Cuts to SS and Medicare

[Mac-7]

Guess it’s too hard to research how many actually work for the gov. Being a troll is easier.

Enough to make it a very rich country

 

[DBA]

There’s a message in there somewhere. Sounds like it’s FOS.
They are states. The predominance of control is by the state gov. That determines the welfare of the STATES. They are red states. They suck.

You still don’t get it. Frankly, I don’t care. PLEASE stay in your blue Utopia. We are doing just fine here in the South. If you want our Democrats, promise them some freebees to move to your state. We won’t fight you on that.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[gipper]

Joe has advocated for cutting social programs his entire corrupt career. How could you not know this……

 

[initforme]

If Medicare is taken away older people are frankly......screwed. the nation goes into a crisis like we've never seen.

 

[gipper]

If Medicare is taken away older people are frankly......screwed. the nation goes into a crisis like we've never seen.

It won’t be taken away. This whole issue is nothing but divisive tactics, that we’ve seen played by the duopoly for decades.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Biden's cutting Medicare NOW!!! Where's your outrage???

Biden administration floats major 2024 pay cut for Medicare Advantage plans​

By Bob Herman Feb. 1, 2023

Greg

Except he isn't

 

[Patriot01]

Rick Scott​

“All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again,” the document said.

This would require Congress to renew Social Security and Medicare every five years. Scott’s proposal also called for a yearly report from Congress “telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt.”

Mike Pence​

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has indicated that he is considering a bid for the presidency in 2024, said last week that a conversation needs to be had about reforming Social Security.

Mike Lee​

When Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) initially ran for Senate in 2010, he called for the complete elimination of Social Security.

“It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it,” Lee said at a campaign event in 2010, adding, “There’s going to be growing pains associated with doing this. We can’t do it all at once.”

Ron Johnson​

Similar to Scott, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Congress regularly renew the entitlement programs. However, Johnson has proposed that it be done on an annual basis.

“I’ve been saying for as long as I’ve been here that we should transfer everything, put everything on budget so we have to consider it if every year. I’ve said that consistently, it’s nothing new,” Johnson told “The Regular Joe Show” podcast last August.

Lindsey Graham​

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested in a debate in June that a bipartisan compromise on the issue will likely mean that “people like me are going to have to take a little less and pay a little more in.”

What Republicans have actually said about cuts to Social Security and Medicare

President Biden drew a raucous response from Republicans during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night when he said some GOP lawmakers want to cut Social Security and Medicare. “Anybody wh…

thehill.com

Sunset and people like me are going to take less. Believe me, when they take the Senate and the House majority (if they do), they can do anything they want with SS and Original Medicare.

We are getting invaded all of government should be canceled until we stop the invasion! If poor Americans have to struggle ,, all of you do.

 

[Patriot01]

Except he isn't

An invasion is taking funding and resources away

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So I gather you're now admitting that "the rich" aren't really "the problem" and that "the problem" is actually making sure that S.S. stays funded well into the future. Way to catch up with the rest of us.

Now. No one is ever "obliged to carry anyone else." You're just flailing away again.. Poking at me with conservative talking point straw..


Technically, it's currently funded mostly by individual and employer contributions plus (supposedly) the interest the S.S. trust account generates by being "invested" in U.S. Treasury Bonds now that Congress has allowed the Fed to play such debt/money-supply increasing shenanigans. I would normally agree that the employer part should actually be credited to the employees, but you just accused me of lacking nuance so fuck you.

Btw, "The SS was the organization most responsible for the genocidal murder of an estimated 5.5 to 6 million Jews and millions of other victims during the Holocaust." That's why I go to the trouble of writing "S.S." instead.

Ultimately, it does not matter how S.S. gets funded. Again, what matters is that it gets funded. Ensuring that the elderly enjoy "some measure" of self-respect and "security" is of national interest and concern. It's never been simply personal.

But let's get back to your problem with fairness since that seems to actually be your consistent, intractable beef. Go ahead. Explain how punishing the poor for not "earning" enough to receive S.S. benefits increases elderly self-respect nationwide? How does it make the elderly or infirm feel more self-reliant, dignified, or secure? How does making the 1% or above pay the same proportion of their income as anyone else reduce elderly self-confidence, -reliance, -respect, their dignity or security?

Try explaining why "sin taxes," which obviously serve as no impediment to the bad habits of the wealthy, get imposed upon everyone? Is that "fair"? Could it really be just to bash low and middle class workers into lower-insurance-risk-pool compliance to benefit the elite? Who has to worry about the price of gas at the pump? The rich or the rest of us? Have those with too much ever shoved their excess into your face? Was that being "fair" to you? To anyone?

Ultimately, it does not matter how S.S. gets funded. Again, what matters is that it gets funded.

Bullshit.
Everyone is responsible for their own contributions and therefore their own benefit.

You have yet to explain why people who make more should pay more. Simply saying “ because they can” is not a reason. The individual Benefits are based on the individual’s contributions over 35 years. It’s not a welfare program. There is nothing in that formula that allows for having the highest earners pay way more.

If you want change, you’ll have to lobby to change the way it works.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You have yet to explain

Liar. Piss off.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Except the wealthiest individuals don’t pay income or payroll taxes.
You meant the wealthiest wage earners. The ones who pay their taxes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Liar. Piss off.

You have not. You give sob stories.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except the wealthiest individuals don’t pay income or payroll taxes.
You meant the wealthiest wage earners. The ones who pay their taxes.

You are correct under the current law. The wealthy wage earner is paying all taxes required by law.

However...

Person A makes $50,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%**. That person pays $6,200

Person B makes $500,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%** but only on the first $160,000. That person pays $19,840. The other $340,000 is not subject to the tax.
.
.
.
Person A pays at a rate of 12.4% of total wages.
Person B pays at a rate of 3.97% of total wages.

Therefore person B pays at a different rate than person A.

WW

** (Half by EE and half by ER as part of the EE's total compensation.)

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are correct under the current law. The wealthy wage earner is paying all taxes required by law.

However...

Person A makes $50,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%**. That person pays $6,200

Person B makes $500,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%** but only on the first $160,000. That person pays $19,840. The other $340,000 is not subject to the tax.
.
.
.
Person A pays at a rate of 12.4% of total wages.
Person B pays at a rate of 3.97% of total wages.

Therefore person B pays at a different rate than person A.

WW

** (Half by EE and half by ER as part of the EE's total compensation.)

He knows. Like I said, he's just pretending to be stupid. Thinks he's being edgy and clever, which trumps being generally correct and straightforward here every day for most. Style over substance.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You are correct under the current law. The wealthy wage earner is paying all taxes required by law.

However...

Person A makes $50,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%**. That person pays $6,200

Person B makes $500,000 per year. SS Tax = 12.4%** but only on the first $160,000. That person pays $19,840. The other $340,000 is not subject to the tax.
.
.
.
Person A pays at a rate of 12.4% of total wages.
Person B pays at a rate of 3.97% of total wages.

Therefore person B pays at a different rate than person A.

WW

** (Half by EE and half by ER as part of the EE's total compensation.)

firstly, the SS tax for the individual is 6.2% this year.

Secondly,person B is paying more than person A. In fact they’re paying the maximum under the law.

It’s never been done the way you presented it. It was never meant to be calculated by total wages. It’s 6.2% up to $160k. It’s a retirement plan. Not an income tax.

Why do you expect the guy who makes more than $160k to pay so much more for their benefit than anyone else does?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He knows. Like I said, he's just pretending to be stupid. Thinks he's being edgy and clever, which trumps being generally correct and straightforward here every day for most. Style over substance.

I understand the point.
It’s just not relevant as that is not how SS operates at all.

SS is taxed in a wage range. The benefit is based on the individual contributions averaged over 35 years.

Forcing the guy making $500k to pay based on his entire wage puts his ratio of contribution to benefit way out of the scope of anyone else.

Why do you feel that would be justifiable to do?

 

[WorldWatcher]

firstly, the SS tax for the individual is 6.2% this year.

12.4% is paid as part of the employee compensation package. 1/2 by the EE and the other half by the ER.

Secondly,person B is paying more than person A. In fact they’re paying the maximum under the law.

Person B is paying a lower amount as a percentage of wages earned.

I didn't' claim that Person B wasn't paying the amount as required by law.

It’s never been done the way you presented it. It was never meant to be calculated by total wages. It’s 6.2% up to $160k. It’s a retirement plan. Not an income tax.

Total tax is 12.4%. And correct the current cap is 160K.

What was shown though is that a percentage of wages, one is paying less than the other.

Why do you expect the guy who makes more than $160k to pay so much more for their benefit than anyone else does?

It's one of a number of options to address the SS Trust Fund running out of money resulting in the cutting of benefits. Some option are:

• Increase the cap (politically doable).
• Increase retirement age with no grandfather (not politically doable),
• Increase retirement age but only on younger workers say those under 50) to cut the amount of benefits they receive by decreasing their years of eligibility (might be politically doable, but since it would be 15 years before it would being to have an impact and the Trust fund shortage starts in 10 it doesn't help).
• Increase Revenue with a national sales tax. (A) not politically doable, and (B) taxes people for SS that are not eligible to draw SS security. So you have certain unions (i.e. Railroad), private pension plans, and certain state/city pension plans that don't pay into SS now.
• Increase Revenue by expanding SS taxed income beyond "wages" to include passive income like interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.

So with the SS Trust Fund being depleted by 2034 and benefits having to be cut for current seniors, what is your suggestion that falls into the realms of (a) fair and (b) politically achievable.

WW

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let’s take this a step further.
Since you all want no cap at all ,the sky’s the limit then.
That means at some wage point the wage earner is paying more a year into SS than the maximum annual benefit they could ever receive.

Please explain how this then is any kind of benefit for them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

12.4% is paid as part of the employee compensation package. 1/2 by the EE and the other half by the ER.




Person B is paying a lower amount as a percentage of wages earned.

I didn't' claim that Person B wasn't paying the amount as required by law.



Total tax is 12.4%. And correct the current cap is 160K.

What was shown though is that a percentage of wages, one is paying less than the other.




It's one of a number of options to address the SS Trust Fund running out of money resulting in the cutting of benefits. Some option are:

• Increase the cap (politically doable).
• Increase retirement age with no grandfather (not politically doable),
• Increase retirement age but only on younger workers say those under 50) to cut the amount of benefits they receive by decreasing their years of eligibility (might be politically doable, but since it would be 15 years before it would being to have an impact and the Trust fund shortage starts in 10 it doesn't help).
• Increase Revenue with a national sales tax. (A) not politically doable, and (B) taxes people for SS that are not eligible to draw SS security. So you have certain unions (i.e. Railroad), private pension plans, and certain state/city pension plans that don't pay into SS now.
• Increase Revenue by expanding SS taxed income beyond "wages" to include passive income like interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.

So with the SS Trust Fund being depleted by 2034 and benefits having to be cut for current seniors, what is your suggestion that falls into the realms of (a) fair and (b) politically achievable.

WW

Person B is paying what SS says they need to. The end.
The cap is based on the ratio of contribution to benefit. Eliminating the cap blows that up.

Whatever injustice you feel there is is irrelevant. It’s not their responsibility to fix it.

As I’ve said before. Since SS is an individual benefit based on an individual’s contribution, everyone, IMO, is on the hook. Either everyone pays a point or two more, takes a benefit cut or both. It’s either that or create some new inflow from the super rich and corps.