Trump to Social Security: Drop Dead

[Muhammed]

Yeah that's one I can't get on board with. Social Security and Medicare are already essentially bankrupt and the benefit to workers would be minimal.

The reason I stamped "fake news" on the article is because of the lie about social security. The article says "It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare".

And that statement makes the article fake news

A payroll tax cut would not necessarily affect social security taxes. Trump's last payroll tax cut certainly didn't and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any future payroll tax cut Trump proposes would cut funding to social security.

Yahoo is a known fake news outlet. I've had to stamp several of their articles 'fake news' recently.

If there's one thing you can trust in this world, it's that if I say something is fake news, it's fake news. You don't even have to bother reading it.

It's fake news only if it doesn't fit your own vision of the perfect world. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's all fake news.

Bullshit. I never label an article fake news unless it's fake news. The article in the OP is factually incorrect. Therefore it's fake news.

So piss off, you whiny *****.

 

[Billy000]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“

Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Lol republicans are learning for the first time with this thread that the “other 47%” pay taxes. Hell most likely they are in the this percentage but were too stupid to know it.

 

[kyzr]

How Much Will I Get From Social Security?
En español | Your retirement benefit is based on your lifetime earnings in work in which you paid Social Security taxes. Higher income translates to a bigger benefit (up to a point — more on that below).

The amount you are entitled to is modified by other factors, most crucially the age at which you claim benefits.

For reference, the estimated average Social Security retirement benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The maximum benefit — the most an individual retiree can get — is $3,011 a month for someone who files for Social Security in 2020 at full retirement age, or FRA (the age at which you qualify for 100 percent of the benefit calculated from your earnings history).

It will take you more than TEN years to get back the $400,000 dollars that you claim that you paid in.

Needless to say, the government is banking on most seniors not drawing their full benefit.

My $400,000 SWAG of total deductions probably included Medicare too. Its not an unreasonable "proof" that we pay into the systems over time and get benefits after many years so that the government gets the benefit of inflation. A SS system that lasted about 100-years is not a "ponzi scheme" but does need to be "fixed" periodically to stay solvent because people are living longer. Not to mention the taxes we pay as we get SS benefits.
So lets simplify the math. $1500/mo x 12 mos = $18,000/yr $300,000 x 7 (inflation) = $2,100,000/$18,000 = 116 years.
Even at $3,000/mo (work to 70) or $36,000/yr $2,100,000/$36,000 = 59 years or you need to live to 129 to get all your money out.
Even that is conservative because inflation still happens after you're 70. Not a ponzi scheme. The average US citizen lives to about 79. When SS was started the average age was 62, now its 79, what will it be in 20 years?

p.s.
"Q.E.D." (sometimes written "QED") is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“
Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Yet all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it. Go figure.
"For a typical middle-class family, (the payroll tax cut) is a big deal," Obama said. "Now my message to Congress is don't stop here. Keep going. ... This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock (and) reflexive partisanship."

Obama signs payroll tax agreement into law - CNNPolitics

President Barack Obama signs into law the payroll tax cut agreement passed by Congress last week.

www.cnn.com

..

Except for the ridiculous, hysterical, ultra-partisan and factually incorrect statement “all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it” ... this comment raises a legitimate issue.

Tax issues are complex and the Democrats often make compromises with Republicans that can be presented in different ways, and both sides often echo the other side’s arguments.

The biggest difference is that Obama’s payroll tax cut was specified as being temporary, with a one year sunset provision (later extended to a second year) — and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely. Trump’s plan has not been fleshed out at all, as the OP article said. If his earlier tax cuts are any example, he is inclined to allow tax cuts on the rich to be permanent, while “stimulus measures” for the working class and poor will be temporary.

Here is how the big business Forbes Magazine put it:

“As 2011 drew to a close and the sun was due to set on the payroll tax cut, Congress did what it does best, agreeing to a last-minute, ill-conceived two-month extension that was not offset with any increased revenue or spending cuts. In February, they did it again, this time extending the 2% reduction through the end of 2012.

“Throughout this time, Americans got accustomed to their fatter paychecks. But if they’d been paying attention, they would have noticed that the end was near.

“Leading up to the Presidential election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney promised to further extend the payroll tax cut. In fact, if one were to dig deep into each man’s tax proposals, one would see that both Obama and Romney intended to allow the tax cut to expire. And effective January 1, 2013, it did.“

Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase

 

[JLW]

Read the "fixes" to see how to extend SS well into the future. Its a matter of "how" to save SS, not "if" it can be saved.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

The best way to fix Social Security

Policymakers need to target benefits based on lifetime labor earnings.

thehill.com

How Warren Buffett Thinks We Should Fix Social Security | The Motley Fool

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

I'm not at all interested in ideas about how to "fix" something that should never have been established in the first place.

Read this post boys and girls. This is what conservatives truly think of social security. Don’t ever buy into their bullshit that they support or even want to “fix” social security. They want it destroyed.

 

[Pete7469]

It is not generally appreciated that Thomas Paine, in addition to being an inspiring North American revolutionary, was a firm internationalist, a determined abolitionist, and the first American to outline ideas for a comprehensive program of state support for the population to ensure the “general welfare” of society, including a state subsidy for poor people, state-financed universal public education, and state-sponsored prenatal and postnatal care, including state subsidies to families at childbirth. These ideas can be found in his Rights of Man, Part II. He also imagined a future form of Social Security, maintaining that a person's "labor ought to be over" before old age, calling for a small state pension to all workers starting at age 50, which would be doubled at age 60.

I chose my pen-name carefully. Paine was a visionary, an idealist who lived in an era when many of the things he dreamed about were still unrealizable. His greatness was that he was a man of the people who never sought money or power for its own sake. A rightwinger in the French revolutionary assembly (like his aristocratic friend Lafayette), he opposed mob rule. Yet he stood with the extreme “left wing” in favoring abolition of slavery in the French colonies. Always a defender of rights of liberty and conscience he was yet an early “social democrat.” Never an atheist, he was the American Revolution’s most prominent opponent of religious humbug and obscurantism. A man ahead of his time. Not a single statue of him stands in our nation’s capital.

Thanks, I never was very well read on him, I simply recall his "Liberty or Death" quote. I shall endeavor to study up on his writings. I find it hard to believe he would agree with or support left wing collectivism as practiced in the 1900's or for that matter in the early US colonies where the communal farms failed and people starved to death. I am rather surprised to hear that he would support a system that would make people dependent on a federal government for their retirement. That sounds very contradictory to liberty in my opinion.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It is not generally appreciated that Thomas Paine, in addition to being an inspiring North American revolutionary, was a firm internationalist, a determined abolitionist, and the first American to outline ideas for a comprehensive program of state support for the population to ensure the “general welfare” of society, including a state subsidy for poor people, state-financed universal public education, and state-sponsored prenatal and postnatal care, including state subsidies to families at childbirth. These ideas can be found in his Rights of Man, Part II. He also imagined a future form of Social Security, maintaining that a person's "labor ought to be over" before old age, calling for a small state pension to all workers starting at age 50, which would be doubled at age 60.

I chose my pen-name carefully. Paine was a visionary, an idealist who lived in an era when many of the things he dreamed about were still unrealizable. His greatness was that he was a man of the people who never sought money or power for its own sake. A rightwinger in the French revolutionary assembly (like his aristocratic friend Lafayette), he opposed mob rule. Yet he stood with the extreme “left wing” in favoring abolition of slavery in the French colonies. Always a defender of rights of liberty and conscience he was yet an early “social democrat.” Never an atheist, he was the American Revolution’s most prominent opponent of religious humbug and obscurantism. A man ahead of his time. Not a single statue of him stands in our nation’s capital.

Thanks, I never was very well read on him, I simply recall his "Liberty or Death" quote. I shall endeavor to study up on his writings. I find it hard to believe he would agree with or support left wing collectivism as practiced in the 1900's or for that matter in the early US colonies where the communal farms failed and people starved to death. I am rather surprised to hear that he would support a system that would make people dependent on a federal government for their retirement. That sounds very contradictory to liberty in my opinion.

Paine was not a systematic theoretician, but more a man of the people, a man with a lot of heart and a deep moral drive. He saw things in terms of universal rights and Enlightenment values, so was very much an internationalist. His writings on social welfare were mostly responses to problems he saw in Britain and France, where he also was an active radical reformer and revolutionary. I think you are correct that his legacy is complex and still open to debate. I don’t believe his aim was ever to make people dependent on government for their retirement, but more to redress problems he saw in real life and to build a caring human community.

 

[initforme]

If SS and Medicare are taken away what will seniors do to stay alive? What's the alternative? Only the 1 percent get to live?

 

[Andylusion]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“

Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

I like how the title of the article, and the facts of what Trump said and suggested, are not even remotely connected.

 

[22lcidw]

It's a DOA proposal from Trump. Even the Republican senate wouldn't touch it.

Yah, he's going for the under 3 year old vote. Obviously he won't be getting the 65 and older crowds vote.

Its Progs that want to end medical for the old folks.

 

[Chuz Life]

How Much Will I Get From Social Security?
En español | Your retirement benefit is based on your lifetime earnings in work in which you paid Social Security taxes. Higher income translates to a bigger benefit (up to a point — more on that below).

The amount you are entitled to is modified by other factors, most crucially the age at which you claim benefits.

For reference, the estimated average Social Security retirement benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The maximum benefit — the most an individual retiree can get — is $3,011 a month for someone who files for Social Security in 2020 at full retirement age, or FRA (the age at which you qualify for 100 percent of the benefit calculated from your earnings history).

It will take you more than TEN years to get back the $400,000 dollars that you claim that you paid in.

Needless to say, the government is banking on most seniors not drawing their full benefit.

My $400,000 SWAG of total deductions probably included Medicare too. Its not an unreasonable "proof" that we pay into the systems over time and get benefits after many years so that the government gets the benefit of inflation. A SS system that lasted about 100-years is not a "ponzi scheme" but does need to be "fixed" periodically to stay solvent because people are living longer. Not to mention the taxes we pay as we get SS benefits.
So lets simplify the math. $1500/mo x 12 mos = $18,000/yr $300,000 x 7 (inflation) = $2,100,000/$18,000 = 116 years.
Even at $3,000/mo (work to 70) or $36,000/yr $2,100,000/$36,000 = 59 years or you need to live to 129 to get all your money out.
Even that is conservative because inflation still happens after you're 70. Not a ponzi scheme. The average US citizen lives to about 79. When SS was started the average age was 62, now its 79, what will it be in 20 years?

p.s.
"Q.E.D." (sometimes written "QED") is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.

Any scheme that relies on more givers coming in at the bottom to pay out to the takers at the top is at it most basic level, a ponzi scheme.

The math supports that fact as well.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the "fixes" to see how to extend SS well into the future. Its a matter of "how" to save SS, not "if" it can be saved.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

The best way to fix Social Security

Policymakers need to target benefits based on lifetime labor earnings.

thehill.com

How Warren Buffett Thinks We Should Fix Social Security | The Motley Fool

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

I'm not at all interested in ideas about how to "fix" something that should never have been established in the first place.

Read this post boys and girls. This is what conservatives truly think of social security. Don’t ever buy into their bullshit that they support or even want to “fix” social security. They want it destroyed.

Shhhhh don't tell my wife. She's been drawing her Social Security as the result of her brain injury (cardiac arrest) for 12 years now. We rely pretty heavily on her disbursment.

That said, this is the difference between me and ******* socislist leftardz like you. I have to ability to look at the situation and the organization and call it for the ponzi scheme that it isn. . . Even if the correction of that fact might negatively affect my own situation personally.

 

[OKTexas]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“
Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Yet all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it. Go figure.
"For a typical middle-class family, (the payroll tax cut) is a big deal," Obama said. "Now my message to Congress is don't stop here. Keep going. ... This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock (and) reflexive partisanship."

Obama signs payroll tax agreement into law - CNNPolitics

President Barack Obama signs into law the payroll tax cut agreement passed by Congress last week.

www.cnn.com

..

Except for the ridiculous, hysterical, ultra-partisan and factually incorrect statement “all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it” ... this comment raises a legitimate issue.

Tax issues are complex and the Democrats often make compromises with Republicans that can be presented in different ways, and both sides often echo the other side’s arguments.

The biggest difference is that Obama’s payroll tax cut was specified as being temporary, with a one year sunset provision (later extended to a second year) — and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely. Trump’s plan has not been fleshed out at all, as the OP article said. If his earlier tax cuts are any example, he is inclined to allow tax cuts on the rich to be permanent, while “stimulus measures” for the working class and poor will be temporary.

Here is how the big business Forbes Magazine put it:

“As 2011 drew to a close and the sun was due to set on the payroll tax cut, Congress did what it does best, agreeing to a last-minute, ill-conceived two-month extension that was not offset with any increased revenue or spending cuts. In February, they did it again, this time extending the 2% reduction through the end of 2012.

“Throughout this time, Americans got accustomed to their fatter paychecks. But if they’d been paying attention, they would have noticed that the end was near.

“Leading up to the Presidential election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney promised to further extend the payroll tax cut. In fact, if one were to dig deep into each man’s tax proposals, one would see that both Obama and Romney intended to allow the tax cut to expire. And effective January 1, 2013, it did.“

Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase

and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely.

So what you're doing is pushing a conspiracy theory. You have zero evidence, but what the hell, make the claim anyway. Get back to us when you have something based in reality and not some crackpots suppositions.

.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“
Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Yet all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it. Go figure.
"For a typical middle-class family, (the payroll tax cut) is a big deal," Obama said. "Now my message to Congress is don't stop here. Keep going. ... This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock (and) reflexive partisanship."

Obama signs payroll tax agreement into law - CNNPolitics

President Barack Obama signs into law the payroll tax cut agreement passed by Congress last week.

www.cnn.com

..

Except for the ridiculous, hysterical, ultra-partisan and factually incorrect statement “all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it” ... this comment raises a legitimate issue.

Tax issues are complex and the Democrats often make compromises with Republicans that can be presented in different ways, and both sides often echo the other side’s arguments.

The biggest difference is that Obama’s payroll tax cut was specified as being temporary, with a one year sunset provision (later extended to a second year) — and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely. Trump’s plan has not been fleshed out at all, as the OP article said. If his earlier tax cuts are any example, he is inclined to allow tax cuts on the rich to be permanent, while “stimulus measures” for the working class and poor will be temporary.

Here is how the big business Forbes Magazine put it:

“As 2011 drew to a close and the sun was due to set on the payroll tax cut, Congress did what it does best, agreeing to a last-minute, ill-conceived two-month extension that was not offset with any increased revenue or spending cuts. In February, they did it again, this time extending the 2% reduction through the end of 2012.

“Throughout this time, Americans got accustomed to their fatter paychecks. But if they’d been paying attention, they would have noticed that the end was near.

“Leading up to the Presidential election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney promised to further extend the payroll tax cut. In fact, if one were to dig deep into each man’s tax proposals, one would see that both Obama and Romney intended to allow the tax cut to expire. And effective January 1, 2013, it did.“

Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase

and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely.

So what you're doing is pushing a conspiracy theory. You have zero evidence, but what the hell, make the claim anyway. Get back to us when you have something based in reality and not some crackpots suppositions..

I am pushing no conspiracy theories, but raising real fears. I asked for opinions about Trump’s insistent suggestions / proposals to cut the payroll tax program that is supposedly meant to finance Social Security. The article emphasizes the ambiguity of these proposals, and I personally noted their apparent vulnerability to attack from Democrats. I pointed out the nature of his past “tax cuts.” We know and see here right in this thread that many Republicans want to get rid of Social Security entirely. The Democrats may even agree to some “temporary” cuts to get a new emergency benefits package. If you think there are crackpot suggestions being made, by Trump or others, detail them and maybe make some suggestions of your own.

 

[OKTexas]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“
Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Yet all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it. Go figure.
"For a typical middle-class family, (the payroll tax cut) is a big deal," Obama said. "Now my message to Congress is don't stop here. Keep going. ... This may be an election year, but the American people have no patience for gridlock (and) reflexive partisanship."

Obama signs payroll tax agreement into law - CNNPolitics

President Barack Obama signs into law the payroll tax cut agreement passed by Congress last week.

www.cnn.com

..

Except for the ridiculous, hysterical, ultra-partisan and factually incorrect statement “all the commies and media applauded when maobama did it” ... this comment raises a legitimate issue.

Tax issues are complex and the Democrats often make compromises with Republicans that can be presented in different ways, and both sides often echo the other side’s arguments.

The biggest difference is that Obama’s payroll tax cut was specified as being temporary, with a one year sunset provision (later extended to a second year) — and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely. Trump’s plan has not been fleshed out at all, as the OP article said. If his earlier tax cuts are any example, he is inclined to allow tax cuts on the rich to be permanent, while “stimulus measures” for the working class and poor will be temporary.

Here is how the big business Forbes Magazine put it:

“As 2011 drew to a close and the sun was due to set on the payroll tax cut, Congress did what it does best, agreeing to a last-minute, ill-conceived two-month extension that was not offset with any increased revenue or spending cuts. In February, they did it again, this time extending the 2% reduction through the end of 2012.

“Throughout this time, Americans got accustomed to their fatter paychecks. But if they’d been paying attention, they would have noticed that the end was near.

“Leading up to the Presidential election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney promised to further extend the payroll tax cut. In fact, if one were to dig deep into each man’s tax proposals, one would see that both Obama and Romney intended to allow the tax cut to expire. And effective January 1, 2013, it did.“

Dear America: Your Higher Payroll Taxes Are Not The Result Of A Tax Increase

and nobody feared that he was secretly planning on getting rid of Social Security entirely.

So what you're doing is pushing a conspiracy theory. You have zero evidence, but what the hell, make the claim anyway. Get back to us when you have something based in reality and not some crackpots suppositions..

I am pushing no conspiracy theories, but raising real fears. I asked for opinions about Trump’s insistent suggestions / proposals to cut the payroll tax program that is supposedly meant to finance Social Security. The article emphasizes the ambiguity of these proposals, and I personally noted their apparent vulnerability to attack from Democrats. I pointed out the nature of his past “tax cuts.” We know and see here right in this thread that many Republicans want to get rid of Social Security entirely. The Democrats may even agree to some “temporary” cuts to get a new emergency benefits package. If you think there are crackpot suggestions being made, by Trump or others, detail them and maybe make some suggestions of your own.

I didn't say a damn thing about crackpot suggestions, I said crackpot suppositions, so don't try to put words in my mouth. Also I've never heard Trump say anything about doing away with social security, and all he's talking about the payroll tax, is in the same context that maobama did. Temporary relief to help the economy and put more money in the pockets of people. If you have anything other than pure speculation on the topic, feel free to put it out. If you can't present solid facts, all you have is a conspiracy theory and pure speculation.

.

 

[jasonnfree]

Another Trump-bash thread. Since the proposal isn't going anywhere, why talk about it ?

Answer: to bash Trump. Ho hum. Yawn****

Talking about it shows trump's intentions. Trump bashes himself actually. Kinda stupid on his part but then he's not that bright in many ways I've come to see.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Read the "fixes" to see how to extend SS well into the future. Its a matter of "how" to save SS, not "if" it can be saved.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

The best way to fix Social Security

Policymakers need to target benefits based on lifetime labor earnings.

thehill.com

How Warren Buffett Thinks We Should Fix Social Security | The Motley Fool

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

I'm not at all interested in ideas about how to "fix" something that should never have been established in the first place.

Read this post boys and girls. This is what conservatives truly think of social security. Don’t ever buy into their bullshit that they support or even want to “fix” social security. They want it destroyed.

Shhhhh don't tell my wife. She's been drawing her Social Security as the result of her brain injury (cardiac arrest) for 12 years now. We rely pretty heavily on her disbursment.

That said, this is the difference between me and ******* socislist leftardz like you. I have to ability to look at the situation and the organization and call it for the ponzi scheme that it isn. . . Even if the correction of that fact might negatively affect my own situation personally.

How old is she? She is is probably on disability, not social security.

 

[kyzr]

How Much Will I Get From Social Security?
En español | Your retirement benefit is based on your lifetime earnings in work in which you paid Social Security taxes. Higher income translates to a bigger benefit (up to a point — more on that below).

The amount you are entitled to is modified by other factors, most crucially the age at which you claim benefits.

For reference, the estimated average Social Security retirement benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The maximum benefit — the most an individual retiree can get — is $3,011 a month for someone who files for Social Security in 2020 at full retirement age, or FRA (the age at which you qualify for 100 percent of the benefit calculated from your earnings history).

It will take you more than TEN years to get back the $400,000 dollars that you claim that you paid in.

Needless to say, the government is banking on most seniors not drawing their full benefit.

My $400,000 SWAG of total deductions probably included Medicare too. Its not an unreasonable "proof" that we pay into the systems over time and get benefits after many years so that the government gets the benefit of inflation. A SS system that lasted about 100-years is not a "ponzi scheme" but does need to be "fixed" periodically to stay solvent because people are living longer. Not to mention the taxes we pay as we get SS benefits.
So lets simplify the math. $1500/mo x 12 mos = $18,000/yr $300,000 x 7 (inflation) = $2,100,000/$18,000 = 116 years.
Even at $3,000/mo (work to 70) or $36,000/yr $2,100,000/$36,000 = 59 years or you need to live to 129 to get all your money out.
Even that is conservative because inflation still happens after you're 70. Not a ponzi scheme. The average US citizen lives to about 79. When SS was started the average age was 62, now its 79, what will it be in 20 years?

p.s.
"Q.E.D." (sometimes written "QED") is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.

Any scheme that relies on more givers coming in at the bottom to pay out to the takers at the top is at it most basic level, a ponzi scheme.

The math supports that fact as well.

1. The "scheme" has been doing just fine for about 80-years, and is totally fixable well into the future.
2. I showed you the math works, show me where I'm wrong, mathematically.

 

[Flash]

I confess I am mystified why Trump has persisted in demanding a Payroll Tax Cut, which will easily, and I believe rightly, be portrayed as an attack on Social Security, and another giveaway to wealthy employers and corporations. It seems a rather absurd thing to do for a “populist” politician in an election year. But who am I to figure out what goes on in Trump’s mind? Does he think Democrats will capitulate on this issue in order to get another round of emergency benefits for laid-off working people? Anyone have any ideas?

“As Congress and the White House focus on crafting another rescue measure for Americans struggling with the coronavirus, the most important question may be: Can't someone find a way to distract President Trump from his stupid obsession with a payroll tax cut?

“We've explained before why a payroll tax cut is always an absurd and harmful idea, never more so than in the current crisis.

“It would undermine the finances of Social Security and Medicare while failing to deliver succor to the Americans who need it most.

“‘By pushing to cut off the program’s funding stream, President Trump is taking the first step toward dismantling Social Security.’ —Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

“Trump hasn't been too specific about the cut he demands, but even with a partial reduction in the payroll tax the poorest Americans would receive a few percent of the benefits, and the richest 20% would pocket half to two-thirds of the gains.

“Trump has been fixed on this idea virtually since the start of his Presidential term. Occasionally he has toyed with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax entirely, which would pile stupidity upon stupidity. Never has he offered a thoughtful, logical rationale for cutting the tax wholly or in part....“

Column: Trump to Social Security: Drop dead

Trump is advocating less taxes.

That dumbass Biden is advocating more taxes.

Guess which one I am going to vote for?

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the "fixes" to see how to extend SS well into the future. Its a matter of "how" to save SS, not "if" it can be saved.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

The best way to fix Social Security

Policymakers need to target benefits based on lifetime labor earnings.

thehill.com

How Warren Buffett Thinks We Should Fix Social Security | The Motley Fool

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

I'm not at all interested in ideas about how to "fix" something that should never have been established in the first place.

Read this post boys and girls. This is what conservatives truly think of social security. Don’t ever buy into their bullshit that they support or even want to “fix” social security. They want it destroyed.

Shhhhh don't tell my wife. She's been drawing her Social Security as the result of her brain injury (cardiac arrest) for 12 years now. We rely pretty heavily on her disbursment.

That said, this is the difference between me and ******* socislist leftardz like you. I have to ability to look at the situation and the organization and call it for the ponzi scheme that it isn. . . Even if the correction of that fact might negatively affect my own situation personally.

How old is she? She is is probably on disability, not social security.

She was only 43 when she had her cardiac arrest. She draws SSDI benefits and she has easily drawn out more than she ever paid in. No biggie though. . . They just give us dome more of KYZRs money.