Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 10 Years

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I never received welfare Nancy.

Democrats either receive welfare or social security unless they are criminals.

 

[sealybobo]

Corporations should pay zero tax because all they do is pass taxes along to consumers, so even if they are taxed, they pay it with YOUR money!

That is the arguments Republicans make. Meanwhile we're broke. And if they pay no taxes than that shifts the burden on to you.

And don't buy that argument Tory. It's a lie. If we don't tax them and they take in more money, they don't lower the price of their product. And they can only raise the price so much before you stop buying it.

Did you see I wrote that CEO has gone up 1322% since 1978? That's where the tax breaks have gone. AND, they passed on those costs to you.

I got news for you admiral. They're already gouging us. Charging as much as they can. This is why stimulus caused inflation and so did Trump's tax breaks to everyone. Give everyone more money the corporations will raise their rates.

Taxing them has little effect on the price of the product.

Holy shit Admiral. That was all just from the hip. Then I looked it up and god damn if I wasn't right

But history doesn't support the notion that higher corporate taxes necessarily lead to higher prices or lower wages. There has been no correlation between inflation and the rate at which companies pay taxes, based on available data back to 1947.

 

[sealybobo]

I like Social Security. Therefore I am a Republican who does not like Democrats like you.

You like a socialist program. There for you are a socialist. Republicans hate socialism and social programs.

You are experiencing cognitive dissonance I assume?

 

[leftwinger]

The so-called Rich don't pay as much Income Tax as the clowns would like because they don't have much typical income. They follow existing tax law on other forms of income (Tax Law the DEM Congress has put into place). Their 1yr property tax is more than any DEM pays in lifetime. Again....get them to change the TAX law. They want to spend $2T extra...go find it.

 

[Blaster]

Democrats either receive welfare or social security unless they are criminals.

How enlightening.

 

[sealybobo]

If you hate the Rich so much....go back to Africa. There are very few RICH over there.

I don't hate the rich. I'm allowed to have an opinion aren't I? And a vote? And if the majority of voters agree with me we should undo the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax breaks, that doesn't mean we hate them. The only reason Reagan Bush and Trump got to pass those tax breaks was because they were voted into office. Did we love the rich back then but if we raise their taxes back to what they once were, does that mean we hate them? Of course not. We only put them back to where they should be.

Now I know you will argue we should not raise their taxes but consider you were wrong to give them the tax breaks in the first place.

My brother is rich. I actually enjoy the benefits of these tax breaks that rich people get and their out of control pay. It's like I hit the lotto. I have a vacation place in Greece, Florida and Up North MI. So I'm glad you guys are dumb enough to vote for Republicans, who've completely changed the pay structure in America from 1978 to today. The rich's pay went up 1322%, your pay only 18%.

I suspect if my brother made half of what he makes now, he'd still have a place up north, in Greece and in Florida. But you say he's worth $1 million dollars a year? Okay fine. I say he'd do the job for half of that.

Oh, and then don't cry that Hunter makes $1 million dollars a year tomorrow. Don't defend this kind of pay structure then cry just because it's Hunter. You are the reason Hunter is worth $1 million dollars a year.

 

[sealybobo]

The so-called Rich don't pay as much Income Tax as the clowns would like because they don't have much typical income. They follow existing tax law on other forms of income (Tax Law the DEM Congress has put into place). Their 1yr property tax is more than any DEM pays in lifetime. Again....get them to change the TAX law. They want to spend $2T extra...go find it.

Remember Republicans cried because Biden hired a bunch of new IRS agents that would go after rich people who haven't been paying their fair share of taxes the last 8 years?

OMG it turns out Biden didn't even really hire a bunch of new IRS agents

Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker sent multiple fundraising emails promising to vote to repeal the fictitious 87,000 new IRS agents if he were elected. (He lost.) In September, Nikki Haley, now a GOP presidential candidate, emailed Walker’s supporters asking for donations by appealing to the same sense of grievance over the IRS funding. “Senator Warnock, votes 96% of the time with Biden, including for open borders, less energy independence, 87,000 new IRS agents, and higher taxes,” she wrote.

Too bad. I heard if we go back 7 years and catch all the rich people who didn't pay their taxes it would add up to $1 trillion dollars a year. Put that $7 trillion in the social security fund. Who would defend unpatriotic tax evaders?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How enlightening.

You did not know this?

 

[Blaster]

You did not know this?

That you are getting welfare checks?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

That's what they'll say. And that's what they'll do. But it's bullshit you know that right? And you don't mind them fucking you this way?

Consider this. They could roll back some or all of the tax breaks Bush/Reagan and Trump gave corporations and rich people. Why is that off the table? It's not. This will also be part of the solution.

And consider this. We didn't have the money for the Iraq war, did we? In fact right before the Iraq war Bush passed tax breaks for corporations and the rich. He used Clinton's surplus as justification. So 1. He shouldn't have passed that tax break and 2. How did he come up with the money to fight the iraq war after he passed those tax breaks? Do that to fill up the social security bucket. I don't care if you have to put it on the debt.

3. But the rich fought back with Reagan. Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983.

33-9 = 24% I bet that 24% would fund the program

4. How many people died of covid? No one talks about how much the program saved with all those deaths.

5. You know that person who won the billion and a half lotto? The lump sum is 750 million. Where does the other 750 million go? Schools? LOL. Start putting it in to ss.

6. We all agree on this because we all expect to be able to retire at some point. And as we see with Trump's tax breaks, if you let people invest it themselves, they won't. They'll just spend it. Inflation will just eat it up. Corporations want that money. It's why they hate these very popular socialist programs. You must be rich. One things for sure. You're patriotic to take the hit.

Two things, the Clinton 'surplus' is now and has always been a myth. There never was a Clinton surplus, it's made up. Fiction. Every year of the Clinton 'surpluses' the national debt INCREASED, it NEVER went down. Not one single year.

Second, after the 2003 Bush tax cuts, federal receipts INCREASED. The federal gov't was bringing in MORE money than the year prior, all the way to 2007.

 

[sealybobo]

Two things, the Clinton 'surplus' is now and has always been a myth. There never was a Clinton surplus, it's made up. Fiction. Every year of the Clinton 'surpluses' the national debt INCREASED, it NEVER went down. Not one single year.

Second, after the 2003 Bush tax cuts, federal receipts INCREASED. The federal gov't was bringing in MORE money than the year prior, all the way to 2007.

Then why did Bush use it as the justification to pass his tax breaks?

The largest benefits from the Bush tax cuts flowed to high-income taxpayers.

Evidence suggests that the tax cuts — particularly those for high-income households — did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.

3rdly, I don't see anything about increasing receipts in this breakdown of how the law worked out. Does it matter if federal receipts increased?

The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The biggest tax policy changes enacted under President George W. Bush were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, often referred to as the “Bush tax cuts” but formally named the Economic Growth and Tax...

www.cbpp.org

Evidence suggests that the tax cuts — particularly those for high-income households

Then I find this

The tax cuts resulted in an estimated revenue loss of 0.4% of GDP in 2001, 1.1% in 2002, and 1.6% in 2003. Since government spending rose as taxes were cut, the cuts can be characterized as deficit financed.

Plus we didn't expect Bush to lie us into a costly war. And we can't afford social security? Why don't we just pretend again that Saddam has WMD's. Suddenly we have the money.

 

[WEATHER53]

If they are just takers then they don't get very much social security.

And I'd be willing to bet you rely on social security and medicare too. Two socialist programs you couldn't afford to live without. If not, you're rich, go suck your butler's dick.

Nasty mouth out of ammo again
Thank you for confirming, like I said 75% do, that you don’t know that social security and Medicare has already been paid for by me and people like me while your dependent ass is taking freebies you never paid for. Go on Bo Bo and steal some more.

 

[WEATHER53]

The blue states (libs) feed the red states. You knew that, right?

AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

apnews.com

Lie

 

[Lord Long Rod]

The Trust Fund needs to be invested in US Equities!

It is the best investment going right now.

 

[Lisa558]

Two things, the Clinton 'surplus' is now and has always been a myth. There never was a Clinton surplus, it's made up. Fiction. Every year of the Clinton 'surpluses' the national debt INCREASED, it NEVER went down. Not one single year.

Second, after the 2003 Bush tax cuts, federal receipts INCREASED. The federal gov't was bringing in MORE money than the year prior, all the way to 2007.

JFK, who would be a Republican these days, recognized that when you lower taxes, you increase revenues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They have 95% of all income, so thanks for proving they don't pay their fair share. And, don't forget to to bring up all the fine deductions they get the average smoe will never qualify for on top of a lower average tax rate.

They have 95% of all income,

The source said 52% and they pay 87%.

Sounds more than fair.

And, don't forget to to bring up all the fine deductions they get

The deductions that get them down to 87% of income taxes paid.
Which ones should we get rid of? Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love it when Stupid dopes like you post this. We would glady pay a larger portion of that if you would just pay us more. Did you see the numbers I showed the other day? That since 1978 CEO pay has gone up 1322% and our pay only went up 18% in that same time? How about give us half that 1322$ and we will gladly pay the taxes on the money.

You fucking rich persons boot licker.

I love it when whiners like you whine about facts like that.

Did you see the numbers I showed the other day? That since 1978 CEO pay has gone up 1322% and our pay only went up 18% in that same time?

Yes, I pointed out the lie in your claim.

You fucking rich persons boot licker.

You fucking whiney libtwat.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yea yea. You've been saying that for decades. Where? What?

And we can't do it with spending cuts alone. So, either you want to undo the Trump, Bush and Reagan tax breaks to the rich and corporations, or you're going to be a good guy and pay for their tax breaks.

Everything. Fite up the chainsaw and start slashing.

 

[22lcidw]

Try 1962, with the creation of 'Certificates of Deposits' by Citibank, and an illegally formed 'market' for them while JFK's Fed looked the other way. That was the first hole in the dyke that broke the dam by 1970. This allowed small banks to 'sell' deposits to big banks, who then claimed those deposits as part of their own reserves and loaned them out, creating hot money, lots and lots of it. It was one of the factors that resulted in us having to go off the gold standard under Nixon.

The federal government federal budget was miniscule in 1962 as compared to today and the deficits were minimal. There are graphs that show the federal slowly rising over a few decades then around 1970 or so it started to rise like scaling a mountain. At the same time city, local state budgets have risen even faster. We are doing what we railed against in the Revolutionary War. So, we have competing factions in doling out the money and/or taxing.

 

[DudleySmith]

The federal government federal budget was miniscule in 1962 as compared to today and the deficits were minimal. There are graphs that show the federal slowly rising over a few decades then around 1970 or so it started to rise like scaling a mountain. At the same time city, local state budgets have risen even faster. We are doing what we railed against in the Revolutionary War. So, we have competing factions in doling out the money and/or taxing.

Banks and junk bonds artificially inflated the money supply and drove up prices a lot faster, then have to be bailed out with ever larger govt. hand outs. Somebody always loses in bankruptcy courts, and it should be stockholders and corp execs coughing up to pay the shortfalls.