Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[WorldWatcher]

Which is precisely why I say the retirement age should be indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.



What a fantastic twisting of words! Raising the retirement age is not "cutting benefits". You would be entitled to the exact same benefits when you reach retirement age.

Not a twisting of words, just telling it like it is. Instead of telling telling someone they are buying a pomegranate and you hand them a plum. Tell someone you they are buying an apple and then hand them an apple.

From a logic perspective it is a very simple concept. The purpose of raising the retirement age is to reduce benefit payouts. This reduction occurs in two ways:

• Because the retirement age is increased, more people work to death and die before drawing a benefit.
• Increasing the retirement age means people draw benefits for a reduced number of year.

If the purpose of raising the retirement age isn't to reduce benefit payouts, then why raise the age?

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is why it could never work. I come from a construction family so I know all about this. My father loved his job as a bricklayer, but his body didn't. He had to retire at 62 instead of 65. As a child I remember us being home alone because my father was in the hospital for yet another back surgery. At one point they told him if he didn't change his line of work, he may be crippled for the rest of his natural life.

That's why the only reasonable solution even if temporary is to increase the employee/employer SS contributions to 8% instead of 6. Raising the ceiling is no solution since they've been doing that every year now.

My Dad was a utility lineman for Ma Bell, by the time he got to his 60's his body was shot.

WW

 

[SweetTea]

Do tell.

The same happens with companies that DON'T get tax incentives.
The Walmarts, Lowes, Home Depots, Targets and a multitude of others, that don't get tax incentives (locals, and SOME of their suppliers) get priced out, by these companies, then cease doing business.

Republicans think bribes are "worth it".

Yes, it is worth it, why else would a state choose to do it? A slew of new jobs of people paying state tax(in most cases), sales tax and property tax. Think on that a bit and get back to me.

 

[SweetTea]

Well, they did.
Isn't that what everyone is complaining about for years..........inflation?
Biden hasn't raised taxes on corporation.............Yet.
Trump is the president who lowered corporate tax rates.
Didn't have much staying power.

It had plenty of staying power, but then came Biden and his bone-headed, financially ignorant administration. Maybe they could remind us again about how transitory this inflation is. Their ignorant supporters bought it then and still buy their elementary rhetoric.

 

[francoHFW]

My Dad was a utility lineman for Ma Bell, by the time he got to his 60's his body was shot.

WW

We are the only modern country without at least a one month paid vacation after a year of work. Not to mention overtime without overtime pay Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera. thanks GOP!

 

[jc456]

My Dad was a utility lineman for Ma Bell, by the time he got to his 60's his body was shot.

WW

God love him

 

[francoHFW]

Do they pay their fair share?

Not in in the United States of America they don't... and I don't want to hear any of the BS, super Duper. People pay what they have to... they want the greedy GOP to pay 2 DUHH.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So wonder why demofks think they don’t?

The majority of what Demfolk think stems from a lie they were told and weren't intellectually curious enough to question.

 

[easyt65]

Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.

theintercept.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

What upsets Democrats is that income above a certain amount is not subject to the Social Security tax.
The current income cap is $160,200.

Which connects to a corresponding cap in benefits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

From a logic perspective it is a very simple concept. The purpose of raising the retirement age is to reduce benefit payouts. This reduction occurs in two ways:

• Because the retirement age is increased, more people work to death and die before drawing a benefit.
• Increasing the retirement age means people draw benefits for a reduced number of year.

If the purpose of raising the retirement age isn't to reduce benefit payouts, then why raise the age?

Retirement age and the age at which you can collect SS benefits are not necessarily the same thing,

 

[jc456]

Not in in the United States of America they don't... and I don't want to hear any of the BS, super Duper. People pay what they have to... they want the greedy GOP to pay 2 DUHH.

So you unknowingly say only republicans don’t pay their fair share?

 

[francoHFW]

It had plenty of staying power, but then came Biden and his bone-headed, financially ignorant administration. Maybe they could remind us again about how transitory this inflation is. Their ignorant supporters bought it then and still buy their elementary rhetoric.

So you unknowingly say only republicans don’t pay their fair share?

none of the rich pay their fair share in the United States. you wanna diagram?

 

[francoHFW]

Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.

theintercept.com

Actually, He stopped in this century LOL

 

[80zephyr]

Most of them yes.

You think they didn't see it coming? You think they lost their personal fortunes ?

I doubt they were as rich as they were when they lost everything.

 

[SweetTea]

none of the rich pay their fair share in the United States. you wanna diagram?

What income level do you consider rich? The working "rich" pay plenty. You are a fool if you don't know this.

 

[80zephyr]

Eventually, America will have to come around to my way of thinking which I have been propounding for over a decade on this forum.

One, we need to eliminate tax expenditures.

Two, we need to raise the retirement age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

These two things alone would provide such a massive surplus we would not know what to do with it.

We could lower tax rates for everyone and pay off the debt. Once the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates even more.

And entities earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

It would also make YUGE strides in reducing campaign financing.

Something for everyone to like.

People that do manual labor cannot wait to retire at 70. Most are broken by the time they reach their 60's.

 

[jc456]

none of the rich pay their fair share in the United States. you wanna diagram?

I just want you to tell everyone how you know this

 

[francoHFW]

What income level do you consider rich? The working "rich" pay plenty. You are a fool if you don't know this.

like everyone else, 400,000, at least.

 

[francoHFW]

I just want you to tell everyone how you know this

Total tax burden by income group

---

As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest. But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group.

The one tax graph you really need to know - Washington Post​

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percen…