Bernie leading again, this time on Social Security increases

[Arlette]

Ask any American on the street if they want more money and 99% of them will say yes.

Let me guess..............Bernie will tax the rich..............right?

The standard answer from any Bernie Bro on any issue.........................................tax the rich.

What's wrong with taxing the rich?

 

[Michael Cole]

Rich people don't create jobs. Consumers create jobs. Rich people destroy jobs and wealth.

I remember George W telling me they created jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, or some such nonsense. I can't relate to taking any position that goes against my interests (failed romantic relationships excluded) and
doing so because of politics is a real head scratcher.

I've been begging for answers. "Job creators," fallacious as it may be, is at least an answer. Those opposed to their own interests seem to now be in a daze. I guess the answer is, "Because I hate the libs!!" Sure looks that way.

I'm not shy about expressing my distaste for Bernie and his Bros. That doesn't mean he's not right, nor does it mean I should carry water for the rich. Why other average Americans do is beyond my understanding.

 

[vanceen]

Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here.

The earnings that are subject to SS deductions now amount to a little less than half of the adjusted gross income in the country.

 

[Razoo]

How important are the assumptions being made about economic growth and stock market returns to the privatization proposals? ​

The growth numbers underlying the talk of a shortfall in the trust fund are extremely pessimistic, while the stock market projections behind the privatization proposals are extremely optimistic. Privatization supporters assume that long-term GDP growth will be only 1.8%, yet they claim the return on stocks will be 7% per year. Other than the Great Depression, the slowest decade of growth in U.S. history was the 1980s, with a growth rate of 2.4%.
=========================================================================
If the economy grows at 2.4%, the Social Security trust fund never goes to zero.
=========================================================================

Young people say they want more control over their Social Security investments. How do you explain the purpose of Social Security to today’s young workers? ​

The best way to explain Social Security is to say what it is. It’s an insurance system that protects your income when you retire or face disability, and provides income to your children if you die. Former President Bush wanted you to look at Social Security as an investment, but it is not. It is a form of insurance that guarantees you a constant stream of income in retirement or in case of disability, adjusted to protect against inflation, for as long as you live.

 

[Craig234]

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

View attachment 67437204

NTU is an oligarch lobbying organization that lists as its top 'wins' the tax cuts for the rich from Reagan to the 2017 tax cut for the rich. They are putting out propaganda, it's misleading. For a better picture of the story here is a better description.

ProPublica Shows How Little the Wealthiest Pay in Taxes: Policymakers Should Respond Accordingly | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Policymakers should look to increase taxes on the nation’s wealthiest households, which not only enjoy enormous tax breaks but also have done extremely well in recent decades.

www.cbpp.org

 

[Razoo]

What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt? ​

========================================================================
The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.
========================================================================
Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office. Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system? ​

=============================================================================
Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.
=============================================================================

 

[Razoo]

England initiated private accounts in 1984 that failed miserably. Is it likely that private accounts would fail in the United States? ​

The British experiment with private accounts has indeed failed to provide an adequate and stable retirement income for the majority of citizens. The United Kingdom is now trying to figure out how to switch back to a defined-benefit system of retirement insurance. The problem is that the trillions of pounds that were diverted into the stock market can’t be brought back into the defined-benefit system.
=========================================================================
The United States’ Social Security system is the most efficiently run insurance program in the world, with overhead of only 0.7% of annual benefits. For every $100 paid into the system, $99.30 is paid out in benefits to retirees.

In the United States, overhead for annuities provided by private firms average about 20%; for every $100 paid in, $20 gets siphoned off. And almost no annuities are indexed for inflation
==========================================================================

 

[Craig234]

I don't think the math in the article works out.
Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year

and

But there are 46.7 million SS recipients, who receive an average of $1550.48 per month, for a total of $868.888992 billion
increasing the amount by $200 a month, would add $2400 X 46.7 X10^6 = $112 billion
when they have stated expanding the cap would only increase the revenue by $3.4 billion.
I wounder where they think the other $109 billion per year will come from?

$3.4 billion "from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone". You're trying to equate that to the total raised.

 

[Razoo]

What is fair share .....???

I pay based on my gross wage therefore everyone should pay the same. If one wants to pay less ......make less money and stop whining.

Bravo Bernie. Problem recognized and solution found. Do it.

damn right let's get on with it!!

 

[Chomsky]

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.

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

The bolded is all I needed to know. It gets my whole-hearted endorsement!

 

[Lutherf]

$3.4 billion "from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone". You're trying to equate that to the total raised.

That $3.4B number isn't even close to right.

Let's say that the average earned income for those 11 people is $100m/yr. If you assess an additional 15.3% on all of them you only come up with $168M which is more than $3.2 BILLION dollars off whatever hairball calculation was used to come up with that.

 

[BirdinHand]

Yeah, but Social Security literally cost the average citizen millions of dollars over their working lives

No, it does not. That is a lie.

The maximum amount that anyone pays into social security annually is around $20K (and that’s a self employed person paying both the employer and individual contribution at the maximum earnings for SS annually)

Even if the “average worker” worked 50 years at the maximum wage, they won’t even pay in $1M during their working life.

 

[Razoo]

Social Security Works PAC​

https://socialsecurityworks.org › social-security-works-p...

The Social Security Works Political Action Committee, led by Jon “Bowzer” Bauman, was created in 2017 to elect leaders who will work to expand Social ...
=================================================================================
Why whine for the wealthy they will file for their Social Security Insurance benefits they are not stupid .......maybe some are. I know a few who love their SSI and their medicare = YES THEY DO LOVE THEIR MEDICARE!!!!!

Face it for some of the more fortunate who still have their feet on the ground SSI and local brew work well together.

 

[vanceen]

NTU is an oligarch lobbying organization that lists as its top 'wins' the tax cuts for the rich from Reagan to the 2017 tax cut for the rich. They are putting out propaganda, it's misleading. For a better picture of the story here is a better description.

ProPublica Shows How Little the Wealthiest Pay in Taxes: Policymakers Should Respond Accordingly | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Policymakers should look to increase taxes on the nation’s wealthiest households, which not only enjoy enormous tax breaks but also have done extremely well in recent decades.

www.cbpp.org

It's not only NTU who publish that data. It is factual as far as I can determine.

Your link does not challenge the data. It points out ways that the tax code favors the rich. I agree with them about those anomalies.

 

[Craig234]

It's not only NTU who publish that data. It is factual as far as I can determine.

It's not a question of 'factual', it's a question of very misleading.

Your link does not challenge the data. It points out ways that the tax code favors the rich. I agree with them about those anomalies.

It shows how cherry picked the narrow data is.

 

[Galactic Spin]

That $3.4B number isn't even close to right.

Let's say that the average earned income for those 11 people is $100m/yr. If you assess an additional 15.3% on all of them you only come up with $168M which is more than $3.2 BILLION dollars off whatever hairball calculation was used to come up with that.

Or maybe you aren't following. I think I will go with that.

You can follow the links in the article to see where you went wrong.

 

[Lutherf]

Or maybe you aren't following. I think I will go with that.

You can follow the links in the article to see where you went wrong.

You mean this part of the article?

Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

 

[BirdinHand]

How did they get a poll already on a bill no ones heard of?

Removing the wage cap on Social Security is far from a “new” idea.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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.

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

Bernie has become an institution. You gotta hand it to him he walks the talk. It's politicians like him that raise the bar for the other tin horn heroes. I wonder his real thoughts on the new 'speaker'? Or is that squeaker?

 

[longview]

The financial analysis by the Social Security Administration is actually linked up in the article. So it appears that you're missing something.

Quote it then?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, it does not. That is a lie.

The maximum amount that anyone pays into social security annually is around $20K (and that’s a self employed person paying both the employer and individual contribution at the maximum earnings for SS annually)

Even if the “average worker” worked 50 years at the maximum wage, they won’t even pay in $1M during their working life.

No, it does not. That is a lie.

The maximum amount that anyone pays into social security annually is around $20K (and that’s a self employed person paying both the employer and individual contribution at the maximum earnings for SS annually)

Even if the “average worker” worked 50 years at the maximum wage, they won’t even pay in $1M during their working life.

So if you had a 401k with employer match equaling 20,000 dollars for 40 years at the historical average of the S&P 500 you’re looking at 10,000,000 in retirement.

You’re not going to see that kind of money from social security ever. If you retired at the maximum possible payment for social security (at age 70) that’s 4500 a month, if you’re a man and make it to the average age of mortality only 9 years later you collected 450,000 dollars.

Incidentally assuming your numbers of 20K per year you and your employer probably paid more money into social security then you Recieved. Even using your numbers and assumptions you are wildly wrong. You should really run the math. In your scenario you lost money on the principle of paying social security, before we get into opportunity costs in 8 figures

I though you were the successful high income business woman? Are you telling me Mrs Boss can’t calculate 20 grand in opportunity cost?

 

[BirdinHand]

So if you had a 401k with employer match equaling 20,000 dollars for 40 years at the historical average of the S&P 500 you’re looking at 10,000,000 in retirement.

You’re not going to see that kind of money from social security ever. If you retired at the maximum possible payment for social security (at age 70) that’s 4500 a month, if you’re a man and make it to the average age of mortality only 9 years later you collected 450,000 dollars.

Incidentally assuming your numbers of 20K per year you and your employer probably paid more money into social security then you Recieved. Even using your numbers and assumptions you are wildly wrong. You should really run the math. In your scenario you lost money on the principle of paying social security, because we get into opportunity costs in 8 figures

No. Wrong. As usual.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No. Wrong. As usual.

Lol. Mrs Boss can’t calculate 20 grand in investments annually.

Nor apparently simple arithmetic on benefits from SSA

 

[BirdinHand]

Lol. Mrs Boss can’t calculate 20 grand in investments annually.

Nor apparently simple arithmetic on benefits from SSA

You can’t do math. You’re wrong, as usual.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You can’t do math. You’re wrong, as usual.

I just did the math. You can’t do math evidently. I don’t know how 20 grand a year becomes less then S&P investments using any heretofore known mathematical method.

I seriously doubt you actually believe this, because then no financial advisor would ever tell their client to invest, because social security would obviously fund a lavish upper middle class retirement.