• 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!

87% of Americans Want Politicians To Do Something Before Social Security Runs Out of Money

Why do we allow SS to be a perpetual issue?
1. Eliminate the FICA tax.
2. Eliminate the related Trust Fund, making it part of the Public debt.
3. Adjust wages to compensate for the employer portion of the FICA tax.
4. Apply a 15% minimum tax to ALL income.
5. SS benefits become a mandatory budget item.

The Federal income tax code is where ALL Federal budgeting, spending, and debt issues can easily be solved, if we really want to.
 
Individual said:
Why do we allow SS to be a perpetual issue?
1. Eliminate the FICA tax.
2. Eliminate the related Trust Fund, making it part of the Public debt.
3. Adjust wages to compensate for the employer portion of the FICA tax.
4. Apply a 15% minimum tax to ALL income.
5. SS benefits become a mandatory budget item.

The Federal income tax code is where ALL Federal budgeting, spending, and debt issues can easily be solved, if we really want to.
Click to expand...
How would you adjust wages to compensate? Employer and employees set wages, not the govt.
Regarding number 4, would you also increase the payout for the additional tax being collected? Ie, if Jeff Bezos makes 100 million, he pays 15 million in payroll tax, and when hes 65 he'll get a social security check of 1 million a month?

Also, SS benefit are already a mandatory budget item. But income tax is not where we solve a spending problem, no.
 
jonny5 said:
How would you adjust wages to compensate? Employer and employees set wages, not the govt.
Regarding number 4, would you also increase the payout for the additional tax being collected? Ie, if Jeff Bezos makes 100 million, he pays 15 million in payroll tax, and when hes 65 he'll get a social security check of 1 million a month?

Also, SS benefit are already a mandatory budget item. But income tax is not where we solve a spending problem, no.
Click to expand...
The employer share of the FICA tax would become part of the employees wages, about an 8.5% increase for MW workers.
Number 4 simply sets a minimum tax rate. Not solely a FICA replacement. And about $30B minimum per week if no one paid more than 15%.
SS would be made a mandatory budget item, with no trust fund, simply paid from the general revenue stream.
Social Security benefit payment amounts would be another discussion, which I have some ideas to share if ever we reach agreement on the tax code. But there would be both a minimum and a maximum benefit, with an annual inflation adjustment. But first things first, the tax code.

SS is mandatory but limited to what is provided by the FICA tax and the trust fund, that would no longer be the case.
The tax code is where we most definitely can begin solving a spending problem.
 
Last edited:
Individual said:
The employer share of the FICA tax would become part of the employees wages, about an 8.5% increase for MW workers.
Number 4 simply sets a minimum tax rate. Not solely a FICA replacement. And about $30B minimum per week if no one paid more than 15%.
SS would be made a mandatory budget item, with no trust fund, simply paid from the general revenue stream.
Social Security benefit payment amounts would be another discussion, which I have some ideas to share if ever we reach agreement on the tax code. But there would be both a minimum and a maximum benefit, with an annual inflation adjustment. But first things first, the tax code.

SS is mandatory but limited to what is provided by the FICA tax and the trust fund, that would no longer be the case.
The tax code is where we most definitely can begin solving a spending problem.
Click to expand...

But how would the employer share of FICA become part of the wage? Wages arent set by federal govt. They cant just say, hey starbucks, your employee now makes 8% more. They could raise the federal minimum, but everyone makes twice that already.
SS is a mandatory budget item. Certainly the payroll tax code is where you can solve the SS spending problem. But not the general tax code. Its all already spent and them some. A spending problem requires a spending solution.

Your solution is just socializing it. Make the rich pay more, funnel the money to SS recipients who pay less.
 
jonny5 said:
But how would the employer share of FICA become part of the wage? Wages arent set by federal govt. They cant just say, hey starbucks, your employee now makes 8% more. They could raise the federal minimum, but everyone makes twice that already.
SS is a mandatory budget item. Certainly the payroll tax code is where you can solve the SS spending problem. But not the general tax code. Its all already spent and them some. A spending problem requires a spending solution.

Your solution is just socializing it. Make the rich pay more, funnel the money to SS recipients who pay less.
Click to expand...
The MW IS set by the Federal govt. so IT could be raised 8% and the FICA tax eliminated.
How would you solve the issue permanently? I'm trying to solve much more than just SS.
 
Individual said:
The MW IS set by the Federal govt. so IT could be raised 8% and the FICA tax eliminated.
How would you solve the issue permanently? I'm trying to solve much more than just SS.
Click to expand...

Almost no one makes minimum wage, so unless the govt raised it to $34 (median hourly earnings) AND then 8% more, even then only half would see the increase. Almost all wages are way above minimum. So eliminating the 8% employer tax would not result in higher wages. It might result in lower prices, more profit, business expansion, etc. Which is a good thing. But there is no way to just hand it back to employees.

And this topic is about SS. Not trying to solve much more than just SS. I solve it permanenlty by phasing it out. SImilar to what you said. Get rid of the payroll tax. Pay back what people put in from income tax, stop enrolling new people.
 
jonny5 said:
Almost no one makes minimum wage, so unless the govt raised it to $34 (median hourly earnings) AND then 8% more, even then only half would see the increase. Almost all wages are way above minimum. So eliminating the 8% employer tax would not result in higher wages. It might result in lower prices, more profit, business expansion, etc. Which is a good thing. But there is no way to just hand it back to employees.

And this topic is about SS. Not trying to solve much more than just SS. I solve it permanenlty by phasing it out. SImilar to what you said. Get rid of the payroll tax. Pay back what people put in from income tax, stop enrolling new people.
Click to expand...
And I solve it permanently without eliminating it.
 
jonny5 said:
And made other things worse.
Click to expand...
Your solution reduces the U.S. standard of living substantially while marginally improving the financial conditions of people who are already well off. It's a faux libertarian wet dream that has absolutely zero chance of coming to pass.

Time to face the music. Reform is only a matter of time, and tax increases are coming... as are charged to the income cap.

No amount of cry-fest posts are going to change the reality, so do is all a favor and shut it.
 
Kushinator said:
Your solution reduces the U.S. standard of living substantially while marginally improving the financial conditions of people who are already well off. It's a faux libertarian wet dream that has absolutely zero chance of coming to pass.

Time to face the music. Reform is only a matter of time, and tax increases are coming... as are charged to the income cap.

No amount of cry-fest posts are going to change the reality, so do is all a favor and shut it.
Click to expand...
@jonny5 ’s posts show that he doesn’t actually care about solvency or debt, just that he feels entitled to more money.
 
I think we should just ignore it like Trumpists wanted us to ignore COVID. We can also harass ICE officers like y’all harassed healthcare workers too. Fair trade?
 
Don't Republicans already have a plan?

Keep raising the age at which one qualifies for SS.
 
jonny5 said:
And made other things worse. More taxes, more govt, more dependency. I solved it permanently AND eliminated it.
Click to expand...
In reality, we've solved nothing at all aside from avoiding any intelligent discussion with intent to recognize and solve a multitude of governing issues once and for all.
 
People who wish to privatize Social Security are playing with fire. Social Security is guaranteed income after workers get too old to work. Sure, it is not fun to see that withholding come out of a paycheck. Yes, it is automatic and there is no getting out of it.

Sure, the returns are less than might be had with a fund that gambles in the stock market. Investing in the stock market is anything but risk-free. Yes, more money can be made. A better return can be had. Probably! But it is not guaranteed. The not-guaranteed part is the catch. You could lose all your money and be left with nothing. Nobody plans on being unlucky; but bad luck happens. The Social Security system eliminates the risk. That is the trade-off for getting lower returns. It is worth it.

Those who wish to gamble in the stock market are free to do so with everything they can accumulate above and beyond paying into Social Security, and only after paying in.

Because of the risk.

We don't want a nation of retirees ending up like this:

 
jonny5 said:
Of course what they want is the rich to pay for it. No surprise. Meanwhile, had I put the money they take from me for my lousy benefit if a live to 65, I could have near a million dollars in my retirement account. Its time to privatize SS. I pay about $800 a month in SS. Average return on that in a mutual fund would be 7 million dollars.

Its time to privatize SS

View attachment 67475935

reason.com

87% of Americans want politicians to do something before Social Security runs out of money

Entitlement reform has long been considered a third rail in American politics, but that perspective might be changing.
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...
I didn't see "investigate Hunter Biden and impeach Joe Biden" in that list. Yet, that seems to be the Republican House's real priority.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course what they want is the rich to pay for it. No surprise. Meanwhile, had I put the money they take from me for my lousy benefit if a live to 65, I could have near a million dollars in my retirement account. Its time to privatize SS. I pay about $800 a month in SS. Average return on that in a mutual fund would be 7 million dollars.

Its time to privatize SS

View attachment 67475935

reason.com

87% of Americans want politicians to do something before Social Security runs out of money

Entitlement reform has long been considered a third rail in American politics, but that perspective might be changing.
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...

545 Politicians vs. 300,000,000 People - The American Vision

The following article was written by Charley Reese for the Orlando Sentinel newspaper on March 7, 1995, under the title “Looking for Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start.” Reese worked for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001 as a writer and in various editorial capacities. The...
americanvision.org americanvision.org
 
Pyrite said:
Don't Republicans already have a plan?

Keep raising the age at which one qualifies for SS.
Click to expand...
It was created in 1935 when the life expectancy was 61 with eligibility set at age 65. It had built-in solvency because most people would be dead before they were eligible to collect. It was only intended to keep people who lived longer than average out of the workhouse for a few years until they gave up the ghost. Social Security was never designed or intended for people to rely on it as their only source of income for decades.
 
Napoleon said:
It was created in 1935 when the life expectancy was 61 with eligibility set at age 65. It had built-in solvency because most people would be dead before they were eligible to collect. It was only intended to keep people who lived longer than average out of the workhouse for a few years until they gave up the ghost. Social Security was never designed or intended for people to rely on it as their only source of income for decades.
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority of the increase in life expectancy came from reducing death while below the age of 30. Life expectancy after the age of 65 has only gone up a little so most of the increase is in the number of people paying in. One of the biggest drains are people receiving full benefits well before the age of 65 for disabilities. For the most part this is a racket especially in the Southern States where it has become common practice. In other words the BS about people living longer being the downfall of SS is way overblown. This benefit should be paid out, as intended, to just those with truly severe handicaps.

Remember when Republicans insisted that SS was Communism. They spent years trying to get it abolished on this basis until it became so ingrained in our society that to get rid of it outright would have the death of the party. Then the party became more moderate and strived to keep it viable. Now they are back at it but realize that they they need to get rid of it in a covert operation.

Regan was a huge fan of SS. The bipartisan committee during his presidency that made changes to save it did a good job except for one thing they did not anticipate. A greater and greater percentage of our total earnings are going to the wealthy so less and less of the wages earned were subject to SS taxation. If income was still distributed that same as in the early 80s then we would be almost OK. This is why we need to tax a much greater percentage of the wealthy's earnings in order to maintain it.
 
Mike1950 said:
The overwhelming majority of the increase in life expectancy came from reducing death while below the age of 30. Life expectancy after the age of 65 has only gone up a little so most of the increase is in the number of people paying in. One of the biggest drains are people receiving full benefits well before the age of 65 for disabilities. For the most part this is a racket especially in the Southern States where it has become common practice. In other words the BS about people living longer being the downfall of SS is way overblown. This benefit should be paid out, as intended, to just those with truly severe handicaps.

Remember when Republicans insisted that SS was Communism. They spent years trying to get it abolished on this basis until it became so ingrained in our society that to get rid of it outright would have the death of the party. Then the party became more moderate and strived to keep it viable. Now they are back at it but realize that they they need to get rid of it in a covert operation.

Regan was a huge fan of SS. The bipartisan committee during his presidency that made changes to save it did a good job except for one thing they did not anticipate. A greater and greater percentage of our total earnings are going to the wealthy so less and less of the wages earned were subject to SS taxation. If income was still distributed that same as in the early 80s then we would be almost OK. This is why we need to tax a much greater percentage of the wealthy's earnings in order to maintain it.
Click to expand...
As noted previously, social security was originally designed such that the majority of contributors would die before they were eligible to collect the benefit. Since then, life expectancy has increased by 16 years and the age of eligibility was lowered by 3 years. So now the majority of contributors will live long enough to collect and then some. Congress has tried to compensate for that by increasing the social security tax rate but it’s not enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom