• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to argue for social security

aociswundumho said:
No matter what there will be some sort of provision to break the budget in the event of an emergency. Consider that Democrats believe climate change is an "emergency" and you can see how easy any balanced budget amendment would be to get around.

But more importantly, it simply isn't in the state's interest to have a rule mandating a balanced budget, which is why no country on the planet has one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There will always be an excuse for breaking the balanced budget law. We need to fight climate change. We need to fix infrastructure. We need MFA. We need to pay reparations to slave descendants and to all of the other oppressed people. We need to forgive student loan debt, and provide free college. We need to fight more wars and give more tax breaks. A serious plague breaks out that has to be fought. The list never ends.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm actually for means testing and eliminating the cap on FICA taxes. I see no reason for Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos to get a social security check. I don't give a crap that they paid into the system.
Click to expand...

In that case, then why do you care what anyone paid in? Why not just make SS into another means tested "safety net" program? Anyone with other retirement income (above the FPL) just gets told "tough cookies" you don't need "safety net" assistance from SS and nobody cares what you paid in.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In that case, then why do you care what anyone paid in? Why not just make SS into another means tested "safety net" program? Anyone with other retirement income (above the FPL) just gets told "tough cookies" you don't need "safety net" assistance from SS and nobody cares what you paid in.
Click to expand...

Because it is not a safety net program, at least not for many. In many cases, SS just supplements whatever else they have, basically being a forced savings program that they and their employer pay in. Most people would have a hard time living on SS alone, which would require a safety net program. Hey, I'm very much a conservative but on this one issue I kind of swing some to the left. Rich people don't really need a social security check and I also believe SS taxable earnings should not be capped. As I said, I don't give a crap how much they paid in but I would not means test large numbers out, maybe just the top 10% and phase the next 10%, meaning that my means testing would not effect 80% of the population.
 
Moderate Right said:
Because it is not a safety net program, at least not for many. In many cases, SS just supplements whatever else they have, basically being a forced savings program that they and their employer pay in. Most people would have a hard time living on SS alone, which would require a safety net program. Hey, I'm very much a conservative but on this one issue I kind of swing some to the left. Rich people don't really need a social security check and I also believe SS taxable earnings should not be capped. As I said, I don't give a crap how much they paid in but I would not means test large numbers out, maybe just the top 10% and phase the next 10%, meaning that my means testing would not effect 80% of the population.
Click to expand...

WTF? You want those who benefit the least (or not at all) to pay more into SS but not those who will actually receive the SS benefits? You sound more like Bernie or AOC than someone "Slightly Conservative".

BTW, the IRS treatment of SS retirement income makes it somewhat means tested as it is.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WTF? You want those who benefit the least (or not at all) to pay more into SS but not those who will actually receive the SS benefits? You sound more like Bernie or AOC than someone "Slightly Conservative".

BTW, the IRS treatment of SS retirement income makes it somewhat means tested as it is.
Click to expand...

This is why I am an independent. I don't toe any party's line. I am progressive or whatever you want to call it on this issue. But, that doesn't mean I'm not for cutting SS benefits or some other conservative ideas. I just think the cap should be eliminated and SS means tested. The super rich should not get any checks from the government, even though you may want to say that it is their own money. They also have their own money before they pay taxes and they still have to pay them.
 
Moderate Right said:
This is why I am an independent. I don't toe any party's line. I am progressive or whatever you want to call it on this issue. But, that doesn't mean I'm not for cutting SS benefits or some other conservative ideas. I just think the cap should be eliminated and SS means tested. The super rich should not get any checks from the government, even though you may want to say that it is their own money. They also have their own money before they pay taxes and they still have to pay them.
Click to expand...

Rest assured that the "super rich" pay more now in federal income tax than they receive in SS retirement benefits.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Rest assured that the "super rich" pay more now in federal income tax than they receive in SS retirement benefits.
Click to expand...

While obviously true, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure most of the super rich donate their social security checks (if they even applied for SS) to charity, where they can write the money off as a tax deduction.
 
Tbird19482 said:
good point I see you have not bothered to look up just what the FICA rates are and you must have missed a lot of basic math classes
the FICA tax is NOT 16.5%
it is 6.2% for you and 6.2% for your employer that is 12.4% for SS and 1.45 for medicare for you and 1.45 % for your employer that adds up to 2.9%
if your 16.5% included medicare it should have been 15.3%
now IF you had read what I posted you would have known that there are a lot of people out there working at Min. wage and need every cent they earn to live on and IF the government did not take take FICA out of their wages they would not have anything to retire on.
NOT everybody can or will put money in a 401K
again the only way some people can save for a retirement is paying into SS
If SS wasn't required for these people to pay into a lot of them would have nothing saved up for when they retire and they would have to work till they couldn't any more.
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Ok I got the rate wrong. [emoji106]. It doesn’t change the argument at all.

I read what you wrote. What you wrote ignored what I wrote and you continue to.

Everyone you are talking about is paying FICA now. FICA gives a 1.piss rate of return.

THAT SAME MONEY. Not new money. Not different money. The exact same dollars would be better invested in simple 10 year treasuries.

You’re arguing a Strawman.

Have a nice day. [emoji849]
 
Moderate Right said:
Most people don't save for retirement so forced savings isn't a bad idea. Also, making risky investments with SS money would probably require future bailouts. Let's face it, the lower tier wouldn't have a clue how to invest.
Click to expand...

You can still compel contributions as I said. They don’t need to know how. That’s the point. But just because they don’t know nor need to know doesn’t justify pillaging their earnings on one of the worst investments available and for no better reason that to use it as a political football and to fund irresponsible federal spending.

Go look at the 10 year treasury yields and when they took the SS surplus to invest. It’s the same time. When treasury yields were double digits. They didn’t plummet for nothing. They plummeted because they gained a captive audience.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's the problem. There are millions who don't have two brain cells to rub together.
Click to expand...

I still want them to have the best investment for the best retirement possible. Even if they are morons.
 
Aberration said:
You can still compel contributions as I said. They don’t need to know how. That’s the point. But just because they don’t know nor need to know doesn’t justify pillaging their earnings on one of the worst investments available and for no better reason that to use it as a political football and to fund irresponsible federal spending.

Go look at the 10 year treasury yields and when they took the SS surplus to invest. It’s the same time. When treasury yields were double digits. They didn’t plummet for nothing. They plummeted because they gained a captive audience.
Click to expand...

But there are ups and downs to the market. Someone would have to be watching over your investments and making decisions of some sort, or have a formula or something. A certain aged person who happened to retire just after a several year downturn in the market would probably have to be bailed out and it would apply to many in that same age bracket.
 
Moderate Right said:
As much as I hate the debt and the stupidity of it, I am not for a federal balanced budget amendment. I don't understand how it works. If the floor drops out of economy then we would be forced to slash expenses, also known as austerity, the very opposite of what you need in a depressed economy. And, a balanced budget amendment might trigger higher taxes to cover the out of control spending that neither party seems capable of stopping so taxes would constantly be going up. On top of that, if you right exceptions into the law for such occasions then the congress will forever be passing exceptions to get by the BBA.
Click to expand...
Like I said there would have to be a prevision in the amendment so that if we had a bad recession / depression or a war we could run a debt and after we get out of it the sales tax I talked about would kick back in to pay it off
again we all got some benefit from running a debt so we should all help pay it off even large Corps with no deductions.
have a nice day
 
Aberration said:
Ok I got the rate wrong. [emoji106]. It doesn’t change the argument at all.

I read what you wrote. What you wrote ignored what I wrote and you continue to.

Everyone you are talking about is paying FICA now. FICA gives a 1.piss rate of return.

THAT SAME MONEY. Not new money. Not different money. The exact same dollars would be better invested in simple 10 year treasuries.

You’re arguing a Strawman.

Have a nice day. [emoji849]
Click to expand...

I am not saaying it shouldn't be earning more interest
I am saying that there are people who don't make enough money or would take some of the money they earn and invest it in a retirement fund.
You have to realize that there are people working at MIN. wage some two jobs and have to use that money to live on and if they didn't pay FICA tax they wouldn't have anything to retire on
Have a nice day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom