Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, June 08, 2018

Social Security will be insolvent by 2034, three years earlier than previously expected, and one major fund within Medicare will run dry by 2026, according to a report released Tuesday by the trustees of the two programs.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Cool. More tax cuts please.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-06-07 03:18 PM | Reply

Cool. More tax cuts please for corporations and the wealthy.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-06-07 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Cool. More tax cuts please.

#1 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2018-06-07 03:18 PM | FLAG: ... and just does tax cuts have to do with the funding of the SocSec program?

#3 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-06-07 03:26 PM | Reply

Medicare is in even worse shape.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-07 03:29 PM | Reply

The way to fix this is relatively simple, but no one in DC, regardless of party, has the stones to implement these types of changes (yet):

1. Increase Social Security taxes. Workers currently pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system, and employers pay a matching amount. If that tax rate was gradually increased to 7.2 percent over 20 years, it would reduce the Social Security funding shortfall by 52 percent.

2. Increase or eliminate the tax cap. Workers pay into Social Security based on earnings of up to $117,000. People who earn more than that don't pay Social Security payroll taxes on that amount or have it factored into their retirement benefit. The cap covers about 83 percent of all earnings. If the tax cap were gradually increased over five years until it covers 90 percent of all earnings (a $230,000 tax cap) it would reduce Social Security's funding shortfall by 29 percent, NASI found.

3 Raise the retirement age. Social Security's full retirement age is 66 for most baby boomers and 67 for everyone born in 1960 and later. Benefit payments are reduced if you sign up for Social Security before your full retirement age. Gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 between 2023 and 2028 would reduce benefits by about 7 percent and decrease Social Security's financial shortfall by 16 percent. Further increasing the retirement age to 70 between 2023 and 2069 decreases benefit payments by 21 percent and reduces the Social Security financing gap by 25 percent.

4.Means-test. Means-testing Social Security would reduce or eliminate retirement payouts for retirees with high incomes. For example, you could reduce Social Security benefits for individuals with non-Social Security retirement income higher than $55,000 for individuals or $110,000 for couples and eliminate benefits for people with incomes higher than $110,000 for individuals and $165,000 for couples. This change would reduce Social Security's shortfall by about 20 percent.

Other ideas include lowering the COL adjustment or eliminating the cap, but those will never pass.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 03:32 PM | Reply

#3 How is Social Security financed?

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $118,500 (in 2016), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2015, $795 billion (85 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ( $93 billion or 10 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ( $32 billion or 3 percent), and $325 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury - most resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation.

The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. This amount, called the earnings base, rises as average wages increase.

www.ssa.gov

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-06-07 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The cap covers about 83 percent of all earnings."

Was this written in the 80s?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 03:34 PM | Reply

The Hill

Social Security and Medicare are inching slowly toward insolvency, according to annual trustees reports on the entitlement programs released Wednesday.

Social Security's retirement and disability trust funds, combined, are on track for insolvency in 2034 -- one year later than the entitlement program's trustees predicted one year ago.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told reporters at a briefing that the funds are "secure today and will remain secure in the years to come," but warned that they are also "facing challenges that need to be addressed" by Congress.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-07 03:35 PM | Reply

"and just does tax cuts have to do with the funding of the SocSec program?"

Don't worry; be happy (from the linked to article):

In the face of that threat, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin issued a statement yesterday promising to do nothing and hope everything turns out okay.

"Tax cuts, regulatory reform, and improve trade agreeements will generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path," Mnuchin said. "Robust economic growth will help to ensure their lasting stability."

This has been a go-to play for the Trump administration. Last year, when various independent projections showed that the Republican-backed tax bill would add $1 trillion to the national debt, even after accounting for economic growth, the Treasury put out a one-page "analysis" promising that future economic growth and politically impossible budget cuts would somehow make the whole thing balance.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-06-07 03:35 PM | Reply

5

only #1 is a good idea on that list. #2 is harmful to the poor and minorities.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 03:39 PM | Reply

@7

2014: 5 Potential Social Security Fixes

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 03:39 PM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I have advocated for all 4 of those things.

It's a bipartisan fix - raising the cap and FICA gives Democrats their tax-increase and raising the retirement age and some form of modest means-testing gives the GOP their spending cut.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-07 03:40 PM | Reply

Social Security will be insolvent in 16 years

"The way to fix this is relatively simple..."

Say...I have an idea!

Let's do nothing but bicker and fight for 15 years and then in the 16th year...

PANIC!

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-07 03:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

@10

I assume you mean #3 hurts the poor and minorities.

@12

As have I, but since the Left didn't think it was a crisis until recently, got frequently shouted down.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 03:44 PM | Reply

@6

Not sure if you realize it, but you just made MSGT's point for him...the income tax cuts have nothing to do with funding SS.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 income subject to SSI capture has fallen from about 80% in the 80s to about 65% these days.

All that's really needed for solvency is to peg the maximum SSI contribution to a number that captures about 80% of payroll income.

A fixed cutoff captures less and less as the incomes of the top tier skyrocket compared to the incomes of the bottom tier. Coincidentally, top tier incomes have been skyrocketing compared to bottom tier incomes since right about 1975. And it's not like people in the top tier actually get more security from a SSI check; they're already secure.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 03:46 PM | Reply

As have I, but since the Left didn't think it was a crisis until recently, got frequently shouted down.

#14 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Same here. If I brought it up prior to January 20, 2017 I was usually called a racist in response.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-07 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Righto, yes....#3 was what I meant.

I don't care for raising the cap other than through inflationary means.....not a large increase.

And then follow up with a means test? You realize that someone making....say $150K will pay the max into the system forever and then because they saved prudently and created a decent retirement income....they will have paid a ---- ton into the system and get nothing out because of rules #2 and #4.

And I'm not talking about uber wealthy folks...I'm talking about folks making $150K to $200K a year....they get absolutely killed by that plan.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 03:48 PM | Reply

And let's not ignore that the cap on SSI contributions makes it a regressive tax.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 03:48 PM | Reply

"You realize that someone making....say $150K will pay the max"

No, they won't pay the max.

The cap divided by 6.8% is how much you have to earn to pay the max. It's like a million a year.

"into the system forever and then because they saved prudently and created a decent retirement income....they will have paid a ---- ton into the system and get nothing out because of rules #2 and #4."

Good. Someone making a million a year shouldn't need Social Security.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 03:53 PM | Reply

-The cap divided by 6.8% is how much you have to earn to pay the max. It's like a million a year.

ROC isn't talking about that and there is no way in hell we are doing what you're suggesting.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 03:55 PM | Reply

"there is no way in hell we are doing what you're suggesting."

Only because there is no way the GOP can support it.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:02 PM | Reply

Eberly what would specifically be the problem with adjusting the cap every once in a while to keep more or less a constant portion of payroll subject to capture??

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:04 PM | Reply

What are you suggesting, Snoofy? at what wage do I stop paying the 6.2% SS tax?

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:06 PM | Reply

at what wage do I stop paying the 6.2% SS tax?

I was wrong. You stop paying after $128,400.

That number needs to go up so that more total payroll is subject to SSI capture.

Because one of the reasons for the shortfall is wages for people making more than $128,400 have gone up at a much higher rate than wages for people making less than $128,400. This has resulted in more and more income not being taxed.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Let's put it this way:

Why should somebody making $256,800 get a 6.2% tax cut on July 1 that somebody making $25,680 doesn't get?

I'm all ears, JellybellyOcenter.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why should somebody making $256,800 get a 6.2% tax cut on July 1 that somebody making $25,680 doesn't get?"

well, I think since the benefits are capped....then the income subject to the tax should be capped.....which is the way it's always been. I'm already paying WAY more into SS that I'll ever get out of it. The solution seems to be the same.........."raise the income subject to the tax(because my income is below the cap anyway), those folks are rich anyway"

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:32 PM | Reply

-Because one of the reasons for the shortfall is wages for people making more than $128,400 have gone up at a much higher rate than wages for people making less than $128,400. This has resulted in more and more income not being taxed."

that's being driven by incomes at the .01% level....not folks making $150K. The folks making a million a year won't even feel this...but the guy making $150K to $200K? You're hammering him.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:33 PM | Reply

"well, I think since the benefits are capped....then the income subject to the tax should be capped....."

The problem here is you don't think rhe same for people who the actuaries say won't live long enough to get back what they've paid in.

Or maybe you do. Maybe you think a while lot of blacks shouldn't pay anything since they won't live to 65. But I doubt it.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"but the guy making $150K to $200K? You're hammering him."

Nilla please. Right now he gets off easy. I'm proposing he gets the same hammering someone making $15k to $20k gets.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:37 PM | Reply

I was wrong. You stop paying after $128,400.
That number needs to go up so that more total payroll is subject to SSI capture.

Congratulations, I guess, it only took you 1:45 to comprehend Point 2 in my #5.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 04:37 PM | Reply

Or maybe you do. Maybe you think a while lot of blacks shouldn't pay anything since they won't live to 65. But I doubt it.

You obviously need more time to comprehend Eb's #10 (subject to my clarification in #14.)

#32 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 04:39 PM | Reply

-Maybe you think a while lot of blacks shouldn't pay anything since they won't live to 65. But I doubt it.

the poor and minorities, which lover life expectancy, are why I don't support raising the age of eligibility.

I would prefer raising the rate from 6.2% to a higher number rather than significantly raising the income subject to the tax.

The first way will ensure benefits to the folks who need it the most but the second way will eventually lead to enhancing the benefits for folks who make more than the current cap....because you're hitting them the hardest by increasing the cap.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:39 PM | Reply

-Right now he gets off easy.

not really. despite what I'm paying in...do you know the max benefit I'll get? I'll pay in 5 to six times more than the guy making $20K.....but my benefit won't be 5 to six times higher when I retire.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:42 PM | Reply

"because you're hitting them the hardest by increasing the cap."

No, the people who get hit the hardest are people making less than $128,500.

What I'm saying is everyone can afford to get hit that hard.

If the poor can afford it, surely the rich can. Don't be daft.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:42 PM | Reply

"I'll pay in 5 to six times more than the guy making $20K.....but my benefit won't be 5 to six times higher when I retire."

Good. You shouldn't need it.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:43 PM | Reply

-No, the people who get hit the hardest are people making less than $128,500.

how? in all reality, they will pay in less than me but will earn almost the same benefit when they retire.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:43 PM | Reply

"-No, the people who get hit the hardest are people making less than $128,500.

how?"

Their income is taxed more.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:45 PM | Reply

-Good. You shouldn't need it.

Oh, I won't.....I get your point. It's the same point made over and over. It's not like it's a new idea or anything.

You want to tax me more and then give me back less later. and why? because I can afford to pay for you.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

snoofy, you can stop with the 8th grade math.

Have you ever read a SS benefit statement?

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:47 PM | Reply

"You want to tax me more and then give me back less later. and why? because I can afford to pay for you."

I want the Cavs to play LeBron more and the bench less, for the same reason.

Does that also feel like an injustice to you, Eberly?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:48 PM | Reply

-Does that also feel like an injustice to you, Eberly?

no, but to you it's all the same...someone else's earned money. Not yours.

and remember, SS is about earned income..not all income. Those uber wealth folks with $20 million incomes...most of it's unearned and not subject to SS.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:50 PM | Reply

"Have you ever read a SS benefit statement?"

Let's try it this way.

You said, accurately, "I'll pay in 5 to six times more than the guy making $20K.....but my benefit won't be 5 to six times higher when I retire."

Let's say it's time for you both to retire. Would you trade places with that guy who made $20k his whole life? Of course not. Then stop trying to pretend he's somehow getting over on you, because he ain't.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:51 PM | Reply

-Because one of the reasons for the shortfall is wages for people making more than $128,400 have gone up at a much higher rate than wages for people making less than $128,400

is that all income...or just earned income?

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:51 PM | Reply

so, you've never read one. Okay...got it.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#44 "Income subject to SSI capture." It's fallen from 80% in the 80s to about 65% today.

Raise the cap back to 80ish percent.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:53 PM | Reply

-Then stop trying to pretend he's somehow getting over on you, because he ain't.

I'm not doing that at all. What you don't understand is the larger picture. If you try to screw me it won't work...in the end they'll wind up giving me a larger benefit that you thought and it won't solve SS insolvency.

We have to stick with ideas that are politically realistic and won't be undone by a different congress or WH in the future.

incrementally raising the rate from 6.2 to maybe 7 or so over a period of time coupled with inflationary increases in income subject to the tax...say $128K to $150K over 10 years....that's how it will get fixed.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 04:56 PM | Reply

"no, but to you it's all the same...someone else's earned money. Not yours."

Thats how SSI is structured.

You're applying a moral framework which is not part of law.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:57 PM | Reply

"If you try to screw me it won't work"

If you think having someone making $150K pay tax at the same rate as someone making $15k is screwing them, you're just an -------.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-It's fallen from 80% in the 80s to about 65% today.

can you re-post the link to that? I can't find it.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:00 PM | Reply

Raise the cap back to 80ish percent.

#46 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-06-07 04:53 PM

Not sure where you are getting your numbers (as usual) but according to the SSA the cap is calculated by using the National Average Wage Index, in 2014 it was $46,481.52 and capture % was 83.1%, in 2018 it was $48,642.15 and capture % is projected to be 81.9%

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 05:04 PM | Reply

this is 7 years old.....

www.ssa.gov

"Historically, an average of roughly 83 percent of covered earnings have been subject to the payroll tax. In 1983, this figure reached 90 percent, but it has declined since then. As of 2010, about 86 percent of covered earnings fall under the tax max."

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:08 PM | Reply

Same source,

"a person who earns $15,000/year will pay $82,000 in payroll taxes (employer and employee combined) over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $10,956 or 13% of his lifetime payroll taxes....
a person who earns $115,000/year will pay $627,000 in payroll taxes over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $34,284 or 5% of his lifetime payroll taxes.[71]"

You have been arguing the guy getting $10,956 is getting over on the guy getting $34,284. You're wrong about that.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I heard to 80% to 65% thing on C-SPAN a while back. I'm willing to be wrong about that.

So, I think what I actually heard, must have been something like, considering all sources of income including capital gains and whatever, the amount subject to SSI capture has fallen from 80% to 65%. In other words, the zillionaires you talked about are increasingly making money in ways that don't contribute anything to Social Security. In which caee, we ought to make more types of income subject to capture, if that's really an increasing discrepancy. Sounds like we might agree on that.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 05:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Source for #53 www.justfacts.com

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 05:19 PM | Reply

53

so, the higher earning guy pays in 7.5 times as much into SS than the other guy but only gets 3 times a much as a benefit.

I get that's how it works....but you think the guy who has paid that much in needs pay in more and then, perhaps, get nothing if a means test is applied.

and this is for a guy making $115K a year which is barely enough to live decently in many parts of this country.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:23 PM | Reply

Snoofy, Ebs point is pretty simple:

The guy paying 8X the amount of payroll taxes is only getting 3x the payout. That means he is subsidizing the retirement of the lower income bracket taxpayer.

That being said, I agree with you, the higher the income, the less likely the taxpayer is going to need SS.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 05:23 PM | Reply

Taxes on all income, corporate and individual, not just payroll wages, should be used to offset any insolvency. Also eliminate the tax cap and means test. Raising the age requirement to 70 is untenable for many jobs.

Unless of course people want to individually become legally financially responsible for the care and maintenance of their family members because "it takes a village" is too commie for them.

That idea usually makes paying taxes a little easier to swallow.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-07 05:42 PM | Reply

-In which caee, we ought to make more types of income subject to capture, if that's really an increasing discrepancy. Sounds like we might agree on that.

My biggest concern is what's politically realistic.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:42 PM | Reply

"Taxes on all income, corporate and individual, not just payroll wages, should be used to offset any insolvency. Also eliminate the tax cap and means test"

Fine, and lower the rate to 4%. Go for it.

otherwise, it's no where near being politically realistic.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:44 PM | Reply

"The guy paying 8X the amount of payroll taxes is only getting 3x the payout."

and that's fine with me. I get it that's how it goes. I'm not a libertarian ranting about eliminating it or allowing me to opt out, etc.

But let's not pretend there already isn't a large disparity illustrated by Snoofy himself in #53 (which he didn't even understand he was doing that).

But ignorant people think there isn't a disparity and want to increase the already existing disparity by more.

Good luck with that idea. Of course, you have to sell it to folks who damn well know that's how it works now like I do.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@58

Taxes on all income for SS and Medicare isn't politically feasible but spreading the net to capital gains and carried interest would work nicely. I also think that if you make a steady income after 67 from any source (annuities, pensions, 401k, investments, etc.) that your SS benefits get put back into the pot for the benefit of the entire pool.

Otherwise I agree.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 05:59 PM | Reply

"The guy paying 8X the amount of payroll taxes is only getting 3x the payout."

Uh huh.

His "only 3x payout" is in fact 3x larger than the other guy's 8x payout.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We aren't going to tax something other than payroll to fund SS. Payroll can't be played with, hid, deferred, the rates don't move, it's not different for LLCs vs regular corps, etc....

it's too much of an inconsistent source of tax coming from anything other than payroll.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 06:03 PM | Reply

"My biggest concern is what's politically realistic."

Nothing is politically realistic so long as the GOP has any say.

Well, I could see them upping the payouts for the rich, and paying for it by upping the max income subject to capture for the middle class, and then blaming the poor for taking more than their "fair share" for bankrupting the system...

Let me restate: Nothing that promotes SSI solvency is politically realistic so long as the GOP has any say.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 06:04 PM | Reply

@63

Still not getting it: There is no 8x payout. Taxpayer B, the guy getting the 3x payout, paid 8x the amount of taxes over Taxpayer A.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 06:05 PM | Reply

Nothing is politically realistic so long as the GOP has any say.

Actually, most of the proposals in #5 have been advanced by the GOP at one time or another (except for eliminating the cap), only to be shot down by the Dems.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 06:09 PM | Reply

-Nothing is politically realistic so long as the GOP has any say.

Half truth at best. Both parties have been kicking this can down the road for over 50 years

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 06:14 PM | Reply

Social Security was just fine until the rich and their political lackeys started playing with Social Security funds in the 80s and wasted it all.

Once again. The rich screw us and we quibble with each other.

#69 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-07 06:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Actually, most of the proposals in #5 have been advanced by the GOP at one time or another."

Not in this century.

Remember when Bush sent up the AEI/Heritage Foundation/Cato trial balloon to privatize SSI?

Because Social Security is just pieces of paper sitting in the bottom of a filing cabinet.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Taxpayer B, the guy getting the 3x payout, paid 8x the amount of taxes over Taxpayer A."

Yeah. He paid more in income taxes too. Because he's worth about 8x more. That's how it's supposed to be.

LeBron gets paid less per point than most of the NBA too.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 06:52 PM | Reply

I'll pay in 5 to six times more than the guy making $20K.....but my benefit won't be 5 to six times higher when I retire.

#34 | Posted by eberly

Because it isn't a savings account, so of course not.

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-07 06:53 PM | Reply

"But ignorant people think there isn't a disparity and want to increase the already existing disparity by more."

There's the disparity of how much you pay in, and there's the disparity of how much you get out.

Let's raise your 8x disparity to infinity x disparity:

My cousin paid in and got nothing. His wife and kids get nothing too. Because he died before making five years worth of payments.

Do you think that's unfair? How would you remedy it?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 07:02 PM | Reply

-Do you think that's unfair?

Yes, it is.

And I don't have a remedy.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 07:04 PM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2018-06-07 06:25 PM | FLAG: I agree with what you said with the exception that it actually started in the 60s when LBJ and his cronies figured a 'workaround' enabling the govt to tap the previously dedicated monies for general use. Of course once that pony left the barn each president after that did the same.

#75 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-06-07 07:30 PM | Reply

Not in this century.

Paul Ryan's 2010 and 2016 entitlement plans both included items 1, 3 and 4 in my #5. In 2010 the Dems shot him down, in 2016 Mitch McConnell shot him down.

It's unlikely in the time he has left Ryan will have the ability to push this to the forefront.

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 07:33 PM | Reply

"Paul Ryan's 2010 and 2016 entitlement plans both included items 1, 3 and 4 in my #5."

Unfortunately, that wasn't all they included, but you can't blame him, or you, for trying!

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 07:55 PM | Reply

"only #1 is a good idea on that list. #2 is harmful to the poor and minorities."

"2. Increase or eliminate the tax cap. Workers pay into Social Security based on earnings of up to $117,000. People who earn more than that don't pay Social Security payroll taxes on that amount or have it factored into their retirement benefit. The cap covers about 83 percent of all earnings. If the tax cap were gradually increased over five years until it covers 90 percent of all earnings (a $230,000 tax cap) it would reduce Social Security's funding shortfall by 29 percent, NASI found."

Care to explain how that would hurt the poor and/or minorities?

Personally, I would raise the cap much higher, since most employers don't offer pensions yet their CEOs are earning far more than in the past, we should insure that workers will be able to retire in comfort and security. Thus I would put the cap at whatever level it needs to be to insure the solvency of the SS system and it should automatically change according to the solvency of the system. We should change it so that we don't ever really have to revisit this issue again and we should put it in the Constitution so that greedy Libertarians can't ever get their hands on the trust fund nor just slash benefits. There are billionaires out there with lots of money to "invest" in buying enough politicians that anything is possible and those greedy folks are licking their chops over the SS trust fund.

#78 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-07 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

""Paul Ryan's 2010 and 2016 entitlement plans both included items 1, 3 and 4 in my #5."

Just conveniently, not #2. I'm glad Paul Ryan is going bye bye.

#79 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-07 08:27 PM | Reply

"Half truth at best. Both parties have been kicking this can down the road for over 50 years"

That is not true. One thing Ronald Reagan did do was deal with SS. He doubled the tax on employees and he raised the cap on income subject to SS tax and they system was quite solvent for decades, accumulating trillions in the trust fund. Today, payouts are as expected very large because of the retiring boomers, that was anticipated and was the reason behind the changes made by in the 80's by Reagan. Today we have a new set of demographics and we need to readjust the system to deal with it and some reasonable solutions have been suggested. The sky is not falling but SS is an issue which will take bipartisn cooperation to solve and today that seems almost impossible because, and I hate to always blame them, but those on the right are not interested in anything which will cost them anything. We have CEOs making many times what CEOs earned 30 years ago who are so upset they might have to pay a little more tax to insure that the people who work for them can someday have a decent retirement.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-07 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hilarious to see Conservatives pontificate on financial reason.

#81 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-06-07 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We have CEOs making many times what CEOs earned 30 years ago who are so upset they might have to pay a little more tax to insure that the people who work for them can someday have a decent retirement."

And we have Eberly, saying it's unfair that a person who made 160K/year doesn't get 8x more SSI than a person who made 20k/year.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 09:13 PM | Reply

Care to explain how that would hurt the poor and/or minorities?

If you had continued to read you would have seen that he meant #3.

Just conveniently, not #2. I'm glad Paul Ryan is going bye bye.

There were two reasons that raising the rate wasn't included:

1. The Republican leadership told him no.

2. The Democrat leadership told him no.

#83 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 09:21 PM | Reply

We have CEOs making many times what CEOs earned 30 years ago who are so upset they might have to pay a little more tax to insure that the people who work for them can someday have a decent retirement.

That's a meaningless argument when you look at the size of the SS pool, the ridiculous increase in CEO pay, even if you tripled their rates, wouldn't make even 1/10000th of 1% of a dent in the SS deficit.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 09:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The ridiculous increase in CEO pay, even if you tripled their rates, wouldn't make even 1/10000th of 1% of a dent in the SS deficit."

It would if that "pay" were subject to SSI capture.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And since when do you think CEO pay has increased "ridiculous?"

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 09:27 PM | Reply

It would if that "pay" were subject to SSI capture.

Not at all, you completely underestimate the size of the SSI pool.

And since when do you think CEO pay has increased "ridiculous?"

If you paid attention rather than assigning positions to, well, everyone, you would know the answer to that question.

#87 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 09:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you paid attention"

I do pay attention.

But since I missed it, surely you would like to provide a link to where you've ever said CEO pay was ridiculous.

And I don't just mean some CEO you don't like, e.g. Weinstein. We're talking about the broad trend of CEO pay going up far, far faster than wages these past few decades.

If we had raised all pay the same way CEO pay has been raised, SSI solvency wouldn't be the conversation we are having. Why does SSI have so much money set aside is the conversation we'd be having.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 09:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"And we have Eberly, saying it's unfair that a person who made 160K/year doesn't get 8x more SSI than a person who made 20k/year."

Didn't say that. I just point out that reality when you rail on unaware of how benefits work.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-07 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hilarious to see Conservatives pontificate on financial reason.

#81 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

It's amazing.

They claim to know WTF they're talking about but their ideas fail every. Single. Time.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-07 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@90

People would respect your posts more if you. Made. A. Point.

#91 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-07 10:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No they wouldn't.

#92 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-06-07 10:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

- In 2010 the Dems shot him down

Part of his package was wheeling your Gramma offa the cliff. He's only ever been about the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-07 10:56 PM | Reply

"People would respect your posts more if you. Made. A. Point."

Nobody respects you.

Nobody.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-07 11:09 PM | Reply

Nobody respects you.
Nobody.

#94 | POSTED BY SNOOFY A

He's gainfully employed. You are not and haven't been for a long time. People in glass houses and all that.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-07 11:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

People would respect your posts more if you. Made. A. Point.

#91 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

There is a point there.

GOP/Republican financial/economic policy is a string of failures for everyone but the 1% (maybe 5%...).

But righties here expect to be taken seriously on the topic.

It's not my problem if the point isn't very kind to you or your side.

No they wouldn't.

#92 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORN

I'm crushed. If only you could see the tears streaming down my face.

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-07 11:18 PM | Reply

Those aren't tears.
You just left a bukakke party.

#97 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-06-07 11:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

A --- joke.

Didn't see that one -------.

See what I did there?

#98 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-07 11:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Good one.
You've got spunk.

#99 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-06-07 11:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Yeah but I'm not quite as salty as I used to be.

#100 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-07 11:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Good night all.

#101 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-06-07 11:56 PM | Reply

Part of his package was wheeling your Gramma offa the cliff. He's only ever been about the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

#93 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-06-07 10:56 PM

Leave it to Dorky to repeat Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year::

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to "terminate Medicare." A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country "without Medicare" and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: "House Republicans' vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal."

PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.

Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats' claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

Politifact Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

Why you let me beat you like a red-headed stepchild on a daily basis is beyond me...maybe you like it.

#102 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-08 12:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#102

You must be looking in a mirror, Rented Mule.

Here's Why People Hate Paul Ryan So Much

1. He's among the biggest hypocrites D.C.'s ever seen

2. His even bigger dream was to cut health care

3. His dream was to cut taxes for rich Americans

www.cheatsheet.com

Fraud Paul Ryan Adds Trillions To The Deficit Then Blames Poor.

www.youtube.com

talkpoverty.org

You should stick to being Rudy G's intellectually equivalent emergency replacement Trump lawyer. That way you keep the retainer you get for posting Trump Deflection threads.

.

From your link:

"Another claim in the ad from the Agenda Project said the plan would "privatize" Medicare, which received a Mostly True rating from PolitiFact.

President Barack Obama was also more precise with his words, saying the Medicare proposal "would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more."

Liberal bloggers and columnists contend it's accurate to say Republicans voted to end Medicare. Left-leaning websites such as Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and The New Republic said PolitiFact's analysis was wrong, as did New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"According to (PolitiFact's) logic, if the FBI were replaced with a voucher program wherein citizens would receive subsidies for hiring private investigators to look into criminal activity, but the agency running the voucher program were still called the FBI, it would be unfair to say that the FBI had been ended," wrote Jed Lewison for Daily Kos.

"I guess it's their right to make that argument, but it's transparently absurd."

Politfact made distinctions without differences, acting as if privatization would ever actually have been an equal substitute.

I said: "He's only ever been about the wealthy at the expense of the poor." which is a fact.

But keep on braying, Muley.

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-08 12:44 AM | Reply

Because the 1% want it to go bankrupt. Because military spending is more important. Because offshoring manufacturing has served the 1% in the short term.

The cure is so simple lift the cap on social security and medicare personal income tax. For our society to really flourish its even more important to increase taxation on all unearned income earners, landlords, insurance companies, bankers, real estate brokers, lawyers... ALL unproductive paper shufflers.

#104 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-08 08:19 AM | Reply

Welfare and medicaid are breaking the bank.
The chickens are coming home to roost.

#105 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-06-08 08:20 AM | Reply

Welfare and medicaid are breaking the bank.
The chickens are coming home to roost.

POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2018-06-08 08:20 AM | REPLY

Not when you have trillions in GOP waste. If we can afford those we can afford these.

#106 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-08 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105, BS, of 35 other industrialized countries in the world, only Mexico and Chile have a larger income disparity. Even Costa Rica and Cuba provides their citizens health care while operating inside a third world economy. Europeans never worry that some Hedge Fund manager will abscond with their pension or that their health care will be denied because they don't have enough money or must surrender their house before they qualify for medicare.

Cut military spending in half and watch what can be done with the money. To our infrastructure, our educational systems and our health care system.

#107 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-08 08:36 AM | Reply

4.Means-test. Means-testing Social Security would reduce or eliminate retirement payouts for retirees with high incomes. For example, you could reduce Social Security benefits for individuals with non-Social Security retirement income higher than $55,000 for individuals or $110,000 for couples and eliminate benefits for people with incomes higher than $110,000 for individuals and $165,000 for couples. This change would reduce Social Security's shortfall by about 20 percent.
Other ideas include lowering the COL adjustment or eliminating the cap, but those will never pass.

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-06-07 03:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Someone who is collecting millions in interest, dividends and capital gains should not be collecting social security or medicare pure and simple.

However, when Congress does get around to fix it (the year before the implosion or most like the year after the implosion retroactive) they will put some ridiculous means testing number like $25,000 and then limit the reduction of benefits to 15%. That would be enough to say they tried, screw the poor and claim victory.

#108 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-08 11:11 AM | Reply

-Someone who is collecting millions in interest, dividends and capital gains should not be collecting social security or medicare pure and simple.

Right, but that doesn't make a dent in the problem. In order to make meaningful impact, they lower it all the way to $55K. Which is --------.

This is why I laugh at all of this discussion on this issue..........some real dolts here think you can hammer the rich and make dent into the solvency problem of SS.....you can't.

You can't fix SS without requiring sacrifice from folks not rich. In fact, the rich folks are not part of the equation (if we define rich as folks making $1 million or more in interest, dividends, etc).

If you want to make SS viable for middle class folks.....you have to screw them first.

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-08 11:18 AM | Reply

"Eliminating the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes would call on top earners to contribute more toward the basic economic security of the nation's elderly and families, commensurate with top earners' ability to pay. In a time of growing inequality between the richest Americans and everyone else, this change would reduce inequality. It would also balance Social Security's finances for the next 75 years and, with other changes, help pay for improvements in Social Security for people who need them."

Virginia Reno
National Academy of Social Insurance

www.aarp.org

#110 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-08 01:51 PM | Reply

Not when you have trillions in GOP waste. If we can afford those we can afford these.
#106 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Boolsheet! Link please.
Haha I'm liking this link a dink thing.

#111 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-06-08 03:26 PM | Reply

I said: "He's only ever been about the wealthy at the expense of the poor." which is a fact.
But keep on braying, Muley.
#103 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-06-08 12:44 AM

Nice try to cover your idiocy, Dorky, let me put in bold the portion of Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year that you repeated as fact:

"Part of his package was wheeling your Gramma offa the cliff. He's only ever been about the wealthy at the expense of the poor."

Seeing that you responded at 3:44 a.m. your time, I hope the 35 minutes that you desperately searched for a retort was worth it.

#112 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-08 04:50 PM | Reply

"He's gainfully employed. You are not and haven't been for a long time."

LOL.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-08 07:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort