iPhones aren’t “made” in China, they’re by and large “assembled” in China
96% of the value of parts are made in more developed countries
High skill, high wage manufacturing is better than low skill, low wage manufacturing!
(Trigger Warning for Economic Populists)
I will say this until I'm blue in the face: The Southern Realignment is best thought of as a series of four realignments: Mountains in the 1860s, suburbs starting in the 40s/50s, rurals start in the 60s/70s, and Appalachia in the 2000s.
> notorious womanizer despite being fat and bald
> retires at 42 as the richest man in the colonies by building a fortune on posting
> world-leading scientist in his SPARE TIME despite little formal education
> hired by the government during the revolution to schmooze people in France
> founded the future most powerful country on earth
> died at an old age universally admired
Reminder: Ben Franklin was the biggest baller of all time
Evil Republicans are not coming after your Social Security (please retire this lazy, stale scare tactic).
*Math* is coming after your Social Security - its scheduled for a 22% cut in 6 years when the trust fund hits zero. So where is your plan to bring solvency, Senator?
The craziest part of Musk becoming a trillionaire is that I remember when the federal deficit was only 160 billion (2007)
At that time, the national debt was 9 trillion, which seemed like an unfathomably large number.
Now the national debt is $40 trillion, the deficit is $1.5 trillion when things are going well but no one talks about it because the Republicans have given up on the concept of fiscal sanity.
Showing that "uncapping the payroll tax does not fully fund Social Security" is easy and requires no complicated models or "just trust me." Its basic math you can verify yourself.
CBO projects Social Security to level off at:
- Spending around 6.0-6.2% of GDP.
- Dedicated tax revenues of 4.5% of GDP (from 4.2% in payroll taxes plus 0.3% in other small taxes).
Yet we also know that SocSec's payroll tax covers 83% of all wages. Eliminating the cap would cover 100%.
So if covering 83% collects 4.2% of GDP in payroll taxes ... then covering 100% would collect 4.2/0.83=5.06% of GDP in payroll taxes.
Add back that 0.3% of GDP from related taxes, and we're at 5.36% of GDP in Social Security revenues.
That covers half of the funding gap (see chart).
(We're giving the rosiest scenario, so let's ignore that a tax hike of this size would give back some revenues from disincentives - and we're also canceling any earned benefits from these taxes).
That's it. That's the math you can verify yourself. The key calculation is that the current payroll tax catches 83% of wages and collects 4.2% of GDP. So you can calculate what a 100% policy would collect (an additional 0.86%) and compare to the spending projections.
So, no, "eliminate the cap, problem solved" is not correct. You still have to address benefits and the eligibility age.
Few people understand this historical nuance, but the indigenous people of the Moon are the “Americans”, a scrappy minority tribe from planet earth that first arrived on this desolate rock in earth-year 1969.
We must respect these original settlers and their right to the land.
💯This is the reality progressives must accept. The economic limit on new "tax-the-rich" hikes is 2% of GDP. The political limit is maybe half that.
Should ALL those potential revenues help the richest boomers collect $100k in Social Security benefits? Or are there better uses?