Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

[Logophile]

Hi, we just won an election. I'm sorry you lost. Yes, it's time to spend. That's what he ran on.

And what he ran on means that young families may not have the resources to withstand the consequences. Thanks!!

 

[iguanaman]

And what he ran on means that young families may not have the resources to withstand the consequences. Thanks!!

What are you babbling about? Biden cares about young families with limited resources and is doing this to help them.

 

[Tbird19482]

That's 384 Billion, 9 zeros, Trillion would have 12 zeros.
The numbers came from the Pie chart in post #308, and www.ssa.gov but items #5 (interest paid on debt) and #6 (principle repaid on debt) at the top are both costs related to past spending, a total of $759,000,000,000 ($759 Billion) which in this case is 33.88% of the total collected revenue being spent on debt principle and interest ($759,000,000,000 ÷ $2,240,000,000,000) which leaves $1,481,000,000,000 to be applied to current spending, items #1 through #4 at the top which total $2,388,000,000,000 ($2.388 Trillion).

When inflation is averaging 2% per year and banks are paying less than 2% interest on savings accounts, and the interest earned is taxable, are you gaining or losing?

Changes are not going to happen unless a large enough number of ordinary citizens begin to demand changes, and it was my hopes that political forums might be a good place to initiate discussion on how to accomplish needed changes without letting political leaning derail the process. I have no problem using the current system for my benefit, but I worry that my children and their children might not, and it's quite obvious that a large and growing number of others are finding it difficult to benefit from what exists today.

YA I noticed that after I posted it and it wouldn't let me edit it so I let it go.
as for the present SS system if it is left alone it won't be around for our kids to collect from
I think several things are going to have to happen and one of them is a higher FICA tax.
I think the SS system should be able to take part of any excess they take in and invest it in secure investments , something more then what the Fed. is paying it now.
or ( and I know this would run our debt up ) pass a law that makes the Federal gov. pay an interest rate that is at least near what the market gets
say 1or1.5% less then market rate , the 2,7 Trillion that is in gov. bonds is not getting any thing near market return
as it is the Federal government is getting that money " loaned " to them for pennies compared to what they could get if they could invest in secure investments
Have a nice day

 

[Individual]

YA I noticed that after I posted it and it wouldn't let me edit it so I let it go.
as for the present SS system if it is left alone it won't be around for our kids to collect from
I think several things are going to have to happen and one of them is a higher FICA tax.
I think the SS system should be able to take part of any excess they take in and invest it in secure investments , something more then what the Fed. is paying it now.
or ( and I know this would run our debt up ) pass a law that makes the Federal gov. pay an interest rate that is at least near what the market gets
say 1or1.5% less then market rate , the 2,7 Trillion that is in gov. bonds is not getting any thing near market return
as it is the Federal government is getting that money " loaned " to them for pennies compared to what they could get if they could invest in secure investments
Have a nice day

No biggie.
The formula and interest rates are found in those links. In 2000 the interest rate averaged 6.24% while FRED showed the inflation rate to be 3.37686%.
Although I've been on SS for over 20yrs now I don't find it to be a major budget issue. What I was trying to point out earlier is that Trust funds are debts accumulated by the government which unlike other debts sometimes require Principle repayment which then becomes a part of the Public debt. I've often thought that a balanced budget could be accomplished simply by a law requiring income taxes to be raised each year to recoup the deficit spending of the previous year. Perhaps then, voters would complain vehemently about creating new spending programs.
To me the major issues I keep looking at are (1) wealth accumulation and how to reduce the rapidity of it, and (2) corporate taxes, which I have been toying with shown below:

 

[skeptic llc]

Employing more people in good jobs will also increase revenue. This system when nearly 50% of us don't make enough to afford taxes has got to change too. A rising tide lifts all boats and that is what Biden wants. I understand your worries but remember that the Govt. is not a household or a private business and does not have the same rules.

I really doubt you understand my worries, since you say things like "50% of us don't make enough to afford taxes". But IDFC, just RAISE TAXES NOW TO PAY FOR THE CURRENT SPENDING. Why is this hard or controversial? I will pay my share, just quit the ****ing borrowing.

 

[Moderate Right]

Biden is considering a major federal tax increase for the first time in nearly 30 years, report says

President Joe Biden is preparing to include a federal tax increase in his next big economic package, according to a Bloomberg report on Monday.

People familiar with the matter told the outlet that the Biden administration is working on a follow-up spending bill to the recently-enacted $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus. The initiative is expected to have a bigger price-tag, and may raise the corporate tax rate and the income tax rate for high-earning individuals to offset the spending, Bloomberg reported.

The move would represent the first major federal tax hike in nearly 30 years, per Bloomberg. The last significant tax increases were implemented in 1993 under the Clinton administration.

Sources with knowledge of the private discussions told Bloomberg that current ideas involve raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, bumping up the income tax rate for individuals who earn more than $400,000 per year, increasing the capital-gains tax rate for individuals who earn at least $1 million per year, expanding the estate tax, and "paring back" tax preferences for pass-through businesses, which are not subject to corporate taxes, such as limited liability companies. https://www.businessinsider.com/bid...l-tax-increase-almost-3-decades-report-2021-3

The tax hikes are not nearly as alarming as the "next big economic package." WHY do we need another "big economic package??" Thanks!!

What the left naively don’t understand is that when the rich are forced to pay higher taxes it gets passed through to the poorer. Same thing with climate change policies. They hit the poor in the pocketbook.

 

[iguanaman]

What the left naively don’t understand is that when the rich are forced to pay higher taxes it gets passed through to the poorer. Same thing with climate change policies. They hit the poor in the pocketbook.

LOL Yes just like when the Replicants lower taxes it "trickles down" to the rest of us. You keep falling for the same BS over and over. Isn't that the definition of insanity? 40 years of lower taxes on the rich has just about killed the middle class who haven't had a raise since the 1980's. The rich keep pissing on us instead.

 

[Tbird19482]

No biggie.
The formula and interest rates are found in those links. In 2000 the interest rate averaged 6.24% while FRED showed the inflation rate to be 3.37686%.
Although I've been on SS for over 20yrs now I don't find it to be a major budget issue. What I was trying to point out earlier is that Trust funds are debts accumulated by the government which unlike other debts sometimes require Principle repayment which then becomes a part of the Public debt. I've often thought that a balanced budget could be accomplished simply by a law requiring income taxes to be raised each year to recoup the deficit spending of the previous year. Perhaps then, voters would complain vehemently about creating new spending programs.
To me the major issues I keep looking at are (1) wealth accumulation and how to reduce the rapidity of it, and (2) corporate taxes, which I have been toying with shown below:

View attachment 67327805

My point was for years there has been a surplus between the revenue FICA brought in and what was paid out
and they passed a law that made it that ONLY the Government could " borrow" that money and at a very low interest rate , if they are the only ones that can " borrow " this money they should be forced to pay the SS system something near what they would get if they could put those funds out to the public market
and it is now that it is getting down to where there isn't going to be a surplus the Federal government has to find a way to pay the system back
and I think it would be unfair to up the tax on SS benefits ( I don't think they should be taxed at all ) or cut the benefits for people already on SS.
Have a nice afternoon

 

[Individual]

My point was for years there has been a surplus between the revenue FICA brought in and what was paid out
and they passed a law that made it that ONLY the Government could " borrow" that money and at a very low interest rate , if they are the only ones that can " borrow " this money they should be forced to pay the SS system something near what they would get if they could put those funds out to the public market
and it is now that it is getting down to where there isn't going to be a surplus the Federal government has to find a way to pay the system back
and I think it would be unfair to up the tax on SS benefits ( I don't think they should be taxed at all ) or cut the benefits for people already on SS.
Have a nice afternoon

I agree with most of what you say, but the fact is there is no money to invest. ALL incoming revenue to the Treasury is spent, and even more. All the so called Trust funds are nothing more than a record accounting for the inflow and outflow of that revenue stream.
On the emboldened, I agree 100%.
Still I would like to focus more on taxes in general, and while I maintain that passage of the 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 are the primary source of our economic issues, perhaps there are things we could demand government do which would appeal to and gain support of a broad group of voters regardless of political leaning. And if successful, perhaps even make it possible to reduce the Payroll tax while maintaining or increasing the benefits paid to those on SS.

Those who voters elect to serve in our government are supposed to be OUR representatives, though what I have seen in this and most every other political forum, we voters have become representatives of those who serve or served in political offices, past and/or present.

I notice you didn't have anything at all to say about what I posted relative to Corporate taxes.

 

[Tbird19482]

I agree with most of what you say, but the fact is there is no money to invest. ALL incoming revenue to the Treasury is spent, and even more. All the so called Trust funds are nothing more than a record accounting for the inflow and outflow of that revenue stream.
On the emboldened, I agree 100%.
Still I would like to focus more on taxes in general, and while I maintain that passage of the 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 are the primary source of our economic issues, perhaps there are things we could demand government do which would appeal to and gain support of a broad group of voters regardless of political leaning. And if successful, perhaps even make it possible to reduce the Payroll tax while maintaining or increasing the benefits paid to those on SS.

Those who voters elect to serve in our government are supposed to be OUR representatives, though what I have seen in this and most every other political forum, we voters have become representatives of those who serve or served in political offices, past and/or present.

I notice you didn't have anything at all to say about what I posted relative to Corporate taxes.

well first I agree with what you say about the SS fund it mostly is for accounting
the SS trust fund holds a bunch of what could be worthless notes 2,7 Trillion dollars worth
that is the money people paid in and is supposed to be used when needed to pay the benefits to people on it.
there are things we can do to make it stronger , like I said we should be paying ourselves a percentage rate of interest some where near what we could get in the open market
right now preferred stock is getting in the area of 12 to 15 percent and the SS fund is getting something like 1 % at the most
and as I said I believe we should have a MIN income tax for large Corps.
many of them are not paying even 1cent in FIT on millions if not Billions in US profits
If a Corp makes a Billion in US profits and under todays law wouldnot have to pay anything in FIT under a MIN. FIT they would have to pay something maybe 2% or as much as 5%. most large Corps use programs ( training programs for some, skilled tradesmen and other things ) and should help pay for those programs
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

well first I agree with what you say about the SS fund it mostly is for accounting
the SS trust fund holds a bunch of what could be worthless notes 2,7 Trillion dollars worth
that is the money people paid in and is supposed to be used when needed to pay the benefits to people on it.
there are things we can do to make it stronger , like I said we should be paying ourselves a percentage rate of interest some where near what we could get in the open market
right now preferred stock is getting in the area of 12 to 15 percent and the SS fund is getting something like 1 % at the most
and as I said I believe we should have a MIN income tax for large Corps.
many of them are not paying even 1cent in FIT on millions if not Billions in US profits
If a Corp makes a Billion in US profits and under todays law wouldnot have to pay anything in FIT under a MIN. FIT they would have to pay something maybe 2% or as much as 5%. most large Corps use programs ( training programs for some, skilled tradesmen and other things ) and should help pay for those programs
Have a nice night

I posted a suggestion on corporate taxes.

 

[jonny5]

IS that a serious question? I'll act like it is. Debt level should be zero, outside of temporary legitimate emergencies like WWII. Taxation level is too high. Spending level is too high. Liberals promote convenient spending because it is unpopular for any pol to oppose it, then they look to soaking wealthy people to cover their spending; conservatives look to preventing rich folk from paying taxes and just borrow instead; everyone wins short term and the country gets screwed, particularly young and unborn people who don't deserve to inherit a debt that is 100% attributable to current Americans' selfishness. That's my view, if it matters.

I mostly agree.

 

[jonny5]

Remember when Trump was running a trillion dollar deficit during a booming economy. With a booming economy there is no need for stimulus packages, and revenue is great while now its much lower because people don't have as much money. Republicans only care about the deficit when a democrat is president.

Oh hey another hypocrasy post. How about an original thought on the topic? Should we spend more, less, tax more, less, have more less debt?

 

[Visbek]

The numbers came from the Pie chart in post #308, and www.ssa.gov but items #5 (interest paid on debt) and #6 (principle repaid on debt) at the top are both costs related to past spending....

Where are you getting the numbers for "principal repaid on debt?" Federal debt is typically rolled over, not paid off.

2019 tax revenues: $3.5 trillion
$375 billion is around 11% of revenues.
$759 billion is 21% of revenues. Not 34%.

When inflation is averaging 2% per year and banks are paying less than 2% interest on savings accounts, and the interest earned is taxable, are you gaining or losing?

If you are buying securities at below the rate of inflation -- which means buying any T bills shorter than 20 years -- then the creditor is losing. And yet, they keep on buying those T-Bills.

Who benefits? The federal government, because it gets to borrow at ridiculously low rates.

Changes are not going to happen unless a large enough number of ordinary citizens begin to demand changes, and it was my hopes that political forums might be a good place to initiate discussion on how to accomplish needed changes without letting political leaning derail the process.

This has nothing to do with "political lean." It is that there is no problem.

I have no problem using the current system for my benefit, but I worry that my children and their children might not, and it's quite obvious that a large and growing number of others are finding it difficult to benefit from what exists today.

Sorry, but no. The opposite is true. People are less concerned about federal spending and debt than they've been in a long time. The last stimulus package had support of 2/3 of the public.

 

[Visbek]

there are things we can do to make it stronger , like I said we should be paying ourselves a percentage rate of interest some where near what we could get in the open market

So... The federal government should charge the federal government more interest for the intergovernmental loans? Do you really not understand that won't actually generate additional revenues? It's just a sneaky way to use general funds to shore up Social Security.

right now preferred stock is getting in the area of 12 to 15 percent and the SS fund is getting something like 1 % at the most

Yeah, here's the thing. The trust fund is dwindling, and if we don't make changes, it will be gone in about 10 years.

Even if we could somehow switch those intergovernmental loans overnight (which I doubt), that won't be enough to keep funding SS via payroll taxes. That will only close the gap by around 7%.

I highly recommend you try the interactive "Social Security Reformer" tool.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

and as I said I believe we should have a MIN income tax for large Corps.
many of them are not paying even 1cent in FIT on millions if not Billions in US profits

That's true, and Biden is working on it.

That said... We'd have to increase tax revenues by 30% just to close the gap. If you actually plan to retire debt, you'd need to increase taxes even more than that. And guess who has the most money to spend lobbying Congress? Unfortunately, the wealthy people who think they should pay more taxes are vastly outnumbered by those who don't; and corporations definitely don't want to pay higher taxes.

And as noted above: What happened the last time we had a surplus, and a bunch of professed deficit hawks did NOT try to retire the debt. Instead, they spent like drunken sailors on leave.

Thus, I seriously doubt that the debt will be paid off. Fortunately, it's not actually a problem.

 

[Individual]

Where are you getting the numbers for "principal repaid on debt?" Federal debt is typically rolled over, not paid off.

2019 tax revenues: $3.5 trillion
$375 billion is around 11% of revenues.
$759 billion is 21% of revenues. Not 34%.



If you are buying securities at below the rate of inflation -- which means buying any T bills shorter than 20 years -- then the creditor is losing. And yet, they keep on buying those T-Bills.

Who benefits? The federal government, because it gets to borrow at ridiculously low rates.



This has nothing to do with "political lean." It is that there is no problem.



Sorry, but no. The opposite is true. People are less concerned about federal spending and debt than they've been in a long time. The last stimulus package had support of 2/3 of the public.

1. Principal repaid on debt? The trust funds are debt owed by the government, which when the principal of the trust fund is used it becomes debt owed by the public. You're correct, government doesn't pay off debt, at leastt not since Ike was President

And if interest rates rise to what they were in the late 70's again?

I agree, government benefits, but it's time the people began to benefit instead of the government.

The problems are being passed on to each following generation.

When a growing majority of the people are becoming made dependent on government, they're less likely to be concerned about federal spending and debt during their lifetime, as they're leaving the costs to future generations.

 

[Visbek]

Principal repaid on debt?

Yes, that's what you wrote. Where did you come up with that number?

And if interest rates rise to what they were in the late 70's again?

Seriously? We're supposed to base trillions in fiscal policy based on something that almost certainly isn't going to happen? Why not throw in a hypothetical nuclear war, or alien invasion?

Interest rates soared in the late 70s and early 80s because Volcker was trying to tame inflation. The chances that we will hit 11-15% inflation any time soon is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.

I'd add that in 2019, you could have asked "what if we get slammed by a pandemic that shuts down 25% of the economy?" Guess what? We're borrowing to do a stimulus, and it hasn't destroyed the economy. It's saving it instead. Who'da thunk it? Oh, I know -- all the economists who know that the time to spend is during a downturn, and that federal debt isn't a real problem.

I agree, government benefits, but it's time the people began to benefit instead of the government.

Your argument makes no sense.

The government benefits from borrowing while interest rates are low. But if the government charges itself a higher rate of interest, it's still coming from tax revenues and borrowing.

We can't just slap a 30% tax increase on corporations and expect nothing to change. At a minimum, lower profits mean lower stock prices; companies will also be less able to buy back stock. Some of that will come out of cost savings, which means cutting jobs, and chances that C suites will cut their pay is low. Some companies will need to raise prices, and guess who that hurts?

Again, what can we cut? 70% of spending is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and interest. We can't just do a 25% across-the-board cut. Whatever you cut will mean lost jobs.

You claim you want to prevent economic pain. But you're also talking about increasing tax revenues by at least 30% and/or cutting spending by 25%, actions which in and of themselves will cause the economic pain you want to avoid.

The problems are being passed on to each following generation.

And again I ask... What problems? Deficit hawks have screamed about these problems for 40 years. Where are the problems? Everything suggested is hypothetical, and one of them (Social Security revenues not meeting outlays) isn't caused by federal debt in the first place! Why aren't they happening now? I just... I just really don't get it.

When a growing majority of the people are becoming made dependent on government, they're less likely to be concerned about federal spending and debt during their lifetime, as they're leaving the costs to future generations.

Uhm... Didn't you just say that you wanted to leave partisanship out of it?

Citizens left the debts of the 80s to today. Are we getting killed by it? Nope.

The government isn't making anyone depend on government. Corporations and the wealthy are the ones doing that.

Corporations resist minimum wage hikes, even something as simple as indexing the MW to inflation. They essentially demand an annual erosion in wages.

Corporations condemn unions, even though despite their flaws, unions help keep wages up and protect worker's rights.

Corporations are more than happy to automate or offshore manufacturing. Obviously this means fewer US jobs, and less opportunity for low-skilled workers.

That means more people need to attend college or university. Since government doesn't subsidize that, it means millions of people wind up owing trillions to banks and other lenders -- and that's a debt that cannot be erased via bankruptcy.

And of course, both corporations and the wealthy have decided to die on a hill rather than pay more in taxes.

I assure you, I could go on. The problem isn't that "people might become dependent!" Most people want to work and earn their own way. The problem is that the plutocrats have warped the system in their favor, so that lots of people don't have much of a choice.

 

[Tbird19482]

So... The federal government should charge the federal government more interest for the intergovernmental loans? Do you really not understand that won't actually generate additional revenues? It's just a sneaky way to use general funds to shore up Social Security.



Yeah, here's the thing. The trust fund is dwindling, and if we don't make changes, it will be gone in about 10 years.

Even if we could somehow switch those intergovernmental loans overnight (which I doubt), that won't be enough to keep funding SS via payroll taxes. That will only close the gap by around 7%.

I highly recommend you try the interactive "Social Security Reformer" tool.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

That's true, and Biden is working on it.

That said... We'd have to increase tax revenues by 30% just to close the gap. If you actually plan to retire debt, you'd need to increase taxes even more than that. And guess who has the most money to spend lobbying Congress? Unfortunately, the wealthy people who think they should pay more taxes are vastly outnumbered by those who don't; and corporations definitely don't want to pay higher taxes.

And as noted above: What happened the last time we had a surplus, and a bunch of professed deficit hawks did NOT try to retire the debt. Instead, they spent like drunken sailors on leave.

Thus, I seriously doubt that the debt will be paid off. Fortunately, it's not actually a problem.

POINT is that the SS trust fund should be getting a lot more interest then it does, they should get somewhere near what the market is paying not giving the government a almost free loan.
Have a nice day

 

[highroller]

Democrats are in power now so they'll fix this problem.

Why would they fix this problem if the GOP won’t vote to raise taxes to an adequate level?

 

[Visbek]

POINT is that the SS trust fund should be getting a lot more interest then it does, they should get somewhere near what the market is paying not giving the government a almost free loan.

Dude. Seriously. Trying to earn a return on the trust fund is not going to do anything meaningful.

The only reason for the intergovernmental loans is because the "separation" between payroll and other taxes is just an accounting fiction. A tax is a tax is a tax. There is no reason to split off payroll taxes, except to fool people into thinking of SS as a giant IRA.

To wit: If the rest of the government wasn't borrowing from the SS trust fund, then it would just borrow from someone else. It wouldn't reduce borrowing or stop the government from borrowing.

Thus, saying "we should earn interest on the trust fund!" is like saying "The federal government should collect a bunch of taxes for no reason other than to invest it in the stock market and earn a return." It's nuts.

Plus, what will it invest in? Who decides what it will invest in? What happens to everyone's retirement during stock market downturns, which are inevitable? How will this plan not create some sort of conflict of interest, where the federal government will be tempted to prop up or manipulate the market to keep Social Security solvent?

And again! Even if you don't believe the obvious facts, the reality is that the trust fund will be gone in about 10 years.

 

[Lord Zerg]

Oh hey another hypocrasy post. How about an original thought on the topic? Should we spend more, less, tax more, less, have more less debt?

For now, spend more, tax a bit more. When the recession is over, tax more, spend less.

 

[rocket88]

So youre ok with fiscal irresponsibility then?

I think the problem is you've got tax and spend Democrats on one side, and don't tax but spend anyway Republicans. At least the Democrats think the money has to come from somewhere.

Which do you think is more irresponsible

 

[Individual]

Why would they fix this problem if the GOP won’t vote to raise taxes to an adequate level?

I keep trying to move conversation to how we could raise more tax revenue with very little success.

 

[Individual]

Yes, that's what you wrote. Where did you come up with that number?



Seriously? We're supposed to base trillions in fiscal policy based on something that almost certainly isn't going to happen? Why not throw in a hypothetical nuclear war, or alien invasion?

Interest rates soared in the late 70s and early 80s because Volcker was trying to tame inflation. The chances that we will hit 11-15% inflation any time soon is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.

I'd add that in 2019, you could have asked "what if we get slammed by a pandemic that shuts down 25% of the economy?" Guess what? We're borrowing to do a stimulus, and it hasn't destroyed the economy. It's saving it instead. Who'da thunk it? Oh, I know -- all the economists who know that the time to spend is during a downturn, and that federal debt isn't a real problem.



Your argument makes no sense.

The government benefits from borrowing while interest rates are low. But if the government charges itself a higher rate of interest, it's still coming from tax revenues and borrowing.

We can't just slap a 30% tax increase on corporations and expect nothing to change. At a minimum, lower profits mean lower stock prices; companies will also be less able to buy back stock. Some of that will come out of cost savings, which means cutting jobs, and chances that C suites will cut their pay is low. Some companies will need to raise prices, and guess who that hurts?

Again, what can we cut? 70% of spending is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and interest. We can't just do a 25% across-the-board cut. Whatever you cut will mean lost jobs.

You claim you want to prevent economic pain. But you're also talking about increasing tax revenues by at least 30% and/or cutting spending by 25%, actions which in and of themselves will cause the economic pain you want to avoid.


CUT REMAINDER DUE TO 5,000 LIMIT.

I believe you are referring to the 384 billion shortfall of incoming payroll tax revenue which is an intragovernmental debt reduction NOT a Federal debt repayment.

Keyword being "almost". What would a 1% or 2% rise in the interest rate cost us? And the consequences of inflation apply equally to both rich and poor? Personally, I've been able to benefit greatly from inflation, and have been able to accumulate more wealth after retiring than I was able to during my working life, though not billions like some others.

Why would you even suggest cutting spending on Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by their own revenue stream?
Yes, I have tried to suggest some changes which would increase tax revenues and eliminate a Federal income tax on individuals, AND cut nearly every Federal social spending program completely out of the Federal budget.

What problems? Primarily inflation, home prices, rent costs, which seem to rise much more rapidly than the annual inflation rate. The home my parents bought in 1950 for $13,000 was assessed at $550,000 for property taxes around 2005 or 2006, somewhere around an average 7% per year increase since it was built.

What's partisan about what I said. More people are becoming MADE dependent on government.
I've lived abroad since retiring a few decades ago, and American jobs have moved here too paying much higher wages than what were previously available, but far less than what are paid in the U.S. The minimum wage is currently about $10 or $11 (per day).

You sound like you would want to see some change, so why can't we all try to talk about change and leave left, right, conservative, liberal, progressive, politicians, parties, etc. out of the conversation, with intent to find agreement on change where little exists today?

 

[iguanaman]

POINT is that the SS trust fund should be getting a lot more interest then it does, they should get somewhere near what the market is paying not giving the government a almost free loan.
Have a nice day

The trust fund is paid the same rate as T-bills which is the safest investment in the world. Do you think we should accept higher risks for higher returns? We could lose with that.
How Are the Trust Funds Invested?
The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations, and investors consider U.S. government securities one of the world’s safest investments.

By the end of 2019, the trust funds had accumulated nearly $2.9 trillion worth of Treasury securities, earning an average interest rate of 2.2 percent during that year. The Social Security Administration provides monthly reports on the investment holdings of the trust funds, their maturities, and interest rates. The trustees project that the trust funds will earn $78 billion in interest income in 2020.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0