If the money doesn't belong to wage earners who pay payroll taxes, then why do you need to confiscate $31 per $250 (w/ employer match) of their wages to keep paying SS benefits? Also, yes --- let's get rid of all those programs you mentioned; things would improve drastically.
I’m not the one bitching about Social Security taxes, it’s economic illiterates, like you
It’s funny seeing the whiny little socialists in favor of getting rid of SS for who people who paid in their whole life.
Let’s get rid of student loans, unemployment benefits, medicare, subsidized child care, the mortgage interest deduction, medicaid, food stamps, WIC, free education while we are at it.
@ClearedAsFiled@edgenmahpnis@LeftyCrypto If the money doesn't belong to wage earners who pay payroll taxes, then why do you need to confiscate $31 per $250 (w/ employer match) of their wages to keep paying SS benefits? Also, yes --- let's get rid of all those programs you mentioned; things would improve drastically.
The older generation most certainly did not “pay into” Social Security anywhere close to the amount they are withdrawing.
This program is one giant wealth transfer from poor young Americans to rich old ones.
Because I've been cursed to argue about this forever, here's my 2024 report listing all the reasons eliminating the FICA cap would not fix Social Security's funding gap - but it would create a lot of new problems. https://t.co/89yTlQciLo
Are the people concluding this actually that ignorant, or simply dishonest? Even w/o the cap (assuming no other changes), SS would still be on track for insolvency, not to mention the immense downsides of removing the cap. https://t.co/QGfFvTmzYz
1) Those programs you mentioned should also be abolished.
2) The sum of Medicare and SS, which are for older people, is much larger than the sum of those programs.
So, its unacceptable for retirees to pass Social costs on the the younger generation but its okay for the younger generation to pass costs onto retirees for SNAP, Section 8, SSI, and Medicaid?
@SheTalksFinance Means-testing SS and allowing those in actual need to receive it in the short run is understandable, but ultimately the program ought to be removed.
@SheTalksFinance Many have assets they can sell or rooms they can rent out (which would help lower rents and thus help many young folks). They receive benefits from (often poorer) productive workers who often haven't had as much time to save. Besides, SS is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme.
@PeterSchiff@BillCarson3x Quantity demanded moves opposite of price (per the law of demand), not necessarily demand itself. Prices in themselves are a reflection of existing supply and demand data. Removing the gas tax will cause more gas to be traded, among other things.
@PeterSchiff@arturillo955 Home equity is pretty strong, though, and I don't see housing prices falling much since the reservation demand is so high due to cheap mortgage debt, and inflation props up nominal prices. In this case, your concern seems misplaced.
@Archivist1000 Are the people concluding this actually that ignorant, or simply dishonest? Even w/o the cap (assuming no other changes), SS would still be on track for insolvency, not to mention the immense downsides of removing the cap. https://t.co/QGfFvTn7O7…
News Flash: Boomers have been paying into SS for their entire lives. The government stole their money and wants to blame it on the victims. Then it wants Gen Z to turn on them.
@EliotBeacon The money boomers paid in is largely gone, so are they now justified in stealing from productive workers who are, on average, much poorer?
@lb_412 This misses the point. I'm (genuinely) happy baby boomers are wealthy in retirement. That's the dream. The point is that people who are poorer should not broadly subsidize the richest generation in history.