Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders Has An Amazingly Simple Idea To Fix Social Security For The Next 75 Years [View all]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)136. So you agree with me then?
Thanks!
Oh wait, you are going to bicker about "vast" not being "vast" enough. Despite 4-to-1 being quite ample to support retirees.
Btw....your productivity argument only works in theoretical-land today. Productivity gains are supposed to "trickle down" to workers. They should get paid more as their productivity increases. And that was the case up until about 1980. Since then productivity gains have not "trickled down" to workers. A worker in 1980 got the same inflation-adjusted pay as a worker today, despite the much higher productivity of a worker today.
The fact that productivity is higher today should mean workers have more money, and thus can support more Social Security recipients. But workers are not getting any more money. The "bonus" from productivity has been paid out only to top earners. With the cap on the Social Security tax, top earners are not paying more Social Security taxes.
Productivity gains can't solve the funding problem because "regular" workers aren't making any more money, and top earners are already well over the cap for the tax.
Our options were to tax the rich more, or build up a trust fund. Since the commission to solve this was appointed by Reagan and chaired by Greenspan, taxing the rich was not going to happen. So, trust fund.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
152 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie Sanders Has An Amazingly Simple Idea To Fix Social Security For The Next 75 Years [View all]
Playinghardball
May 2012
OP
And, of course, he also pledged to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#46
but who gave the blue dog Dems their power? Who let Lieberman remain on committees after he
robinlynne
May 2012
#131
Are you saying that the Repubs have NOT been abusing the filibuster?. . . n/t
annabanana
May 2012
#129
Do you believe that the Republicans prevented Reid from calling for cloture votes?
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#132
If they have to pay in more, do you have to pay out more to them when they retire? n/t
hughee99
May 2012
#2
There's be no advantage in that. Thus pointless unless the intent is to turn SS into welfare &
HiPointDem
May 2012
#48
I think it's a nice wedge issue for the free marketeers, and I think the majority of those who would
HiPointDem
May 2012
#67
And they might live to be 109 and beat the system...or you could die one month after you start...
rfranklin
May 2012
#13
Which sector is more likely to live to the age of 67? Those that return to Mexico, go to
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#50
Yes. Lower-income people get proportionally more if they live to collect, but they're more likely
HiPointDem
May 2012
#52
social security doesn't need that much fixing, berrnie. why do you want to give more money
HiPointDem
May 2012
#5
Alongwitht he fix, insert a provision making the use of the money raised solely for SS.
rustydog
May 2012
#9
So either you've decided to change your story, or you're not very good at making a point.
jeff47
May 2012
#141
the problem isn't the government "spending" it -- the problem is collecting so much money over
HiPointDem
May 2012
#16
gee, thanks for the history & finance lesson. not. The way you pay for it is with the increased
HiPointDem
May 2012
#32
I disagree that the problem is the number of workers per retiree. That's a red herring.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#144
The General Fund is running massive deficits, but the SS Trust Fund is a separate fund.
Selatius
May 2012
#99
Oh, they've got a ready-made answer to that one--it makes the program WELFARE if the rich have to
Romulox
May 2012
#7
The graphic in the OP refers to "billionaires". That's "rich" by anyone's standards.
Romulox
May 2012
#27
SS taxes aren't paid on income from capital. Most (all) billionaires get theirs from capital income,
HiPointDem
May 2012
#35
I understand that. This thread is about removing the cap SS withholding on incomes in excess of
Romulox
May 2012
#51
So why are you talking about billionaires, and the op talking about "the 1%, as if those are the
HiPointDem
May 2012
#55
The word "billionaire" was BERNIE SANDER's. Will you PLEASE read the OP before attempting
Romulox
May 2012
#58
Bernie knows better, which makes me wonder about his motivations as well. All these "solutions"
HiPointDem
May 2012
#62
For the person who speaks of the "5%", in 2009 the 5% started at $154K, the 10% at $112K.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#76
Of course, it would be welfare if some of the funds were used to finance the bail-outs for the
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#54
No SS taxes are paid on *any* income from *capital*, under or over the cap. Millionaires &
HiPointDem
May 2012
#37
It's a good argument against the pretense being made in this thread that raising the cap would hit
HiPointDem
May 2012
#59
That it won't fix the entire problem in one fell swoop is ALSO a lousy argument... nt
Romulox
May 2012
#89
who said anything about "not fixing the entire problem in one fell swoop"? i deny that there is
HiPointDem
May 2012
#92
SS taxes are NOT paid as a % of income. They are paid as a % of net earnings, up to a cap.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#60
The "business" % of SS is considered part of employee compensation. It can be deducted from
HiPointDem
May 2012
#63
The 1% will love it, because it increases taxes on workers, creating another surplus which can
HiPointDem
May 2012
#38
LOL. I *knew* it. You are against lifting the cap, and are using all sorts of obfuscatory tactics
Romulox
May 2012
#53
The cap is lifted every year. This proposal isn't about lifting the cap, it's about putting more
HiPointDem
May 2012
#61
Bernie Sanders mentioned "billionaires". Your continuing misdirections are failing to sway anyone...
Romulox
May 2012
#90
You can't unilaterally change the Original Topic by shear power of ridiculousness, though. nt
Romulox
May 2012
#124
The cap isn't lifted. It only adjusts for inflation and not one point higher than that.
Selatius
May 2012
#100
It's supposed to be set to cover 90% of total wages. In that sense, it justadjusts for inflation.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#103
The purpose of the trust fund, as originally stated, was to build up a surplus for the "special
HiPointDem
May 2012
#107
Bush wanted to divert payroll taxes into private accounts in his failed attempt.
Selatius
May 2012
#108
Now please explain how having a lot of t-bills in the TF will prevent future presidents from
HiPointDem
May 2012
#109
The greenspan commission no longer exists. It came into existence circa 1982 in order to
HiPointDem
May 2012
#116
You want workers to continue being taxed more than the cost of providing social security, in
HiPointDem
May 2012
#119
Well, when you put it that way, I have no objection to going back to pay-as-you-go.
Selatius
May 2012
#121
OK, i see why we're talking past each other. No, by law when surplus SS taxes are collected,
HiPointDem
May 2012
#122
I've been arguing finance with someone who uses "borrow" and "lent" interchangeably???
Romulox
May 2012
#127
It's not that "borrowed" isn't a word--it's that it's not a synonym for "lent".
Romulox
May 2012
#143
the phrase googled was "borrowed into." You're the semantic whiz, I'm sure you'll figure out
HiPointDem
May 2012
#145
She doesn't WANT the cap lifted. She is very "concerned" for workers making more than $110,000. nt
Romulox
May 2012
#125
someone making $3 billion isn't getting it from wage income. ergo, they don't pay SS taxes on it.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#70
Show me anyone who gets $20 million in salary. If you look into those big numbers publicized in
HiPointDem
May 2012
#102
OK, let's say blankfein is the exception that proves the rule, since i'm too lazy to research the
HiPointDem
May 2012
#110
As far as the reasons for Blankfein taking the cash bonus, that's speculative and beyond the scope.
Selatius
May 2012
#113
of course it's speculation, i said as much. thanks for the one example. but you didn't answer
HiPointDem
May 2012
#114
i think we all know that people in blankfein's position prepare their taxes with the goal of paying
HiPointDem
May 2012
#117
Yet another LOUSY *excuse* not to apply the same SS withholding on *all wages*.
Romulox
May 2012
#128
Raising the tax cap without raising the benefits cap would be the quickest way to end SS
Nye Bevan
May 2012
#87
Why not increase Social Security taxes by increasing the cap? Ronald Reagan did that (and more).
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#104
Why? Because they are now working on another wage-lowering, anti-union, "free trade" agreement.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#133
Why aren't you publicizing that, then, instead of drumming up support for more taxation on labor
HiPointDem
May 2012
#142