Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[22lcidw]

me and every respected journalist politician and economist in the world, Jethro....

On the premise that others believe that. The TV entertainers who are progressive government shills posing as comedians can tell us.

 

[Blues Man]

Lol. I said they lost money. A lot of money.

You have no clue how much they lost is anything at all.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Smokin' OP you laughed at this post. With which part do you not agree?

The $162,000 cap.

Clearly the first paragraph is very obvious. Making those who make more than the cap pay 6-12% more on all their earnings above the cap without getting any of it back is wrong.

No, it isn't.
Just as fair as people dying before they see one red cent?

I am not sure how you would consider this “fair”.

My kids have been out of school for 30 years, I still pay for other kids to go to school.
I haven't used the Instate in a decade, I'm still paying for it.
My house has been paid off for 15 years, why am I still getting taxed for it?
If I don't pay taxes, the government will take it after 3 years.

Lots of things aren't "fair", it's the price everyone pays to live in a democracy.

The funny thing is, if this was to come to pass, the Democrats would still be beating their “rich need to pay their fair share” drum because this would go largely unnoticed by the hippy, pierced kids that promote such garbage. The tax rates weren’t increased and they aren’t capable of seeing past the simple tax table to note all the ways in which “rich” folks already pay far MORE than their fair share.

 

[DBA]

Yeah, the company's bottom line.
Taxpayers...............NOT so much.
So much for "conservatism".

Did they lower prices?
Fuck no.

United States Corporate Profits - 2022 Data - 2023 Forecast​

View attachment 761808
Trading Economics
https://tradingeconomics.com › United States

Corporate profits in the United States rose 6.2 percent to a fresh record high of USD 2.53 trillion in the second quarter of 2022, less than previous estimates ...

Then, teabaggers, of course, blame the government.

They provide many jobs and attract many other suppliers which is even more jobs. The new tax base provided by the new workers and their suppliers in combination with the taxes they do pay far outweighs the incentitves they receive in my state. Again, states do it for a reason and that reason is $$$$.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

They provide many jobs and attract many other suppliers which is even more jobs. The new tax base provided by the new workers and their suppliers in combination with the taxes they do pay far outweighs the incentitves they receive in my state. Again, states do it for a reason and that reason is $$$$.

Perhaps there’s no government policy or program that's as widely reviled, yet universally pursued, as tax incentives.

Study after study demonstrates that when states and cities give out tax breaks to companies looking to relocate or expand, they typically get very limited bang for their bucks, if any. Yet such incentives remain central to development strategies in most jurisdictions.

A study published last summer found that three-quarters of local economic development dollars are devoted to tax incentives, with the amount spent on them tripling since the 1990s.

“There’s still a lot of economic development brainpower devoted to the Amazon HQ2, let’s-win-the-lottery approach,” says John Lettieri, president and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group, a research and advocacy firm.

The big, swing-for-the-fences deals — the pursuit of Amazon HQ2, Wisconsin’s $4 billion deal with Foxconn, the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer — hardly ever pay off as promised. But run-of-the-mill incentive packages often turn out to be mistakes, as well.

A forthcoming study by economists at Columbia and Princeton found that the average firm-specific subsidy is $160 million, presented in hopes of creating 1,500 jobs. That’s $107,000 per job. And not all the promised jobs pan out.

Tax Incentives: The Losing Gamble States and Cities Keep ...​

Governing
https://www.governing.com › finance › tax-incentives...



Feb 25, 2020 — Study after study shows that tax incentives don't pay off in real economic gains and often fail to produce the jobs that were promised.

 

[DBA]

The $162,000 cap.

No, it isn't.
Just as fair as people dying before they see one red cent?

My kids have been out of school for 30 years, I still pay for other kids to go to school.
I haven't used the Instate in a decade, I'm still paying for it.
My house has been paid off for 15 years, why am I still getting taxed for it?
If I don't pay taxes, the government will take it after 3 years.

Lots of things aren't "fair", it's the price everyone pays to live in a democracy.

You are lost. A self employed business owner making 300k per year would pay $16,800 more in taxes per year with zero possibility of a return on that money. If that person worked for a corporation, he would pay $8400 more and is company would pay the other $8400. That is a big problem for corporations as well for their highly compensated employees.

It is absolutely wrong as the “rich” already pay a higher percentage of tax on that money as is, not to mention the many other penalties for being “rich”. Democrats are very empathetic as long as that empathy doesn’t cost them personally.

As it is, the “rich” already heavily subsidize the poor and instead of being grateful, many are full of envy and hate and expect more.

 

[DBA]

Perhaps there’s no government policy or program that's as widely reviled, yet universally pursued, as tax incentives.

Study after study demonstrates that when states and cities give out tax breaks to companies looking to relocate or expand, they typically get very limited bang for their bucks, if any. Yet such incentives remain central to development strategies in most jurisdictions.

A study published last summer found that three-quarters of local economic development dollars are devoted to tax incentives, with the amount spent on them tripling since the 1990s.

“There’s still a lot of economic development brainpower devoted to the Amazon HQ2, let’s-win-the-lottery approach,” says John Lettieri, president and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group, a research and advocacy firm.

The big, swing-for-the-fences deals — the pursuit of Amazon HQ2, Wisconsin’s $4 billion deal with Foxconn, the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer — hardly ever pay off as promised. But run-of-the-mill incentive packages often turn out to be mistakes, as well.

A forthcoming study by economists at Columbia and Princeton found that the average firm-specific subsidy is $160 million, presented in hopes of creating 1,500 jobs. That’s $107,000 per job. And not all the promised jobs pan out.

Tax Incentives: The Losing Gamble States and Cities Keep ...​

View attachment 761809
Governing
https://www.governing.com › finance › tax-incentives...



Feb 25, 2020 — Study after study shows that tax incentives don't pay off in real economic gains and often fail to produce the jobs that were promised.

This is not at all the case in my state. Providing incentives for a large tech company is not the same as for a large manufacturing company either. Manufacturers require suppliers and many of those suppliers require suppliers themselves.

 

[Blues Man]

You are lost. A self employed business owner making 300k per year would pay $16,800 more in taxes per year with zero possibility of a return on that money. If that person worked for a corporation, he would pay $8400 more and is company would pay the other $8400. That is a big problem for corporations as well for their highly compensated employees.

It is absolutely wrong as the “rich” already pay a higher percentage of tax on that money as is, not to mention the many other penalties for being “rich”. Democrats are very empathetic as long as that empathy doesn’t cost them personally.

As it is, the “rich” already heavily subsidize the poor and instead of being grateful, many are full of envy and hate and expect more.

Which is why most small businesses are organized as S corps or LLCs.

The owner pays himself a modest but reasonable salary from which he pays his FICA taxes any profit can be distributed as dividends and no FICA taxes are applied.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are lost. A self employed business owner making 300k per year would pay $16,800 more in taxes per year with zero possibility of a return on that money. If that person worked for a corporation, he would pay $8400 more and is company would pay the other $8400. That is a big problem for corporations as well for their highly compensated employees.

Really?
So...........making just $250,000 a year in net profit, will drive them into poverty?

It is absolutely wrong as the “rich” already pay a higher percentage of tax on that money as is, not to mention the many other penalties for being “rich”. Democrats are very empathetic as long as that empathy doesn’t cost them personally.

As it is, the “rich” already heavily subsidize the poor and instead of being grateful, many are full of envy and hate and expect more.

Really?
Corporations have just recently stepped up to the plate by paying more in salaries.
Before then, they paid slave wages.
Now most have a labor shortage, they give in.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

This is not at all the case in my state. Providing incentives for a large tech company is not the same as for a large manufacturing company either. Manufacturers require suppliers and many of those suppliers require suppliers themselves.

A win-win for corporations, they cut the competition and they get a free ride.
Their employees and their states citizens are paying the taxes, their employer doesn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are lost. A self employed business owner making 300k per year would pay $16,800 more in taxes per year with zero possibility of a return on that money. If that person worked for a corporation, he would pay $8400 more and is company would pay the other $8400. That is a big problem for corporations as well for their highly compensated employees.

And when that individual, who pays at the cap, draws SS Benefits that individual will return that years worth of increase in 4.5 months. Remember (link previously posted) wealthy wage earners live longer so they have MORE (on average) chance of drawing much more out than they put is. This is why some are proposing raising the FRA to 70.

So maybe you should be talking to those that want to raise the retirement age to 70 which will cut benefits by 3 years. This costs your small business owner $130,572 in lost benefits - plus $50,400 because they have to work longer and pay taxes longer - for a total of $180,972.

WW

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Removal of the cap is blatant theft. I would not get one dime more in benefits yet have to pay umpteen times what I pay now. That's not a 'fair share'.

All mooching losers trying to sponge off me get a job, or a 2nd job. Work for your own wealth. Already you should be in your knees thanking me for paying the amount of taxes I pay. I pay my share and your share.

Start taxing the poor since they are recipience of SS. A consumption tax of 25% of all goods and services instead of a federal income and fica tax. That would be more than enough to pay down the debt and cover all costs. Oh yeah, tax welfare also.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Removal of the cap is blatant theft. I would not get one dime more in benefits yet have to pay umpteen times what I pay now. That's not a 'fair share'.

If they remove the cap, but then lift the limit on benefits, then it's not theft.
Well, any more than having to contribute in the first place.

 

[BluesLegend]

You are lost. A self employed business owner making 300k per year would pay $16,800 more in taxes per year with zero possibility of a return on that money

That's $16,800 the person could have saved in their own 401k, instead mooching Dems want to steal the money and put it in their own pockets.

 

[BluesLegend]

Start taxing the poor since they are recipience of SS. A consumption tax of 25% of all goods and services instead of a federal income and fica tax. That would be more than enough to pay down the debt and cover all costs. Oh yeah, tax welfare also.

Dems would squeal like stuck pigs.

 

[BluesLegend]

If they remove the cap, but then lift the limit on benefits, then it's not theft.
Well, any more than having to contribute in the first place.

The problem is SS is a SHIT plan. Compare it to any 401k over time it's absolute GARBAGE. Let alone if you die before you can claim SS they keep all of your damn money paid in.

Instead let me keep MY money and put it into my 401k.

 

[Blues Man]

That's $16,800 the person could have saved in their own 401k, instead mooching Dems want to steal the money and put it in their own pockets.

If everyone actually had the money confiscated by the corrupt government for politicians to play with in an account they owned even a person who only earned a modest income could retire financially secure.

But the last thing the government wants is a populace where a large number of people are financially independent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is SS is a SHIT plan. Compare it to any 401k over time it's absolute GARBAGE. Let alone if you die before you can claim SS they keep all of your damn money paid in.
Instead let me keep MY money and put it into my 401k.

Absolutely.

 

[bripat9643]

They said it would help a lot and it has for crying out loud, Mr Black and white dingbat

It made things far worse, moron.

 

[DBA]

Really?
So...........making just $250,000 a year in net profit, will drive them into poverty?

Not the point at all is it? The entire point of working for higher pay is to have a better lifestyle. Who are you to take it that from them as you see fit?

Really?
Corporations have just recently stepped up to the plate by paying more in salaries.
Before then, they paid slave wages.
Now most have a labor shortage, they give in.

You have it bad for corporations. Typical, brainwashed lefty.

And when that individual, who pays at the cap, draws SS Benefits that individual will return that years worth of increase in 4.5 months. Remember (link previously posted) wealthy wage earners live longer so they have MORE (on average) chance of drawing much more out than they put is.

This is some seriously fuzzy math. If the cap is removed, a self-employed person making 300k would pay 12.4% or $37,200/yr. in SS taxes. Assuming this salary for 35 years, they would have paid $1,302,000 into the system.

Lets do the real math here. If the self-employed person takes early retirement at age 62, they would receive $3,627 in benefits per month. To break even, the would need to live 29.9 years(1,302,000/3627)/12), or to age 92. If they took retirement at age 70, they would receive $4,555/mth. they would need to live 23.8 years (1,302,000/4555)/12) or to the ripe old age 93.8 years. Both of these ages are well above the average just to break even and this doesn't even factor in the fact that they receive no interest on their money, which would be significant over that length of time. To be fair, if this person worked for a corporation, their contributions would be 1/2 of this thus everything is cut in half. Even with 1/2 their contributions being paid by their company, early retirement would require them to live to 77 to break even and late retirement(70) would require them to live to 82 to break even. Keep in mind however, that SOMEBODY, whether it be the individual or a combination of the individual and the corporation, likely put in more that will ever be drawn. If the cap is removed then this number obviously considers to rise as income rises. A person making 600k would be lucky to even collect 1/2 of what they contributed.

Now, lets do the math as it is currently with the cap, just for fun. Current cap is 160k. A self employed person makes 160k pays $19,840/yr for 35 years for a total of $694,400 in total. If they took early retirement, they would receive $3627/mth in benefits and would need to live 15.9 years or to the age of 77 to break even. If they took it at age 70, they would need to live 12.7 years or to the age of 83 to break even. Just as a reminder, the average life expectancy in the US is 79 for women and 74 for men.

Another thing worth noting is that SS taxes are not calculated on all pre-tax deductions. Typically, one of the largest pre-tax deduction is to a 401(k), but SS tax is calculated prior to that deduction. You are given credit for the pre-tax deduction for health care.

Seems to me that you need to rethink your numbers. It is absolutely clear that if the cap is removed, higher wage earners are heavily subsidizing SS, which was never the intent of the program. It would essentially be nothing more than a huge hidden tax increase on those making more than $160k/yr. As it stands now, those making 160k/yr will essentially break even if they live to average age.