[Steve_American]

House GOP wants to cut SS by raising the age to begin getting it, proving they lied when they denied this is their goal. And, want to cut taxes on the rich at the same time by making the 2017 cuts permanent.

The Repuds in the House are dishonorable liars. IMO, it is one thing for a politician to make false campaign promises and another to lie about cutting the program that is favored by more Americans than every other program.
. . . Because the Repuds in the House are dishonorable liars, nobody should vote for any Repud at any gov. level, because they are likely dishonorable liars also.

You need to remove the [==] to see it.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=KH88LbilaeU&list=TLPQMTYwNjIwMjPDaIoypfi9yQ&index=29
.

[Politics_Observer]

@Steve_American

Of course the Republicans are going to outright lie to everybody and say they are not trying to take social security away from everybody while by the same token just go ahead and take social security away from everybody while telling them they don't want to do that. They are lying and they know they are lying. The Republican's job is not to represent the American people. The job of the Republican is to ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY represent rich white males and NOBODY ELSE. That's the ONLY PEOPLE that the Republicans REALLY REPRESENT.

They might have a few token blacks or Hispanics to try to deflect from the fact their REAL JOB IS TO ONLY REPRESENT RICH WHITE MALES. So, when the Republicans cut taxes, they HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE TAX CUTS SOMEHOW. And that MEANS TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY FROM EVERYBODY TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS FOR RICH WHITE MALES. That is, after all, the ONLY PEOPLE REPUBLICANS REPRESENT AND NOBODY ELSE. Republicans just can't be honest about it and come out and say so and tell the truth to everybody because if they did, they would not be able to easily manipulate people to vote for them while by the same token ONLY representing rich white males and nobody else.

That's their game. Of course, rich white males want government to ONLY BENEFIT THEM AND NOBODY ELSE, so naturally, everybody knows nothing is free so to get the tax cuts for rich white males and pay for those tax cuts, you have to take social security and medicare away from everybody else. Rich white males don't give two shits about anybody or the American people. They only care about themselves. So fuck them, you know?

[wat0n]

Raising the retirement age is something going on across the West. It's not a Republican or even an American thing.

[Steve_American]

Raising the retirement age is something going on across the West. It's not a Republican or even an American thing.

That doesn't make it right.!!

1] It just means most of the west is in thrall to [your favorite] neoliberal economic theory. Much of the "West" is in the EU where there is functionally a balanced budget rule in place.
2] Life expectancy in the US has gone down, so there is no "you'll live longer" argument to be made.
3] In 1983 the FICA tax was increased so the Baby Boomers would pay more so they could pay for their parent's benefits and also create the SS Trust Fund to help pay for their own benefits too. Now most Boomers have retired, so the FICA tax should be reduced.
. . . Since 1983 the distribution of incomes has reduced the bottom 50% and massively increased the top 1% of incomes. So, if we need more FICA tax after it is reduced, the solution is to tax the 1% enough to make up for 100% of the shortfall. Repuds will never tax the 1%.

So, the voters need to vote the Repuds out, and replace them with new Progressives to balance the Corp Dems.

Also, whether or not this is a "Western thing", the Repuds are still dishonorable liars.

[Rich]

The Liberals have decided to underwrite the bancrupt Ukrainian economy with its early retirement age. Raising the retirement age of western workers is an obvious way to pay for this.

[wat0n]

That doesn't make it right.!!

1] It just means most of the west is in thrall to [your favorite] neoliberal economic theory. Much of the "West" is in the EU where there is functionally a balanced budget rule in place.

Who cares? That doesn't change the demographic issue.

2] Life expectancy in the US has gone down, so there is no "you'll live longer" argument to be made.

How has life expectancy at 65 evolved in the US post COVID?

Drug addicts who die from fentanyl don't normally reach retirement age.

3] In 1983 the FICA tax was increased so the Baby Boomers would pay more so they could pay for their parent's benefits and also create the SS Trust Fund to help pay for their own benefits too. Now most Boomers have retired, so the FICA tax should be reduced.
. . . Since 1983 the distribution of incomes has reduced the bottom 50% and massively increased the top 1% of incomes. So, if we need more FICA tax after it is reduced, the solution is to tax the 1% enough to make up for 100% of the shortfall. Repuds will never tax the 1%.

So, the voters need to vote the Repuds out, and replace them with new Progressives to balance the Corp Dems.

Also, whether or not this is a "Western thing", the Repuds are still dishonorable liars.

Just because you don't like the Republicans doesn't make the argument any less true. The Biden Administration is also sounding the alarm on the fundamental unsustainability of SS.

Also, why do you care? You're going to be dead when this is an issue. It's those of us, millennials, who will have to deal with the consequences.

[SpecialOlympian]

Raising the retirement age is something going on across the West. It's not a Republican or even an American thing.

Lmao hell yes keep your hot takes coming buddy.

I think it's ridiculous that we can vote to immediately send $50 billion to Ukraine with support from both parties but a secure income stream in retirement is reprehensible to the GOP, but lmao if you understand sovereign finance so poorly that you think it's an "either or" decision.

God I love this poster, and his continued quest to be infected by every strain of Covid imaginable.

[Politics_Observer]

It's either send money and aid to Ukraine to Ukrainians fighting and dying keeping the Russians at bay. Or we send our own sons and daughters and have them fight and die keeping the Russians at bay and end up having to spend alot more money than what we would end up paying by simply supporting Ukraine's fight against the Russians. We save the American taxpayers money and lives in the long term by sending aid to Ukraine now. It's either pay now or pay a far greater cost later.

[Steve_American]

1] Who cares? That doesn't change the demographic issue.


2] How has life expectancy at 65 evolved in the US post COVID?
Drug addicts who die from fentanyl don't normally reach retirement age.


3] Just because you don't like the Republicans doesn't make the argument any less true. The Biden Administration is also sounding the alarm on the fundamental unsustainability of SS.

Also, why do you care? You're going to be dead when this is an issue. It's those of us, millennials, who will have to deal with the consequences.

1] AFAIK, IIRC, like 80% of covid deaths in the US were people over 65, they will not be getting SS money in the future. As I said, tax the 1%, and cut the FICA tax on workers, problem solved. Or just create the money. Taxing the 1% doesn't really do much to curb inflation anyway.

2] You don't grok my view of the future. I see very little chance that civilization will be around in 15 years. The pollution we are pouring into the natural world will end our ability to grow enough grain, we use grain to feed us, there is no other way to feed even 1 billion people. We also need fresh water. We are destroying it worldwide. Wars will be fought over water.

3] Yes, Corp-Dems are also neoliberals. So, Biden may cut SS. If he does, Trump will win in 2024. My main point is that the Repuds lied when they said they had/have no plan to cut SS. This makes them dishonorable. All liars are dishonorable.
. . . You asked why I care. It isn't clear what it is you think I should not care about.
I care who wins in 2024. This now, 15 years from now depends on what happens in the coming election. You're right IMHO there is little chance that the US will be around when the 1st person who has to wait to get their SS check actually doesn't get a check. So, why care?
. . . Civilization is not long for this world. However, there is some chance that I'm wrong, then I don't see any need to let the 1% take all the money and stick retiring 67 year olds
with the pain.

You and everyone here is cooperating in the fiction that pollution (aka ACC) is going to be solved. So, I act as if it will be solved, to play along with everyone else.
.

[wat0n]

Lmao hell yes keep your hot takes coming buddy.

I think it's ridiculous that we can vote to immediately send $50 billion to Ukraine with support from both parties but a secure income stream in retirement is reprehensible to the GOP, but lmao if you understand sovereign finance so poorly that you think it's an "either or" decision.

God I love this poster, and his continued quest to be infected by every strain of Covid imaginable.

Lmao Germany gradually increases retirement age every year based on year of birth and is thinking of raising it further, all the way to 70 over the long run.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-debates-r ... a-62915311

Germany is also sending aid to Ukraine, and $50 billion is peanuts compared to what's involved in SS spending.

Weird to see some guy who claims to work in finance confuse orders of magnitude.

1] AFAIK, IIRC, like 80% of covid deaths in the US were people over 65, they will not be getting SS money in the future. As I said, tax the 1%, and cut the FICA tax on workers, problem solved. Or just create the money. Taxing the 1% doesn't really do much to curb inflation anyway.

So what? There are many more who will, and this does not change the long term reality. At best, it only delays the inevitable.

2] You don't grok my view of the future. I see very little chance that civilization will be around in 15 years. The pollution we are pouring into the natural world will end our ability to grow enough grain, we use grain to feed us, there is no other way to feed even 1 billion people. We also need fresh water. We are destroying it worldwide. Wars will be fought over water.

Less reasons to care about social security sustainability then.

3] Yes, Corp-Dems are also neoliberals. So, Biden may cut SS. If he does, Trump will win in 2024. My main point is that the Repuds lied when they said they had/have no plan to cut SS. This makes them dishonorable. All liars are dishonorable.
. . . You asked why I care. It isn't clear what it is you think I should not care about.
I care who wins in 2024. This now, 15 years from now depends on what happens in the coming election. You're right IMHO there is little chance that the US will be around when the 1st person who has to wait to get their SS check actually doesn't get a check. So, why care?
. . . Civilization is not long for this world. However, there is some chance that I'm wrong, then I don't see any need to let the 1% take all the money and stick retiring 67 year olds
with the pain.

You and everyone here is cooperating in the fiction that pollution (aka ACC) is going to be solved. So, I act as if it will be solved, to play along with everyone else.
.

Neither Biden nor Trump will do anything to SS. This would presume they - being 75+ years old - care about what will happen 30+ years from now when they're dead. They don't, they care about being elected.

Any changes to SS are looking at least 30 years into the future.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

Lmao Germany gradually increases retirement age every year based on year of birth and is thinking of raising it further, all the way to 70 over the long run.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-debates-r ... a-62915311

Germany is also sending aid to Ukraine, and $50 billion is peanuts compared to what's involved in SS spending.

Weird to see some guy who claims to work in finance confuse orders of magnitude.

We're not talking about Germany, we are talking about the United States. Here in the United States, we don't have to raise retirement age if we didn't give all these tax giveaways to the top 1% of income earners. I mean, come on, the top 1% probably doesn't need social security even if they didn't get those tax cut giveaways. We wouldn't have to raise the retirement age if the Republicans weren't constantly trying to pass tax cuts for the top 1% and taxing the top 1% is not going to harm the performance of the US economy.

Moreover, the top 1% will still have plenty of money after paying those taxes and will still live luxurious lives regardless. Billionaires don't need to be given billions of dollars more in tax cuts when you have others who are working hard, trying to get ahead and still living in poverty. Hard work has to pay for everybody, and not JUST ONLY the billionaires or the top 1% of income earners. Otherwise, some of the hardworking poor are going to turn to organized crime, since honest work will no longer pay anymore, if Republicans get what they want. Then you will have a whole new set of problems to deal with when you have powerful criminal organizations sprouting up because the working poor can't find a job where honest work pays well enough.

If honest work doesn't pay because wages are too low and there is no social security or medicare after a lifetime of honest work, there are going to be some working poor who turn to organized crime to get paid enough to survive off of. Organized crime is a serious drain on a country's economy, too. So it's better to ensure that the working poor has some kind of opportunity to improve their lives and some kind of social security and medicare when they get into their elderly ages.

So, why give tax cuts to people who don't need them and then try to take away social security and raise retirement ages on your average working Americans when it is not an economic necessity to do so? The answer is simple, the Republicans want to give billions of dollars more to people who are already billionaires. Why do that when you have hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet? Don't you give a damn about the average American who busts his ass and works hard? Don't they matter to you too? Or isn't only the top 1% who matters to you?

If we did things your way, we would turn the United States into a third world banana republic country where only a handful of people have billions or perhaps trillions of dollars and everybody is dirt poor with no education. Is this what you want the United States to be? I am also curious about your position on corporate welfare. In addition to taking away social security from everybody, do you also support taking away corporate welfare subsidies that some big powerful corporations get from the government?

[wat0n]

@wat0n



We're not talking about Germany, we are talking about the United States. Here in the United States, we don't have to raise retirement age if we didn't give all these tax giveaways to the top 1% of income earners. I mean, come on, the top 1% probably doesn't need social security even if they didn't get those tax cut giveaways. We wouldn't have to raise the retirement age if the Republicans weren't constantly trying to pass tax cuts for the top 1% and taxing the top 1% is not going to harm the performance of the US economy.

Moreover, the top 1% will still have plenty of money after paying those taxes and will still live luxurious lives regardless. Billionaires don't need to be given billions or dollars more in tax cuts when you have others who are working hard, trying to get ahead and still living in poverty. Hard work has to pay for everybody, and not JUST ONLY the billionaires or the top 1% of income earners. Otherwise, some of the hardworking poor are going to turn to organized crime, since honest work will no longer pay anymore, if Republicans get what they want. Then you will have a whole new set of problems to deal with when you have powerful criminal organizations sprouting up because the working poor can't find a job where honest work pays well enough. If honest work doesn't pay because wages are too low and there is no social security or medicare after a lifetime of honest work, there are going to be some working poor who turn to organized crime to get paid enough to survive off of.

So, why give tax cuts to people who don't need them and then try to take away social security and raise retirement ages on your average working Americans when it is not an economic necessity to do so? The answer is simple, the Republicans want to give billions of dollars more to people who are already billionaires. Why do that when you have hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet? Don't you give a damn about the average American who busts his ass and works hard? Don't they matter to you too? Or isn't only the top 1% who matters to you?

If we did things your way, we would turn the United States into a third world banana republic country where only a handful of people have billions or perhaps trillions of dollars and everybody is dirt poor with no education. Is this what you want the United States to be? I am also curious about your position on corporate welfare. In addition to taking away social security from everybody, do you also support taking away corporate welfare subsidies that some big powerful corporations get from the government?

You should really look into the projections by the Biden Admin on the issue of SS and long term fiscal sustainability in general.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports ... -path.html

The US needs to raise ~$1.3 trillion in new taxes, every year, if it wants to remain sustainable. There's no way that will come only from the 1%, we'll all have to take a tax hike if you want to keep SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc as they are. Social Security alone is generating a deficit of 5% of GDP ($~$1.3 trillion) as is. Chances are that it will be necessary to do as the Europeans do and introduce a federal VAT.

And that's starting with reforms right now, delays will increase the necessary tax hike.

$50 billion for Ukraine once, twice or even thrice, as morons like @SpecialOlympian like to whine about, is peanuts.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

You missed the point. Those tax cuts aren't helping the US economy, as you have already shown in your reply, so why give those tax cuts? They are not helping anybody. Why do you say that shortfall can't come from taxing the top 1%? They have MASSIVE TONS OF MONEY ALREADY, and taxing them to make up for that shortfall isn't going to hurt their lifestyle, I assure you. Do you think the top 1% are special or something and shouldn't give back to society the helped make them rich and privileged in the first place? Why not tax the top 1%?

Tax cuts are what got us into this mess in the first place, and none of those tax cuts were necessary to begin with. Did I miss that the top 1% of the country served in the army like some of your average working Americans and become amputees and gave a leg or arm in combat or something that might warrant giving them massive tax cuts to compensate them for disabilities or that they are somehow unable to afford to send their kids to college to get a good education and thus good paying jobs?

[late]

The US needs to raise ~$1.3 trillion in new taxes, every year

The first real step has to be to bring the level of taxation, on the rich, to pre-Reagan rates.

The second step is to understand even George Washington ran a debt. It's what governments do, if kept in check, it stays good.

This largely comes down to corruption, which is the Republicans bread and butter. And it's everywhere Republicans love, the military, the Ag Dept, taxation, etc.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

@late nailed it when he said the first step is to bring taxes back to the pre-Reagan years and these problems would be solved. The US was strong economically then and had plenty of opportunity for everybody. Those taxes didn't hurt the US economy. If anything, it probably helped it.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

You missed the point. Those tax cuts aren't helping the US economy, as you have already shown in your reply, so why give those tax cuts? They are not helping anybody. Why do you say that shortfall can't come from taxing the top 1%? They have MASSIVE TONS OF MONEY ALREADY, and taxing them to make up for that shortfall isn't going to hurt their lifestyle, I assure you. Do you think the top 1% are special or something and shouldn't give back to society the helped make them rich and privileged in the first place? Why not tax the top 1%? Tax cuts are what got us into this mess in the first place, and none of those tax cuts were necessary to begin with.

Do it. Go back to the taxes on the 1% before even Reagan if you want, but keeping the 1986 tax reform which closed the loopholes that were normally used for tax avoidance until the 1970s.

Our taxes will still need to go up. We can't run from that.

@late that calculation just aims to keep debt at the current 97% of GDP. That means the federal debt stock would still increase every year, but at the pace of growth of the overall economy.

The report isn't even dreaming with reducing that debt to GDP ratio.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

If I had things my way, I would, and I would make the top 1% pay more to make up for the tax shortfall and I would go back to the pre Reagan years of taxation. Because it works and would solve a lot of problems. And I would pass economic policies to put more money back into the pockets of the middle class because they spend way more as a group than the wealthy do, which would create more demand and more jobs for everybody and thus, more tax revenues too. Republican economic and taxation policies are the reason why we have these problems today. I would also work with our allies who have already expressed a similar interest in ensuring that American and our allied companies pay the roughly same taxes even if they move to different countries to try to avoid taxes so that there is no escape from taxation for those companies no matter what they do.

[late]

@wat0n

@late nailed it when he said the first step is to bring taxes back to the pre-Reagan years and these problems would be solved. The US was strong economically then and had plenty of opportunity for everybody. Those taxes didn't hurt the US economy. If anything, it probably helped it.

It would have definitely helped. The Republicans started letting themselves be led by lunatics like the Koch brothers in the 80s.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=20WRVOC049VQP&keywords=the+price+of+inequality+joseph+stiglitz&qid=1687110880&sprefix=price+of+inequality%2Caps%2C120&sr=8-1

[wat0n]

@wat0n

If I had things my way, I would, and I would make the top 1% pay more to make up for the tax shortfall and I would go back to the pre Reagan years of taxation. Because it works and would solve a lot of problems. And I would pass economic policies to put more money back into the pockets of the middle class because they spend way more as a group than the wealthy do, which would create more demand and more jobs for everybody and thus, more tax revenues too. Republican economic and taxation policies are the reason why we have these problems today. I would also work with our allies who have already expressed a similar interest in ensuring that American and our allied companies pay the roughly same taxes even if they move to different countries to try to avoid taxes so that there is no escape from taxation for those companies no matter what they do.

Back in 1980 - under Carter -, the statutory marginal tax rate for the top 1% was up to 70% and those at the top 1% (the threshold stood at $75,000-$100,000+ a year) paid an effective rate of ~34%.

This is how it's evolved since 1986 (i.e. the truly important Reagan tax reform):



To this one needs to add that there is some evidence that the 1986 tax reform increased the declared income of the top earners by as much as 90% (!). See table 1 here so those earlier effective rates are likely lower.

The take from it? You shouldn't automatically believe the rich will pay just because you hike tax rates, and you shouldn't assume the statutory and effective rates are comparable pre- and post- major tax reforms. The example from the 1986 reform suggests the rich will do whatever it takes to declare less income if they can, and the US tax system definitely did just that before Reagan. This op-ed in Bloomberg shows one way in which Hollywood stars did so in the 1960s.

[late]

This is how it's evolved..

Hmmm, no.

There are a lot of bits and pieces to keep track of... Republicans made it easy for the rich to cheat on their taxes, they still do. If you're not a conservative foundation sucking on rich tit, you can find mountains of money hidden away.

As I have suggested a thousand times before, read Price of Inequality. It's a good place to start.

Your library can get it for you, for free...