The fix is simple, just raise taxes! I pay enough in taxes, I pay for my fair share. I would rather end social security and have a private retirement account. Increasing my taxes, once again just shows what a scam it is.

  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Notice most say they don’t want a reduction but it’s running out of money. You can’t have it both ways.

    I never said my opinion is popular buts it’s logical. My same SS contribution would be worth well in excess of 5 million dollars. That far beats the return on my SS.

    • tswiftchair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s “running out of money” in the sense that there’s a projected shortfall, not that it’s going to be bankrupt in the near future. The projected shortfall means covering 80% of benefits in 2034 and covering 74% of benefits in 2097. But there are many proposals to address this shortfall and the Office of Chief Actuary collects all proposals and even provides a summary of each proposal and how much of the shortfall it will cover (PDF). So you don’t need to “have it both ways”; we can address the shortfall without reducing benefits.

      You’re also claiming it’s a scam when it isn’t. The purpose of Social Security is to alleviate poverty for seniors and it does that. Further, people receive more in benefits than they pay into the program, especially those of low-income who need it most (PDF). Lastly, regardless of your personal situation, the notion that private retirement investments would be better than social security for everyone is disputed.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based which doesn’t interest me. I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program. If they raise rates. I’ll just retire.

        That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

        • tswiftchair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based…

          Some involve increasing payroll taxes while others involve taxes on corporations or investments. There’s also non-tax based proposals like raising the retirement age.

          I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program…

          The program is not mismanaged.

          That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

          This is not socialism. Further, every US president, including Republican, has supported or enacted legislation upholding social security since its inception.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            The program is not mismanaged.

            If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds. They don’t because it’s been mismanaged.

            Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution. We are already heavily taxed. I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

            How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

            • tswiftchair@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds.

              First, they do have the funds. The shortfall is a future projection. Second, this assumption is incorrect. There are a variety of factors that will affect the future income and cost of the program. Retirement of Baby Boomers and lower birth rates are two examples.

              Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution.

              When combined with other proposals, it is a viable solution in that it solves the problem of the shortfall.

              We are already heavily taxed.

              This is a matter of opinion.

              I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

              I don’t know your personal situation but virtually all Americans keep the lion’s share of their money when it comes to taxation.

              How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

              I personally would be willing to pay more taxes for more services, including social security, universal healthcare, and others.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                This is a matter of opinion.

                I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes. That’s excessive. It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

                And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income? I don’t. I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

                • tswiftchair@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes.

                  Again, I don’t know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k. States with the highest income tax get up to 10% for over $5 million (New York) or 12% for over $12.3 million (California). And, of course, there are other taxes like capital gains. My point is, those paying over 50% in taxes are generally well above the median income, which is $40k for individuals and $75k for households.

                  It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

                  Again, this is an opinion and I would also like to point out that to be in the top 5% someone has to make $335k or more per year or have a net worth of ~$1 million or more. And those numbers still don’t generally put someone in the 50% tax range.

                  And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income?

                  If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights. It would be near impossible for an individual to have adequate housing, food, and transportation just about anywhere in the country for $20k per year (or $37.5k for a household). However, someone can live very comfortably just about anywhere in the country for $315k per year (37% of $500k).

                  I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

                  This is not currently an option. Neither Republicans or Democrats, Trump or Biden, are offering a meaningfully smaller government. In fact, depending on parameters, this hasn’t been an option for the last hundred years.

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Again, I don’t know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k

                    You also have to include social security and Medicare. They are a tax as well. We have property taxes as well. The list of taxes we have is insane. State is another 10%.

                    From my base pay of 17k a month. I end up with a little under 8k after taxes.

                    If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights

                    The stop asking me to do it.

                    Neither Republicans

                    Maybe you missed the platform most candidates were running on. It was the elimination of several government agencies. To me that’s a good start. The budget should also be tied to revenue. We need to balance the budget where expenditures do not exceed revenue.