Upset
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Concerning social security and wealth.

https://www.cnbc.com/select/will-social-security-run-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

[quote][c=000000]Will Social Security run out of money? Here’s what could happen to your benefits if Congress doesn’t act
A recent report found that starting in 2034 retirees will only receive part of their benefits.

Will Social Security run out?

For millions of retirees, Social Security provides an essential source of income in retirement. In 2020, around 50 million retired workers collected Social Security benefits, according to the Social Security administration.

However, the recent[u][i] 2022 Social Security Trustees report finds that in 2034, retirees will start receiving a reduced benefit if Congress doesn’t fix funding issues for the social program[/i][/u].

In other words, Social Security will exist after 2034, but retirees will only receive 77% of their full benefit starting then.[/c][/quote]

Now we know the opposing positions of both sides. Yet neither side wants to address the obvious....

https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit
[quote][c=000000[u][i]]The most you will have to pay in Social Security taxes for 2023 will be $9,932. That’s what you will pay if you earn $160,200 or more[/i][/u]. As its name suggests, the Social Security tax goes to the Social Security program. For 2023, it amounts to 6.2% for employees on all income up to $160,200. Employers deduct the tax from paychecks and match it, so that 12.4% goes to the program for each employee. If you’re self-employed, you’ll pay the total 12.4%, though you can deduct half on your tax return. The earnings limit is called the Social Security wage base limit, and it typically goes up every year. The annual rise began in 1972, when the wage base was $9,000.

Consider working with a financial advisor as you assess your taxes and how that will affect how much you receive from the federal government.

What Is the Social Security Tax Limit?

You aren’t required to pay the Social Security tax on any income beyond the Social Security wage base limit. In 2023, this limit is $160,200, up from the 2022 limit of $147,000. As a result, in 2023 you’ll pay no more than $9,932 ($160,200 x 6.2%) in Social Security taxes.[/c][/quote]

Why is such a low maximum in place.? Like it's totally on the middle class and lower...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/151427/Americans-Set-Rich-Threshold-150-000-Annual-Income.aspx

That's 47% of the population making more than $150,000 IN 2011! It's certainly more than that by now!

Why is there that cap of $160,000? When even the wealthiest billionaires can receive social security?

Could it be all political parties don't want to pay their fair share?

https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-and-benefits-of-congress-members-3322282
[quote][c=000000]The current base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate is $[u][i]174,000[/i][/u] per year, plus benefits
[/c][/quote]

That's the very minimum base pay of a just elected house member for ALL PARTIES!

Notice the convenient cutoff? 😡

End of rant!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
windinhishair · 61-69, M
Social Security taxes should be paid on all income. That would help keep SS solvent significantly longer than current projections. There should also be a means test. Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and others should not be able to collect SS. An actuarial analysis should be done to determine the appropriate cutoff.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@windinhishair the later is what many republicans are talking about. Yet not increasing or eliminating the max limit of $160,000.

No one is talking about that limit!
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@DeWayfarer The limit needs to be raised to include all income.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@windinhishair I agree. It's at least 47% of the population. Think about that in light of higher income.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@DeWayfarer I don't believe it is that high, since the median income is just over $30,000 and about 18% of Americans earn over $100,000. But regardless, there should be no limit on social security taxes based on income.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@windinhishair immediately below that $30,000 is poverty level. I know this because it's the food stamp cutoff.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@DeWayfarer It is pretty sad that half of Americans earn less than the $30,000 median. It is understandable why people are so upset about their elected leaders.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@windinhishair oh yes. Yet some refuse to think it through so they are blaming moderate republicans, who are only thinking in partial measures, while the hard core republicans are blaming lack of business.

Democrats aren't thinking at all. Just ignoring the problem hoping for better days when they finally have a ⅔s majority to override even a republican president.

It's not going to happen given this bare minimum majority on either side.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@DeWayfarer It has been an issue for decades. And the government has been borrowing from the SS Fund since the late 1990s and it should be paid back. I think it will get resolved, but not until the last minute.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@windinhishair we will see. Depends on if they resolve the supreme court imbalance.

It all ties in together. Supreme court has control over districting. That really hasn't been addressed, even with the latest rulings in favor of minorities. Not the poor though.
fanuc2013 · 51-55, F
@windinhishair Check back , our politicians have been dipping into SS since the Kennedy administration!
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@fanuc2013 I will. I remember a big push in the late 1990s.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@DeWayfarer

The fact that we have the court that we have is because the Constitution was followed. I don't see anything that was done illegally.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 there is two types of legal interpretation: the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

The first is the republican point of view of not only the law yet of the constitution.

Now the second interpretation almost every lawyer will object to legally yet it was never really intended for laws, yet for rights. That second interpretation is the spirit of the law.

There is a reason why we all have rights. It's because of that spirit of the law where a supreme court justice should take. Not letter of the law. Because the constitution IS suppose to override the letter of the law with INDIVIDUAL rights. Not states rights!

This supreme court is absolutely against rights for individuals. Only rights according to the letter of the law. Which is States rights.

Basically this supreme court going against the constitution because they are not considering the spirit of the law which is rights for individuals.

If any Court can not separate the two then they are going against the constitution.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@DeWayfarer You can call any left wing objective you have the "spirit of the law". That doesn't give you the right to trample the Constitution.

Nice try though.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 extremism is what you want! Extremism is evil itself!
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@DeWayfarer [quote]extremism is what you want![/quote]

Your words, not mine. Putting words in my mouth won't work.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 Do you support the stolen Supreme Court seat where the Senate Leader Mitch McConnell refused to bring Obama's nominee up for consideration and left the seat open for about a year? That became Trump appointee Kavanaugh.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 from passed replies by you, you are a extremist. Now don't make me look those replies up!

@windinhishair Yes she has before! Unfortunately it would take time for me to look it up. Not worth the time.
fanuc2013 · 51-55, F
@windinhishair Other Senate leaders have done the same thing in the past. Nothing new there.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@windinhishair Sour grapes is so unbecoming.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 Not any more so than being a hypocrite such as yourself. If you support the Kavanaugh appointment, you should decry Barrett's. Kavanaugh's was solely because Republicans delayed hearings on the nominee following Garland's nomination on March 16 until Trump was elected, then nominated Kavanaugh on July 10 of the following year. But when the tables were turned, Barrett's appointment was rammed through following her nomination on September 29. The Supreme Court is important, and it would be malpractice not to call out Republican hypocrisy, and yours. You either support giving a nominee a fair hearing and a President the chance to select a Supreme Court justice as the Constitution provides, or you don't. You cannot have it both ways.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@windinhishair So you prefer the way that someone like Mao would have done it. Just cut out the "politics".
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 Mao didn't have the US Constitution to deal with. The Republicans do, though they choose to ignore it when it is inconvenient to them.

The Republicans love dictators like Mao now. That is exactly the goal for Trump, to be able to punish his enemies without dealing with pesky laws. Mao would be a Republican star were he alive today, just as Hitler is to them.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@windinhishair[quote] Mao would be a Republican star were he alive today[/quote]

Can I have some of what you're smoking?
🥴
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@irishmolly72 Just look at the right-wing heroes: Putin, Kim Jong Un, Trump the wannabe dictator. Mao would fit right into the anti-democracy mold while men like Reagan would stand no chance running for office as a Republican today.