Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What states do is not the concern of anyone not living in that state.

The FACT is politicians know where the real tax revenue is an it's the people in the middle tax brackets who never see their tax rates change significantly.

You are dodging the truth in your effort to toe the party line and you look like a fool

You're FOS.

December 1 2016
The company that owns Carrier will receive $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years from Indiana to keep 1,000 jobs in the state, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The company this week reached a deal with President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to keep the jobs in the state, after announcing earlier this year it would shut down a plant in Indianapolis and move manufacturing to Mexico.

Indiana taxpayers will end up helping defray the cost of the Carrier deal. In return for agreeing to keep 800 jobs in Indianapolis and invest $16 million in its Indiana factories, United Technologies will receive $7 million in tax credits over the next 10 years from the state of Indiana, of which Vice President-elect Mike Pence is governor.



Iconic motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson’s response to the new Republican tax law—cutting jobs, rewarding shareholders, and moving production offshore—perfectly illustrates the law’s failure to deliver as promised for American workers. With the media attention here and here on the closure of Harley’s Kansas City plant just weeks after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law, we encourage you to use this opportunity to assess for your readers how other corporations in Missouri and across the nation have used their tax cuts, and the broader impact of the TCJA on Missouri families.

Harley-Davidson opened its manufacturing facility in Kansas City in 1997 after state and local governments offered it tens of millions of dollars in tax credits and other incentives. Just 20 years later—and just weeks after President Trump and Republicans in Congress enacted tax cuts they claimed would create many jobs—Harley announced it was closing its plant near the Kansas City airport.

Companies have received 11 times more in tax cuts than they have paid out to workers ($76 billion vs. $6.9 billion) and spent 65 times as much on stock buybacks as on employee pay hikes ($450 billion vs. $6.9 billion).

In Missouri, the richest 1% (taxpayers making at least $500,000) will get a tax cut of nearly $49,000 in 2019 on average, while the bottom 60% (those making less than $63,000) will only get $370, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the TCJA will increase the federal debt by $1.9 trillion over 10 years, including economic effects and increased interest costs. This huge increase in debt jeopardizes funding for health, retirement, educational and other public services the American people depend on to get by and get ahead. President Trump has already proposed $1.7 trillion in spending cuts to Social Security disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, tuition aid and dozens of other important programs.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It is my belief that all taxes are paid by the ultimate consumer. Taxes paid by corporations or business's will be passed onto their customers as a price increase.

Sure, that's been a republican scare tactic, since Reagan.

So........when corporations get tax breaks, do they lower prices to their consumers?

 

[Blues Man]

You're FOS.

December 1 2016
The company that owns Carrier will receive $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years from Indiana to keep 1,000 jobs in the state, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The company this week reached a deal with President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to keep the jobs in the state, after announcing earlier this year it would shut down a plant in Indianapolis and move manufacturing to Mexico.

Indiana taxpayers will end up helping defray the cost of the Carrier deal. In return for agreeing to keep 800 jobs in Indianapolis and invest $16 million in its Indiana factories, United Technologies will receive $7 million in tax credits over the next 10 years from the state of Indiana, of which Vice President-elect Mike Pence is governor.



Iconic motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson’s response to the new Republican tax law—cutting jobs, rewarding shareholders, and moving production offshore—perfectly illustrates the law’s failure to deliver as promised for American workers. With the media attention here and here on the closure of Harley’s Kansas City plant just weeks after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law, we encourage you to use this opportunity to assess for your readers how other corporations in Missouri and across the nation have used their tax cuts, and the broader impact of the TCJA on Missouri families.

Harley-Davidson opened its manufacturing facility in Kansas City in 1997 after state and local governments offered it tens of millions of dollars in tax credits and other incentives. Just 20 years later—and just weeks after President Trump and Republicans in Congress enacted tax cuts they claimed would create many jobs—Harley announced it was closing its plant near the Kansas City airport.

Companies have received 11 times more in tax cuts than they have paid out to workers ($76 billion vs. $6.9 billion) and spent 65 times as much on stock buybacks as on employee pay hikes ($450 billion vs. $6.9 billion).

In Missouri, the richest 1% (taxpayers making at least $500,000) will get a tax cut of nearly $49,000 in 2019 on average, while the bottom 60% (those making less than $63,000) will only get $370, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the TCJA will increase the federal debt by $1.9 trillion over 10 years, including economic effects and increased interest costs. This huge increase in debt jeopardizes funding for health, retirement, educational and other public services the American people depend on to get by and get ahead. President Trump has already proposed $1.7 trillion in spending cuts to Social Security disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, tuition aid and dozens of other important programs.

Again what a state does is only the concern of the people who live in that state.

What you are too thick to understand is that the state politicians know that they will reap far more revenue from the people working at this company than they will from the company or the people who own the company.

And revenue is the only thing politicians care about

 

[hadit]

Sorry about being civilized and taking care of the unfortunate... of course Mario Cuomo said that Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. A disgrace. We have to join the rest of the world the modern world in having a living wage and cheap college and training so jobs are good and there are ways to get a good job. Instead of this GOP crap. We'll all be selling hamburgers to each other soon... that's what they call the worst inequality, upward mobility homelessness Etcetera after 40 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. Change the damn channel. there aren't any Marxists around, just people who aren't brainwashed with BS from the greedy idiot GOP rich, Super Dupe.

Those poor, sad, ineffectual little democrats, always terrified a Republican is going to look at them sideways. They just can't get anything done, yet you keep voting for them. How gullible are you, and don't you realize how ludicrous you sound coming out here day after day, week after week, complaining that Republicans are messing up, well, whatever the topic may be, and never realizing that you're simultaneously tacitly admitting the democrats have done nothing whatsoever about it?

Oh, and get with it, you're really slacking by not mentioning Murdoch. Change the channel to some real news.

 

[hadit]

Sure, that's been a republican scare tactic, since Reagan.

So........when corporations get tax breaks, do they lower prices to their consumers?

They do if they want a competitive edge on their competition. Ever see a price war at gas stations across the street from each other?

 

[80zephyr]

Sure, that's been a republican scare tactic, since Reagan.

So........when corporations get tax breaks, do they lower prices to their consumers?

Its not a scare tactic. Its math.

 

[bripat9643]

so who were the lying scumbag GOP swine who decided it was a good idea to be able to buy at 10% margin? You don't call that deregulation? Maybe you wanna snap out of it

Buying on margin has been legal since the stack market was created, dumbass. The Federal Reserve was create in 1913 - 12 years before the panic of 1929. Yet, turds like you blame something that had been around for over 100 years.

 

[hadit]

Buying on margin has been legal since the stack market was created, dumbass. The Federal Reserve was create in 1913 - 12 years before the panic of 1929. Yet, turds like you blame something that had been around for over 100 years.

Yeah, but, but, feelz!

 

[francoHFW]

Buying on margin has been legal since the stack market was created, dumbass. The Federal Reserve was create in 1913 - 12 years before the panic of 1929. Yet, turds like you blame something that had been around for over 100 years.

So who let this whole situation run wild throughout the 20s? who refused to do anything to regulate it... it might have been legal but it was never done until the 20s And if you don't think Republicans are all over Wall Street, you know nothing. you can quibble all you want, but these things have only happened under Republicans the last 100 years.... they always let business and industry and fascists run wild LOL....

 

[hadit]

So who let this whole situation run wild throughout the 20s? who refused to do anything to regulate it... it might have been legal but it was never done until the 20s And if you don't think Republicans are all over Wall Street, you know nothing. you can quibble all you want, but these things have only happened under Republicans the last 100 years.... they always let business and industry and fascists run wild LOL....

And where are the democrats in all this? Hiding in the corners again, scared to move lest they get a stink-eye from a Republican.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you have a link to the numbers showing that those that pay the maximum SS live long enough, on average, that their benefits exceed their contributions? I don’t disagree with the idea that wealthier people may live longer, just not sure most live long enough to recover all their benefits.

Also, even if true, it is kind of messed up that I must live longer to potentially recoup my contributions, don’t you think?

Opinion | How Long to Recoup Social Security Tax? (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

A link showing wealthy individual live longer was previously posted.

The link above shows about 13 years. But that is base + interest.

In my case when I calculate the amount of money I've paid in and expected SS check the break even point is about 6 years. Add to that the employer contribution and it comes out to 12 years.

I'm not even a wealthy person so if I retire at 66 and live to 72, I'll have drawn everything I paid in. If I live to 78 I'll have drawn everything I paid in plus the employer portion. If I live to my 80's I'll have drawn more out than I paid in.

Since average life expectancy is approximately 15 years after full retirement age for men and 19.5 years (Late 70's) and wealthy live longer. Logic dictates that they will in fact (on average) draw more money out of SS than they paid in.

As I said, hell I'm not even wealthy and I'm pretty likely to draw more than I paid in based on genetics (both may parents are still alive in their mid-90s).

WW

 

[bripat9643]

So who let this whole situation run wild throughout the 20s? who refused to do anything to regulate it... it might have been legal but it was never done until the 20s And if you don't think Republicans are all over Wall Street, you know nothing. you can quibble all you want, but these things have only happened under Republicans the last 100 years.... they always let business and industry and fascists run wild LOL....

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the justification that it would prevent banking panics. So that claim turned out to be total horseshit. Trading on margin has been done since the creation of the stock market. When you sell short you are trading on a margin. They happened under Republicans and under Democrats. The government didn't make it illegal.

You're a fucking moron who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about

 

[SweetTea]

Opinion | How Long to Recoup Social Security Tax? (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

A link showing wealthy individual live longer was previously posted.

The link above shows about 13 years. But that is base + interest.

In my case when I calculate the amount of money I've paid in and expected SS check the break even point is about 6 years. Add to that the employer contribution and it comes out to 12 years.

I'm not even a wealthy person so if I retire at 66 and live to 72, I'll have drawn everything I paid in. If I live to 78 I'll have drawn everything I paid in plus the employer portion. If I live to my 80's I'll have drawn more out than I paid in.

Since average life expectancy is approximately 15 years after full retirement age for men and 19.5 years (Late 70's) and wealthy live longer. Logic dictates that they will in fact (on average) draw more money out of SS than they paid in.

As I said, hell I'm not even wealthy and I'm pretty likely to draw more than I paid in based on genetics (both may parents are still alive in their mid-90s).

WW

Point was that the wealthier you are, meaning the more you've paid into Social Security, the less likely you are to get it all back out. If we do as the Democrats will likely propose in the new budget and remove the contribution cap but not the benefits, that gap will be greatly exacerbated for many.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Point was that the wealthier you are, meaning the more you've paid into Social Security, the less likely you are to get it all back out. If we do as the Democrats will likely propose in the new budget and remove the contribution cap but not the benefits, that gap will be greatly exacerbated for many.

"Point was that the wealthier you are, meaning the more you've paid into Social Security, the less likely you are to get it all back out."

That is the point of fundamental disagreement. You say the wealthier you are the less likely you re to get it all back out. That is false. As previous links showed, the wealthier you are the LONGER you draw benefits (on average) which make the wealthy MORE likely to get out more than they paid in (on average).

WW

 

[SweetTea]

"Point was that the wealthier you are, meaning the more you've paid into Social Security, the less likely you are to get it all back out."

That is the point of fundamental disagreement. You say the wealthier you are the less likely you re to get it all back out. That is false. As previous links showed, the wealthier you are the LONGER you draw benefits (on average) which make the wealthy MORE likely to get out more than they paid in (on average).

WW

I don't know that this is true, but what do you think about removing the contribution limit but not raising the benefits?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't know that this is true, but what do you think about removing the contribution limit but not raising the benefits?

What part wouldn't be true? (Average number of years to "break even", link previously supplied.)
Wealthy live longer? (Link previously supplied.)
That on average wealthy people that draw benefits longer therefore are MORE likely to receive everything they paid in pack? (Logic)

Don't like it but it's probably the only politically doable one out there that will impact the SS Trust fund in time for 2035.

We have:

• Raise the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 70 immediately to cut benefits years and reduce expenditures to be able to have an impact over the next decade. Sorry if your 65 now you are screwed. (Not politically doable as those 45 and holder are the most likely demographic to vote.)
• Raise the FRA to 70 to cut benefit years but grandfather it and phase it in over time (like was done when FRA was raised to 67 from 65 on the Boomers). Problem is that it would be 20 years before those that are now 50 would reach FRA at 70 so the earliest impact is 2045, 10 years after the SS Trust fund runs out. (Politically doable, but doesn't help the looming cuts in 2035.)
• Increase the cap from the current $160K on wages to at least double, probably $500K. Will extend the SS Trust fund beyond 2035 and is politically doable.
• Implement a small SS Tax on other forms of income besides "wages" to include interest, dividends, and capital gains. However in fairness, that portion subject to SS Tax should them be include in benefit earnings also. (I'm not smart enough to (a) know if this is politically doable or if it could be done in time for 2035.)
• Means Testing is another idea that gets floated. But what does that mean. Means testing based on retirement assets? Means testing based on retirement income? (Which are two different things.) How are assets and incomes treated for married couples? What are the levels where means testing kicks in? Will there be a phase out? Will there be grandfathers? (I don't think means testing is politically doable.)
• There is another poster in this threads that proposes a new national sales tax to fund SS and debt reduction. (I don't think that is politically doable.)
• Finally there is "do nothing". Which the projections show the SS Trust fund will be depleted in 2034 and the SSA will only be able to pay 77-80% benefits based solely on current revenues. I pity the politicians in office as there will be a bloodbath (politically speaking, not advocating violence). Take away 20-23% of an earned benefit and there will be hell to pay.

WW

 

[francoHFW]

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the justification that it would prevent banking panics. So that claim turned out to be total horseshit. Trading on margin has been done since the creation of the stock market. When you sell short you are trading on a margin. They happened under Republicans and under Democrats. The government didn't make it illegal.

You're a fucking moron who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about

the only times we had big recessions since the Fed started have been have been corrupt GOP bubbles and busts with corrupt deregulation and corrupt oversight

 

[80zephyr]

the only times we had big recessions since the Fed started have been have been corrupt GOP bubbles and busts with corrupt deregulation and corrupt oversight

I get sick of hearing this. Almost all bills become law because of bi-partisan support.

 

[francoHFW]

What part wouldn't be true? (Average number of years to "break even", link previously supplied.)
Wealthy live longer? (Link previously supplied.)
That on average wealthy people that draw benefits longer therefore are MORE likely to receive everything they paid in pack? (Logic)

Don't like it but it's probably the only politically doable one out there that will impact the SS Trust fund in time for 2035.

We have:

• Raise the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 70 immediately to cut benefits years and reduce expenditures to be able to have an impact over the next decade. Sorry if your 65 now you are screwed. (Not politically doable as those 45 and holder are the most likely demographic to vote.)
• Raise the FRA to 70 to cut benefit years but grandfather it and phase it in over time (like was done when FRA was raised to 67 from 65 on the Boomers). Problem is that it would be 20 years before those that are now 50 would reach FRA at 70 so the earliest impact is 2045, 10 years after the SS Trust fund runs out. (Politically doable, but doesn't help the looming cuts in 2035.)
• Increase the cap from the current $160K on wages to at least double, probably $500K. Will extend the SS Trust fund beyond 2035 and is politically doable.
• Implement a small SS Tax on other forms of income besides "wages" to include interest, dividends, and capital gains. However in fairness, that portion subject to SS Tax should them be include in benefit earnings also. (I'm not smart enough to (a) know if this is politically doable or if it could be done in time for 2035.)
• Means Testing is another idea that gets floated. But what does that mean. Means testing based on retirement assets? Means testing based on retirement income? (Which are two different things.) How are assets and incomes treated for married couples? What are the levels where means testing kicks in? Will there be a phase out? Will there be grandfathers? (I don't think means testing is politically doable.)
• There is another poster in this threads that proposes a new national sales tax to fund SS and debt reduction. (I don't think that is politically doable.)
• Finally there is "do nothing". Which the projections show the SS Trust fund will be depleted in 2034 and the SSA will only be able to pay 77-80% benefits based solely on current revenues. I pity the politicians in office as there will be a bloodbath (politically speaking, not advocating violence). Take away 20-23% of an earned benefit and there will be hell to pay.

WW

it is way way overdue to tax the rich and giant corporations their fair share again and invest in America and Americans again. we are the richest country in the world easily and we can afford it for crying out loud, dupes of the greedy idiot rich.

 

[80zephyr]

it is way way overdue to tax the rich and giant corporations their fair share again and invest in America and Americans again. we are the richest country in the world easily and we can afford it for crying out loud, dupes of the greedy idiot rich.

Do you think the rich will get the funds from a money tree or will they add that cost to the ultimate consumer?