Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general terms, Trump is interested in making money - for himself. He's never been shy about that. Trump University, various Trump business that ended up in bankruptcy so investors were paid little, etc etc. He's good at gaming the system. Also, he doesn't pay income taxes and think people at the top really shouldn't have to. So that will continue.
As for benefits (or "entitlement" spending as the Republican party calls it) - they've been wanting to cut it for some time. Now they have congress, the senate and the executive. They will try to cut benefits, just like they have spoken about previously.
Overall it will be better for people currently paying higher marginal tax rates on income and worse for people on fixed income from benefits.
I don't think so. He said he would never do anything to SS. All scare mongering.
"Wrong." His positions on Social Security are clearly laid out on his positions tab in his website.
He plans on privatizing part of SS, and keeping a part as SS. This removes Social Security as a pool, which means it will wither and die. It only works if it's a pool, so that overages on one account (when someone dies sooner than expected) offset the liabilities in another person's account (when someone lives longer than expected).
The privatizing part is that people can elect to keep a part of the FICA tax as their own and use it as a retirement account. This sounds like a 401k. Out of which investment firm fees will come. Then you can use that for your senior years and pass it on to heirs.
This is quite clear. Although the language he uses about the part he's "keeping," is along the lines of "it's a deal we made with the public!" He doesn't mention that it will be privatized in part, and what will happen to it once that happens.
Maybe this will affect only the next generation. But if workers start removing their FICA taxes now, that would mean CURRENT beneficiaries would have their SS checks significantly decreased.
UPDATE: Well, I just looked on his site, and the references to Social Security are completely gone. Interesting. But I think the positions he had stated before probably state where his head is, and that he considers the above plan "honoring the deal," since technically SS will still exist, at least for a while.
The solution to the Great Social Security crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds. Federal guidelines would make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches. The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one’s heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires. Privatization would be good for all of us. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth.
But he also says this:
Quote:
I will save Social Security with more jobs, less waste
I'm going to save Social Security. You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. We have in Social Security thousands of people over 106 years old. You know they don't exist. There's tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we're going to get it. But we're not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they're supposed to get less. We're bringing jobs back.
Note: According to numbers I've read, there's less than 3% fraud in SS, so it wouldn't make much difference in "saving" SS. Privatizing Social Security, as he states in the first paragraph above - is that what he means by "saving" SS?
At the least, Social Security is by no means safe, according to the above positions.
Cutting taxes has always resulted in more money to the treasury and not less.
For example President Kennedy pushed through some pretty massive tax cuts in 1962
In 1961 we had wonderful high tax rates that many on the left would be very proud have.
After the tax cuts
Yes, tax rates went down in terms of percentage of GDP but income actually rose because there was more activity.
Every time we have had tax cuts we have enjoyed economic prosperity. It is not a zero sum game.
Mathjak?
Kennedy's tax cuts were primarily for the middle class, the engine of America's economy. Trump's tax plan benefits mainly the very wealthy and big corporations. It's a typical Republican tax cut plan. With some verbiage about tax cuts for the middle class, but economists have now reviewed his plan and have all stated that it amounts to big tax cuts for the very wealthy, mainly. Back door stuff included. It won't help the economy much, either. Wealthy people don't spend extra money they save like the middle class and poor do. This is the old trickle down economics theory that we know from history doesn't work.
Kennedy's tax cuts were primarily for the middle class, the engine of America's economy. Trump's tax plan benefits mainly the very wealthy and big corporations. It's a typical Republican tax cut plan. With some verbiage about tax cuts for the middle class, but economists have now reviewed his plan and have all stated that it amounts to big tax cuts for the very wealthy, mainly. Back door stuff included. It won't help the economy much, either. Wealthy people don't spend extra money they save like the middle class and poor do. This is the old trickle down economics theory that we know from history doesn't work.
We current Seniors will be screwed. Better off DEAD, unless your kids are rich and can afford to take care of you in your old age. Were 401K's around in your young working years? We had PENSIONS then which have gone the way of the Saber Tooth Tiger.
Do you remember your parents talking about the Great Depression? While my Mom's family were ok (bluntly, Mafia), my Dad told me of his father working in a grocery store and taking food out of the garbage to eat for dinner. They tied rope around their shoes to keep them on. This was in Manhattan and the breadwinner actually HAD a job.
Is this what will happen in America again? The wealthy will give scraps to the poor and the middle class of society?
"Wrong." His positions on Social Security are clearly laid out on his positions tab in his website.
He plans on privatizing part of SS, and keeping a part as SS. This removes Social Security as a pool, which means it will wither and die. It only works if it's a pool, so that overages on one account (when someone dies sooner than expected) offset the liabilities in another person's account (when someone lives longer than expected).
The privatizing part is that people can elect to keep a part of the FICA tax as their own and use it as a retirement account. This sounds like a 401k. Out of which investment firm fees will come. Then you can use that for your senior years and pass it on to heirs.
This is quite clear. Although the language he uses about the part he's "keeping," is along the lines of "it's a deal we made with the public!" He doesn't mention that it will be privatized in part, and what will happen to it once that happens.
Maybe this will affect only the next generation. But if workers start removing their FICA taxes now, that would mean CURRENT beneficiaries would have their SS checks significantly decreased.
UPDATE: Well, I just looked on his site, and the references to Social Security are completely gone. Interesting. But I think the positions he had stated before probably state where his head is, and that he considers the above plan "honoring the deal," since technically SS will still exist, at least for a while.
Hilary has plan to raise tax and raise retirement age for the younger workers. I doubt the plan is to change for current retirees.
I am more worried about Trump having access to nuclear launch codes. The guy is unpredictable, emotional and volatile. Are he and Putin going to gang up on China (which is where a lot of our jobs have gone)? He seems to want to get into bed with Putin. The world, not just the US, is going to be a very different place the next four years. Medicare will be the least of our worries.
Anyone who relies in large part on Social Security and Medicare should be worried. Note these were not topics in the debates.
I am very worried. As a single mom our household income is very dependent on Medicaid and dependent social security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
