Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[Redfish]

Back to tax the rich again.

View attachment 760333

if it is, as you say, a tax, then it should be collected on all income.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Smokin' OP seems to have nothing.

Full of shit it is.

I've already acknowledged the fact, the state claims the $$$, retard.

 

[Redfish]

This is why my OP is right.

Republicans are attacking, and ultimately wants to destroy social security.

bullshit, fixing it is not attacking or destroying. It needs to be fixed, what has senile joe proposed to fix it?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Have you ever been involved in this type of situation? I have.

NO, just my neighbor, her daughter had to go to probate court, she got her mothers $$$, don't know the details.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

if it is, as you say, a tax, then it should be collected on all income.

Yes it should, but that goes against leftist beliefs. They want things but not have to pay for it. They expect government to provide and foot the bill to the rich for every little thing we need. When they can't foot the bill to the rich, just go deeper into debt.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Yes it should, but that goes against leftist beliefs. They want things but not have to pay for it. They expect government to provide and foot the bill to the rich for every little thing we need. When they can't foot the bill to the rich, just go deeper into debt.

BS.
It's teabaggers who don't mind, and even encourage the government, to take care of the rich.

A group of House Republicans are pushing to eliminate most federal taxes and replace them with a federal sales tax in a plan that would also abolish the Internal Revenue Service. But tax experts warn the so-called Fair Tax Act is not so fair to working families while giving the wealthiest Americans a break.

The bill, HR25, would eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes and estate taxes while imposing a 23% sales tax on goods and services. However, tax experts point out that the way the tax is calculated, Americans would pay closer to 30% more for everyday purchases.

Similar proposals have been regularly introduced by a group of Republicans since 1999, but have never been given a floor vote. Some conservative Republicans have been pressuring House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to change that, given the slim GOP majority in the House.

"eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes and estate taxes"?

 

[DBA]

View attachment 760343

Oh, sure there is an earning component.

However my understanding of the calculation was that the percentage weighting (index) was a function of time as to when the earnings were deducted. Then the highest years are used for the benefits calculation.

(Of course we could be saying the same thing, just thinking about it differently. LOL )

WW

View attachment 760343

Oh, sure there is an earning component.

However my understanding of the calculation was that the percentage weighting (index) was a function of time as to when the earnings were deducted. Then the highest years are used for the benefits calculation.

(Of course we could be saying the same thing, just thinking about it differently. LOL )

WW

It is a complex calculation for certain, but my point is that those who pay more in are less likely to recover their full contributions.

Social Security benefits replace a portion of an insured worker's average wages in covered employment, with those wages capped at a taxable maximum annual amount.3 The benefit-to-earnings ratio, or replacement rate, is designed to be greater for lower lifetime earners than for higher lifetime earners.

To begin the benefit calculation, SSA converts a worker's lifetime earnings in covered employment to AIME, which are indexed to nationwide wage growth. SSA indexes the worker's earnings for each year worked until age 60.4 Wage indexing keeps retirement benefits comparable to current average earnings levels. Next, SSA sums the indexed earnings in the 35 highest earning years.5 Finally, SSA divides this sum by the number of months in the person's computation years to obtain the AIME. The number of computation years for retired workers is 35, so the number of months in the AIME denominator is 420.6 To illustrate, a retired worker who earned $50,000 in wage-indexed dollars each year for 35 years would have AIME of $4,166.67, or 35 × $50,000 ÷ 420.

Next, SSA uses the PIA formula to convert AIME to a monthly benefit amount.7 For workers who first became eligible for retirement or disability benefits in 2018, the PIA formula was 90 percent of the first $895 in AIME, plus 32 percent of the next $4,502 of AIME, plus 15 percent of AIME above $5,397. The key dollar amounts—$895 and $5,397—are the 2018 PIA bend points. Bend point amounts are indexed annually to the change in average wages. By contrast, the 90 percent, 32 percent, and 15 percent “bend point factors” are fixed by law; those percentages apply to every cohort of newly eligible beneficiaries.

By decreasing as AIME levels increase, the bend-point factors provide higher benefits relative to preretirement earnings for lower lifetime earners than for higher lifetime earners. Chart 1 shows that retirees with AIME of $895 in 2018 would have a benefit-to-earnings replacement rate of 90 percent. A worker with AIME of $3,000 would receive a benefit equal to 49 percent of preretirement earnings. The replacement rate for a worker with AIME at the second bend point, $5,397, would be lower still (42 percent), and so on.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the formula.

The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision: Issues and Replacement Alternatives

 

[DBA]

You sure "family cap" doesn't apply to SSDI?

My understanding was the only time SS retirement hinged on marital status was if a spouse passed and the other spouse being able to draw at the deceased spouses higher earnings.

WW

Yes, that very well could be. I may have misinterpreted both caps.

 

[francoHFW]

you are one of those who think biden isnt hopelessly senile and totally useless

Only in GOP propaganda world, Super Dupe...

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is a complex calculation for certain, but my point is that those who pay more in are less likely to recover their full contributions.

Social Security benefits replace a portion of an insured worker's average wages in covered employment, with those wages capped at a taxable maximum annual amount.3 The benefit-to-earnings ratio, or replacement rate, is designed to be greater for lower lifetime earners than for higher lifetime earners.

To begin the benefit calculation, SSA converts a worker's lifetime earnings in covered employment to AIME, which are indexed to nationwide wage growth. SSA indexes the worker's earnings for each year worked until age 60.4 Wage indexing keeps retirement benefits comparable to current average earnings levels. Next, SSA sums the indexed earnings in the 35 highest earning years.5 Finally, SSA divides this sum by the number of months in the person's computation years to obtain the AIME. The number of computation years for retired workers is 35, so the number of months in the AIME denominator is 420.6 To illustrate, a retired worker who earned $50,000 in wage-indexed dollars each year for 35 years would have AIME of $4,166.67, or 35 × $50,000 ÷ 420.

Next, SSA uses the PIA formula to convert AIME to a monthly benefit amount.7 For workers who first became eligible for retirement or disability benefits in 2018, the PIA formula was 90 percent of the first $895 in AIME, plus 32 percent of the next $4,502 of AIME, plus 15 percent of AIME above $5,397. The key dollar amounts—$895 and $5,397—are the 2018 PIA bend points. Bend point amounts are indexed annually to the change in average wages. By contrast, the 90 percent, 32 percent, and 15 percent “bend point factors” are fixed by law; those percentages apply to every cohort of newly eligible beneficiaries.

By decreasing as AIME levels increase, the bend-point factors provide higher benefits relative to preretirement earnings for lower lifetime earners than for higher lifetime earners. Chart 1 shows that retirees with AIME of $895 in 2018 would have a benefit-to-earnings replacement rate of 90 percent. A worker with AIME of $3,000 would receive a benefit equal to 49 percent of preretirement earnings. The replacement rate for a worker with AIME at the second bend point, $5,397, would be lower still (42 percent), and so on.

View attachment 760686

Maybe I am misunderstanding the formula.

The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision: Issues and Replacement Alternatives

The idea I was presenting wasn't that higher earners monthly benefits aren't a result of lowered AIME. That is true.

I was responding to the idea that over the life of the individual the wealthy don't get out what they put in.

Two very different concepts. One is the monthly benefit amount, the other is a look at lifetime benefit amounts.

Because the wealthy have - both during their working years and in retirement - on average: better access to healthy diets, more opportunity for healthy exercise, better access to wellness programs, and better access to medical care (both physical and prescription). Wealthy people tend to live many years longer (link previously posted), meaning they typically live past the break-even-point where benefits exceed inputs. This of course is based on a averages for large numbers of people, individual anecdotal examples will of course vary.

WW

 

[Nostra]

This is why my OP is right.

Republicans are attacking, and ultimately wants to destroy social security.

 

[Nostra]

This is why my OP is right.

Republicans are attacking, and ultimately wants to destroy social security.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

BS.
It's teabaggers who don't mind, and even encourage the government, to take care of the rich.

A group of House Republicans are pushing to eliminate most federal taxes and replace them with a federal sales tax in a plan that would also abolish the Internal Revenue Service. But tax experts warn the so-called Fair Tax Act is not so fair to working families while giving the wealthiest Americans a break.

The bill, HR25, would eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes and estate taxes while imposing a 23% sales tax on goods and services. However, tax experts point out that the way the tax is calculated, Americans would pay closer to 30% more for everyday purchases.

Similar proposals have been regularly introduced by a group of Republicans since 1999, but have never been given a floor vote. Some conservative Republicans have been pressuring House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to change that, given the slim GOP majority in the House.

"eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes and estate taxes"?

I'm not much of a fan of the fair tax, but I am a fan of everybody paying. The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay close to 90% of all collected federal income taxes. Why should they be paying the taxes the rest of us should be paying, because they have it?

At the same time nearly half of our population pays no federal income taxes at all. And when the left wants money for their stupid projects, their solution is to increase taxes on people that are paying most all of the tax now!

My idea is similar to the fair tax plan, except I think we need a national consumption tax to pay for any deficit spending and that's all it should be used for. Increase deficit spending, up goes the consumption tax.

If we all had a dog in this race, you'd see how fast people would revolt against all this unnecessary spending by the Democrats with their vote buying and pork stuffed bills. You want to fund the Ukraine war, the consumption tax goes from 7 cents on the dollar to 9 cents on the dollar. You want to have college loan forgiveness, then it goes from 9 cents on the dollar to 12 cents on the dollar.

You'd see how fast this shit would stop in no time at all. That's kind of the idea McCarthy is proposing.

 

[bripat9643]

You know i get that you don’t trust or like democrats which is fine. That doesn’t matter much. What matters though is the trust you have in republicans. It’s wildly misguided. You better believe republicans are willing to pass legislation that will fuck you over. You really need to wise up to that dude. They don’t give a flying fuck about you and their legislation proves that.

What makes you believe I trust Republicans? You obviously trust Democrats. You're always on here posting their propaganda. Every piece of legislating they vote for is intended to fuck over hard working Americans

 

[Billy000]

You're moving the goalposts constantly. Serve the people, benefit the people, is not the same as caring for the people.

caring​

/ (ˈkɛərɪŋ) /

---

adjective
feeling or showing care and compassion; caring attitude
of or relating to professional social or medical care: nursing is a caring job
noun
the practice or profession of providing social or medical care

I don't think you're going to find many if any social program that does not benefit somebody. Of course they do because otherwise the policy or law would have never been created in the first place. This has nothing to do with being special, the debate here is what did our founders expect out of a federal government. I have news for you, this isn't it.

My point about various governments is they all have different objectives; different rules to play by; different roles. Government is not simply government period. My state government provides things not covered by the feds. My local government provides things the state doesn't.

Now you ask the question what should our federal government provide, and in spite of me answering your question earlier, you ask it again. So you tell me, what do you think our federal government should be providing?

Lol sorry Ray breaking out the definition of what care means does not mean benefit isn’t related. If the government wants a program that benefits the people, it means they care. Again, you know what I’m saying makes perfect sense. Pretending otherwise really isn’t fooling anyone.

Lol um yeah i get it. The fed, state, and local governments have different powers. We already established this. What still doesn’t make sense is why you think it’s relevant. Our original discussion was the government governing. It was you that started talking about the difference between the levels for no apparent reason.

Nope, sorry. I asked you an entirely different question. I asked you what specific powers the federal government provides as stated in the constitution. You are now deflecting by asking your own question. Again, Ray, you just play dumb. You understand exactly what I say to you but you say anything to stretch the discussion out.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not much of a fan of the fair tax, but I am a fan of everybody paying. The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay close to 90% of all collected federal income taxes. Why should they be paying the taxes the rest of us should be paying, because they have it?

At the same time nearly half of our population pays no federal income taxes at all. And when the left wants money for their stupid projects, their solution is to increase taxes on people that are paying most all of the tax now!

My idea is similar to the fair tax plan, except I think we need a national consumption tax to pay for any deficit spending and that's all it should be used for. Increase deficit spending, up goes the consumption tax.

If we all had a dog in this race, you'd see how fast people would revolt against all this unnecessary spending by the Democrats with their vote buying and pork stuffed bills. You want to fund the Ukraine war, the consumption tax goes from 7 cents on the dollar to 9 cents on the dollar. You want to have college loan forgiveness, then it goes from 9 cents on the dollar to 12 cents on the dollar.

You'd see how fast this shit would stop in no time at all. That's kind of the idea McCarthy is proposing.

The FAIR tax is a consumption tax. What is your objection to it?

 

[Nostra]

Lol sorry Ray breaking out the definition of what care means does not mean benefit isn’t related. If the government wants a program that benefits the people, it means they care. Again, you know what I’m saying makes perfect sense. Pretending otherwise really isn’t fooling anyone.

Lol um yeah i get it. The fed, state, and local governments have different powers. We already established this. What still doesn’t make sense is why you think it’s relevant. Our original discussion was the government governing. It was you that started talking about the difference between the levels for no apparent reason.

Nope, sorry. I asked you an entirely different question. I asked you what specific powers the federal government provides as stated in the constitution. You are now deflecting by asking your own question. Again, Ray, you just play dumb. You understand exactly what I say to you but you say anything to stretch the discussion out.

I asked you what specific powers the federal government provides as stated in the constitution.

There are none.

 

[wamose]

Usually, only dipshits will listen to other dipshits. That's the real danger for the Democrat party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The FAIR tax is a consumption tax. What is your objection to it?

Using it to replace all other taxes. As I said I'm for a consumption tax to pay for deficit spending, and if anything is left over at the end of the year, apply it to our national debt.

 

[lennypartiv]

Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

Because it's a ponzi scheme.