Donny, are you ok?

[O Really]

Social Security is not a welfare program. People contribute, and contributions are capped to avoid very high earners becoming eligible for very high retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are derived from a formula based on contributions so - up to a maximum - benefits are lower for lower contributions and higher for higher contributions. It's a pretty clean system and, except for the disability part works remarkably smoothly. Eligibility standards are set and the same for everyone. No reason to change the rules at full retirement for somebody who happened to earn a lot of money during their career.

And all the yammer about "running out of money" is smoke and mirrors. The only reason the fund is running low is that the money was robbed by congresscritters for other uses. They just need to put it back.

[billy.pilgrim]

Please, no more paperwork. What little can be saved through means tests is lost to the time and expense of testing and evaluation of the tests. Toss in a few workarounds for the well connected and any savings disappears

Understood, but if SSI does the means test automatically based on income tax returns then it's no more effort for recipients and the workarounds have already been incorporated. Plus, how many fat cats will put much effort into protecting their relatively paltry SS payments?

The savings is minuscule compared to the efforts.

Think Basic Income
Forget all the rules and limits and carve outs and rich people using their billions to “get what they deserve “ …


Everybody g ts the same thing. So what if the billionaires and trillionaires get $20,000 if everyone pays in the same percentage.

[billy.pilgrim]

Social Security is not a welfare program. People contribute, and contributions are capped to avoid very high earners becoming eligible for very high retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are derived from a formula based on contributions so - up to a maximum - benefits are lower for lower contributions and higher for higher contributions. It's a pretty clean system and, except for the disability part works remarkably smoothly. Eligibility standards are set and the same for everyone. No reason to change the rules at full retirement for somebody who happened to earn a lot of money during their career.

And all the yammer about "running out of money" is smoke and mirrors. The only reason the fund is running low is that the money was robbed by congresscritters for other uses. They just need to put it back.

Thanks to Ronnie reagan

[Vrede too]

Understood, but if SSI does the means test automatically based on income tax returns then it's no more effort for recipients and the workarounds have already been incorporated. Plus, how many fat cats will put much effort into protecting their relatively paltry SS payments?

The savings is minuscule compared to the efforts.

Think Basic Income
Forget all the rules and limits and carve outs and rich people using their billions to “get what they deserve “ …

Everybody gets the same thing. So what if the billionaires and trillionaires get $20,000 if everyone pays in the same percentage.

Everyone does not pay in the same percentage. Hence:

... I would end the income cap on collections - a tax increase ...

... As of 2023, there are a mere 735 billionaires in the U.S. The millionaires are more plentiful—almost 22 million....

$20,000 x 22,000,000 = $440,000,000,000 - not "minuscule".

What "efforts"? The computers match SS payouts to income tax reporting and snip-snip is automatic.

What would you do? Fta:

... Social Security and Medicare are both solvent through the early 2030s, according to the Social Security Administration. In 2033, reserves will deplete and incoming tax revenue will cover only 77% of Social Security benefits.

[Vrede too]

Social Security is not a welfare program. People contribute, and contributions are capped to avoid very high earners becoming eligible for very high retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are derived from a formula based on contributions so - up to a maximum - benefits are lower for lower contributions and higher for higher contributions. It's a pretty clean system and, except for the disability part works remarkably smoothly. Eligibility standards are set and the same for everyone. No reason to change the rules at full retirement for somebody who happened to earn a lot of money during their career.

Looming deficits is a "reason".
Only a fucked up system gives taxpayer money to fatcats is another "reason".
Certain formulae are not and shouldn't be immutable is also a "reason".

And all the yammer about "running out of money" is smoke and mirrors. The only reason the fund is running low is that the money was robbed by congresscritters for other uses. They just need to put it back.

Deficits are coming regardless of the size of the trust fund:

...Social Security and Medicare are both solvent through the early 2030s, according to the Social Security Administration. In 2033, reserves will deplete and incoming tax revenue will cover only 77% of Social Security benefits.

Your Rx only affects when a problem becomes a crisis. Besides, do you have any reason to believe that your Rx is more politically feasible then mine, any reason at all?

Ftr, I'd be fine with raising taxes and cutting the prison and military industrial complexes in order to implement your unlikely Rx, along with my fixes or not.

[O Really]

Everybody does pay the same percentage up to the maximum. Sure, there is an employer share of 6.2% and a self-employed person has to pay the entire 12.4% but that's still the same for everybody employee+employer. The main reason for capping contributions is to limit eventual benefit eligibility. High earners getting to save a bit is incidental. How could you run a program where you say "OK, everybody gets a benefit based on their contributions - except for you rich guys over there who paid in a pile for nothing."

[Vrede too]

Everybody does pay the same percentage up to the maximum. Sure, there is an employer share of 6.2% and a self-employed person has to pay the entire 12.4% but that's still the same for everybody employee+employer. The main reason for capping contributions is to limit eventual benefit eligibility. High earners getting to save a bit is incidental. How could you run a program where you say "OK, everybody gets a benefit based on their contributions - except for you rich guys over there who paid in a pile for nothing."

I, Vrede too, could run that program just fine, thank you In a system where the working and middle classes pay in a higher percentage of their income in all taxes than the fatcats do, why not? Everything is skewed to favor the rich and Vredenomics would begin to end that.

[O Really]

Working and middle classes pay a higher percentage of their income for all expenses - not just taxes. And with regard to income tax per se, that can certainly use some Vrede management. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that because other aspects of the tax system are inequitable that we should turn SS into a Rube Goldberg mish-mash of conflicting eligibility rules.

[billy.pilgrim]

Working and middle classes pay a higher percentage of their income for all expenses - not just taxes. And with regard to income tax per se, that can certainly use some Vrede management. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that because other aspects of the tax system are inequitable that we should turn SS into a Rube Goldberg mish-mash of conflicting eligibility rules.

Agreed. Don’t give them an argument that makes sense.

Get rid of the employer contribution and charge everyone, no exceptions, the same percentage on all types of income.

[Vrede too]

Working and middle classes pay a higher percentage of their income for all expenses - not just taxes. And with regard to income tax per se, that can certainly use some Vrede management. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that because other aspects of the tax system are inequitable that we should turn SS into a Rube Goldberg mish-mash of conflicting eligibility rules.

Dumping the rate cap on taxes makes the system less Rube Goldberg.

Means testing payments can be directly tied to income tax returns with set levels and automatic application to SS payments. As I said, it's not like the uber-rich are going to employ armies of accountants over a piddling $20K/year.

IMO, the only "fairness" is that which makes the economy stronger for the most people and America more democratic. Bending over for whiny fatcats does neither.

[O Really]

Well, it's not exactly $20K/year for the fat cats. A person who has contributed the max each year during the calculated period and who claims benefits at age 70 in 2024 will get about $4,800/month - and a person who qualifies as a fat cat will surely have done the max.

[Vrede too]

Well, it's not exactly $20K/year for the fat cats. A person who has contributed the max each year during the calculated period and who claims benefits at age 70 in 2024 will get about $4,800/month - and a person who qualifies as a fat cat will surely have done the max.

My bad, but will true fatcats quibble over $57,600/year? That's 0.00576% of $1B, for example. Then, fine with me if petit fatcats don't lose the entire amount and thus are also less likely to fight. Still would be an automatic calculation from tax returns, no need for complexity.

Fwiw, I think it's rude that fatcats even make claims. They're stinkin' rich thanks usually to America, be patriots and let Uncle Sam keep the $$$.

[Vrede too]

“He’s so fucking stupid. I mean, look at the lame, inane things that he says. He’s so stupid he can’t even say anything clever. He’s a fucking moron. But he’s a scary one, and in all seriousness, and we know it here, people have to get out and vote and vote and vote and vote.”
-- Robert De Niro re Donald Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rob ... 39207.html

Cool, Bob, I'll vote 4 times

“We had John Cena onstage naked and somehow Trump still managed to be the biggest dick of the night.”
-- Jimmy Kimmel
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jimmy-ki ... e17a8365d8

[O Really]

Well, it's not exactly $20K/year for the fat cats. A person who has contributed the max each year during the calculated period and who claims benefits at age 70 in 2024 will get about $4,800/month - and a person who qualifies as a fat cat will surely have done the max.

My bad, but will true fatcats quibble over $57,600/year? That's 0.00576% of $1B, for example. Then, fine with me if petit fatcats don't lose the entire amount and thus are also less likely to fight. Still would be an automatic calculation from tax returns, no need for complexity.

Fwiw, I think it's rude that fatcats even make claims. They're stinkin' rich thanks usually to America, be patriots and let Uncle Sam keep the $$$.

You can't be serious! Fatcats are the ultimate quibblers over tax nickels and dimes. Do you think it was middle/working class people who came up with exotic income tax deductions like expenses for polishing the anchor on your yacht? But as is, fatcat now or fatcat in training, everybody pays the same percentage up to the max earnings level of$168K and everybody is subject to the same benefit levels, depending on earnings. $168K isn't anywhere near fatcat land anymore so everything the fatcats earn past that isn't SS taxed - but - they don't get credit for those earnings when they become eligible for benefits, either.

So you've got a guy who's a cook in a restaurant earning squat. He pays 6.4% of that squat for Social Security tax. But he's a good cook and soon he's a restaurant manager. Makes more than squat, but still pays 6.4%. Eventually he has his own restaurant and it's doing pretty well, and now he pays 6.4% for himself as well as another 6.4% as his own employer. Years later he's got a chain of restaurants, a nice little 2 mill bungalow in LaJolla, and a daughter with a perfect smile, a new Camaro and a freshly minted JD from Stanford. Now he doesn't pay 6.4% of his total earnings, but only up to $168K. And before long he's eligible for retirement. Now you're gonna tell him that all his contributions from back when he really needed it are gonna be forfeited and he gets no benefits from a program he supported to the max for years because his work has paid off, his restaurants are successful and now he's officially a fatcat? I don't think Homie plays that. And certainly it wouldn't add to democracy or equity.

[Vrede too]

You can't be serious! Fatcats are the ultimate quibblers over tax nickels and dimes. Do you think it was middle/working class people who came up with exotic income tax deductions like expenses for polishing the anchor on your yacht? But as is, fatcat now or fatcat in training, everybody pays the same percentage up to the max earnings level of$168K and everybody is subject to the same benefit levels, depending on earnings. $168K isn't anywhere near fatcat land anymore so everything the fatcats earn past that isn't SS taxed - but - they don't get credit for those earnings when they become eligible for benefits, either.

So you've got a guy who's a cook in a restaurant earning squat. He pays 6.4% of that squat for Social Security tax. But he's a good cook and soon he's a restaurant manager. Makes more than squat, but still pays 6.4%. Eventually he has his own restaurant and it's doing pretty well, and now he pays 6.4% for himself as well as another 6.4% as his own employer. Years later he's got a chain of restaurants, a nice little 2 mill bungalow in LaJolla, and a daughter with a perfect smile, a new Camaro and a freshly minted JD from Stanford. Now he doesn't pay 6.4% of his total earnings, but only up to $168K. And before long he's eligible for retirement. Now you're gonna tell him that all his contributions from back when he really needed it are gonna be forfeited and he gets no benefits from a program he supported to the max for years because his work has paid off, his restaurants are successful and now he's officially a fatcat? I don't think Homie plays that. And certainly it wouldn't add to democracy or equity.

Any retained "nickels and dimes" are measured against the hourly rates of the accountants and lawyers needed to retain them.

How many Americans do not have:
A nice little 2 mill bungalow in LaJolla, plus a vacation home in Tahoe;
A daughter with a perfect smile, and a full closet;
A new Camaro, an SAV for the wife and a Tesla for the daughter?
Those are not elements of equity and he can buy as much democracy as he chooses, unlike most.
I don't care about his feelings or what he wants to "play" if it's within my power to overcome the democracy he buys.

Again, the reduced amount or lack of SS won't materially affect him and the only "fairness" is that which makes the economy stronger for the most people and America more democratic. Bending over for whiny fatcats does neither.

Now, Horatio Alger, exactly how do you propose to get Congress to pay back the trust fund and wouldn't you want to use progressive taxation - hitting restaurant guy hard - to do so? What's the difference?

[O Really]

Means testing payments can be directly tied to income tax returns with set levels and automatic application to SS payments.

Would that be gross or net income? Inclusive of all identifiable income even if it's not taxable? At what income level would a fresh retiree become a fatcat? And if s/he had major losses next year is it once a fatcat always a fatcat? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Vrede too]

Means testing payments can be directly tied to income tax returns with set levels and automatic application to SS payments.

Would that be gross or net income?
Net. TBD by congressional negotiation - whether to adjust for total assets.

Inclusive of all identifiable income even if it's not taxable?
Tied to taxable income, just like income tax.

At what income level would a fresh retiree become a fatcat?
TBD by system needs and congressional negotiation.

And if s/he had major losses next year is it once a fatcat always a fatcat?
No, it's tied to net income year by year. I'm sorry about your setbacks and look for your check.

Enquiring minds want to know.
You're welcome. I would send you a bill for the Vredenomics seminar, but it would just count against my SS.

Did you miss this?

Now, Horatio Alger, exactly how do you propose to get Congress to pay back the trust fund and wouldn't you want to use progressive taxation - hitting restaurant guy hard - to do so? What's the difference?

[O Really]

"Congressional negotiation"

No, I didn't miss the question. I'd get Congress to negotiate it.

[Vrede too]

"Congressional negotiation"
That was always the mandate. Hence, we're in our current mess.

No, I didn't miss the question. I'd get Congress to negotiate it.
I think one or both of my fixes is more likely than the huge generalized tax increase needed to repay the trust fund, which still doesn't address the annual deficits.

[billy.pilgrim]

And it all boils down to simply collecting the same percentage tax for all types of income on everyone - no exceptions

Rather than our current system which gets about 80% of its funds from the bottom 20% of our total economy.


Back to the do rich people care about the pennies they can take from anywhere and everywhere

Didn’t the rich just wage a major Fox News congressional campaign against the wealthy having to declare their social security Income as taxable income?
I didn’t pay enough attention to care who won, but I think the rich won their pennies from the poor.