• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    1 month ago

    Friendly reminder that all we need to do to make it solvent is get rid of the cap.

    It’s insane we have a max limit and not a minimum. Someone making 160k won’t even notice the 6.2% on all of it, someone making 20k tho the 6.2% is life-changing.

    The existing system was never designed for this level of wealth inequality.

    Unfortunately the Republicans want to break it further and the Dem leadership refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution.

    • tryrebooting@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s actually insane how little payroll deductions hit when you’re at the 401k and social security max for the year. It’s normal to see 1-2k more per check. Everyone benefits directly or indirectly from social security and we should all pay into it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, who cares about the family with a 50k household income…

        The cap allows people who can already max out their 401k to get an extra 1-2k every check the last couple months of the year!

        You’ve changed my mind good sir

        Obviously the wealthy deserve that extra income.

        • tryrebooting@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I’m not sure I phrased it correctly, I was saying that it’s insane that checks get larger for the wealthy. I don’t like it either. I fully agree with your point that the cap should be removed.

  • Splount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Would someone please give me the ELI5 on why Republicans want to destroy Social Security? Do they want to privatize it by making everyone put money into a 401K that is controlled by Wall Street money managers, who then skim their share? Are they STILL pissed about Roosevelt? Are rich Republicans pissed that poor people might not have to eat cat food in their old age? Is it that the foundational idea is that we all contribute…and that’s COMMUNISM??? I just don’t understand their motivation.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Certain people are staunchly against what they call “handouts”, even though Social Security is not that at all. The argument they make is that it costs other money to operate and maintain that they wouldn’t need to spend if they just TRUST in whatever company would be managing that money if they privatize it. It’s one of the dumbest arguments you’ll hear about social programs.

    • satanmat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      To do my best ELI5::

      They don’t want to pay ANY taxes; they want you to pay taxes.

      It doesn’t matter if stuff fails; in fact that’s a feature not a bug. The very rich will pay for the stuff they need, and they DON’T care if you or everyone else suffers…. If you are not rich that is your own fault.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        You were correct until tbe last sentence. That might be an excuse occasionally but it isn’t actually part of the thought process. They simply dont care if you or everyone else suffers as long as they get what they want.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      In short, oligarchs want to get richer and want more power (there’s never enough), you would think that poor conditions would wake people up, but as long as there less fortunate ones as us we are fine with it. It is easy to set us up against each other by telling that our misfortune is because of minorities and immigrants.

      There’s a book called On Freedom by Timothy Snyder that talks about it. I think everyone should read it. Once you are aware of the mechanisms it is easy to see.

      You would think that Republicans breaking social security would surely lose them votes, but it is really easy to manipulate their base and tell them that there’s not enough money in SSN because immigrants are getting free money and once again we are fighting with each other and once again oligarchs walk away with more wealth.

  • homura1650@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The Social Security Trust Fund does not exist. It is an accounting fiction. When Social Security was passed, it came with a tax increase to offset the increased spending. For decades, the tax increase was greater than the spending increase, so the government spent the difference on other stuff; but made a note that Social Security had a surplus. However, since 2010, this flipped and the cost of Social Security has exceeded the income of its associated tax. The bean counters would the flip happened in 2021, but that is because they believe in the fiction of the Social Security Trust Fund, so that interest on the Trust Fund counts as income to Social Security, despite the fact that said interest is paid by the federal government.

    So, why does this accounting fiction called the Social Security Trust Fund matter? Because it has the force of law. Under current US law, Social Security is exempt from the the typical budgetting rules. As long as the bean counters would say the Trust Fund has a positive balance, Social Security is authorized to increase it’s budget to meet it’s obligations. In contrast, most Federal programs get their budgets increased as part of the yearly budget (or a continuing resolution when Congress can’t pass a budget. Or they just close when Congress can’t pass a CR).

    So, what happens when the trust fund runs out?

    Option 1, Congress does not authorize continued spending at current levels. This is typically known as a spending cut. But because it is triggered by an existing law and Republicans have spent decades playing up the trust fund, they can act like this cut was a force of nature, and not them actively deciding to cut it in the congressional budget.

    Option 2, Congress funds social security just like it funds everything else, through an appropriations bill. SS keeps operating, and becomes another political football in the annual budget fight

    Option 3, Congress picks some way to tell the bean counters that the social security trust fund is still positive. Social security keeps operating at current lol levels, and remains exempt from the normal appropriations process.

    So, what is all this talk about removing the cap on the Social Security payroll tax? If we ignore all the accounting trickery, that is about taking a regressive income tax payed by workers earning less that $168,600/year and turning it into a flat tax. Nothing whatsoever to do with social security, but I agree that a flat tax is better than a regressive tax. Still not as good as a progressive tax, which is the only thing that would have been politically viable but for the fiction that this tax is at all related to Social Security benefits (and their associated limit).

    Social Security isn’t even the only federal program to have this issue. Our highway system is payed for by the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by a tax on gasoline. This fund has been insolvent since 2008, so Congress just included highway funding in their appropriations bills and payed for the difference like they pay for most Federal programs.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago
    Committee for a Responsible Federal Buddget - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Committee for a Responsible Federal Buddget:

    MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Raw Story:

    MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security
    https://www.rawstory.com/trump-social-security-2669448327/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support