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.
Much simpler and less painful solution is to raid the retirement funds of all civilian non emergency responding government employees. It is time the politicians, teachers, postal employees and other bureaucrat position holders feel the pain. Any government employee should feel the same burden that has been placed on the private sector workers.
If that is not enough, benefits to welfare recipients need to be cut to the bare minimum and food benefits need to be given out in food again rather than EBT. It is time for the problem to become the solution. We are in dire times and dire times require dire solutions.
Right on.. but that would solve problems and not exacerbate them which isn't the role of government. They are there to make problems more complex to require more money to solve them but never on their own accord. They have platinum health benefits, 'lower wages' but immutable, etc. Tis a scam.
No. They want to keep the benefits cap. That means higher-income earners will pay more in SS taxes but NOT get commensurately higher benefits for doing so.
Higher-income earners already lose the most on SS. There's no reason whatsoever to make that loss even greater.
Do people really have NO clue how SS works?
Those who pay the least in SS taxes get the greatest return in benefits. Those who pay the most, LOSE the most money on the deal.
Turning this around a bit, the guy making $160k a year is paying 7% on every penny of that. The guy making $250k has $6,300 more on top the additional $90k.
Turning this around a bit, the guy making $160k a year is paying 7% on every penny of that. The guy making $250k has $6,300 more on top the additional $90k.
Irrelevant, due to the CAP on SS benefits. That means that no matter how much one has paid in SS taxes, their SS benefits are capped at a certain amount.
If we want to tax income above $160,000 for SS, then the SS benefit CAP also needs to be eliminated. Is everyone good with that?
Irrelevant, due to the CAP on SS benefits. That means that no matter how much one has paid in SS taxes, their SS benefits are capped at a certain amount.
If we want to tax income above $160,000 for SS, then the SS benefit CAP also needs to be eliminated. Is everyone good with that?
If one is uninterested in addressing the fiscal problems facing social security, your proposal will be a-ok.
Irrelevant, due to the CAP on SS benefits. That means that no matter how much one has paid in SS taxes, their SS benefits are capped at a certain amount.
If we want to tax income above $160,000 for SS, then the SS benefit CAP also needs to be eliminated. Is everyone good with that?
No. At some point, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone of means to accept the idea that 'enough is enough'. And I'd say the same thing if I was the rich guy.
If one is uninterested in addressing the fiscal problems facing social security, your proposal will be a-ok.
Social Security benefits are based on one's earnings. If ALL of one's earnings are taxed, they must likewise ALL be a factor in determining one's SS benefit.
Removing the cap on the SS tax means a corresponding removal of the cap on SS benefits.
Banks have long since loaned based on the concept of fractional reserves. And loaned out 'imaginary' money.
They don't loan out "imaginary" money. It's real. But it's money the bank is holding for someone else.
For example...
Bank A's clients have (in aggregate) $10 billion held in CD (Certificates of Deposit) products offered by the bank. The bank can then loan out 90% of that $10 billion to others for mortgages, car loans, personal loans, etc., thereby making MORE in interest on the loans than they're paying on the CDs.
The problems start when depositors want their money back and too many of the bank's loans have defaulted.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 09-04-2023 at 07:36 AM..
No. At some point, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone of means to accept the idea that 'enough is enough'. And I'd say the same thing if I was the rich guy.
You, as let's say... a $1 million/year earner, would be willing to pay an extra 12.4% tax on all your earnings above $160,000 (an extra $104,160 in SS tax/year) for NOTHING in return? NO increase in SS benefits?
I don't believe that.
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.
