Social Security! What are your thoughts??

[phkrause]

As Biden drags Rick Scott over cutting Social Security, McConnell gets in on the action

It's hard to know who's having more fun thumping GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida for his proposal to sunset Social Security and Medicare—President Joe Biden or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/10/2152195/-Biden-and-McConnell-team-up-to-skewer-Rick-Scott?

[phkrause]

Biden handed the GOP a shovel, and they just can't stop digging

Since Tuesday’s State of the Union, President Joe Biden has had Republicans on the ropes over Social Security and Medicare, and he’s not backing down. After his resounding State of the Union victory, Biden took his win on the road to Florida and Wisconsin. Those happen to be the home states of the senators with the most radical proposals for killing off the programs.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/13/2152692/-Biden-handed-the-GOP-a-shovel-and-they-just-can-t-stop-digging?

[phkrause]

The Shocking Amount of Money Congress Has Stolen From Social Security -- to the Penny

For more than eight decades, Social Security has been a financial anchor for our nation's retired workforce. The monthly payouts the program provides were responsible for lifting 22.5 million people out of poverty in 2020, including 16.1 million seniors aged 65 and above, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2023/02/20/the-money-congress-has-stolen-from-social-security/?

[bonnie]

The monthly payouts the program provides were responsible for lifting 22.5 million people out of poverty in 2020, including 16.1 million seniors

 

 

 

 

I wonder what the authors definition of lifting out of poverty is. Maintaining someone at or just above the poverty line monthly isnt what most think of as being lifted out of poverty.

Social Security has been robbed for a very long time, that is hardly a news flash.

Until the very unlikely event  our elected government officials curb spending,raising taxes on the rich simply gives them more to waste. Simply kicks the can a little further down the road and does nothing for the financial mess they have created. A day of reckoning will come. With the exception of a very,very few that seem to grasp that . Best way to handle that is thru ridicule and pandering 

Unless there is  some changes made,from the president on down, the song will  remain the same. Lets get the rich so we can waste more. There will never be enough. For every tax dollar increase our politicians spend 10.00.

What do you suppose might happen if we had 10 % flat tax and no deductions. No one has ever explained to me why I should subsidize the purchase of my neighbors home thru tax deductions or subsidize the number of children they decide to have. Combine that with eliminating the harebrained idiot spending  below. 

All the phony gnashing of the teeth and foaming at the mouth about the evil rich will never produce the needed revenue. As the revenue increases, the waste increases faster

 

 

 

CNS News.com) -- In his annual report on wasteful government spending, The Festivus Report 2022, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) highlights 31 items of "waste" totaling $482,276,543,907, approximately $482.3 billion.

"Some of the highlights" from the report "include the National Institutes of Health spending $2.3 million injecting beagle puppies with cocaine, and separately spending $187,500 to verify that kids love their pets," reported Paul's office in a statement

 

 

 

"The Department of Health and Human Services spent $689,222 to study romance between parrots, the NIH funded a $3 million annual research project to watch hamsters on steroids fight, and the U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on Super Bowl Ads," said Paul's office.

Millions of tax dollars for a Michelle Obama trail. With their income let her pay for the honor

[phkrause]

Social Security and Medicare: Troubling math, tough politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — It seems no one wants to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-government-programs-florida-business-fdfbfad568d0f0fb2963ceb139f8ac70

[bonnie]

38 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Social Security and Medicare: Troubling math, tough politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — It seems no one wants to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-government-programs-florida-business-fdfbfad568d0f0fb2963ceb139f8ac70

Who would have guessed that.   Ever wonder what the reaction would be if we had a president  and congress step forward say honestly,We have squandered  your tax dollar and your SS deductions.  Here is some of the nonsense we squandered your hard earned tax dollar on.  We need to freeze all unnecessary spending until we get a handle on the mess we made.  

I am quite sure the few will be bullied by the many to keep going the reckless path we are on. Biden will bask in the adoration of those that think we can continue  on the reckless path as long as no one disturbs their  financial fantasy. 

 

[phkrause]

The Shocking Amount of Money Congress Has Stolen From Social Security -- to the Penny

For more than eight decades, Social Security has been a financial anchor for our nation's retired workforce. The monthly payouts the program provides were responsible for lifting 22.5 million people out of poverty in 2020, including 16.1 million seniors aged 65 and above, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2023/02/20/the-money-congress-has-stolen-from-social-security/?

[phkrause]

2024 hopeful Mike Pence (who you may recall as Donald Trump’s Vice President) has been making the rounds lately, and he’s been repeating a phrase that caught our ears:1 “I think we can replace the New Deal with a better deal.” Pence goes on to say that he would keep promised benefits for Americans who retire in the next 20 years―which suggests that he either wants to discriminate against older Americans or is an admission that the ‘better’ deal is actually worse. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President who signed Social Security into law, warned us about politicians like Mike Pence in a speech the year after he signed The Social Security Act of 1935:2   Let me warn you and let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion which says, “Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security [...]. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them—we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.” This Presidents’ Day, it’s worth remembering that our Social Security system’s strength comes from its universal, bipartisan support among the American people―and among Presidents of both parties. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower wrote of politicians like Pence:3 Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. Even Richard Nixon, a deeply corrupt man and President, took care to increase Social Security benefits and establish the automatic cost-of-living increase that keeps Social Security benefits strong.4 Can you imagine if the same Congress that weaponizes the debt ceiling also needed to take action to allow Social Security to keep pace with rising prices? Mike Pence’s comments are particularly noteworthy today, as Republicans pretend that they never intended to cut Social Security and Medicare. FDR had another piece of advice for the American people as they evaluate claims by politicians:5 Remember, too, that the first essential of doing a job well is to want to see the job done. Make no mistake about this: The Republican leadership today is not against the way we have done the job. The Republican leadership is against the job’s being done. Politicians like Mike Pence, Rick Scott, Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis are not trustworthy stewards of our earned benefits. They belong to a party that would happily see the senior poverty rate return to 50% if it would enrich their Wall Street paymasters. From FDR to Joe Biden, presidents have defended our Social Security system or, like aspiring privatizer George W. Bush, paid the price with a midterm election wipeout.   Thanks, and Happy Presidents’ Day Michael, Alex, Nancy & the Social Security Works Team 1 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1626308636451430403 2 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-democratic-state-convention-syracuse-ny 3 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/ 4 https://www.ssa.gov/history/nixstmts.html 5 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-democratic-state-convention-syracuse-ny

[bonnie]

It is obvious that you and other supporters of Biden/liberals are of the belief that you can spend your way out of financial  problems. The more in debt you are the more you borrow and the more you spend. Including spending on utter foolishness.

That does work for awhile but there is  a day of reckoning for democrats and most republican politicians .   As long as Biden continues to fuel

the jealousy and antagonism towards the wealthy as the culprits for our problem  his solution will remain popular. We will continue to rush headlong trying to spend our way out of the mess. 

I am sure you disagree with the following information and will continue the desire to punish those that have more than you

 

In the 1990s, economists Richard Vedder, Christopher Frenze, and Lowell Gallaway conducted a study on the relationship between taxes and deficits based on an analysis of budget data from 1947 to 1990. The study became known as the “$1.59 study” because the authors concluded that every $1.00 in new taxes generated $1.59 in new government spending. In 2010, Vedder and Stephen Moore made revisions to the study on the basis of updated data through 2009 and found that each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 in new spending. The authors observed different time periods and used different data and control variables, but their model revealed the same result every time: though the amount of new spending varied, higher tax collection always resulted in higher spending that exceeded growth in revenues.

 

 

 

[bonnie]

Mercatus Center

This is the second in a series of three articles on the wrong way to reduce the growing federal debt. The first piece in this series is on the fallacy that low interest rates will allow the federal government to continue to safely accumulate high levels of debt.

In light of multitrillion-dollar deficits and dwindling future growth prospects, some policymakers are proposing to increase taxes to drive up revenues in the coming decade in an attempt to reduce the deficit—currently more than $20 trillion and growing. One such proposal comes from presidential candidate Joe Biden, who pledges to reverse aspects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, including reinstating the 39.6 percent top rate of income tax, raising corporate income taxes from 21 to 28 percent, and increasing payroll taxes while lifting the payroll tax cap. However, empirical research and countless real-world examples demonstrate that attempts to reduce fiscal deficits by raising taxes almost always fail because they lead to increased government spending by a factor that outweighs growth in revenues.

In the 1990s, economists Richard Vedder, Christopher Frenze, and Lowell Gallaway conducted a study on the relationship between taxes and deficits based on an analysis of budget data from 1947 to 1990. The study became known as the “$1.59 study” because the authors concluded that every $1.00 in new taxes generated $1.59 in new government spending. In 2010, Vedder and Stephen Moore made revisions to the study on the basis of updated data through 2009 and found that each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 in new spending. The authors observed different time periods and used different data and control variables, but their model revealed the same result every time: though the amount of new spending varied, higher tax collection always resulted in higher spending that exceeded growth in revenues.

In assessing this pattern, economist Jeffrey Miron examined the results of long-run tax increases on government spending levels. Using regression data from a 2007 study by Christina and David Romer, Miron demonstrates the cumulative impact of a tax increase totaling 1 percent of GDP on total expenditure and finds that this tax increase is associated with a 5 percent increase in government spending. In the long term, the increase in spending is about twice the initial increase in taxes; the author hypothesizes that this may result from the government underestimating the costs of its new programs.

These tax and deficit studies indicate that plans to raise taxes in the coming months will not have the desired effect of reducing deficits but will more likely inflate government spending levels. Some analyses of Biden’s plan to raise taxes estimate that it will raise $3.1 trillion in additional revenue over the 10-year budget window 2021 to 2030, while other models have projected $3.2 trillion in additional revenue. Not surprisingly, the spending proposals announced during the same 10-year budget period are estimated to cost as much as $8.475 trillion in additional government spending. Given these proposals to increase government spending by more than double the expected revenue gains from taxes, it is easy to see why tax increases do not reduce budget deficits.

Another reason tax increases don’t reduce deficits is that they are harmful to economic growth, employment levels, and wage growth. This growth slowdown ultimately means the actual revenue yield from tax increases is significantly lower than the expected revenue yield. In a literature review of 26 peer-reviewed journal articles, all but three find a negative effect of taxes on growth, with taxes on corporate and personal income being particularly harmful to economic growth. So, not only do tax increases encourage higher levels of government spending, but they also shrink the tax base by stifling economic growth, productivity, and wage growth.

The inability of governments to reduce fiscal deficits primarily through raising taxes has long been acknowledged by the academic literature. As early as 1995, the late Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and his coauthors concluded that attempts to reduce the deficit by means of raising taxes almost always resulted in failure. In a new Mercatus study, we review the literature on past attempts to reduce the deficit and find that efforts that focus primarily on reducing government expenditures are notably more successful at lowering debt levels than efforts that focus on tax-based adjustments. More specifically, we find that past efforts to reduce fiscal deficits that succeeded focused around two-thirds of tax and spending adjustments on spending reductions, while efforts that primarily focused adjustments on tax increases caused deep and long-lasting negative shocks to economic output and did not result in significant deficit reduction.

Recent proposals to raise taxes will be ineffective at reducing the US fiscal deficit and will more likely grow the deficit through two main channels: (1) encouraging more federal spending and (2) lowering economic output and employment levels. Such an approach will lead to a smaller tax base, reduced productivity, diminished wage growth, and a subsequent worsening in fiscal condition. Rather than proposing tax hikes, policymakers should look to spending restraint as the most effective and responsible method of reducing our fiscal deficit. If we are to avoid the harmful economic effects of a high debt burden in the coming decade, then we must look to broad-based spending reductions, effective fiscal rules, and strict oversight of the budgetary process.

[bonnie]

This country would be in a world of hurt without the filthy rich.

 

According to the IRS, $1.6 trillion was collected in total income taxes in 2019, but those in the lower half of the AGI spectrum reported lower incomes.1

 

It should also be noted that many taxpayers in this income group received income from the government in the form of those refundable tax credits; the IRS paid out about $62 million in earned income tax credits in 2020 (based on 2019 returns). The average payment to qualifying taxpayers was $2,461.6

 

Federal Income Tax Paid by Middle-Income Taxpayers

Data from IRS breaks down taxpayers into two groups: the top 50% of earners and the bottom 50%. In 2019, the top 50% accounted for more than 96% of the income taxes paid while the lower 50% demographic contributed 3.06% of taxes paid that year.

 

The bottom half of taxpayers paid an effective tax rate of 3.54%. These were taxpayers with with an AGI less than $44,269.7

 

Federal Income Tax Paid by High-Income Taxpayers

Wealthy individuals do pay more in taxes than low-income or even middle-income individuals. In 2019, the top 1% income earners paid 38.77% of total income taxes paid that year.8

 

According to the IRS, those with AGIs between $2 million and $5 million paid a 27.5% effective tax rate in 2019, although the effective rate dropped to 24.9% for the super-wealthy with AGIs of $10 million or more.9

 

[bonnie]

Biden has never worked a private sector job in his life. THose that have relied on a paycheck signed by someone else don't give much thought to the effects of the tax burden along with the many regulations that politicians love  on small business owners.  It is easy to follow the leader and want to see more of  "  paying their fair share without having a clue.

FORBES SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS STRATEGY

 

Impact Of Taxes On Small Business

William Dunkelberg

Contributor

Follow

 

Oct 6, 2021,03:06pm EDT

 

GETTY

For small businesses, taxes are a financial and administrative burden that directly impacts their ability to invest in their business, their employees, and compete in the broader economy. In fact, 77% of small business owners reported that federal business income taxes were very or moderately burdensome according to NFIB’s 2021 Tax Survey. This was followed by payroll taxes (69%) and state and local income taxes (66%). The survey also found that 64% of small business owners reported that federal business income taxes create an administrative burden in operating their business. Payroll taxes (60%) and state and local income taxes (58%) followed.[1]

 

 

Tax related issues also rank high among small business problems. Of the top ten most burdensome problems small business owners report, four are tax related. At the top of the tax list, federal taxes on business income ranked as the third most severe problem, with 20% reporting it as a critical issue. Property taxes followed in fourth place, state taxes on business income ranked seventh, and tax complexity ranked eighth in problem importance.[2]

 

Why are taxes so challenging for small business owners? Taxes reduce profits, and profits are the primary source of financing for small businesses – financing owners use to increase wages, for capital investment, and expansion opportunities. And for small business owners, profit levels are not always consistent or predictable year to year. Owners rely on strong profits to often support times of profit declines, which many owners continue to experience in the pandemic. Almost one-third (32%) of small businesses report revenues still below 75% of pre-pandemic levels.[3]

 

Congress is considering these tax increases and new mandates that will impact small businesses:

 

·        Limiting the Small Business Deduction (IRS Section 199A)

        Raising the corporate tax rate from 21%

·        Raising the top income tax rate on individually- and family-owned businesses from 37% to 39.6%

  Expanding the estate tax’s reach

·        Increasing the top capital-gains tax rate

·      

·        Imposes the 3.8% tax (NIIT, SECA) on all business income earned by S corporations, partnerships, and LLCs

·        Enacting elements of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act

  Mandating that employers provide paid sick leave and retirement accounts

·        Establishing a complicated and inflexible new federal-government-run family and medical paid leave program

One proposed mandate is limiting the Small Business Deduction (IRS Section 199A) which would make it difficult for employers to invest in their business and employees. Congress is also discussing raising the corporate tax rate and raising the top income tax rate on individually and family-owned businesses from 37% to 39.6%. Adding to owner uncertainties, the Biden Administration has proposed expanding the estate tax by repealing the use of stepped-up basis. This would hurt family-owned businesses across the country. Congress is also discussing increasing the top capital-gains tax rate. The Biden Administration suggested raising the top capital gains tax rate to 43.4% which would be problematic to many small businesses. Uncertainty is the enemy of economic growth, and there is plenty of that coming from Washington these days.

Raising taxes and adding new tax mandates will hurt small businesses’ ability to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, invest in their business, and hire new employees and raise their compensation. The economy is performing better since the onset of the pandemic, but strong headwinds persist. Tax increases will only add to the challenges small business owners are already having to navigate with widespread labor shortages and supply chain disruptions.

 

 

[phkrause]

There is no Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why is MSNBC telling us otherwise?

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/18/2153360/-There-is-no-Social-Security-Solvency-Crisis-Why-is-MSNBC-telling-us-otherwise?

[bonnie]

28 minutes ago, phkrause said:

There is no Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why is MSNBC telling us otherwise?

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/18/2153360/-There-is-no-Social-Security-Solvency-Crisis-Why-is-MSNBC-telling-us-otherwise?

And that is gospel according to a very left biased source??

This can be argued from now till the second coming  and there is one indisputable fact. One that not even the most ardent follower of Biden can dispute.

Whatever the status of Social Security/Medicare and the Federal Debt may be anyone with a smidgin of honesty absolutely has to admit you cannot balance a "check book" by spending more than you deposit.  Not even Biden. You can avoid disaster for awhile but not forever.  I do not know the dollar amount in the so called Social Security trust fund, neither do you . You choose to take the word as gospel from a very biased source. I know that politicians are very careless and dishonest with my tax dollar some more than others., so I really don't take anyone's word . I do know over my lifetime raising taxes,even on the dreadful and hated wealthy is never enough. Whether it is to save SS or to pay the federal debt. It makes the sheep feel better and righteous,after all they are doing something and taking from those that have to much. We will be hearing the same song being sung by Biden in the very near future by the next man/woman in the White House. Still gnashing their teeth over the dreadful rich as they purchase multiple homes and somehow become fantastically wealthy on a senators/congressman salary. 

For those that live in this peculiar financial fantasy ,hope it is enjoyable place to be.  Somehow I have never figured out how to spend millions when I only have thousands.  2 more years of Miracle Biden maybe I will catch on

[phkrause]

U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel calls out Scott, DeSantis and Trump on Social Security and Medicare

Democrats nationally and in Florida spoke about their continued support for Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday, exactly a year after U.S. Sen. Rick Scott called for Congress to sunset those powerhouse federal programs every five years.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/02/22/u-s-rep-lois-frankel-calls-out-scott-desantis-and-trump-on-social-security-and-medicare/?

 

[phkrause]

A statement from a group called Patriotic Millionaires that was emailed to me: Despite what Republicans and the right-wing media say, Social Security is solvent. It currently has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund and can pay every promised benefit to each eligible American until 2035. After that, the Social Security Administration estimates there will still be enough funding available to pay 80% of earned benefits. That gives us more than a decade to cover the eventual gap and to ensure wealthy people are paying what they owe in taxes. But why wait? If we make the wealthy pay what they owe starting NOW, we can expand Social Security benefits. Expanding benefits will ensure that everyone in America can retire with dignity and respect, including the millions of seniors struggling to get by on their current benefits. The Social Security Expansion Act is sponsored by 10 Democratic Senators and 27 Democrats in the House of Representatives so far. It would increase benefits by $2,400 per year and ensure that Social Security is fully funded for at least 75 more years. In 2021, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors. Before it was created in 1935, about half of our nation’s seniors were living in poverty. Today, the senior poverty rate is 10.3%. Despite this success, tens of millions of seniors and 25% of people with disabilities still struggle to get by, and many older workers fear that they will never be able to retire with security and dignity. Currently, workers have 12.4% taken out of each paycheck and contributed to the Social Security trust fund, half paid by the employer and half by the worker. Meanwhile, the Social Security tax cap lets millionaires and billionaires off the hook for every dollar they earn over $160,200. The Social Security Expansion Act would require the wealthy pay the same 12.4% on all of their investment and business income, just like everyone else. Expanding Social Security is not only the right thing to do, it’s also the overwhelmingly popular thing to do. A whopping 78% of likely voters are in favor of the Social Security Expansion Act, including 72% of Republicans and 75% of Independents. Thank you for all you do to advocate for seniors, ―Erica Erica Payne Founder and President, Patriotic Millionaires

[phkrause]

Statement by Frank Clemente: Tomorrow, millionaires stop paying into Social Security. That’s because once you earn $160,200 in 2023, you stop contributing to Social Security. And someone making $1 million a year gets their first $160,200 in just 59 days. For a billionaire―they made that much shortly after the first hour of the year! But if millionaires and billionaires paid into Social Security on a larger share of their income―like everyone else does who makes under $160,200―we could not only expand Social Security for millions of people, we could greatly extend the lifespan of the Trust Fund. And, there are several plans in Congress to do just that. To counter GOP attempts to cut our earned benefits, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced the Social Security Expansion Act of 2023, which would increase benefits by $2,400, extend the lifespan of the Trust Fund by 75 years and much more. And, it’s completely paid for by scrapping the payroll tax cap on incomes over $250,000―meaning that millionaires and billionaires would finally start paying more of their fair share.[1] In the House, Rep. John Larson (D-CT) has previously introduced the Social Security 2100 Act: A Sacred Trust, which would affect just the top 0.4% of wage earners. It would fulfill the promise of our Social Security system by improving benefits for millions of seniors living in poverty and extending the lifespan of the Trust Fund―once again, paid for by making the wealthy pay more of their fair share.[2] Frank Clemente Executive Director Americans for Tax Fairness [1] “NEWS: Amid Republican Threats to Social Security, Sanders, Warren, Schakowsky, Hoyle, and Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Increase Benefits and Extend Solvency Through 2096,” U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Feb. 13, 2023 [2] The Social Security 2100 Act, U.S. Rep. John Larson

[bonnie1962]

This is a phrase that liberals use endlessly and mindlessly

paid for by making the wealthy pay more of their fair share.

What is a fair share for everyone?

Is it when you have been successful in taking as much as possible from someone that has worked harder than you? (You general)

Do you give to others on the level that those with more resources do? Not dollar for dollar but a comparable amount . After your 40 hours a week have you put in another 20-30 hours.

Is it that silly idea God had,10% of yours, mine and theirs?

Or is  the fair share threshold  met when government is finally satisfied they have enough and the jealousy and resentment of those with less is finally soothed? 

I know it is an outdated idea but I do think God was a little wiser and more fair and had a perfect idea of what "fair share" meant.

 

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:11 PM, bonnie1962 said:

paid for by making the wealthy pay more of their fair share.

What is a fair share for everyone?

Well lets see what is a fair share for each person!!

Q:Is your salary less than $160,200?

A:If so, you’re among the 94 percent of American workers who pay into Social Security all year long.

But what about those making over that amount? What are they paying? Do they pay on the whole amount they make or the same as others that have to pay SS on ALL there money? The answer is no! They stop paying when they get to the above amount!! Is that fair??

But there’s a group that’s about to stop paying into Social Security for the rest of 2023: People who make $1,000,000 a year. Their last day of contributing to Social Security is February 28. Why?????

That’s not even the worst of it. Tucker Carlson, who makes a reported $8 million a year, stopped contributing to Social Security on January 8.

Joe Rogan, who reportedly makes $4 million a month, stopped contributing on January 2.

Many billionaires receive all of their money in the form of bonuses and stock options. Elon Musk is the highest-paid CEO in the world, but because none of it is wage income, he doesn’t pay a single penny into Social Security.

I don't begrudge anyone for how much they make! But why not pay on all the money you make?? If they did do you think SS would run out? Obviously it would not.

Quotes from the SSWs website:

The Social Security Expansion Act, recently introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) along with its House counterpart, introduced by Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Val Hoyle (D-OR), would do just that. This legislation would require the wealthy to contribute into Social Security on all their income over $250,000 — including unearned investment income. It uses the additional revenue to increase Social Security’s modest benefits and keep the program strong through the end of the century and beyond.

To finally require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long isn’t limited to Congress. Polling shows that the idea has widespread support among the public, including 76 percent of all voters and 65 percent of Republican voters.

Unfortunately, Republican politicians are not listening to their voters. The Republican Study Committee, a group that counts 156 House Republicans as members, released a budget last year that would make massive cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the full retirement age to 70. It does not lift the cap or otherwise raise a dime of additional revenue from the wealthy.

Republican politicians are focused on protecting their wealthy donors, who are paying less into Social Security than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently found that as inequality increases, a record share of all earnings are above the $160,200 cap on Social Security contributions.  

In 1983, the last time Congress made major reforms to Social Security, they set the cap at a level that covered 90 percent of all wage income, leaving only 10 percent above the cap. But they didn’t count on the rising inequality of the last forty years. The percent of wage income outside the cap has nearly doubled — in 2021, nearly 20 percent of wage income was outside the cap. And that doesn’t even include unearned investment income, which accounts for the huge bulk of the income of the wealthiest!

EPI estimates that income falling above the cap due to rising inequality has cost the Social Security Trust Fund $1.4 trillion. That’s a massive windfall for the wealthy — and a massive loss for our Social Security system and the millions of Americans who rely on it.

Congress has the power to end this injustice. All it would take is Republican politicians listening to their voters, joining with Democrats to require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long and on all of their income.

Linda Benesch
Social Security Works

[bonnie1962]

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

Well lets see what is a fair share for each person!!

Q:Is your salary less than $160,200?

A:If so, you’re among the 94 percent of American workers who pay into Social Security all year long.

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

But what about those making over that amount? What are they paying? Do they pay on the whole amount they make or the same as others that have to pay SS on ALL there money? The answer is no! They stop paying when they get to the above amount!! Is that fair??

Yes,it is fair.  No matter how much they earn they cannot get a bigger monthly check. If they earn 500,000 they do not receive a check based on that. I have very,very  close family members that earn well above the 160,200 yearly. They do so because they worked harder than average,paid their own way all the way through,plus being married and raising a family at the time.  They are paid based on their value to the companies they work for. Responsibilities most of us cannot imagine, generous with their time and money to others. One was audited by the IRS because they did not believe his charitable donations.  Tell me what is fair about taking from them so you or others can have more by way of the government taking it? For those that exhibit so much jealousy towards others that make more, maybe they should have worked harder. There was no silver spoon in their mouth. Not all that have made more are generous to others but it still doesn't belong to you or me. If they have worked for it,it is not yours. Medicare is not capped so they pay a lot more than you or I

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

But there’s a group that’s about to stop paying into Social Security for the rest of 2023: People who make $1,000,000 a year. Their last day of contributing to Social Security is February 28. Why?????

So what. They paid what they were required to pay.  Why are they required to pay more so they can contribute to your care?

 

That’s not even the worst of it. Tucker Carlson, who makes a reported $8 million a year, stopped contributing to Social Security on January 8.

So, Tucker Carlson is not responsible for contributing to my care?

Joe Rogan, who reportedly makes $4 million a month, stopped contributing on January 2.

Big deal.

 

Many billionaires receive all of their money in the form of bonuses and stock options. Elon Musk is the highest-paid CEO in the world, but because none of it is wage income, he doesn’t pay a single penny into Social Security.

I don't begrudge anyone for how much they make! But why not pay on all the money you make?? If they did do you think SS would run out? Obviously it would not.

You cannot possibly pay enough in taxes, SS, Medicare  etc or anything that has gov behind it and pay enough to satisfy the beast for long. 

I do believe you begrudge people for how much they make or you would not want part of it. I had a cleaning service for ten years, 95% of them were very wealthy. One family of the wealthy collected SS. All the others paid in and never collected, never used medicare. Neither you nor I have any idea how many just like that. Bet you collect as I do

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

Quotes from the SSWs website:

The Social Security Expansion Act, recently introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) along with its House counterpart, introduced by Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Val Hoyle (D-OR), would do just that. This legislation would require the wealthy to contribute into Social Security on all their income over $250,000 — including unearned investment income. It uses the additional revenue to increase Social Security’s modest benefits and keep the program strong through the end of the century and beyond.

If these foaming at the mouth liberals were actually that committed this would have been already passed into law. Having the house, senate and laughingly the WH it should have been a slam dunk. 

 

 

 

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

To finally require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long isn’t limited to Congress. Polling shows that the idea has widespread support among the public, including 76 percent of all voters and 65 percent of Republican voters.

Should have done it then shouldn't they instead of whining now?

Unfortunately, Republican politicians are not listening to their voters. The Republican Study Committee, a group that counts 156 House Republicans as members, released a budget last year that would make massive cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the full retirement age to 70. It does not lift the cap or otherwise raise a dime of additional revenue from the wealthy.

There are not enough wealthy in this country to satisfy the appetite for someone else's money

 

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

Republican politicians are focused on protecting their wealthy donors, who are paying less into Social Security than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently found that as inequality increases, a record share of all earnings are above the $160,200 cap on Social Security contributions.  

 

 

 

On 3/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, phkrause said:

 

Congress has the power to end this injustice. All it would take is Republican politicians listening to their voters, joining with Democrats to require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long and on all of their income.

Linda Benesch
Social Security Works

Should have done it then when they had congress,senate,and WH

[phkrause]

After months of steadfast refusal, Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy just announced his ransom demands in exchange for avoiding economic default.

His plan, among other things, would slash funding for the Social Security Administration, leading to closed field offices, shorter hours, and longer wait times for people applying for benefits.

His plan wouldn’t touch the $2 trillion tax giveaway to millionaires and billionaires that Republicans passed under Trump. In fact, it would make it easier for the super-rich to cheat on their taxes by defunding the IRS.

That’s right: McCarthy's plan lets millionaires and billionaires cheat on their taxes and pays for it by making it harder for you to get Social Security.

We’re still going through the legislative text, but there are plenty of other cuts to vital programs, from food stamps to student loan relief. There’s even a giveaway to oil companies!

McCarthy knows that his unpopular cuts will never pass on their own merits―that’s why he’s threatening to destroy our economy and throw millions out of work if Democrats won’t meet his demands.

We have less than two months until default―we must stand united and STOP McCarthy’s scheme!

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works

[bonnie1962]

45 minutes ago, phkrause said:

After months of steadfast refusal, Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy just announced his ransom demands in exchange for avoiding economic default.

His plan, among other things, would slash funding for the Social Security Administration, leading to closed field offices, shorter hours, and longer wait times for people applying for benefits.

His plan wouldn’t touch the $2 trillion tax giveaway to millionaires and billionaires that Republicans passed under Trump. In fact, it would make it easier for the super-rich to cheat on their taxes by defunding the IRS.

That’s right: McCarthy's plan lets millionaires and billionaires cheat on their taxes and pays for it by making it harder for you to get Social Security.

We’re still going through the legislative text, but there are plenty of other cuts to vital programs, from food stamps to student loan relief. There’s even a giveaway to oil companies!

McCarthy knows that his unpopular cuts will never pass on their own merits―that’s why he’s threatening to destroy our economy and throw millions out of work if Democrats won’t meet his demands.

We have less than two months until default―we must stand united and STOP McCarthy’s scheme!

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works

Click to copy

What’s in the GOP bill to lift debt limit, cut spending

 

By KEVIN FREKINGApril 26, 2023

 

 

1 of 3

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., speaks to reporters following a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans as Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., struggles to round up the votes for his sweeping debt ceiling package, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, April 26, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are trying to exact a price from Democrats for agreeing to increase the nation’s borrowing authority and prevent the government from defaulting on the obligations it has accrued over decades. They’re arguing for their priorities and going after President Joe Biden’s in a separate bill that passed the chamber on Wednesday.

The legislation in question has virtually no chance of becoming law. But Republicans hope the bill’s passage will force Biden to the negotiating table, where they could seek concessions in return for lifting the nation’s borrowing authority and ensuring that the U.S. Treasury can fully pay its bills.

“He either has to negotiate now or we’re the only ones that have raised the debt limit,” McCarthy said after the vote.

A look at key aspects of the legislation that the House approved by a vote of 217-215.

LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING

The bill would set federal discretionary spending at $1.47 trillion during the next fiscal year and allow it to increase only 1% annually from there, far below the rate of inflation in most years.

 

The cap on spending is the big-ticket item in the bill, accounting for about two-thirds of the $4.8 trillion in deficit reduction that the Congressional Budget Office says would occur over 10 years if the bill is enacted.

 

Discretionary spending includes things like weapons programs, servicemember pay, grants for schools that serve large shares of low-income students, rental assistance to house millions of poor and disabled, and money to fund research on cancer and other life-threatening diseases. It’s the spending that Congress approves through appropriations bills.

The House GOP bill doesn’t affect spending on Social Security and Medicare. Such spending, referred to as mandatory, accounts for about two-thirds of all federal spending.

CLAW BACK COVID MONEY

The bill would rescind all unobligated COVID relief money from six bills enacted from 2020-2022. The changes would reduce spending by about $30 billion over the next decade, according to the CBO. That’s less than 1% of the total cost of the six bills.

TARGET THE IRS

House Republicans began their tenure in the majority by passing a bill that would rescind nearly $71 billion that Congress is providing the IRS to upgrade its technology and boost hiring. They have included the same proposal in their debt limit bill.

 

 

Democrats approved the higher IRS funding on top of what Congress normally provides the agency annually through the appropriations process. The boost immediately became a magnet for GOP campaign ads in the fall claiming it would lead to an army of IRS agents harassing Americans.

The CBO has said that rescinding the IRS money actually would increase deficits by more about $120 billion over the coming decade due to the impact on the agency’s work. But McCarthy said the step is needed to “protect families and businesses from a weaponized IRS.”

BLOCK STUDENT LOAN RELIEF

The Republican bill would repeal actions taken by President Biden to waive $10,000 to $20,000 in debt for nearly all borrowers who took out student loans. The bill would also prohibit the administration’s efforts to cut monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans. The CBO projects that the student loan changes House Republicans seek would save about $460 billion overquirements for recipients of federal cash and food assistance.

Under current law, able-bodied adults under 50 and without dependents risk losing their food stamp, or SNAP benefits, if they don’t spend 20 hours a week in work-related activities. The bill would apply the requirement to those ages 50-55.

In addition, the bill would apply work requirements to able-bodied adults without dependents in Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health insurance coverage for low-income Americans. Job training and performing community service count toward fulfilling the work requirement.

McCarthy said changes would help those affected learn new job skills and earn a paycheck while helping to fill some of the millions of job openings throughout the country. The White House said millions of people, many already working, would lose their health insurance coverage.

A Congressional Budget Office review last year of work requirements for Medicaid recipients said Arkansas was the only state where a work requirement was imposed for more than a few months. It found many of the targeted adults lost their health insurance and employment did not appear to increase. It said that while evidence was scant, research indicated that many were unaware of the work requirement or found it too onerous to demonstrate compliance.

The CBO estimates that about 15 million people could be subject to the new Medicaid work requirements each year, although many would qualify for an exemption. About 1.5 million, on average, would lose federal funding for their Medicaid coverage, and of that group, about 600,000 would become uninsured.

FOSSIL FUEL BOOST

The debt limit package includes legislation the House passed earlier this year that aims to increase domestic production of oil, natural gas and coal, and to ease permitting restrictions that delay pipelines, refineries and other projects.

Known as HR 1 to signify its importance to House Republicans, the energy bill also seeks to boost production of critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt that are used in electric vehicles, computers, cellphones and other products. Biden has described the House GOP’s legislation as a “thinly veiled license to pollute.”

INCREASE THE DEBT LIMIT

The Republican would suspend the debt limit through March 31, or by $1.5 trillion, whichever comes first. That would tee up another debt ceiling fight for early next year, just months before the November election when control of the White House and Congress will be decided.

 

 

[phkrause]

217 Republicans just voted to cut Social Security.

In passing their ransom demand, nearly every Republican in the House of Representatives just voted for a bill that slashes the already-inadequate funding for the Social Security Administration. If this bill becomes law, it will force SSA to close offices, reduce hours, and lay off thousands of workers. Most importantly, this will make it much harder for Americans to claim the benefits they’ve earned through a lifetime of hard work.

There are 18 Republican members of the House who represent districts Joe Biden won in 2020. Every single one of them voted for this bill.

7 of them are in New York and New Jersey―which makes a pretty convenient route for our billboard trucks. If those 7 districts flip, so does the House of Representatives―and that would end Kevin McCarthy’s reign of economic terrorism.

Alex Lawson
Social Security Works