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.
And Social Security does not need to be cut, rather it needs to be adjusted like it was adjusted in 1983. "In the late 1970s and early 1980s Social Security ran deficits. Trust fund insolvency loomed in July 1983. With mere months of solvency left, Congress acted to bolster finances on April 20, 1983. SSA still operates under the 1983 funding arrangement, generating surpluses every year since." Exposing the Social Security solvency hype - MarketWatch
Just want to interject here and state that another key reason that SS will face problems in the future is because the US is disproportionately allowing millions of low-education and no/low skill workers to invade the US from third world countries. Such persons, on average, earn too little to provide adequate funding via payroll tax to sustain SS and Medicare into the future.
Quote:
And Medicare is also in a similar situation. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund will be able to pay 100% of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage through 2029. And in 2029 incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will be able to pay 88% of Medicare costs, in 2041 Medicare will be able to pay 81% of the costs, and in 2041 88% of Medicare costs will be covered. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health...s-not-bankrupt
Republicans claim Social Security is going bankrupt in order to transfer Social Security funding to supply side tax cuts and to privatize Social Security and transfer Social Security funds to Wall Street corporations. And republicans claim Medicare is running out of money to push their welfare cuts agenda. ex.ex.
While campaigning, Trump promised to leave Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security untouched.
Trump's 2020 budget cuts Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Hmmm?
Can't imagine they would do anything to harm these programs as one of the largest voting blocks in the country participates in one or more of these programs, Dems and Reps alike.
Why are we still getting people parroting that mindless purposely deceptive lefty propaganda? When are lefties going to engage their brains and start thinking for themselves? Tax cuts for the rich? Hardly. Their formerly unlimited SALT (State And Local Tax) deduction was limited to just $10,000. They pay WAY more than $10,000 in SALT taxes each year and must now pay federal income tax on that extra amount over $10,000, too.
The SALT tax deduction she took on her Fed Gov 1040 for...
2017: $245,500 2018: just $10,000
Come on, folks... don't just parrot the left's intentionally deceptive propaganda. Actually THINK about what you're being told and learn to recognize when it's a LIE. /smh
Take off yer tRump-colored glasses please.
The Pubs are gonna sock it to the working class in order to keep mollifying their wealthy owners.
You know it as well as anyone else does, yet you continue to carry water for their anti-American agenda.
All Washington seems to be buzzing this week over a single question: Is Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) deliberately trying to throw the election to the Democrats?
At the root of the debate are interviews the Senate majority leader gave to Bloomberg and Reuters on Tuesday and Wednesday. McConnell identified “entitlements” — that’s Washington code for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — as “the real drivers of the debt” and called for them to be adjusted “to the demographics of the future.”
Translation: He wants to cut benefits.
In terms of Republican orthodoxy, McConnell’s remarks are nothing new. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) each made exactly the same point last November and December. McConnell himself has made the point before, including during a speech in his home state in 2013.
McConnell’s position on the social insurance programs fits in with Republican policy on the Affordable Care Act; as it happens, the majority leader also telegraphed a plan to try again to repeal the ACA after the midterm elections. That’s despite indications that the ACA is becoming more popular with the public, not less, and voters’ concerns about preserving its protections for those with preexisting conditions may be driving them to the polls — and not to vote Republican.
While Trump has said of recent about cutting benefits Trump said some 16 years ago,
Going back further in time, we found statements contradicting his statements during the campaign, such as when, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. “The pyramids are made of papier-mâché,” he wrote, going on to suggest that the retirement age be raised to 70 and the system be at least partially privatized. But that was 16 years ago. He’s said nothing of the kind more recently.
The Pubs are gonna sock it to the working class in order to keep mollifying their wealthy owners.
That level of delusion is quite comical.
Let's break it down by actual dollar values, shall we?
Given the known facts I posted...
An $80,000 income household would pay $3,600 in federal income tax.
A $130 million income household would pay $30,069,000 in federal income tax.
...for access to the exact same Fed Gov services/benefits.
That's like person A paying $3.50 for a gallon of milk while person B is charged $29,233.75 for that exact same gallon of milk.
You must be just really bad at math if you don't understand that in the US, the top 5% are WAY over-paying their "fair share," and the bottom 95% are under-paying, and significantly so.
European countries understand that which is why their middle class is in the top tax bracket, and everyone pays a 20%-25% VAT tax.
Let's break it down by actual dollar values, shall we?
Given the known facts I posted...
An $80,000 income household would pay $3,600 in federal income tax.
A $130 million income household would pay $30,069,000 in federal income tax.
...for access to the exact same Fed Gov services/benefits.
That's like person A paying $3.50 for a gallon of milk while person B is charged $29,233.75 for that exact same gallon of milk.
You must be just really bad at math if you don't understand that in the US, the top 5% are WAY over-paying their "fair share," and the bottom 95% are under-paying, and significantly so.
European countries understand that which is why their middle class is in the top tax bracket, and everyone pays a 20%-25% VAT tax.
Not unexpected.
You'll go to great lengths to try to rationalize the GOP's dismantling of America's middle class.
You'll go to great lengths to try to rationalize the GOP's dismantling of America's middle class.
No "great lengths" needed whatsoever to explain how the US middle class is significantly under-paying their "fair share." It's just IRS factual data and actual basic math. Which of either are you failing to comprehend? Or is it both?
No "great lengths" needed whatsoever to explain how the US middle class is significantly under-paying their "fair share." It's just IRS factual data and actual basic math. Which of either are you failing to comprehend? Or is it both?
The guy that makes 50 G's a year paying $2 bucks for a loaf of Wonder Bread
and the guy that makes $500 G's a year paying $20 bucks for that same loaf of bread
seems fair based on your math. This way no one underpays their fair share.............................. Right ?
Fortunately .....things don't work that way................
The guy that makes 50 G's a year paying $2 bucks for a loaf of Wonder Bread
and the guy that makes $500 G's a year paying $20 bucks for that same loaf of bread
seems fair based on your math.
You're failing to understand both effective federal income tax rates and how that impacts the ultimate cost each earner pays for the exact same thing. Take another look at the effective federal income tax rate each income group is paying (light blue bars) in the chart on page 10 of the CRS report: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45145.pdf
Let's give the $50,000 earner the benefit of the doubt and assume s/he's one of the very rare members of that group who pays the same as the next higher income group, a 2.5% effective federal income tax rate. That makes his/her federal income tax obligation $1,250.
Now, let's take a look at what the $500,000 earner would pay. 18% effective federal income tax rate on $500,000 is $90,000.
So...
$50,000 earner pays $1,250 in federal income tax
$500,000 earner pays $90,000 in federal income tax
Note how there's a 10 times difference in their incomes, but a 72 times difference in the amount of federal income tax they have to pay.
The only way the US would get to the point at which one's share of the income equals one's share of the federal income tax burden is if we had a flat tax: everyone pays the exact same federal income tax rate.
For example, let's use a 10% flat tax rate.
The $50,000 earner would pay $5,000
The $500,000 earner would pay $50,000
For access to the exact same Fed Gov services and benefits.
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.
Their formerly unlimited SALT (State And Local Tax) deduction was limited to just $10,000. They pay WAY more than $10,000 in SALT taxes each year and must now pay federal income tax on that extra amount over $10,000, too. 
Right ?
