US Elections (& Politics) :)

Trump is running a pay-to-play extortion scam for pardons out of the White House...

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Amgclk65 and johnfitz
He's laughing his ass off at Cult supporters.... you MAGA geniuses should send him money directly. Just write him a check :p:rofl::winktongue:

 
  • Sad
Reactions: johnfitz
Of course he doesn't. They're writing it into law inside the NDAA where it can be hidden




 
  • Sad
Reactions: johnfitz
Its pretty much done now.

Our country has been sold. Have fun celebrating the 4th of July and the death of America suckers


 
  • Haha
  • Sad
Reactions: Arjun and johnfitz
bigredfish said:
They will cut benefits, and likely raise the age.

But why would you not first legislate that everyone must pay regardless of income? And yes that would mean a graduated higher payout for those who pay more
Click to expand...
I'm declining to answer that personally because it's just one part of a complex system that I don't fully know, much less understand, but I'll answer it generically. Some people think SS is a retirement system where what you pay in is held in Al Gore's "lockbox", to be paid back to you after retirement (kinda sorta like a 401k). Others think it's an income redistribution welfare system where the rich people pay more and the less rich people receive the same, or even more, benefit than the rich people. For those who think it's a welfare system, it's likely that they'd like the income cap removed. For those that think it's a simple retirement system, they may or may not favor removing the income cap depending on how they view the actuarial and social issues.

At first glance removing the income cap would indeed help the finances since above the second bend point, eligible earnings are credited at 15%, vs. 90% below the first bend point. On the other hand, I wonder if there would be unintended side effects such as moving the bend points higher, resulting in higher across-the-board benefit increases? I don't know about that.

In the original SS act, it was a combination of retirement fund and welfare, with the lower earnings counted more than the higher earnings. Benefits were only for the wage earner. Since then it has moved closer to a welfare program, adding spouse, children, and survivor benefits. COLAs were added, minimum age reduced to 62, taxation added, and the earnings test was added. WEP came and went. Since the original legislation, the program has become less of a retirement fund and more of a welfare program, though not totally either one.

I can see how people with different philosophies view removing the income cap issue differently, depending how they view what the purpose of the program is or what they think it should be. Whatever the case, it's not a president thing, it's a congress thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnfitz and Arjun
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom