No. So explain…why has executive level salaries changed so much compared to line employee salaries?
Would you then favor raising his S/S payments a commensurate amount?
If they raise the cap by five times, would that executive get five times as much out monthly?
The maximum monthly payment at age 62 right now is just under $3,000, if they raised the cap to a million that executive should then get $15,000 a month at age 62. I’m sure lefties would whine about that.
Not relevant to this discussion. Also, s/s was designed to keep people from being destitute (in a 1930s definition) and not to provide a sizeable retirement plan. Over the years, Congress and the Presidents have turned into something much more lucrative and raised payments and taxes to meet that.
2 Likes
Well, that’s not exactly true. SS is still in business after more around 8 decades. To say raising the cap "has never worked is more than a bit of an exaggeration. It hasn’t solved all the problems, but it’s been a relatively effective bandaid for its entire life.
Apples and monkey wrenches
If it wasn’t true we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It has tripled the cap in real dollars, and raised contribution levels by over 600%, I would classify that as nothing less than an epic failure.
Yes, and I noticed KC conveniently avoided answering this portion of your question in a previous post above.
I believe he has forgotten that Social Security is not a rich-funds-poor theft scam like Welfare and Medicaid are.
Have they? My understanding is that Social Security today is not enough to live on, and that increases in benefits have not really kept up with inflation over the years.
Am I wrong about that? Could previous generations of beneficiaries not live on their SS payments alone?
The first thing that comes to mind is COLA. That began in the mid-70s. It also accelerated the problems with funding that resulted with major changes in 1983 designed to increase incoming funds, such as raising the retired age (but leaving early benefits alone), raising taxable earnings and taxation of S/S benefits.
1 Like
So they found a way to pilfer extra, since their demographic plan dissolved into thin air.
Maybe KC’s idea would work after all, given that tendency.
One way or the other, the following are all guaranteed to occur in my mind:
- The program is not going anywhere, as it is too popular to be eliminated, no matter the economic circumstances
- Benefits WILL go down relative to COL, likely through inadequate COLAs
- Taxes to fund it WILL go up, and this could happen in a number of ways
Lefties are obsessed with what other people have and how much money other people have accumulated, they think because some people have more others have less. That’s not true.
Only to what he paid in. I have no problem with it. Because the wealthier you are the more you gotta try to find ways to avoid taxes in retirement, so it would probably greatly increase charitable donations when they are retired. That’s the beauty of being poor in retirement. Don’t have to worry about all those nasty ass taxes.
Not as much as the recipient would whine about all the fucking taxes they have to pay.
I’m sorry I was talking with my daughter and wasn’t keeping tabs on what was going on here. I did answer him. And it’s true… For somebody who’s got $1 billion in the bank, they’re gonna bitch about the $15,000 that they’re gonna have to pay taxes on.
Should an evil millionaire who has five times more of his money taken for Social Security aso get five times more when he retires, from $3,000 a year to $15,000 a year. It’s a yes or no question?
You sure spend a lot of time avoiding answering simple questions.
In a lot of ways, having a greedy and complex tax system guarantees the wealthy folks will pay much less, because their lawyers and lobbyists essentially write the code.
Long term capital gains rates are reasonable, and the income tax system should be geared towards those rates rather than the fascist bullshit we have seizing up roughly half of someone’s compensation.
Corporate tax rates should be zero.
1 Like
You answered a portion of the same post in which you ignored that specific question.
You really expect people to believe that a conversation with your daughter distracted you from a key portion of the post you responded to?
I don’t think you were responding to Bears’ post and talking to your daughter simultaneously.
What’s likelier is that you are simply lying like a child right now.
Here is your reply, and below that is the full post from Bears which you replied to.
I agree, when the owners or shareholders are paid dividends or sell their stock for a profit they are taxed.
I am strongly opposed to the cap being raised. I don’t receive more and I have to pay more.
Then you agree an evil executive who pays five times more into the system should get five times more out, around $15,000 a month. Got it.
Bonus question for you too ignore, would you have a problem with an executive getting $15,000 a month from Social Security?
BTW instead of making dozen posts not answering the question just say yes or no.