Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[francoHFW]

I get sick of hearing this. Almost all bills become law because of bi-partisan support.

it's all about corrupt deregulation and corrupt oversight and corrupt tax rates for the rich and many giant corporations. Not many laws are needed Super Duper... And most of the GOP tax cuts tax cuts for the rich and giant corporations have been done through reconciliation and 52 votes or something in the Senate. You are terminally misinformed. And Murdoch and your scumbag pundits have admitted that they lie endlessly. the GOP inmates are in charge of the asylum... they report what the brain Washed want to hear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I get sick of hearing this. Almost all bills become law because of bi-partisan support.

If you read two or three posts by Franko, you read the next 150 he will post. It's the same shit with him over and over.

 

[francoHFW]

Do you think the rich will get the funds from a money tree or will they add that cost to the ultimate consumer?

Our rich have money coming out of their ears, And of course you have to rely on the Democrats to have good oversight because the Republicans have proved they are irresponsible scumbags. So your argument is we should be frightened of the GOP rich because they can use fraud to get money from you, right?

 

[80zephyr]

it's all about corrupt deregulation and corrupt oversight and corrupt tax rates for the rich and many giant corporations. Not many laws are needed Super Duper... And most of the GOP tax cuts tax cuts for the rich and giant corporations have been done through reconciliation and 52 votes or something in the Senate. You are terminally misinformed. And Murdoch and your scumbag pundits have admitted that they lie endlessly. the GOP inmates are in charge of the asylum... they report what the brain Washed want to hear.

The left continues to tell us that conservatives can't win elections, while also telling us it was their policies that screwed everything up. Which is it?

 

[francoHFW]

If you read two or three posts by Franko, you read the next 150 he will post. It's the same shit with him over and over.

Funny how reality is so repetitive isn't it, Super Duper? as opposed to your endlessly imaginative garbage propaganda which has nothing to do with reality. lol.

 

[80zephyr]

Our rich have money coming out of their ears, And of course you have to rely on the Democrats to have good oversight because the Republicans have proved they are irresponsible scumbags. So your argument is we should be frightened of the GOP rich because they can use fraud to get money from you, right?

My argument is that they will not lose the money if they don't have to.

 

[francoHFW]

The left continues to tell us that conservatives can't win elections, while also telling us it was their policies that screwed everything up. Which is it?

BS. the problem is the problem is you can win elections based on total garbage propaganda and the brainwashed ignoramuses that make up the GOP base. there was no fraud vaccine hoax global warming hoax pedophilia LOL. you people are unbelievable. You don't see any pattern to the gop having corrupt depressions after eight years every time? 1929 1989 2008...

 

[francoHFW]

My argument is that they will not lose the money if they don't have to.

So we should be afraid of the criminal rich of the GOP? Pathetic

 

[80zephyr]

BS. the problem is the problem is you can win elections based on total garbage propaganda and the brainwashed ignoramuses that make up the GOP base. there was no fraud vaccine hoax global warming hoax pedophilia LOL. you people are unbelievable. You don't see any pattern to the gop having corrupt depressions after eight years every time? 1929 1989 2008...

The 1999 partial repeal of Glass-Steagall passed the house with 207 Republicans and 155 Democrats voting for the bill. Please tell me again about how its all the Republicans fault.

 

[80zephyr]

So we should be afraid of the criminal rich of the GOP? Pathetic

Reality isn't fear. It simply is.

 

[francoHFW]

The 1999 partial repeal of Glass-Steagall passed the house with 207 Republicans and 155 Democrats voting for the bill. Please tell me again about how its all the Republicans fault.

It's a Republican Bill, Glass and Steagall are Republicans. this is somewhat very moderate really bill Clinton trying to triangulate and get some compromise out of the Republicans someday somehow. never happened. and of course it was under W that corrupt GOP deregulation and and crap oversight Took that bill and did its usual and gave us a world depression and all and all the crap that follows that just like the 30s almost. thank God Obama was around to minimize the destruction.

 

[80zephyr]

It's a Republican Bill, Glass and Steagall are Republicans. this is somewhat very moderate really bill Clinton trying to triangulate and get some compromise out of the Republicans someday somehow. never happened. and of course it was under W that corrupt GOP deregulation and and crap oversight Took that bill and did its usual and gave us a world depression and all and all the crap that follows that just like the 30s almost. thank God Obama was around to minimize the destruction.

Did the Democrats help to pass the repeal?

 

[DBA]

That on average wealthy people that draw benefits longer therefore are MORE likely to receive everything they paid in pack? (Logic)

Anyone that lives longer is more likely to receive more money. That is obvious. The question is, do these folks that live longer collect more than they contribute? We do know that those of average income and below, despite evidently not living as long, receive more benefits, on average, than they contribute. It would be interesting to see just how long a person who is receiving the maximum benefit would have to live to break even. My guess is, most don’t live to whatever that age is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anyone that lives longer is more likely to receive a more money. That is obvious. The question is, do these folks that live longer collect more than they contribute? We do know that those of average income and below, despite evidently not living as long, receive more benefits, on average, than they contribute. It would be interesting to see just how long a person who is receiving the maximum benefit would have to live to break even. My guess is, most don’t live to whatever that age is.

I'm not keen on math, but because of the discussion here I looked up some numbers:

Maximum contribution to SS for 2023 is $160,000
Maximum monthly benefit amount for 2023 is $4,555

So just for 2023 alone, if you pay the maximum contributions, and started collecting the maximum benefits next year, you won't use up your contributions in 2023 for three years (35.325 months). So if a person made the maximum contributions the last ten years of his or her working life, it would take them nearly 30 years to get all that money back.

Like I said, I'm not great at math so perhaps I'm missing something.

Are You Eligible for the $4,555 Max Social Security Benefit? | The Motley Fool

The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $4,555 in 2023, but very few people will be eligible for it.

www.fool.com

Contribution and Benefit Base

Cost of Living Adjustment

www.ssa.gov

 

[WorldWatcher]

Anyone that lives longer is more likely to receive more money. That is obvious. The question is, do these folks that live longer collect more than they contribute? We do know that those of average income and below, despite evidently not living as long, receive more benefits, on average, than they contribute. It would be interesting to see just how long a person who is receiving the maximum benefit would have to live to break even. My guess is, most don’t live to whatever that age is.

: SHRUG :

You are of course free to "My guess..." all you would like, but your guess isn't logical.

#1 Previously supplied links have shown average SS monthly benefits and maximum SS monthly benefits.
#2 Previously supplied links show that wealthy wage earners live 8-9 years LONGER then lower wage earners. (Better health care, diet, wellness, etc.)
#3 High wage earners pay the same percentage of SS Tax (up to the cap) as lower income wage earners.
#4 Maximum monthly benefits are capped.

Therefore logically high wage earners will draw more into SS than they pay in.

I currently make over 100K (but less than the cap) in SS eligible income, I can access my SS statements online and see exactly what I paid in and projected monthly benefit amount at various times (early retirement , FRA, and delayed payments).

My calculations show that I will reach the break-even point between amount paid in and benefits received in 6.6 years. Call it 12 years if you want to include both the employee and employer portion of SS taxes.

Males typically draw SS benefits for 15 years (on average), right there that is 8 or 3 more years (on average - depending on perspective) than the break even point. Wealthy wage earners are likely to exceed the 15 years (on average).

I don't get what is wrong with just admitting that wealthy wage earners (on average) are likely to draw more from SS than they pay in.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not keen on math, but because of the discussion here I looked up some numbers:

Maximum contribution to SS for 2023 is $160,000
Maximum monthly benefit amount for 2023 is $4,555

So just for 2023 alone, if you pay the maximum contributions, and started collecting the maximum benefits next year, you won't use up your contributions in 2023 for three years (35.325 months). So if a person made the maximum contributions the last ten years of his or her working life, it would take them nearly 30 years to get all that money back.

Like I said, I'm not great at math so perhaps I'm missing something.

Are You Eligible for the $4,555 Max Social Security Benefit? | The Motley Fool

The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $4,555 in 2023, but very few people will be eligible for it.

www.fool.com

Contribution and Benefit Base

Cost of Living Adjustment

www.ssa.gov

Respectfully Ray...

You are not accounting for two very important variables.

#1 High wage earners today, may not have been high wage earners their entire working career.

#2 The maximum contribution has not been 160K for the entire 30 years.

#3 Someone making the current cap (as you said $160K in 2023). Would have had 6.2% taken out of their check. Taken over the course of a year that would be $9,920 total for the year. If they receive the maximum Social Security Benefits (which in 2023 is $3,627) they would receive in the first 3 months of retirement $10,881 which already exceeded all of the taxes they had paid in the previous year.

[NOTE: If we want to use both the employer and employee portions of FICA, then the rate is 12.4% so that total tax paid over the course of the year would be $19,840. At the maximum benefit of $3627 then in 6 months the total received in benefits would be $21,762 which again exceeds the $19,840 paid the previous year.]

So if no other factors changed at 3 months per working year, that would be 4 working years to support one retirement year, so over to working years the break even point is about 2.5 half years in retirement to be about the same as 10 years of SS taxes. Double that if you want to include employer and employee portions of the SS Tax, so that is about 5 years.

(Although people paying the max over a working career or even the max for the last 10 years of a working career aren't going to be the norm. That's why the average break-even point takes more years.)

WW

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Biden refused to name them, but here's the names of some of the loudest ones...



Do the USMB rightwing Republican-voters agree w/this attack on social security?

What's your position on this matter?

Oh stfu

Biden and Obama tried to cut social security 3 times in Obama's 8 years. Some of us don't have the memory of retarded goldfish

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Respectfully Ray...

You are not accounting for two very important variables.

#1 High wage earners today, may not have been high wage earners their entire working career.

#2 The maximum contribution has not been 160K for the entire 30 years.

#3 Someone making the current cap (as you said $160K in 2023). Would have had 6.2% taken out of their check. Taken over the course of a year that would be $9,920 total for the year. If they receive the maximum Social Security Benefits (which in 2023 is $3,627) they would receive in the first 3 months of retirement $10,881 which already exceeded all of the taxes they had paid in the previous year.

[NOTE: If we want to use both the employer and employee portions of FICA, then the rate is 12.4% so that total tax paid over the course of the year would be $19,840. At the maximum benefit of $3627 then in 6 months the total received in benefits would be $21,762 which again exceeds the $19,840 paid the previous year.]

So if no other factors changed at 3 months per working year, that would be 4 working years to support one retirement year, so over to working years the break even point is about 2.5 half years in retirement to be about the same as 10 years of SS taxes. Double that if you want to include employer and employee portions of the SS Tax, so that is about 5 years.

(Although people paying the max over a working career or even the max for the last 10 years of a working career aren't going to be the norm. That's why the average break-even point takes more years.)

WW

According to my link, the maximum is not people that gross 160K a year. Their contributions to SS are 160K a year to the program.

 

[Andylusion]

Really?
88 years of reliable returns.

Teabaggers hate it because, it's government run and corporations have to contribute to their employees'well-being.
Teabaggers want to privatize SS so, Wall Street gets their cut of EVERYTHING.
If a person has extra $$$ to invest, so be it.
But to force people to invest in Wall Street is stupid.

Wall Street works, MOST of the time.
Social Security works, ALL the time.

What?
Privatize SS so Wall Street gets their cut?
That's illogical. If you privatize Social Security, that means that *WE* are getting a cut of Wall Street. That's what you are doing when you buy stocks in big companies.
Now you get a cut of the profits of those companies, that make *YOU* wealthy.
How does you owning a chunk of Microsoft, or Walmart, or Apple, or Ford.... mean Wall Street is getting a cut? If you own stock in those companies *YOU* are the one getting a cut.
And Social Security works ALL the time? If it was working, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.
Did you read the Social Security Administration saying they are going broke? Wouldn't that seem to indicate it's not working?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Again what a state does is only the concern of the people who live in that state.

Not when the president is involved.

What you are too thick to understand is that the state politicians know that they will reap far more revenue from the people working at this company than they will from the company or the people who own the company.

You're too thick to understand people working at any company in the state, pay the same taxes, as the ones who get tax breaks and incentives.

And revenue is the only thing politicians care about

And power.