• 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!

Bernie leading again, this time on Social Security increases

I sure could use the extra 2400.
But im extremely wary of the "tax the rich" mantra from the Dems, since they rely on that for mostly all their spending increases

I'd much rather see SSA means tested. Keep the cap on contributions at $160K - but if you are pulling in 200K+ a year
then you dont get payments.. And you won't miss them anyhow, but those on fixed SSA incomes get relief
 
vanceen said:
I realize that the SS payroll tax cap is usually justified on the basis that there is a maximum payout. That justification depends on the notion that SS is a kind of insurance, and that your payout is directly linked to what you pay in.

But that hasn't been true for a very long time. There's no need to continue pretending it is.

SS doesn't need to be means tested. It just needs to maintain a maximum payout. Sanders' proposal is to raise that somewhat, which is fine.
Click to expand...
It is insurance .......

No it does not ned to be means tested = all who pay in deserve to get their fair share .....
 
Lovebug said:
I worry more about people around me than the ultra rich who should pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

How much is a "fair" share?

The top 1% earned 22% of total income, but paid 42% of federal income taxes in 2020. Is that unfair?

The top 1% paid the highest income tax rates (26%). The bottom 50% (below $42k/year) paid a rate of 3%. Is that unfair?

I support this SS proposal to extend taxes. It will make the system sustainable, and allow for a slightly more generous SS pension.

I'm also in favor of introducing both higher and lower tax bracket, so that the very rich will pay more, and practically everybody will pay something (even if it's a small percentage).

But despite stories we read so often, the US income tax is highly progressive now. Maybe it could be more so.
 
I don't think "fairness" really enters into it.

The only justification for having a progressive tax system is that there is no way for the government to get enough money to run otherwise.
 
vanceen said:
I realize that the SS payroll tax cap is usually justified on the basis that there is a maximum payout. That justification depends on the notion that SS is a kind of insurance, and that your payout is directly linked to what you pay in.

But that hasn't been true for a very long time. There's no need to continue pretending it is.

SS doesn't need to be means tested. It just needs to maintain a maximum payout. Sanders' proposal is to raise that somewhat, which is fine.
Click to expand...
You Social Security benefit isn't based on what you paid in? What is it based on instead?
 
Lutherf said:
You Social Security benefit isn't based on what you paid in? What is it based on instead?
Click to expand...

The calculation of your benefit is based on what you paid in.

But those funds you paid in have been spent long ago. What you get is paid by people who are currently working. That's why I used the word "linked".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm… since it raises ‘payroll’ taxes on individuals making $200K/year (or more) and couples making $250K/year (or more) would Biden veto it it based on his ‘promise’ not to raise taxes on those making less than $400K/year?
Click to expand...

It seems very odd that incomes above the current cap ($160K) but below $200K would be exempt from FICA ‘payroll’ taxation. It seems illogical to have (create?) that ‘donut hole’ in the reform plan. It almost seems like a congress critter salary (which is now $174K) carve out.
 
Last edited:
vanceen said:
I realize that the SS payroll tax cap is usually justified on the basis that there is a maximum payout. That justification depends on the notion that SS is a kind of insurance, and that your payout is directly linked to what you pay in.

But that hasn't been true for a very long time. There's no need to continue pretending it is.

SS doesn't need to be means tested. It just needs to maintain a maximum payout. Sanders' proposal is to raise that somewhat, which is fine.
Click to expand...

SS is currently ‘means tested’, but after the fact by the IRS.

Request to withhold taxes

Submit a request to pay taxes on your Social Security benefit throughout the year instead of paying a big bill at tax time.
www.ssa.gov www.ssa.gov
 
Craig234 said:
Bernie and Warren in the Senate, and two members of the House, are submitting a bill to increase Social Security.

It would increase the benefit $2400 per year, make it solvent the rest of the century, make the COLA adjustment more accurate, and provide other benefits, all paid for by removing the cap.

78% of Americans support the bill. Republicans the least - but they support it 72%.

It would be a modest step in the right direction slightly decreasing inequality.

www.commondreams.org

Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year | Common Dreams

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the progra
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...
So let me ask a question here.

If someone chooses to self-finance their retirement and NOT take a Social Security benefit should they still be required to pay into the system?
 
Craig234 said:
Bernie and Warren in the Senate, and two members of the House, are submitting a bill to increase Social Security.

It would increase the benefit $2400 per year, make it solvent the rest of the century, make the COLA adjustment more accurate, and provide other benefits, all paid for by removing the cap.

78% of Americans support the bill. Republicans the least - but they support it 72%.

It would be a modest step in the right direction slightly decreasing inequality.

www.commondreams.org

Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year | Common Dreams

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the progra
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...
Yes, raising the cap is a good way to get those rich back for their 2017 tax cut.

That would even it up a little.

I like making it solvent.

I, don't need another $200.00, why not balance the budget instead?
 
Lutherf said:
So let me ask a question here.

If someone chooses to self-finance their retirement and NOT take a Social Security benefit should they still be required to pay into the system?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Lutherf said:
So let me ask a question here.

If someone chooses to self-finance their retirement and NOT take a Social Security benefit should they still be required to pay into the system?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Lutherf said:
So let me ask a question here.

If someone chooses to self-finance their retirement and NOT take a Social Security benefit should they still be required to pay into the system?
Click to expand...
Why not?

Since the program is to gouge to attain solvency, make everybody pay.

It's a rich tax, you can't let them get away.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And when the rich run out of money?
Click to expand...

A handful of them have more money than the next several billion people. Don't worry so much for them- they are going to be OK.

RetiredUSN said:
Or when the rich take their money else wheres?
Click to expand...

They won't. Countries which are more "free" and have lower taxes don't have the security infrastructure or political stability for running a stable business.
 
ataraxia said:
A handful of them have more money than the next several billion. They are going to be OK.



They won't. Countries which are more "free" and have lower taxes don't have the security infrastructure or political stability for running a stable business.
Click to expand...

Biden already stated that the rich are paying their fair share under his plan.

That isn't enough?
 
ataraxia said:
A handful of them have more money than the next several billion. They are going to be OK.



They won't. Countries which are more "free" and have lower taxes don't have the security infrastructure or political stability for running a stable business.
Click to expand...

The FICA ‘payroll’ tax is on personal income not business (corporate) income.
 
I
Craig234 said:
Bernie and Warren in the Senate, and two members of the House, are submitting a bill to increase Social Security.

It would increase the benefit $2400 per year, make it solvent the rest of the century, make the COLA adjustment more accurate, and provide other benefits, all paid for by removing the cap.

78% of Americans support the bill. Republicans the least - but they support it 72%.

It would be a modest step in the right direction slightly decreasing inequality.

www.commondreams.org

Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year | Common Dreams

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the progra
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...
Like it.

But $200 per month is pathetic. Shoot for $1000.
 
vanceen said:
The top 1% earned 22% of total income, but paid 42% of federal income taxes in 2020.
Click to expand...

I'd have to see proof of that. Those numbers sound WAY off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom