Democrats Propose A Different Kind Of Social Security Overhaul (2 Viewers)

[Individual]

And while we are at it, do you know what else we get rid of?

Paying people in stock. I’d make that totally illegal.

Then you can’t keep your income in play, roll it over and run your life by borrowing against it, avoiding taxes. Writing off the interest on the loans and paying bank interest instead of taxes.

Paying in stock under the tax code change I've been suggesting would be income relative to the value of the stock on the day it is acquired.
Stock options to buy stock at a reduced cost, would result in taxable income being the difference between the cost and actual price at the time the option is exercised.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The bicameral bill, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, was reintroduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), with the aim of requiring people with yearly incomes of more than $400,000 to contribute a fairer share of their wealth to the two programs. It would also increase the Medicare tax rate for income above $400,000 by 1.2% and include a provision ensuring owners of hedge funds and private equity firms can no longer avoid Medicare taxes.

'Rigged for the rich': Dems propose a different kind of Social Security overhaul

Social Security and Medicare protect tens of millions of American senior citizens from poverty and medical bankruptcy each year, but economic justice advocates have long said the programs would be strengthened and remain fully solvent for as long as possible if the richest Americans contributed...

www.alternet.org

“Fair” would have been no upper limit earning cutoff to begin with.

Sadly, the bill has very little or no chance of becoming law under the current MAGAt trifecta.

 

[VanceMack]

I’ve heard that tested and I’ve seen the numbers but it doesn’t pan out in reality. Not when you take the full metrics into focus.

The middle class is shrinking. More poor people. The wealth divide getting further apart.

You can always try to find a way to justify fiscal penis envy. Facts on the other hand are stubborn things. They just are.

The wealth divide is irrelevant. Wealth is not a zero sum game. The rich arent getting richer by stealing your pennies.

Social Security distributions are capped. If you cap distribution, then contributions should also be capped. Its not charity.

 

[Individual]

This is a debate site. 95% of all posts are opinions. We have every right to our own opinions.

Should a government Social Security program exist? That is something I can see being debated.
If the consensus is No, there's nothing to discuss.
If the consensus is Yes, then the debate is over and a discussion should begin.
Debates, IMO, serve purpose when there are but two choices, perhaps an in depth discussion over multiple opinions can result in a debate if/when they have been reduced to but two remaining choices.

 

[Individual]

When a billionaire loses ten percent of their wealth, it's crocodile tears time.

When a working class person loses ten percent of their wealth, it's a real shock to the system.

But as someone who licks the boots of the ultrarich, you can't be expected to understand that.

The above would remain true if you upped the percentage of the billionaires loss, and reduced the percentage of many of the working classes loss.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You can always try to find a way to justify fiscal penis envy. Facts on the other hand are stubborn things. They just are.

The wealth divide is irrelevant. Wealth is not a zero sum game. The rich arent getting richer by stealing your pennies.

Social Security distributions are capped. If you cap distribution, then contributions should also be capped. Its not charity.

Social Security contributions will still be capped, just at a different amount.

Prices go up. This would be no different.

 

[VanceMack]

Social Security contributions will still be capped, just at a different amount.

Prices go up. This would be no different.

Contributions are capped because distribution is capped. Socials Security is meant to be a 'benefit' that individuals pay for. You don't want wealthy people to have more benefits...you just want them to have to pay for you.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Contributions are capped because distribution is capped. Socials Security is meant to be a 'benefit' that individuals pay for. You don't want wealthy people to have more benefits...you just want them to have to pay for you.

No, what I want is this playing field balanced somehow.

Workers are getting f##ked. “Right to Work” for what I’m going to pay you laws. Unions gone. Even child labor making a comeback. People living in indebtedness.

We have rolled back to the days of “the company store”.

I’m all for capitalism but the playing fields have to be even. Investors need to profit for their investing. Workers have to profit for their labor. PROFIT means you move ahead. Not that you put your resources in and come out behind.

This system is broken. It requires equalizing.

 

[VanceMack]

No, what I want is this playing field balanced somehow.

Workers are getting f##ked. “Right to Work” for what I’m going to pay you laws. Unions gone. Even child labor making a comeback. People living in indebtedness.

We have rolled back to the days of “the company store”.

I’m all for capitalism but the playing fields have to be even. Investors need to profit for their investing. Workers have to profit for their labor. PROFIT means you move ahead. Not that you put your resources in and come out behind.

This system is broken. It requires equalizing.

You dont fix the problem you identify by penalizing the wealthy and successful No matter how much it hurts your feelings, they didnt make you poor. They arent responsible for carrying you through life. They are responsible to make you successful. And they damn sure arent responsible for fixing what is perceived as a broken social security system.

You want to see improvement, go talk to the person that stares back at you from the mirror.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The goal shouldn't be to penalize a small percentage of the population rather the goal should be to make it that one's return or benefits from SS and medicare matches ones contributions into the system. Bottom like is we're too generous giving out benefits and now that demographics show a shrinking the workforce we're paying the price.

The goal has nothing to do with proportionality.

The goal is to keep old people from having to get food out of dumpsters.

 

[ClaraD]

A good person (which of course is subjective) with over a million a year in income, wouldn't even apply for SS. It doesn't start automatically.

WW

Wanna bet that Trump receives such a check....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wanna bet that Trump receives such a check....

Reports are that he dosen't get a social security check. Whether that is because:

• He dosen't want it, or
• He feels it's politically expediant for him to able to say he doesn't take it, or
• He's never worked the 40 quarters in a wage/salary job to qualify.

I'm thinking the last option. As money from real estate deals, licensing your name, investments, etc. do not qualify for SS. Now some might say - but he was on The Apprentice for what 14 years? And it's true that actors pay into Social Security under the self employment provisions, but that wasn't a year round job. Each season would shot in a month or two.

WW