How Would Democrats and Republicans Fix Social Security?

OK, I'll tell ya what.

You have to sign up for Social Security payments when the time comes. If that's how you feel, DON'T SIGN UP.

At least then you won't be a hypocrite.

 

Home ownership is a long term investment but the Greed Obsessed Wall Street Casino Banksters engineered a Pump and Dump SCAM that STOLE the value from those homes and got away with it because the scumsucking Establishment Q_GOPers in Congress DEREGULATED the financials controls that kept homeowners safe from the PREDATORS at the Wall Street Casino.

They would pull the same scam with SS funds in a heartbeat.

 

Thanks for CONFIRMING that you do NOT have sufficient subject knowledge to engage on this topic.

Sad!

 

Thank you for DISQUALIFYING yourself from any further meaningful responses on this topic as far as I am concerned.

Have a nice day!

 

It's a retirement plan so if you are going to up the contribution cap the rightfully you have to raise the benefit cap to be fair about it. We can't fix SS by huge increases on 1% of the population which we are already going to fund free health care for all, free college for all, free housing, free daycare and everything else free the Dems want to hand out.

It's the returns that have to be increased and the best way for that is partial privatization where people can have money invested in their name in broad based index funds over the long term.

 

And the benefits are capped so that those who pay the top amount get a lower return, far lower return on their contributions already. So uncap how much people must contribute then fairness dictates raise what they collect just like with your other retirement programs. And with on the one hand the left says people at the top don't pay their fair share of taxes because they don't have earned income and on the other only earned income is subject to FICA contributions so how much money do you think that is going to raise......not much.

I think 1.2% of the average Americans pay is going to be more than 50 cents a week.

There is a trust fund already. What will the money be invested in in this new fund?

 

That GREED obsessed 1% already have BILLIONS "invested in their name in broad based index funds over the long term" so giving them MORE is NOT going to make the least bit of difference to their wealth.

REMOVING the CAP on INCOME while RETAINING the cap on BENEFITS means that they STILL receive what EVERYONE else gets from Social Security.

 

See there you go basing everything on your jealousy and envy of others and wanting to use the government to rectify that rather then wanting sound fiscal policy. They already receive less a return and in fact lose money in the system it's the lower incomes who actually receive a return on what they contributed.

 

YOUR Q-GOP enabling the GREED obsessed 1% to STRIPMINE the wealth of the middle class is BAD fiscal policy.

REMOVING the SS income cap while leaving the INCOME cap in place is SOUND fiscal policy for We the People.

Just watch the ECONOMY BOOM when that is enacted.

 

If you have saved a couple of million bucks, that could work for you. It would be a dumb choice, but it could work.

 

One of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

 

I think even more evil is trying to use the taxation power of the government to satisfy envy and jealousy so you can profit from it.

As I said in context

See there you go basing everything on your jealousy and envy of others and wanting to use the government to rectify that rather then wanting sound fiscal policy. They already receive less a return and in fact lose money in the system it's the lower incomes who actually receive a return on what they contributed.

 

No, that's false. You have merely repeated your same deeply evil act of falsely accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

Yes, I noted that act of naked, smirking, despicable evil the first time you did it.

Sound fiscal policy wouldn't include shoveling public funds into the pockets of the richest, greediest, most privileged and most parasitic 1% of society.

They don't receive a lesser return that what they have earned.

Which is a tiny, faltering step towards redressing the injustice of privilege that legally entitles the 1% to steal from the 99%.

 

You really believe the federal tax system is supposed to be some for of a justice system, to satisfy you envy of those who are more successful. What exactly is this justice you speak off. Who has done some injustice to you that must be aggrieved through our system taxation.

Quite frankly and constitutionally the tax system is solely for the function of raising the necessary funds to pay the debts and obligations of the federal government and nothing more. Go read the Tax and Spend Clause.

And we don't in fact we shovel funds and capital out of THEIR hands so politicians, the richest, most privileged and most parasitic members of society can spend it buying votes

Ahhh no they, including me lose money in the SS system, never recoup what we invested, with a marginal return. Those on the bottom MAKE MONEY the get a return on their contributions and in fact many did not pay in at all because they had their reimbursed through the EITC. It's a retirement system, force some to pay more without an equal increase in their benefit is unethical, it's stealing their money. And it will NOT solve the problem of stability in the system.

 

Of course. The universal (except for greedy, privileged parasites) desire for justice is why we have governments at all. "Beneficiary pay" is justice, and it is also one of the two most widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy. The other is "ability to pay."

Are you starting to get the picture?

One of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. You just committed that despicably evil act for the third time in a row. I have made you aware that it is evil, so the only explanation for your repeated transgression is that you are deliberately choosing evil over good. I.e., you seem to prefer evil over good, and to think evil is better than good.

Rewards commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations.

Why do you always try to change the subject from the principles of liberty, justice and truth to me, personally?

I would prefer to abolish privileges that can be abolished rather than tax them; but some privileges can't be abolished in practice, so they should be taxed heavily enough to make their market value derisory. The more people take from the community via privilege, the more they should rightly be taxed.

How relevant do you think that clause is to a modern monetary system where government issues money at will instead of having to coin precious metal specie?

No, that's just false and absurd nonsense. How else do rich, greedy, privileged parasites get rapidly richer without raising a productive finger?

No, that's just false and absurd nonsense. While the corrupt American political system does tend to enrich politicians, they are far from the richest stratum of society.

They are supposed to spend it on the things people want them to spend it on. That is called "democratic accountability."

Ahhh, yes. How else could rich, greedy, privileged parasites get rapidly richer without making any sort of productive contribution, while honest working people toil their lives away and end up with nothing?

It's not an investment. You appear to have completely misunderstood the character of your SS contributions.

But it's a microscopic fraction of the return the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich get on their political contributions...

Evidence? Source?

Any tax except location subsidy repayment steals people's money. You just want other people to be the ones whose money is stolen, so that you can get something for nothing by owning government-issued and -enforced privileges.

That is true. The instability is inherent in the debt money system.

 

Sorry I have been inundated with post and yours had scrolled off the page

Of course NOT the tax system of the Federal Government is to be used for anything else other than to raise the necessary revenues to pay the debts and obligations of the federal government and you fail to show where in the Constitution particularly in the Tax and Spend clause that it does. Getting the picture now? You have no inherent right to the wealth and property of others got that picture now. Our property is PROTECTED from government confiscation by the Constitution. Demanding government do so on your behalf, to equalize income and wealth, by confiscating others is nothing but taxation based on envy.

The Constitution is just as relevant to day as then, the basic principles have not changed.

No the government is "supposed to spend it on what the people want them to spend it on" and we are NOT a democracy, we don't govern by mob rule. The Constitution spells out what the federal government can tax and what it can spend the money on, it is NOT a blank check.

SS is a government forced defined benefit retirement system, you make contributions for all you working life and you get benefits at the end. The level of your benefits of course should be commensurate with your contributions else it's a rip off for those who do not get an equal return on their contributions.

And you don't know what is the EITC and it's purpose?

 

By such an absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacy, you disqualify yourself from honest, adult discussion.

 

Yeah I didn't think you'd be able to respond. Am I wrong in interpreting your position is that government should tax the wealth and income of some, a very small minority, to better distribute that in some economic "justice" you proclaim government must enforce on the people? That this is the role of the United States government? Where have I gone wrong?

 

The level of ignorance about Social Security is truly shocking, indeed.

No, it is not. The purpose of home ownership is pride and freedom.

Simple-minded people think they can pay $250,000 for a home and then sell it for $275,000 and they delude themselves into believing they made a profit.

Anyone familiar with basic accounting principles knows that the actual cost of your home is the price you paid, plus the interest on the mortgage, plus the property taxes, plus the insurance, plus the cost of maintenance and upkeep during the time you lived in the home.

So, REDO FROM START.

 

Wrong. It's an insurance plan.

The "I" in OASI stands for "Insurance" and not "Investment."

How can you not know that?

No, it's insurance, not an investment.

That much is true.

Eliminating the wage cap will increase FICA revenues in theory by no more than $126 Billion per year.

Unfortunately, beginning around 2025, SSA will be forking out $129 Billion per month.

So, instead of reducing benefits by 30% to 35%, you only have to reduce them by 28% to 33%.

That is grotesque.

To compel people to invest their money in publicly-traded corporations is nothing short of Socialism, not to mention unethical and immoral.

90% of the population does not understand investing, and even if you mandated Investing I, Investing II, Investing III, and Investing IV as a requirement to graduate high school, the best case scenario would be that 80% of the population does not understand investing.

But, none of that matters since Social Security is an insurance program, and not an investment program.

If you want to invest, then please do, since no one's stopping you and if you're the Wall Street Wizard™ you claim to be, then you should be retired by now.

That's a false statement.

Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment program, so incessantly whining about ROI like a small child is pointless in addition to being very Göbbelistic.

It's also a logical fallacy, or more correctly, fallacies (plural), specifically equivocation and false analogy to name but a few.

<Rule 3>

Removing the cap will not and cannot save Social Security and you cannot prove that it will.

And, why, no, linking to a blog or website that claims that it will is not proof of anything, other than where you get your propaganda and disinformation from.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to raising the cap, since doing so means we only have to increase the FICA tax rate to 8.0%-8.2% each for employer and employee instead of 8.2% to 8.4%.

You might ask yourself why none of your propaganda blogs and websites show you the actual math.

That's because it would refute their claims that raising the cap will save Social Security.

Again, that's propaganda and disinformation.

Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment program.

If you understood the program, then you'd know that the purpose of having insurance is a hedge against your investments through a defined pension benefit plan or 401(k) and against your private personal investments.

It would be daft to use investments to back investments.

Still with the propaganda and disinformation.

You never invested one single penny into Social Security.

You did, however, pay insurance premiums to Social Security. Read the statute if you dare.

 

Um, no, the person who doesn't understand the Straw Man Fallacy is the one to be disqualified, even more so, since your differently twisted beliefs were not misrepresented.

 

There is disability insurance, but the retirement side is a defined benefit, I pay in x I get y out.

That much is true.

And what tax rate would you be taxing those paying that $126 billion per year? How much would they be paying in versus their defined benefit?

Exactly why broadbased, long term investing. Your choice put a part of your contributions into a personal IRA and repeat the returns and the money is yours while your defined beneift is lower porportionately. It is the ONLY way SS is going to be able to meet it's obilgations and that is to increase the returns on the contributions.

Defined benefit.

ROFL I AM retired now and having met with my broker last week for my semi-annual review see I am meeting all my goals an my income is quite sustainable and I didn't have to be a "Wall Street Wizard" to get there. And I would be in an even better position had I been able to invest some of my SS contributions into a broad based stock index fund.

Nope it is true, run the numbers with even a conservative gain and those at the bottom make money after all their contributions while those that contribute at the top lose money on the system.

And still a defined benefits program.



By the way if I pay more for an insurance plan, a higher premium, do I get a higher payout?

 

NOT everyone fits into YOUR "simpleminded people" ANECDOTE!

For myself I took a LONG TERM strategic approach towards INVESTING in home ownership.

I sold my original house for a PROFIT and then purchased a RENTAL apartment for CASH with that profit and leased it out for 3 decades where it not only COVERED all of the property taxes and cost of maintenance but ALSO provided a small INCOME.

That ADDITIONAL income on top of my regular income ENABLED me to purchase another HOUSE to live in. When I retired I sold that house AND the apartment so I had a LARGE enough INVESTMENT gain to purchase my retirement home that INCLUDED a RENTAL apartment in a desirable LOCATION.

So NOW I am living completely MORTGAGE free PLUS I have a RENTAL INCOME to SUPPLEMENT my RETIREMENT income.

On top of that I still have my regular retirement investment so clearly I was able to make my long term INVESTMENT strategy in PROPERTY work out the way it should.

Overall when I do the MATH and INCLUDE the fact that I did 90% of all my own maintenance I made ENOUGH of a PROFIT to OWN my own home AND not have any outstanding DEBTS.

While NOT everyone is SUCCESSFUL when it comes to INVESTING in home ownership but for MOST of us that get it RIGHT it PAYS off nicely in the LONG RUN which is what it all about.

I don't see myself as being any different from so many others who have done the same thing by looking at home ownership as a LONG TERM INVESTMENT strategy.

FACTS matter!

 

Actually I can but that would require a WILLINGNESS to LEARN how it WORKS which appears to be NONEXISTENT given the acrimonious content of your linked post on the matter so there is no point in WASTING any time.

Instead I am just going to leave this here for those who are actually INTERESTED in BIPARTIAN SOLUTIONS as opposed to just spouting asinine puerile insults.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/2-simple-tax-changes-that-would-fix-social-security-for-good.html

 

There's no point when all you can do is misrepresent what I have clearly written.

Yes, you are wrong. It is government's job to "enforce" justice. Duh.

I don't advocate income taxation; but if there is going to be a program like SS, then the more steeply progressive it is, the more the burden will fall on unearned incomes from privilege, and the more just and economically efficient it will be.

In thinking that the role of the US government is exhaustively defined by the Constitution minus the "general welfare" clause.