It means solvency, bro. There’s more than one way to save social security and raising taxes, which takes money from other productive uses and investments is not the only, or even best solution. Raising the age of eligibility by even six months is hardly reducing access. The point is to keep access by making it solvent. Are you not able to truly understand basic economics and nuance?
and there's another thing we agree on.
SS has to increase the age of eligibility. (and the benefit of short posts)
See how America can heal?
Just tax all SS as income and remove the cap that greatly benefits the well to do. Keep the treasury department from raiding SS funds.
Yes, if you raise the retirement age from 67 to 68 or higher, that means you are reducing access for people who are 67.
When I critiqued your proposal, I said, "good luck with that." The reason I said that is it's an extremely unpopular proposal. Nearly 80% of Americans are against raising the retirement age.
Ok, let's be clear. First you tried to do what you think was denigrating me by calling me a bot and/or accusing me of having AI write my retorts. Moreover, if you looked at the very first rebuttal where raising the base of taxation for social security was suggested (as the only option), I said, basically, ok fine, as long as we explore other avenues too like raising the age of eligibility, indexing it to a different yardstick for inflation (does it ever go down during a recession?), or even allowing that it be invested in a really safe basket of low risk but higher return investments than just government IOUs (and, yes, the government would have to have a hand in this).
Now your argument is one of political will. I'm not in disagreement. The problem is, social security was never meant to be a replacement for "retirement," and, when it was first implemented, people weren't living nearly as long and there were far more payors for every payee. So, it is on the verge of being insolvent. If you dial back 50 years and see how many people were receiving the benefit, and fast forward to a scenario where we merely raise the eligibility age by three months (or a month), are we really reducing access just in terms of the sheer number of people receiving the benefit? An actuarial should look at this hypothetical. Monkeys Skyping?
The answer, of course, is to do everything, but, Joe Biden, in one of his last and only coherent SOTUs called out the Republicans very publicly to promise not to touch entitlements, not make one iota of change. And that was disingenuous and extremely untenable, and, frankly, dangerous. But, you see, most voters aren't economically savvy or financially literate. Their news is Joy Behar and Oprah, and they think platitudes like "let's turn the page" and "nevermind what I didn't do for the last three years as an elected VP, but here's what I'm going to do now" are compelling policy statements.
Trump and Biden and Harris shook hands today at the 9/11 site.
This is very sad, that this normal and minor and expected social behavior is news.
Why isn’t it plastered front page over all major news sources, like Trump handlers “assaulting” the guard at Arlington National for a “photo op” was? Man, pointing out hypocrisy is fun. It’s all Kabuki.
Sub9 guy: Yes ALL taxpayers should be able to vote like in EVERY other nation in the world except the US where we only allow full citizens to vote. If a legal immigrant is paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, excise taxes, etc then by God that person should legally be allowed to vote - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!
Sub9 guy: Yes ALL taxpayers should be able to vote like in EVERY other nation in the world except the US where we only allow full citizens to vote. If a legal immigrant is paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, excise taxes, etc then by God that person should legally be allowed to vote - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!
Naturalized immigrants / citizens can vote. The process takes about 6 months. It’s not an unreasonable amount of time.
Sub9 guy: Yes ALL taxpayers should be able to vote like in EVERY other nation in the world except the US where we only allow full citizens to vote. If a legal immigrant is paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, excise taxes, etc then by God that person should legally be allowed to vote - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!
At the state level, yes, I agree with you. But I think an argument can be made that anyone not paying Federal income tax shouldn’t cast a vote in the national election. I say this tongue in cheek of course, because I know that will never happen. But, this is all in the context of how much more do we want the wealthy to pay for before it constitutes “enough?”
Remember, the wealthy also pay the vast majority of state, property, investment, excise, transfer, municipal, and sales tax as well. As I asked earlier, is 45.8% not enough for you? Do we go to 55.8%? 65.8%? Have you ever risked capital, created a job, paid an income (and payroll taxes), and, do you give at least 10% of your income away to charitable causes? If no, why not? You do realize that tax is just a reallocation of money, quite possibly to a much less productive use in the economy???
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made many significant, but temporary, changes to the individual income tax code to lower tax rates, widen brackets, increase the standard deduction and child tax credit, and more.
Sub9 guy: Yes ALL taxpayers should be able to vote like in EVERY other nation in the world except the US where we only allow full citizens to vote. If a legal immigrant is paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, excise taxes, etc then by God that person should legally be allowed to vote - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!
Naturalized immigrants / citizens can vote. The process takes about 6 months. It’s not an unreasonable amount of time.
Also, legal is the operative word. Should we tax money earned in America but sent south of the border by undocumenteds by some 50-70%? if not, why not?
I am currently undecided on my vote. I will base my decision on tonight’s debate and potentially any compelling arguments I see in this chat. If you want to get me on your side, this is your chance.
Let me be clear upfront and say I am not persuaded by personal attacks on either candidate. I find those to be immature and off putting. Give me good rational arguments. And no BS. I deduct points for lies.
You have watched 8 years of Trump and his immature off putting behavior, his constant lies, and you are undecided?????
This is very sad, that this normal and minor and expected social behavior is news.
Why isn’t it plastered front page over all major news sources, like Trump handlers “assaulting” the guard at Arlington National for a “photo op” was? Man, pointing out hypocrisy is fun. It’s all Kabuki.
It is expected that a normal politician would be cordial to other US politicians at a memorial ceremony. It is also supposed to be about the victims, but the politicians get a little positive press.
Can you explain the post above? Are you claiming that because Trump shook hands with someone he doesn't like that should negate his "photo op" at Arlington where he was told not to film, then walked in with a film crew, told not to film again, and brazenly broke the rule and got a rebuke from the Army?
Why isn’t it plastered front page over all major news sources, like Trump handlers “assaulting” the guard at Arlington National for a “photo op” was? Man, pointing out hypocrisy is fun. It’s all Kabuki.
It is expected that a normal politician would be cordial to other US politicians at a memorial ceremony. It is also supposed to be about the victims, but the politicians get a little positive press.
Can you explain the post above? Are you claiming that because Trump shook hands with someone he doesn't like that should negate his "photo op" at Arlington where he was told not to film, then walked in with a film crew, told not to film again, and brazenly broke the rule and got a rebuke from the Army?
To your point, I don’t think any of it should’ve made national headlines. Out of respect for the victims. And the dead soldiers (and their families who invited Trump and wanted the photo). A rebuke of it happened as alleged? Absolutely fine. A media crucifixion? Kabuki.
At the state level, yes, I agree with you. But I think an argument can be made that anyone not paying Federal income tax shouldn’t cast a vote in the national election. I say this tongue in cheek of course, because I know that will never happen. But, this is all in the context of how much more do we want the wealthy to pay for before it constitutes “enough?”
Remember, the wealthy also pay the vast majority of state, property, investment, excise, transfer, municipal, and sales tax as well. As I asked earlier, is 45.8% not enough for you? Do we go to 55.8%? 65.8%? Have you ever risked capital, created a job, paid an income (and payroll taxes), and, do you give at least 10% of your income away to charitable causes? If no, why not? You do realize that tax is just a reallocation of money, quite possibly to a much less productive use in the economy???
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
At the state level, yes, I agree with you. But I think an argument can be made that anyone not paying Federal income tax shouldn’t cast a vote in the national election. I say this tongue in cheek of course, because I know that will never happen. But, this is all in the context of how much more do we want the wealthy to pay for before it constitutes “enough?”
Remember, the wealthy also pay the vast majority of state, property, investment, excise, transfer, municipal, and sales tax as well. As I asked earlier, is 45.8% not enough for you? Do we go to 55.8%? 65.8%? Have you ever risked capital, created a job, paid an income (and payroll taxes), and, do you give at least 10% of your income away to charitable causes? If no, why not? You do realize that tax is just a reallocation of money, quite possibly to a much less productive use in the economy???
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
Ok, but are we really talking about “soaking the poor?” I mean, come on now. Look, I’m open to many ideas and changes in the tax (and tax and spend) system. Whatever it is. Consumption oriented tax exempting the necessities of living, means tested perhaps, maybe higher taxes on income but less on investment (or vice versa), expanding the base for entitlement taxes (as well as other ideas mentioned here)? Sure. Let’s look at it. All of it. But to propose that all and everywhere the wealthy aren’t paying their “fair share” and the only solution is to raise taxes on the top 1% (or tax unrealized capital gains 😂🤦♂️) without commensurate spending cuts is honestly sophomoric. Estate taxes where that money isn’t actually earned? Well, you may have a point there.
Of course there are taxes beyond income tax, but the top 1% and 10% still bear the much bigger burden. And they are generally the biggest “investors” in the economy, which helps everyone, so let’s not demonize them.
