The fix is simple, just raise taxes! I pay enough in taxes, I pay for my fair share. I would rather end social security and have a private retirement account. Increasing my taxes, once again just shows what a scam it is.
[deleted]
Column: Social Security is again in the crosshairs of a GOP budget, even though a long-term fix would be simple
Submitted 2 months ago by wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee to conservative@lemm.ee
Comments
fartington@lemm.ee 2 months ago
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Typical liberal, can’t earn it, so wants to steal it.
tswiftchair@lemm.ee 2 months ago
You are in the minority, even amongst conservatives.
Amid doubts about the soundness of the Social Security system, most Americans reject the idea of reducing benefits for future retirees. When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.
…
Democrats and Republicans differ modestly on the need to cut Social Security benefits. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say reductions in future benefits are inevitable (31% vs. 22%). Still, majorities across nearly all demographic and political groups say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way.
Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that “74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way,” and previous Pew research found that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup pollinghistorically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download)conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found “77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.”
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Notice most say they don’t want a reduction but it’s running out of money. You can’t have it both ways.
I never said my opinion is popular buts it’s logical. My same SS contribution would be worth well in excess of 5 million dollars. That far beats the return on my SS.
tswiftchair@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s “running out of money” in the sense that there’s a projected shortfall, not that it’s going to be bankrupt in the near future. The projected shortfall means covering 80% of benefits in 2034 and covering 74% of benefits in 2097. But there are many proposals to address this shortfall and the Office of Chief Actuary collects all proposals and even provides a summary of each proposal and how much of the shortfall it will cover (PDF). So you don’t need to “have it both ways”; we can address the shortfall without reducing benefits.
You’re also claiming it’s a scam when it isn’t. The purpose of Social Security is to alleviate poverty for seniors and it does that. Further, people receive more in benefits than they pay into the program, especially those of low-income who need it most (PDF). Lastly, regardless of your personal situation, the notion that private retirement investments would be better than social security for everyone is disputed.
aniki@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s amazing how much better the Lemmy experience is with Neuromancer blocked.
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If you make less than 400,000 a year you would never see a new dime of taxes and social security would be solvent for your lifetime even with an increase in benefits.
I wonder if anyone screeching about “my taxes” concerning this approach even makes over 400k YEARLY.
It sounds like the raising “my taxes” bit is a lie, often repeated by people who are not so rich as to be affected. At best the argument is “I am selfish so fuck you”
At worst it’s a deceitful argument that ignores how easy it is to continue a program that is the main thing keeping the elderly out of poverty.
The same group of old people you will likely fall into if you’re making less than 400k a year these days…
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
Had a meeting with a financial advisor to discuss investments to secure longterm security today. One of the things he mentioned, which I had not considered, was investing in companies serving the aging health sector. But that’s beside the point, just thought it worth mentioning as it tangentially fit what you said.
Raise taxes. Taxes pay for things. You know how you’re mad that live is getting shittier in the USA? Giving tax windfalls to the ultra rich and corporations is one of the reasons for that. Reagan poisoned the well on government or taxes ever creating a benefit and we’ve been stuck on this party line ever since.
RAISE FUCKING TAXES.
skookumasfrig@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
I have made over 400k several times, but not every year. I’d be very comfortable with that extra tax. They should definitely do it.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It would be people making over 168. The current cap is at 168k
So yes, it would raise my taxes with a wealth distribution.
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 2 months ago
We should abandon elderly people to destitution, grow homeless encampment, for what? So you can retire on a fatter cushion?
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So you make above the cap? So you pay nothing?
Would you reject SS payments when your of age? You didn’t put in right?
So you’re saying that having never paid into a system, and despite that you have access to benefits whether you pay or not, you consider it too much to bear to start paying anything?
Again at best the argument is you’re selfish.