Do you support a 1% Federal Wealth Tax to pay down the $39T National Debt? (Poll)

[Couchpotato]

Because it is! I could no longer work at the age of 61. You going to pay my disability until I die or reach 82.

You morons can't seem to grasp the point. Do you think that when FDR got SS passed the US government was unaware of the life expectancy of the population? Do you think they picked 65 randomly? There were enough people who lived to or just past 65 so that people could see themselves getting there and getting some benefit from SS, but the politicians knew that most wouldn't and that the ones that did get to 65 wouldn't collect long enough to make a difference. That wasn't a bug, it was a feature. If we want SS to work as designed the retirement age should follow the life expectancy. 82 was a bit hyperbolic but I did that to again illustrate a greater point. (You seem to really have a problem following along with things like that.) That point being that SS has always been and was designed to be just another tax.

Post more believable numbers. Isn't that what I said? Why make up numbers, dumbass? If you want people to agree with you, don't make shit up, obviously. Post the actual numbers. SSA.gov probably has them easily accessible.

Because it's example used to illustrate the point that SS isn't saving your money. It's irrelevant to the point whether I used 1$ or 1000000000$. If you cant grasp it putting a bunch of zero's into the equation wont make it any easier for you.

 

[Lisa558]

You morons can't seem to grasp the point. Do you think that when FDR got SS passed the US government was unaware of the life expectancy of the population? Do you think they picked 65 randomly? There were enough people who lived to or just past 65 so that people could see themselves getting there and getting some benefit from SS, but the politicians knew that most wouldn't and that the ones that did get to 65 wouldn't collect long enough to make a difference. That wasn't a bug, it was a feature. If we want SS to work as designed the retirement age should follow the life expectancy. 82 was a bit hyperbolic but I did that to again illustrate a greater point. (You seem to really have a problem following along with things like that.) That point being that SS has always been and was designed to be just another tax.

Because it's example used to illustrate the point that SS isn't saving your money. It's irrelevant to the point whether I used 1$ or 1000000000$. If you cant grasp it putting a bunch of zero's into the equation wont make it any easier for you.

You really only need to move the SS ages up by a couple of years to solve most of the problem. Then increase the contribution by 2% (split between employee* and employer) and SS is will be solvent.

*Someone earning $70,000 would pay in an extra $700.

 

[citygator]

Cut spending

We can never tax our way to a balanced budget when WIPE EVERY NOSE is the official government policy

Like I said above. We have to do both. We have one of the largest child poverty rates of first world nations. Noses arent being wiped.

 

[BlindBoo]

Like I said you can call it whatever you want, but it functions the same. The only difference is the eligibility requirements. If I pay in 10000 dollars to SS, and die at 62 how much of that do my kids get? If I pay in the same 10000 and live to be 150 does the Government pay out more, less or the same amount as I put in?


Sorry. It's welfare.

No it's not. Many welfare recipients don't pay taxes, there is no bottom income requirements, only limits on how much you make and how much stuff you own.

Ya pay yer money and ya takes yer chances.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe not...

Then you agree: your whining and crying about what you're owed, when you admit the government doesn't owe you anything, is nonsense.

 

[BlindBoo]

There no lock box. There never was a lock box.

What? You mean they didn't even hide the excess funds in a mattress somewhere, but bought special US Treasury notes with the excess funds so we have to pay interest to ourselves......

They fixed it once and they can do it again if the Congress can grows a pair.

 

[theHawk]

A Federal Wealth Tax on financial assets might be one way to pay down the $39T National Debt.
Another would be to eliminate all "tax deductions".
A "sweetener" could be to couple the increase in "wealth" taxes with a "Balanced Budget" Law to forbid future Federal borrowing.

Wealth Tax 2025 Debate: U.S. Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Wealth Tax 2025 debate in the U.S. explores constitutional limits, federal authority, and potential court challenges.

lawdropusa.com

Q: What is a wealth tax?
A: A levy on net assets such as stocks, and cash holdings, rather than annual income.

Q: Is a wealth tax constitutional?
A: Opponents argue it violates apportionment rules; supporters claim the Sixteenth Amendment provides sufficient authority.

Q: Has the U.S. ever had a wealth tax?
A: No comprehensive federal wealth tax has been enacted, though estate and property taxes function similarly in scope.

Q: Why is the wealth tax 2025 debate significant?
A: It tests the balance between government taxing power and constitutional limits, with potential Supreme Court involvement.

Just doing some simple math.
If there is approximately $269T of "financial" wealth in the US, and the current Debt is $40T, and we want to pay that debt off in 8-years, that means a $5T tax or a ~2% wealth tax on all financial assets, but only for 8-years.
(it could be 1% over 16-years, if that is easier to sell)

View attachment 1228771

Problem solved. No debt, and no more borrowing.

How about we just end all welfare fraud?

As much fraud that has been uncovered by amateur journalist, it’s clear that’s the real problem.

 

[citygator]

Thank you for making my point.

That doesnt make your point genius. It hasnt doubled.

Half a billon of that ($500B) increase is from interest payments from UNDERCOLLECTING

The rest, 100% of it, is ALL HEALTHCARE and DEFENSE.

 

[kyzr]

Why is 82 crazy? Thats how they were able to get SS to work setting the retirement age 4 years past the life expectancy. SS is failing because all Ponzi schemes fail eventually. There are enough new “investors” to support past “investors”.

82 year olds are too old to work. Besides physical and mental issues its simply cruel.
SS is over 90-years old, it's no Ponzi scheme, it outlived Ponzi. SS simply needs to be fixed.

...82 year old man

...82 year old man

...82 year old woman

 

[Couchpotato]

You really only need to move the SS ages up by a couple of years to solve most of the problem. Then increase the contribution by 2% (split between employee* and employer) and SS is will be solvent.

*Someone earning $70,000 would pay in an extra $700.

Like I said above. We have to do both. We have one of the largest child poverty rates of first world nations. Noses arent being wiped.

That is a symptom of a misallocation of funds not because we don't have enough revenue. If one of your employees were making 1 million dollars a year and was going 500000 further into debt each year would you tell them well you might need to reduce some of your spending but really you need to increase your revenue. Or would you tell them they are spending too much money? The US generates a little over 5 trillion in tax revenue in 2025. China (#2) generated 3.7. China has 4 times our population. We are overspending.

 

[Couchpotato]

That doesnt make your point genius. It hasnt doubled.

View attachment 1229305

Half a billon of that ($500B) increase is from interest payments from UNDERCOLLECTING

The rest, 100% of it, is ALL HEALTHCARE and DEFENSE.



View attachment 1229306

4.7 in 2020. Over 7 in 2025. So technically you are correct it didn't double in that time, so I'll amend. Did the cost to run the country double since 2017? It was 3.6 then.

 

[kyzr]

Then you agree: your whining and crying about what you're owed, when you admit the government doesn't owe you anything, is nonsense.

The government owes us what it promised us.
The government can let SS default (no action) where we only get 80% of promised benefits, (SS money out = SS money in), but then we will vote them out.
In the past the government has "fixed" entitlements occasionally to keep them functioning as promised.

 

[tshrimp]

I am for cutting spending by 2%, but no new taxes. We have had enough. We keep getting for Fed, State, County, City adds up and we have all had enough, and don't agree with punishing the "rich" because of their success. More power to them.

 

[kyzr]

How about we just end all welfare fraud?
As much fraud that has been uncovered by amateur journalist, it’s clear that’s the real problem.

I'd send Welfare back to the states, let them put the lazy folks to work.

 

[Nostra]

NFW. I agree that the retirement ages could be moved up a few years since people are living longer, but 82 is ridiculous.
The early retirement age should move from 62 to 65 to match Medicare.
The full retirement age could be moved up in phases, from 67 to 70.
Most people can't keep working to 70 so they would need other assistance.
A declining population may require a different funding mechanism for the long term.

Why is 82 ridiculous?

Pits it in line with when it was implemented.

 

[Nostra]

W


But we are not suppose to tax everyone equally,

Where does it say that? The Constitution says everyone must be treated the same. Equal protection and stuff, lunatic.

 

[citygator]

4.7 in 2020. Over 7 in 2025. So technically you are correct it didn't double in that time, so I'll amend. Did the cost to run the country double since 2017? It was 3.6 then.

Listen Couchy. You need to go back to 2010, 14 years prior to get to half the 2024 budget. Guess what kind of annual increase we've seen on spending?

4.9% per year increase BUT if you adjust for inflation it has grown 2.1% per year and you'll see below that is 1% per person. Its a small fraction that needs to be reigned in but your attempt to shock us on the doubling is hilarious cuz you dont understand the compounded growth impact (or you dont think I do) . Look at the data below.

If you consider POPULATION GROWTH the spending growth is even more muted.

There is a spending problem sure. But it isnt at all what those of you with surface knowledge of the budget and expenses focus on. I'd love a real discussion on it but you have to look at facts. The things I am showing you are not hard to look into. You'll see I am right.

 

[Nostra]

Why not just require every dollar spent by the government to reference the specific clause in the Constitution that authorizes the Fed to spend it. And you can’t use the crutch “general welfare”.


Our budget would be less than half of what it is.

Problem solved.

 

[kyzr]

Why is 82 ridiculous?
Pits it in line with when it was implemented.

Ok, go for it. I want to see the commercials of you promoting that moronic idea. Work until you're 82 or no SS.

Then I'd laugh my ass off when the next election happens.

 

[tshrimp]

Why is 82 ridiculous?

Pits it in line with when it was implemented.

"The average life expectancy for males in the United States is approximately 75.8 years as of 2023. "

I guess we could all just die at our desks.

Have corporate morgues, to make sure we keep the place all clean.