• 2 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 15th, 2023

help-circle







  • Your second source merely discusses a New York Times article that talks about how rich people benefit more from social security because they have longer lifespans. It does not suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people. In fact, it even suggests raising the maximum earnings at which social security taxes are paid or reducing benefits for higher paid workers, which is effectively investing more in the program.

    Your first source is much more in-depth but also doesn’t suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people overall because it is specifically looking at inheritances. It does suggest that social security can worsen intragenerational wealth inequality because it can’t be passed on as inheritance and social security represents the majority of the wealth of poor retirees. Meanwhile, social security represents a small portion of the wealth of wealthy retirees so they are able to pass on more inheritance. Thus, intragenerational wealth inequality is worsened. But there is no indication that inheritances of the poor would be sufficient to replace social security. The paper also notes that other, more important factors contribute to intragenerational wealth inequality and states that wealth inequality would only be reduced to a minor degree without social security.

    These sources actually suggest that wealthy people benefit more than poor people and, therefore, the program should be strengthened for the poor. Exactly the opposite of getting rid of it.



  • We need to spend less. It’s not that complicated. Our spending is out of control. The only required expenditure is the military.

    Spending less is very achievable but your initial post and claims were about cutting social security specifically. And if you’re saying we should only spend on military, that means cutting approximately 74% of federal spending and function. This is a deeply unpopular position that is not supported by either major political party, which makes it extremely unlikely to happen.

    Trump has said he will eliminate the department of education. That’s a first step in making the government smaller.

    Nevertheless, he did no such thing when he had the opportunity in his first term. Further, he has stated he would protect some of the largest expenditures in the budget.



  • 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.


  • 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.






  • You are in the minority, even amongst conservatives.

    Amid doubts about the soundness of the Social Security system, most Americans reject the idea of reducing benefits for future retirees. When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.

    Democrats and Republicans differ modestly on the need to cut Social Security benefits. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say reductions in future benefits are inevitable (31% vs. 22%). Still, majorities across nearly all demographic and political groups say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way.

    Source

    Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that “74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way,” and previous Pew research found that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup pollinghistorically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download)conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found “77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.”

    Source


  • Do you have any particular policies or are you just going to make claims? Trump’s policies were not good for the American working class, which is the vast majority of Americans.

    His landmark legislation, the 2017 tax cuts, gave temporary marginal cuts to working people while giving substantial permanent cuts to corporations. He promised to fix healthcare. He didn’t. He promised to stop jobs from going overseas. He didn’t and, in fact, more jobs went overseas under him than Obama. He promised to fix the national debt. He increased it. He made a terrible deal with OPEC to cut oil production, which led to short term gains but eventually caused oil prices to skyrocket when economies recovered from Covid. His trade war with China hurt the US economy (for example, farmers who he had to bail out).

    These are just some examples. There are many Biden policies that I am against but if you’re going to claim this admin has been worse for Americans than Trump’s admin, you need to provide examples.