this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024

-29 points (17.8% liked)

Conservative

373 readers

46 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-29

Column: Social Security is again in the crosshairs of a GOP budget, even though a long-term fix would be simple (www.latimes.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (37 children)

Larson’s proposal would extend the standard 12.4% payroll tax, which is levied this year on all wage income up to $168,600, to income over $400,000, leaving an income gap that would be narrowed over time. Larson would also levy the payroll tax on investment income over $400,000; that income is currently not taxed at all.

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…

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 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.

load more comments (35 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

Source

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."

Source

[+] [email protected] -6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based which doesn’t interest me. I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program. If they raise rates. I’ll just retire.

That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based...

Some involve increasing payroll taxes while others involve taxes on corporations or investments. There's also non-tax based proposals like raising the retirement age.

I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program...

The program is not mismanaged.

That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

This is not socialism. Further, every US president, including Republican, has supported or enacted legislation upholding social security since its inception.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The program is not mismanaged.

If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds. They don’t because it’s been mismanaged.

Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution. We are already heavily taxed. I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds.

First, they do have the funds. The shortfall is a future projection. Second, this assumption is incorrect. There are a variety of factors that will affect the future income and cost of the program. Retirement of Baby Boomers and lower birth rates are two examples.

Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution.

When combined with other proposals, it is a viable solution in that it solves the problem of the shortfall.

We are already heavily taxed.

This is a matter of opinion.

I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

I don't know your personal situation but virtually all Americans keep the lion's share of their money when it comes to taxation.

How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

I personally would be willing to pay more taxes for more services, including social security, universal healthcare, and others.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is a matter of opinion.

I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes. That’s excessive. It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income? I don’t. I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes.

Again, I don't know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k. States with the highest income tax get up to 10% for over $5 million (New York) or 12% for over $12.3 million (California). And, of course, there are other taxes like capital gains. My point is, those paying over 50% in taxes are generally well above the median income, which is $40k for individuals and $75k for households.

It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

Again, this is an opinion and I would also like to point out that to be in the top 5% someone has to make $335k or more per year or have a net worth of ~$1 million or more. And those numbers still don't generally put someone in the 50% tax range.

And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income?

If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights. It would be near impossible for an individual to have adequate housing, food, and transportation just about anywhere in the country for $20k per year (or $37.5k for a household). However, someone can live very comfortably just about anywhere in the country for $315k per year (37% of $500k).

I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

This is not currently an option. Neither Republicans or Democrats, Trump or Biden, are offering a meaningfully smaller government. In fact, depending on parameters, this hasn't been an option for the last hundred years.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Again, I don’t know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k

You also have to include social security and Medicare. They are a tax as well. We have property taxes as well. The list of taxes we have is insane. State is another 10%.

From my base pay of 17k a month. I end up with a little under 8k after taxes.

If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights

The stop asking me to do it.

Neither Republicans

Maybe you missed the platform most candidates were running on. It was the elimination of several government agencies. To me that’s a good start. The budget should also be tied to revenue. We need to balance the budget where expenditures do not exceed revenue.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The list of taxes we have is insane.

We can go on and on about this forever. Your opinion is that taxes are too high.

The stop asking me to do it.

To be clear, your position is you would rather many Americans be destitute so that you would pay fewer taxes.

Maybe you missed the platform most candidates were running on. It was the elimination of several government agencies. To me that’s a good start. The budget should also be tied to revenue. We need to balance the budget where expenditures do not exceed revenue.

Trump himself stated, "I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare." He also added ~$8 trillion to the national debt in his previous term. Additionally, he said he would balance the budget prior to his first term and did not do it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To be clear, your position is you would rather many Americans be destitute so that you would pay fewer taxes

We need to spend less. It’s not that complicated. Our spending is out of control. The only required expenditure is the military.

Trump has said he will eliminate the department of education. That’s a first step in making the government smaller.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We need to spend less. It’s not that complicated. Our spending is out of control. The only required expenditure is the military.

Spending less is very achievable but your initial post and claims were about cutting social security specifically. And if you're saying we should only spend on military, that means cutting approximately 74% of federal spending and function. This is a deeply unpopular position that is not supported by either major political party, which makes it extremely unlikely to happen.

Trump has said he will eliminate the department of education. That’s a first step in making the government smaller.

Nevertheless, he did no such thing when he had the opportunity in his first term. Further, he has stated he would protect some of the largest expenditures in the budget.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Spending less is very achievable but your initial post and claims were about cutting social security specifically

It’s a good place to start. It keeps the poor, poor and causes our budgets to continue to grow.

Nevertheless, he did no such thing when he had the opportunity in his first term

The deficit spending was declining until Covid. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t have funded anything for Covid ? That’s the majority of the expense

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It keeps the poor, poor...

Research suggests otherwise:

"Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state, and they lift more people above the poverty line than any other program in the United States. Without Social Security, 22.7 million more adults and children would be below the poverty line, according to our analysis using the March 2023 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are aged 65 or older, 6.2 million are under age 65, including 900,000 children."

Source

Data from the Social Security Administration itself also doesn't seem to support this (PDF).

The deficit spending was declining until Covid.

This is incorrect. National deficit and debt increased every year under the Trump administration. Further, Trump's own 2020 budget, which was released before Covid in March 2019, projected a $4.8 trillion deficit for 2020-2024 under his own policies (PDF).

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.nber.org/digest/nov99/social-security-increases-wealth-inequality

No,studies say it does.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/182120/how-social-security-helps-the-wealthy-most/

Your cites don’t refute my claim.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Your second source merely discusses a New York Times article that talks about how rich people benefit more from social security because they have longer lifespans. It does not suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people. In fact, it even suggests raising the maximum earnings at which social security taxes are paid or reducing benefits for higher paid workers, which is effectively investing more in the program.

Your first source is much more in-depth but also doesn't suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people overall because it is specifically looking at inheritances. It does suggest that social security can worsen intragenerational wealth inequality because it can't be passed on as inheritance and social security represents the majority of the wealth of poor retirees. Meanwhile, social security represents a small portion of the wealth of wealthy retirees so they are able to pass on more inheritance. Thus, intragenerational wealth inequality is worsened. But there is no indication that inheritances of the poor would be sufficient to replace social security. The paper also notes that other, more important factors contribute to intragenerational wealth inequality and states that wealth inequality would only be reduced to a minor degree without social security.

These sources actually suggest that wealthy people benefit more than poor people and, therefore, the program should be strengthened for the poor. Exactly the opposite of getting rid of it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, that’s a weird conclusion. Since there is nothing to inherit which is what both articles talk about, it shows the inability to transfer wealth which leaves the poor, poor.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Except that, by their own words, removing social security doesn't solve that problem.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago

Actually it does. That’s the point of the articles and they explain why. Cato says the same the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It's amazing how much better the Lemmy experience is with Neuromancer blocked.

load more comments