Social Security/Medicare/Medicade

Discussion in 'Social Security' started by Ragnar, Feb 13, 2017.

  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,441
    Likes Received:
    4,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Removing the cap would be more than enough to preserve S.S.

    So more people are sharing a shrinking resource.
    https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/

    Just look what we have with healthcare!

    I seriously doubt it! Most likely the main goal in any privatized system of anything will be maximum profits. But post a link to your best example of such a system and how it would work. I can't comment intelligently on something I haven't seen
     
  2. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    15,885
    Likes Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't have to be paid to Social Security. It's a government bureaucracy and exists entirely at the pleasure of the Congress.
     
  3. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,647
    Likes Received:
    7,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Awe shucks, wants other peoples money.

    How's about we just reduce you're benefits by the amount you want to increase their tax burden
     
    BleedingHeadKen likes this.
  4. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    15,885
    Likes Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Removing the cap would not do much. Aside from the fact that the portion of all payroll that is not subject to FICA is relatively small, Social Security payments are based on contributions and those who earn above the cap would then receive higher amounts of Social Security. They also tend to have longer life spans.

    There's already the problem of high marginal tax rates, and you propose to increase that substantially. That would cause a shift in the way some people accept income so as to not have to pay taxes on it.

    If the purpose is to protect the poor and middle class from themselves, then it makes sense to tax them for their retirement. If your purpose is to shove your morals down the throats of others by stealing from the rich to give to whoever makes you feel better, then raising the cap is certainly a way to make it seem like you want to do good rather than just punish people you don't like.
     
  5. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    15,885
    Likes Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would not assuage his moral outrage over some people having more than other people.
     
  6. Gorgeous George

    Gorgeous George Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,986
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ok.
     
  7. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,441
    Likes Received:
    4,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Language precision please. If you earn less than $118,000/yr it is ALL subject to FICA. Currently, if you have high enough earnings that a portion of it is above the cap, that portion is not subject to FICA and your SS benefit will be calculated on the cap, --$118,000 or whatever it is. So a recipient who earned $400,000/year receives the same SS benefit as someone who earned $119,000.

    No they don't.

    Yeah, corporate officers mainly. But they already take much of their income as back-dated stock options.

    That sound pretty contemptuous.

    That sounds pretty right wing extreme AND contemptuous. Why is it the right has such trouble discussing serious social issues without showing contempt for the needy and the public in general?
     
  8. Gorgeous George

    Gorgeous George Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,986
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    we went for years with no increases while our warriors got raises every year. raises to help kill people. no raises to help people live.

    that's immoral.
     
  9. Gorgeous George

    Gorgeous George Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,986
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why? Because they're greedy social Darwinists.
     
  10. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is a waste of time to worry about Social Security. Social Security is safe so long as the US government is solvent. The government will simply print the money if it needs to which will increase inflation, and diminish the value of the awards.
    There will be tweaks along the way, including raising taxes on younger and less politically active citizens. The average citizen is so naive that they could sell them a tax increase on SS and they would voluntarily vote for it. Again.
     

Share This Page