The fix is simple, just raise taxes! I pay enough in taxes, I pay for my fair share. I would rather end social security and have a private retirement account. Increasing my taxes, once again just shows what a scam it is.
Larson’s proposal would extend the standard 12.4% payroll tax, which is levied this year on all wage income up to $168,600, to income over $400,000, leaving an income gap that would be narrowed over time. Larson would also levy the payroll tax on investment income over $400,000; that income is currently not taxed at all.
If you make less than 400,000 a year you would never see a new dime of taxes and social security would be solvent for your lifetime even with an increase in benefits.
I wonder if anyone screeching about “my taxes” concerning this approach even makes over 400k YEARLY.
It sounds like the raising “my taxes” bit is a lie, often repeated by people who are not so rich as to be affected. At best the argument is “I am selfish so fuck you”
At worst it’s a deceitful argument that ignores how easy it is to continue a program that is the main thing keeping the elderly out of poverty.
The same group of old people you will likely fall into if you’re making less than 400k a year these days…
Had a meeting with a financial advisor to discuss investments to secure longterm security today. One of the things he mentioned, which I had not considered, was investing in companies serving the aging health sector. But that’s beside the point, just thought it worth mentioning as it tangentially fit what you said.
Raise taxes. Taxes pay for things. You know how you’re mad that live is getting shittier in the USA? Giving tax windfalls to the ultra rich and corporations is one of the reasons for that. Reagan poisoned the well on government or taxes ever creating a benefit and we’ve been stuck on this party line ever since.
RAISE FUCKING TAXES.
I have made over 400k several times, but not every year. I’d be very comfortable with that extra tax. They should definitely do it.
It would be people making over 168. The current cap is at 168k
So yes, it would raise my taxes with a wealth distribution.
We should abandon elderly people to destitution and grow homeless encampments, for what? So you can retire on a fatter cushion?
So we should scam more people because the elderly got scammed?
Lol, if anyone’s getting scammed it’s me! People often collect more social security than they put in. I’ve only been paying into since I began working, and have another 30 or so years before I can start collecting.
So, yes, we should continue paying out social security because our entire society is a scam. It’s the least we can do.
our entire society is a scam
I’m glad you’re honest about social security and new deal policies. Though I don’t understand why you’d want to double down on them.
I’m glad you’re honest about social security and new deal policies.
Then I’m sorry to disappoint because it’s not fair to attribute such beliefs to me, particularly about the new deal policies, which led to the idealized American past that modern folks pine after, when I didn’t mention them.
But since you brought 'em up, we should definitely double down on the new deal policies rather than continue to role them back. Lina Khan’s renewed anti-trust efforts are a good, strong first step, but we definitely need way more.
which led to the idealized American past that modern folks pine after, when I didn’t mention them. I don’t think many people idolize the great depression. WW2 ended the great depression.
That is the issue. The system doesn’t work. It is just a wealth transfer which I am against.
I would support taking the 12% and putting it into a private retirement account.
It is unfair to ask the top 5% or 50% to pay for the bottom 50%. I already pay more than my fair share of taxes. People won’t take taxation seriously until they feel the pain. Spreading the pain across everyone may cause people to stop demanding more spending.
We have a spending problem in this country and it can’t be solved by taxation.
The Inuits use to push the elderly out on an ice flow.
Sure. So what? Is that your social prescription for the elderly: help them along to the final stage of life?
They do it in Canada and Europe. Isn’t that the more humane option ?
How do they do it in Canada and Europe? I seriously doubt they’re pushing 'em out into the ocean like, “Go be with the seals! We’ll miss you!”
Euthanasia.
So you make above the cap? So you currently pay nothing?
Are you planning to reject SS payments when you’re of age? I mean you didn’t pay in right?
Are you saying that despite not previously having to pay a cent into into SS, and despite that you have access to SS benefits whether you pay or not, you consider it too much to bear to start paying anything?
Again at best the argument is you’re selfish.
I put into SS. The amount I receive is capped but I pay more into the system then I’ll receive in a benefit.
It’s selfish to say to keep my own money? That’s the opposite of selfish. It’s selfish to expect me to fund your retirement.
SS doesn’t fund people’s retirement like it’s an extravagant pension, it keeps the elderly out of poverty. Like you said the benefits scale so why refer to it like you’re personally cutting a check to send everyone in a cruise?
You pay for roads you don’t drive on, I pay for schools for kids I don’t have, get over it. Selfishness isn’t a virtue.
You are not rejecting the system making you a benefactor, by your own logic that ship has sailed. Congrats you’ve already contributed, and you’re not a slave and atlas has not shrugged.
Right now you’re just making up reasons to be selfish… like you personally funding the nation’s retirements. Whatever you gotta tell yourself to feel good. It’s selfishness. Again, get over it.
I don’t see it selfish to keep my own money. That’s a weird view of being selfish
Get over the desire to take money from other. It’s theft and the system isn’t sustainable. People should be personally responsible for their retirement.
SS needs to be sunset and people need to save for their own retirement.
Do you have kids? If so then other people helped pay for their schools, if not then you’re already paying for other peoples’ kids school.
Hell do you have insurance? Do you know how that works collectively?
You are already paying for roads you’ll never drive but others can, firefighters you’ll likely never need but other will, etc etc. conversely you are able to drive from A to B because of financial input from people that may never drive the same road.
You are already contributing to and benefitting from this “theft”you speak of. The difference seems to be that you take issue with knowing that you are helping other people. It can’t be the money, you are already benefitting from that and you’d have to be stupid to say you shouldn’t.
It’s frankly kind of weird how much you are already benefitting from everything you call “theft,” it only seems to be an issue as soon as you’re asked to contribute your fair share.
I paid for their school. I wrote a check each month for their education.
I contribute my fair share to social security. It’s asinine to think otherwise. My benefits don’t go up as I pay more. I just receive less for every dollar that is stolen from me.
I’d rather eliminate social security.
deleted by creator
Typical liberal, can’t earn it, so wants to steal it.
deleted by creator
You are in the minority, even amongst conservatives.
Amid doubts about the soundness of the Social Security system, most Americans reject the idea of reducing benefits for future retirees. When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.
…
Democrats and Republicans differ modestly on the need to cut Social Security benefits. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say reductions in future benefits are inevitable (31% vs. 22%). Still, majorities across nearly all demographic and political groups say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way.
Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that “74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way,” and previous Pew research found that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup pollinghistorically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download)conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found “77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.”
Notice most say they don’t want a reduction but it’s running out of money. You can’t have it both ways.
I never said my opinion is popular buts it’s logical. My same SS contribution would be worth well in excess of 5 million dollars. That far beats the return on my SS.
It’s “running out of money” in the sense that there’s a projected shortfall, not that it’s going to be bankrupt in the near future. The projected shortfall means covering 80% of benefits in 2034 and covering 74% of benefits in 2097. But there are many proposals to address this shortfall and the Office of Chief Actuary collects all proposals and even provides a summary of each proposal and how much of the shortfall it will cover (PDF). So you don’t need to “have it both ways”; we can address the shortfall without reducing benefits.
You’re also claiming it’s a scam when it isn’t. The purpose of Social Security is to alleviate poverty for seniors and it does that. Further, people receive more in benefits than they pay into the program, especially those of low-income who need it most (PDF). Lastly, regardless of your personal situation, the notion that private retirement investments would be better than social security for everyone is disputed.
All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based which doesn’t interest me. I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program. If they raise rates. I’ll just retire.
That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.
All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based…
Some involve increasing payroll taxes while others involve taxes on corporations or investments. There’s also non-tax based proposals like raising the retirement age.
I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program…
The program is not mismanaged.
That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.
This is not socialism. Further, every US president, including Republican, has supported or enacted legislation upholding social security since its inception.
The program is not mismanaged.
If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds. They don’t because it’s been mismanaged.
Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution. We are already heavily taxed. I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.
How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?
If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds.
First, they do have the funds. The shortfall is a future projection. Second, this assumption is incorrect. There are a variety of factors that will affect the future income and cost of the program. Retirement of Baby Boomers and lower birth rates are two examples.
Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution.
When combined with other proposals, it is a viable solution in that it solves the problem of the shortfall.
We are already heavily taxed.
This is a matter of opinion.
I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.
I don’t know your personal situation but virtually all Americans keep the lion’s share of their money when it comes to taxation.
How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?
I personally would be willing to pay more taxes for more services, including social security, universal healthcare, and others.
This is a matter of opinion.
I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes. That’s excessive. It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%
And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income? I don’t. I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.
It’s amazing how much better the Lemmy experience is with Neuromancer blocked.