From Marketwatch:
Social Security should be able to pay out full benefits until 2035 without any intervention, but a proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders would extend the life of the program for 75 years, chief actuary Stephen Goss said. ...
The Social Security Expansion Act aims not only to pay out full benefits but, as the name implies, to bolster the program. Under the proposal, Social Security would provide an additional $2,400 in benefits to each beneficiary every year. The program would also be linked to the experimental price index for the elderly, or CPI-E, instead of the consumer-price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, or CPI-W. The switch would change the cost-of-living adjustment to align more closely with older Americans’ spending.
The proposal calls for two new taxes: a 12.4% tax on investment income for individuals earning $250,000 or more per year, and a 16.2% net-investment-income tax for specific business owners, including active S-corporation holders and active limited partners. The proceeds of the latter tax would be divided between the retirement and disability trust funds and the general Treasury fund. ...
This isn't happening, at least not now. There wouldn't be a majority in the Senate for this and the House is under the nominal control of the GOP. I mention it because it's an honest attempt to deal with the problem, unlike ridiculous Republican claims that they want to "reform" Social Security, without raising taxes or cutting benefits.
What I love seeing in response to proposals like this is the cynical argument that it does no good to raise taxes on the wealthy. They'll just use tax tricks to avoid paying the tax. Sure. So why do these wealthy people employ shills to spread the cynical argument in forums like this? Who else but shills would spread that sort of garbage? Of course the wealthy would pay more under Senator Sanders' proposal. That's why they fight it with such vigor.
15 comments:
Where can I find one of these wealthy people to pay me to spread this false narrative? Is it lucrative? If so, I’m willing to listen to offers.
@ 9:55
I can give you a list of "think tanks", Super PACs, and conservative media organizations that are owned/funded by the super wealthy. They always seem to be expanding, and past experience as an online troll is a preferred qualification!
The new GOP plan of attack is do nothing and let the trust funds run dry. They claim to protect SSA and Medicare, but will not lift a finger to save these programs from being depleted by 2035. I expect when 2030 comes around, they will propose cutting these benefits, but just for workers under age 50.
Not shills, people that know that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary kinda figure out that rich people dont pay taxes, come on Charles, who is paying you the DNC?
Just a reminder that people who do not share your views are not trolls, shills or fascist, they are just people with opposing views. I dont like greenbeans. You might love them, that doesnt make me a troll. This isnt high school, I would expect professionals to understand the concept.
This is correct as well. But if I can get paid to disagree here, I want in, lol.
This would be the camel’s nose entering the tent with respect to decoupling T2 funding from wages. Not a bad thing, since payroll taxes are both regressive and disincentivize employment.
Usually, we find out that these proposals will not generate nearly the amount of revenue we're told. I suspect, Bernie plucked the number out of the air and the real revenue this would generate would no where near accomplish what he proposes. And, I don't know the specifics, but if this is a 16% tax on small businesses, which it sounds like it is, that would be disastrous. When will you folks learn you cannot trust these Socialists. They will tell you what you want to hear but can never back it up.
Does this mean business owners with investments? Or am I reading it wrong?
"16.2% net-investment-income tax for specific business owners"
Not a lot of small businesses are investing.
I am one that would pay higher taxes under this proposal and the more workable proposal to increase revenues by increasing the cap on earnings. Combine that with a small increase of 1% on bother employers and employees to 7.2% from 6.2% now and more than the supposed deficit is closed. Combine this with a change in the PIA bend points by increasing the first portion to 100 % of PIA from the current 90% reducing the next portion to 30% replacement form the current 32%, and reducing the third portion to 13% from the current 15% and then providing for a 5% replacement rate for any over the current cap.
Doing these things not only balances the expected payment for at least the next 75 years but also would allow for an overall increase in payments for Social Security beneficiaries.
And whether you like this plan which is similar to the Social Security 2100 Act or Bernie's plan, at least it is a plan contrary to anything the Republicans have actually put forward other than just raise the retirement age, an effective cut of 10 to 20% in benefits for all.
They could have passed it when they had control of all 3 branches. Why didn't they? This proposal is nothing new, so why didn't it happen before the mid-terms? Maybe both parties are all talk and no action?
God knows I could use an extra $200/ month!!!
It's called the filibuster. Without a supermajority, the Dems in the Senate could not pass this legislation. The last time they had a supermajority was 2010.
I am surprised by how many Americans don't understand the ramifications of the filibuster.
To spell it out, you need at least 60 senators to support a vote on legislation for that legislation to come up for a vote. This means Republicans wouldn't need to support the expansion of Social Security for it to happen. Republicans have been fighting Social Security since it was created in 1939, so there is a fat chance of that happening.
11:58 here...I meant to type "Republicans WOULD need to support the expansion of Social Security."
Again, fat chance.
Fair…what happened in 2010? Could they have done it at that point without the Republicans?
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a very useful tool that allows you to play around with various options to close the trust fund 75 year shortfall. It can be done with zero benefit cuts, but minor benefit cuts combined with increased revenue changes provide a fairly easy solution --and there should be several politically viable alternatives.
Count me as a young worker that is willing to pay more in taxes to prevent benefit cuts for my generation.
https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
The maximum amount of income that is subject to Social Security taxes is $147,000 in 2022 and $160,200 in 2023. This means that you don't pay Social Security taxes on any amount over these thresholds. The Social Security tax is deducted from individuals' payroll automatically along with the Medicare tax.
Let's start here, overturn this! Every dollar you make should be subject to Social Security tax and Medicare tax. Why do the wealthy always get the breaks??
Post a Comment