So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits

I didn't say, nor imply that those currently receiving benefits will get a cut.
Its a very complicated subject with lots of nuances

I know my first reaction based on the screaming lib media headlines was to fear the worst

Fortunately I do look beyond the headlines

But not everyone does, particularly the old farts who seem to be more susceptible to misinformation
 

"The current budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee, which represents 80 percent of House Republicans, calls for $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security benefits over the next 10 years. It would reduce benefits for seniors and raise the retirement age to 69, which would especially hurt low-income retirees."

WW

Thanks for the link.

Spending on Social Security will grow tremendously between FY 2023 and 2034, from nearly from $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion The RSC Budget is committed to preventing 23 percent across the board cuts in benefits that will hit every Social Security recipient in 2033

I didn't see anything in there about $1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years.
They said, above, there would be cuts if nothing was done.

Any links to your claim?
 
Not all, but much of the euro money to ukraine is in the form of loans
It is..


They are using Russian frozen money to pay off..

US has given a lot of Millitary aid in comparision
1740411528634.webp


Now that aid is not a real value... That is the replacement cost, ie how much the new modern equipment will cost to replace it... Still much needed and apprciated but it isn't really worth that much...

Example...
Jordan has 400 Challanger 1 tanks which are going to be decommissioned, say 150 are usable... They have value as almost low as scrap... Ukraine could use these as they are easy to learn how to drive and are still 30 years more advanced than the Russian T-72 tanks.
To replace those tanks with Leclercs would be ($17.3m * 150 = $2.95bn)
So US accounting they would have given almost $3 bn.
Now not everything is like this, Himars are very current and expensive...
 
It is..


They are using Russian frozen money to pay off..

US has given a lot of Millitary aid in comparision
View attachment 1082700

Now that aid is not a real value... That is the replacement cost, ie how much the new modern equipment will cost to replace it... Still much needed and apprciated but it isn't really worth that much...

Example...
Jordan has 400 Challanger 1 tanks which are going to be decommissioned, say 150 are usable... They have value as almost low as scrap... Ukraine could use these as they are easy to learn how to drive and are still 30 years more advanced than the Russian T-72 tanks.
To replace those tanks with Leclercs would be ($17.3m * 150 = $2.95bn)
So US accounting they would have given almost $3 bn.
Now not everything is like this, Himars are very current and expensive...
Well good for the euros if they are doing something right for a change

Maybe I wont be so dismissive of them in the future
 
Well good for the euros if they are doing something right for a change

Maybe I wont be so dismissive of them in the future

They don't need US taxpayer money.

Excellent
 
You know
Qanon first appeared in Trump rallies... Trump & Co started repeating from their play book...

As for Proud Boys, Trump name checked them plenty..

Now you want to make them something sbody else brought up... Get fucking real...
I just said I had never heard of them until they were mentioned here... and I'm the biggest Trump fan around...
I think they were promoted by TDS libs or no one would have known about them....
 
You don't even realize it yet but these people you are defending and worshipping are bending you over and giving it to you straight up the bunghole fool.
And instead of fighting back you are just saying thank you and asking for "more please."
Takes all kinds I suppose.
You are just insulting... you have no point at all...
 
And it was a cut to your benefits then too.
It was a delay in my starting date for full payment... but SS is still here for me where it might not have been without that delay... the man you voted for solidified and reinforced Ukraine's very generous retirement plan though.... but we have to have delays.... and the point is that delays have been enacted long before Trump....
 
It was a cut to your benefits.
Only for when I could sign up for full or maximum payments... but it made sure I could still have SS at all... money doesn't grow on trees kid.... when a nation is 37 trillion in debt. everything gets affected... that is why you should support DOGE....
 
They have produced a budget that cuts SS benefits.

And yes, raising the retirement age is a cut to your benefits.

Look here to see how many are affected in your district.

Will raising the retirement age prevent the 25% reduction in 2035?

For the record, I don't like the idea of raising the retirement age, but we're looking at reduced benefits in just 10 years....and probably more cuts in the years beyond that.


What's the fix here?
 
Will raising the retirement age prevent the 25% reduction in 2035?

No. Raising the retirement age doesn't even start until age 59, which even then is increase in FRA by a couple of months.

So that means 10 years before any possible slight decrease would impact the trust fund.

So raising the retirement age this year won't fix the Trust Fund Shortage.

For the record, I don't like the idea of raising the retirement age, but we're looking at reduced benefits in just 10 years....and probably more cuts in the years beyond that.


What's the fix here?

For the last question...

I've come to believe that we need a re-evaluation of SS Taxes in general. The workforce and economy are very different than they were in 1935 when the system was created. Now I'm leaning more toward, making SS Tax applicable to all income the same way it is determined for Income Tax (wage, interest, dividends, short term stock commodities, and long term capital gains) as a new revenue source. As such:
  • Current SS tax of 12.4% would remain (6.2% by the EE and 6.2% by the ER).
  • Non-wage income would be taxed at a rate equal to 25% of the total FICA rate or another way to say it as 1/2 of the individual EE rate. That would currently be 3.1%.
  • Financial institutions would be required to collect the 3.1% at the time of posting, just like employers (ERs) collect it at the time of payment.
  • Because the non-wage rate is 25% of the wage rate (3.1% compared to the FICA total of 12.4%), then 25% of non-wage income would be credited to SS Income for that year.
  • Current cap of 175K on wage income could remain the same.
  • A cap of 43.7K would also apply to non-wage income. (25% taxed, so 25% of wage cap)
  • The sum of the wage credit and non-wage credit is posted as the total SS Income for the year which is then used to determine SS benefit amounts.
Example:

A high wage earner makes $300K in wages, taxes are collected on wages up to $160K for a total of $19,840 in wage tax. Applicable income credited for the year for future benefits calculations is $160K. If the same person has in additional $100K of non-payroll investment income, the SS Tax would be $3,100 at 3.1%. Total SS Taxes would then be $22,940. 25% of the $100K passive income would be credited to SS Income for the year equaling $25K since the tax rate is 25% of the full FICA rate. So the individuals total SS Income credited for the year would be $160 + $25K = $185K.

A "Low Wage" earner making say $40K would pay 6.2% ($2,480) on wages. If they had $500 in interest than $3.1% = $15.50). Total SS Income for the year would then be credited as $40,125. $125 being 25% of the $500 in interest.

WW
 
Liar... fucking lying piece of human trash....
It's the truth, Kleetus.

Ever since that dude went to jail for thinking a DC pizzeria was a child molestation ring run by Hillary Clinton, you MAGA fucks have been on a fucking deranged, sick downward spiral...
 
Back
Top Bottom