Which party will actually pay for the new Debt, or will Social Security & Medicare go Bankrupt?

[bripat9643]

Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

Given that Trump, by way of his mismanagement of the government response to COVID, is responsible for the degree of the spread and severity of the economic impact, Repubs should pay a political price for electing and supporting a moron.

He hasn't mismanaged anything, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Kyzr is not a pig. The point is we all pay in, and we all take out. What is true is some of us pay in more. And I absolutely take into account possible means testing when I make retirement plans.

I'm not entirely happy with Obama expanding Medicaid, either. LOL

Meaningless babble.

 

[bripat9643]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

There's that liberal compassion we've all come to expect.

Squeal yourself, pig.

 

[bripat9643]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

You've already posted this worthless propaganda chart. Without attribution it can't be believed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

People are a lot healthier now at 75 then they were in the 1930s. I wouldn't have a problem with a 75 year old nurse or a 75 year old lawyer. However, people who do physical jobs may have to be given the option of retiring earlier. I used to hang drywall for a living, and those guys retire at age 45.

But then people who don't do construction or similar work would be complaining they have to retire at a much later age then them. The Democrats would call that unfair, and keep adding other jobs to that early retirement list.

 

[berg80]

How concerned were you when Commie Care cost millions their employer sponsored healthcare coverage?

Huh? Overall, nearly 20 million more people had coverage in 2016 than before the ACA was passed.

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Again.......... All those things you listed, have been done by other countries, and their pensions systems are not fixed.

AGAIN.... if was possible to fix public pensions, then why hasn't it been done?

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.

Define a ponzi scheme, and explain to me how Social Security operates differently. They operate exactly the same. By definition they operate the same. A ponzi scheme is when you take new investors, to pay off old investors. Then you need newer investors, to pay off those investors. And on and on. Eventually you run out of new investors to pay off the older ones, and the ponzi scheme implodes.

Social Security operates exactly that way, with the new "investors" paying off old "investors", and then you need newer "investors" to pay off those. And just like any other ponzi scheme, the entire problem of Social Security is that we can't find enough money from newer investors to pay off the olders ones.

It is a ponzi scheme. By definition it is.

1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.

No, it will delay the problem. It doesn't get rid of anything. Do you know the history of Social Security? In 1935 the retirement age was 61. Now it's up to 67.

We've been increasing the retirement age since Social Security was created. Why didn't that "get X% of the problem"? We have been reducing benefits, since the first year that Social Security was created, and we still have the problem.

So raising the retirement age to 68 will delay the problem for sure. But it won't fix it. You'll kick the can down the road for another 10 or 20 years, but we'll be back here, debating how to fix social security again.

Again, other countries have raised their retirement age too, and they still have problems. This is not a magic "fix".

2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.

No, it will delay the problem. But it won't fix the problem. Again, Social Security history. In 1935, Social Security was a 1% tax. We're now at a 12.4% tax.

By the way, you know that you pay the other 6.2% tax the employer pays, right? You do know that your wages are reduced, to pay that 6.2% the employer pays into SS on your behalf? So you are paying 12.4% in taxes right now. Your wages are at least 6.2% lower than they would be, if Social Security didn't exist. So you are paying the cost.

If raising taxes by 1% fixed Social Security, then why didn't raising taxes from 1% to 12.4% fix Social Security?

Again, why hasn't Germany with an 18% tax, fixed their pension system? Why are saying they'll need to raise pension taxes in the future?

No, it will kick the can down the road another dozen years, but it won't fix anything.

3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

Your fix ignores that fact that all those people will demand higher payouts. Why should I pay in more money into Social Security, if I'm not going to get anything back out comparable to what I paid in?

Let me ask you something. If you purchased a one Million dollar life insurance policy, for $140 a month (that's a real quote).... and the insurance company 10 years after buying the policy said "You'll have to pay $500 a month from here on, but your pay out is still one Million"..... would you accept that?

Would you? You think rich people are just going to accept that? No. Won't work.

Again, if that would work, then why has not a single country in the world today, ever done it?

 

[Andylusion]

I'm not entirely happy with Obama expanding Medicaid, either.

Unconcern for the uninsured?

Actually, people on Medicaid get less care, than those with no insurance. Widely known research shows this.

 

[berg80]

He hasn't mismanaged anything, shit for brains.

You seem agitated by being confronted with the truth. Time for a diaper change?

 

[berg80]

Actually, people on Medicaid get less care, than those with no insurance. Widely known research shows this.

Your proof, please.

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

Again.... then explain why the poor and middle class in Denmark, are paying 40% income taxes?

You can post all the graphs in the world, doesn't change the fact that around the world, countries that have massive welfare handouts, have drastically higher taxes on the poor and middle class.

You'll be the one squealing. Look at Venezuela. Look at Greece. That's the result of your position.

 

[bripat9643]

He hasn't mismanaged anything, shit for brains.

You seem agitated by being confronted with the truth. Time for a diaper change?

I'll let you know if you ever post anything that's actually true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

 

[22lcidw]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

No, the problem with "means testing" is that it makes Soc Sec a program that we're not all in the same boat. If we means tested only a maximum of 10% or so of us would lose the benefit. In theory, that should be popular. But it isn't. Americans generally don't want to cut the heads off the rich. One of the reasons I'm glad to be American.

Part of it is that for most of us there is a dream to be rich one day. For most of us that does not come true but a lot do live comfortable lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

What are you doing for medical?

Nothing right now. I'm in a waiting game to see what happens in the coming months. I may end up on Commie Care myself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How concerned were you when Commie Care cost millions their employer sponsored healthcare coverage?

Huh? Overall, nearly 20 million more people had coverage in 2016 than before the ACA was passed.

Many of them went on Medicaid. Sure, you can count all the people that got it, but ignore people like myself that lost it because of Commie Care.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, people on Medicaid get less care, than those with no insurance. Widely known research shows this.

Your proof, please.

Ugh... I keep forgetting that I'm not talking with people who think for themselves.

Medicaid enrollees last in line when docs accepting new patients

Office-based doctors are accepting new Medicaid patients at a lower rate compared with Medicare and private insurance, according to a new MACPAC study.

www.modernhealthcare.com

Doctors less likely to accept Medicaid than other insurance

MACPAC found no difference in Medicaid acceptance between doctors in states that expanded the program under the ACA and those that didn't — except with OB-GYNs.

www.healthcaredive.com

Medicaid Worsens Your Health? That’s a Classic Misinterpretation of Research (Published 2017)

Some have mistaken correlation for causation in trying to defend G.O.P. health care approaches.

www.nytimes.com

Other studies have also found that Medicaid patients have worse health outcomes than those with private coverage or even those with no insurance.

On Gottlieb’s favorite Medicaid outcomes studies | The Incidental Economist

This post has been cited in the 17 March 2011 edition of Health Wonk Review. Yesterday Scott Gottlieb published a WSJ piece titled, "Medicaid Is Worse Than No Coverage at All." Jon Cohn reacted to it, but I didn't, not explicitly anyway. Now I will. The reason I didn't respond is that, as I wrote,

theincidentaleconomist.com

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1400

To a lesser extent, privately insured patients also had lower risk-adjusted mortality rates than those in other payer groups. Medicare patients appeared particularly vulnerable to receiving inferior care.

How Bad Is Care Under Medicaid?

In some cases relying on Medicaid may be worse than having no insurance at all.

www.psychologytoday.com

• A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology found that Medicaid patients were more than twice as likely to have a major subsequent heart attack after angioplasty, compared with patients who had no health insurance at all.[4]
• A study of patients undergoing lung transplants for pulmonary diseases, published in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, found that Medicaid patients were 8.1 percent less likely to survive ten years after the surgery than their privately insured and uninsured counterparts.

The fact that government care is routinely and consistently inferior to private insurance, or even in many cases, no insurance at all, is well documented.

It just baffles me how utterly ignorant people are who push government health care.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

Neither one, dumass. Political parties don't pay taxes.

WTF are you hallucinating about? Who writes the tax laws?
Who wrote the last tax cuts that aren't working no matter what Manuchin says?

So what you really meant to say is that Dims will raise all our taxes.

We already knew that, dumbass.

What they will do is raise taxes on the wealthy, and perhaps tobacco users; two groups that cannot protect themselves via vote.

The wealthy have gotten themselves many tax cuts. They can buy politicians.

Given the fact they pay most of the federal income tax for the rest of us, who would you suggest get a tax break?

Someone needs to pay the bills, might should be the folks with all the money.

View attachment 329424

That is literally the moral code of a thug:

Your proposed cuts added together are about $400b. So you're about $600b short of a Balanced Budget.
Someone needs to pay the fucking bills. Who should that be?
A VAT is paid by everyone, as an example.

A VAT is a hidden tax, which is precisely thugs such as you like it.

I'm fine having the tax shown on the receipt. Call it a VAT, a sales tax, or a consumption tax. We need to raise revenue.

That's about as regressive a tax as you can get.

What tax is regressive? The income tax is not.
The Fed sales tax is fair.
Everyone needs to pay some tax to get out of the hole.

A value added tax is as regressive as you can get, The largest burden would be paid by the lower incomes, exactly the opposite of what you proposed. You need to work on your plan. It sucks so badly even you don't understand it.

WTF is wrong with sales tax? Its very simple.
I dumped the VAT because its hidden and no one knows how much tax is paid by whom.
You ok with a Fed sales tax?

Read up on the FAIR tax. It's a sales tax that resolves the issue of progressivisity.

The Fair Tax is is regressive as it gets. I suggest you learn the difference between "regressive" and "fair".

No, it isn't regressive at all. You obviously don't know a thing about it.

You don't know what regressive means of you would not be claiming it is not. Is it regressive or progressive? Tell us, since you seem to know.

I know what it means, but I also know how the FAIR tax works. That's why I don't say dumb things like your claim that it's "regressive."

Still haven't figured it out? What's the matter dumbass? Afraid of my handing your ass to you?

I figured it out long ago: you're a dumbass.

I may be a dumbass, but I can answer a simple question, which you cannot. How does it feel to be dumber than a dumbass?

 

[Andylusion]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

 

[bripat9643]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

Neither one, dumass. Political parties don't pay taxes.

WTF are you hallucinating about? Who writes the tax laws?
Who wrote the last tax cuts that aren't working no matter what Manuchin says?

So what you really meant to say is that Dims will raise all our taxes.

We already knew that, dumbass.

What they will do is raise taxes on the wealthy, and perhaps tobacco users; two groups that cannot protect themselves via vote.

The wealthy have gotten themselves many tax cuts. They can buy politicians.

Given the fact they pay most of the federal income tax for the rest of us, who would you suggest get a tax break?

Someone needs to pay the bills, might should be the folks with all the money.

View attachment 329424

That is literally the moral code of a thug:

Your proposed cuts added together are about $400b. So you're about $600b short of a Balanced Budget.
Someone needs to pay the fucking bills. Who should that be?
A VAT is paid by everyone, as an example.

A VAT is a hidden tax, which is precisely thugs such as you like it.

I'm fine having the tax shown on the receipt. Call it a VAT, a sales tax, or a consumption tax. We need to raise revenue.

That's about as regressive a tax as you can get.

What tax is regressive? The income tax is not.
The Fed sales tax is fair.
Everyone needs to pay some tax to get out of the hole.

A value added tax is as regressive as you can get, The largest burden would be paid by the lower incomes, exactly the opposite of what you proposed. You need to work on your plan. It sucks so badly even you don't understand it.

WTF is wrong with sales tax? Its very simple.
I dumped the VAT because its hidden and no one knows how much tax is paid by whom.
You ok with a Fed sales tax?

Read up on the FAIR tax. It's a sales tax that resolves the issue of progressivisity.

The Fair Tax is is regressive as it gets. I suggest you learn the difference between "regressive" and "fair".

No, it isn't regressive at all. You obviously don't know a thing about it.

You don't know what regressive means of you would not be claiming it is not. Is it regressive or progressive? Tell us, since you seem to know.

I know what it means, but I also know how the FAIR tax works. That's why I don't say dumb things like your claim that it's "regressive."

Still haven't figured it out? What's the matter dumbass? Afraid of my handing your ass to you?

I figured it out long ago: you're a dumbass.

I may be a dumbass, but I can answer a simple question, which you cannot. How does it feel to be dumber than a dumbass?

No, you can't answer a simple question. Explain how the FAIR tax works.