.

How much more progressive should be the tax system? The top 1% pays almost 40% of personal income taxes, the top 10% pays almost 80%, the bottom 50% pays barely 2%. Give me the numbers that would satisfy you level of progressivity.

Constitutional or not taxation is government confiscation.