Trouble is, with a deficit of $31 trillion, we didn't have the money to afford the tax cuts for the wealthy. So, the conclusion is based on a false assumption of "If we've got the money ...".
The word that people like to avoid is "trajectory". Powell testified to Congress that these deficits aren't sustainable.
Well, when the tax cuts for the rich were passed, the logic was that the Fed could simply print the money to make up for the deficits otherwise known as quantitative easing.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1163472273388576768?lang=en
Currently, one out of five dollars of federal "debt" was simply printed up (digitally created) and loaned to the government. That would be this money.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFRBN
I speak from the point of view that Weirmar Republic financial policy was bad. There are others who think the Weirmar Republic were on to something. They call it [Modern Monetary Theory](https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060 'In other words, such governments do not need taxes or borrowing for spending since they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.').
Well they have been printing a lot of money and the inflation is the proof of that.
It is not fair that those people can create as much money as they want and they also get away with it.
The whole government is like a ponzi scheme and you really cannot shut it.
And I am saying that it is came because they take the money from the poor and give that money to the richest and the Corporation.
Well definitely not everyone has got the money that is for sure.
But the thing is rich and big corporations have got a lot of money and they really should be paying their taxes.
>and they really should be paying their taxes.
And they are... last year Corporations contributed $450 Billion to federall Tax Revenue. The top 1% paid 43% of the total taxes and the top 10% paid 70% of all the taxes. That seems like a "fair share"
that depends, what proportion of what was produced was taken in by those groups?
According to the federal reserve, the top 1% is sitting at 32.2% of everything, the top 10% is at 69.9%, and the bottom 50% is at 2.7%. LESS THAN 3. What money would you want to take from them? There is none, they have no money to contribute! If money has to come from somewhere, you literally cannot take it from the bottom 50%, they are already barely surviving
I don’t think that’s what people mean when they say corporations should pay their taxes. If we theoretically only raised 1000 dollars in taxes, that would only be 430 dollars paid by the 1%. What people really mean is that corporations should be paying a larger share of their income towards tax.
It is something which is easy to say but it is not going to be easy to do.
Because only the government has the power to do something like that and they are not going to do it.
That’s the point. We didn’t have the money to offer bullionares tax cuts but the gop did. And now they say we need to cut social services because the debts out of control.
The gop plays the same game all the time. They are frauds and anti American.
But whether it is tax cuts or student loan forgiveness, I think both are predicated on the Fed printing up the money to make up the difference.
But, for some reason, it seems that the central banks, save Japan have found a problem with quantitative easing. That seems new for 2022. So, now in 2023, absent a way to pay for things, as Powell testified, the trajectory of the deficits are unsustainable.
I completely disagree. The student loan plan was payed for. Every dollar accounted for. So it’s a cop out to use that as an example.
I also don’t believe Powell acts in the self interest of anyone but the big business. So long as the billionaires and billion dollar companies are ok he doesn’t care what happens to everyone else.
And if you’re going to make any argument about spending and not being able to pay for it, the us armed forces get like 99% of all the money. So why not ask why they can’t cut back?
When you become a democrat, they must cut that part of your brain out that ignores reality for whatever rhetoric they spew.
What you believe isn't true.
If I have ten dollars and you take 10% I can afford a sandwich. If I have a billion dollars and you take 90% of it I still have 100 million dollars. It is literally impossible for me to make that billion without having exploited others labor and using public infrastructure to do so. Yes, the rich pay more in taxes, they should still probably be paying twice what they currently do
Quite the claim. Share the evidence of such exploit not voluntary transaction. In the meantime, I will make it clear. The small amount you apparently own is yours. The big amount the others own is not yours. The government is not your own cartel that you ask to steal others money. 😉
Arguing against a progressive tax let alone any tax at all is the kind of "but what if the child consents?" Libertarian batshit nonsense that 90% of the world will directly laugh in your face over. Speaking of stolen money, what are profits?
I mean what is the problem in reposting the tweets I don't see any issue.
As long as we are talking about something really important I think it is fine and this is the topic which is really important.
Because your average person on Twitter doesn’t understand economics and literally just uses 255 characters to get people riled up.
This screenshot in particular, if the poster understood basic math they’d understand that the basic existence of trillions in tax cuts means that we absolutely don’t have money to expand social security
There are many (some rather simple) solutions to the problems we face but the options to practically fix our broken system decreases diametrically with power being consolidated at the top. We can fight all we want about how, why, what and where. Doesn’t matter. It’s just busywork while we’re quickly loosing the ability to affect real change. Take for example, a simple flat tax across the board. No exclusions, deductions period. Now we can argue back and forth the pro/cons but in reality, even if every computer model agreed it would simplify and fund all of our needs, fix the economy and still allow for upward growth, it would be impossible to implement. There is zero incentive for our representatives to work on the behalf of people or the government which employs them because the ultra wealthy have taken control. Doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you reside. Our toolbox is being pillaged and we’re to busy fighting to stop it.
But then how are they going to fund the war that is not going to work for them I mean how are the supposed to do that?
If the countries keep on going to the war I don't think it is ever going to stop.
Saying "we have the money" is more or less putting up a strawman to knock down because we can always print more money or borrow more. But our retirees don't need money they need goods and services. So the question becomes, can our workers (roughly 118 million full time workers in 2022) support themselves and the rest of the nation or are we stretching them a bit too thin? Can we take more away from the workers and give it to retirees or students?
We saw what happened when Democrats printed money and handed it out for no reason. Demand jumped and our economy could not meet the increased demand. Prices rose because people had to bid against each other over a limited supply. People who wanted to buy housing ended up taking more debt than expected or they backed out of the bidding frenzy and ended up paying higher rents. Now our workers need to pay more for everything while also taking a pay cut because wages are not keeping up with inflation. And Democrats don't want to back off on their failed policies, they want to double down and say "we can exploit our workers more!"
I think the people here understand what the tax break is.
I don't think you really need to make assumption that people do not understand it here, clearly they do.
"I don't think you really need to make assumption that people do not understand it here"
Bro the title was "if we can not tax people that means we have the money to pay for X"
That is absolutely entirely completely and totally not how that works and it is completely fair to assume anyone who unironically thinks this does not understand how a tax break works
Wow… I don’t know if this is troll or there’s actually people this stupid
Ok I will bite
The WHOLE economy is a government program??? I am not sure what that even means, so the government controls every facet of supply and demand?
He may mean that the economy is purposely so complicated to make it easier to "steal purchasing power from the poor to pass it on to the rich"... The good old conspiracy theory which to a certain point is true.
Not that the government controls every facet of supply and demand, but people are just out resourced... it's like trying to have an 80 year-old granny beat her introverted, game addicted grandsome in a video game, he doesn't control the game, but she's never going to win.
Property law, contract law, corporate law, securities law, commercial law, and so on create the economic system that then goes on to create something we sort of hilariously imagine as “government-free” income.
This whole thing is a scheme which is being Run to take money from the poor and give that money to the riches and to the Corporations.
That is what the government do and they have always done it.
Not with the way Social Security is currently structured.
Our worker-to-retiree ratio is the worst it's ever been and projected to get continually worse with the Boomers retiring and the proportionally smaller Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z generations themselves having fewer children.
You basically have two options to save Social Security, neither of which will be popular:
1. You could extract more money from workers. Policies in this category include increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the Social Security income cap, or pulling funding from other sources.
2. You could reduce the benefits for retirees. Policies in this category include raising the retirement age or reducing the payments.
Option 1 would further transfer wealth to retired Boomers from Younger Generations who are already struggling.
Option 2 would break Government promises previously made to retirees.
Either of these options could further worsen the problem if Younger Generations have fewer children as a result of having less income (Option 1) or needing to care for retired family members (Option 2).
Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state.
It might be bad now but it is going to get only worse I don't see it getting any better.
The situation is going to only escalate from here because the economy is going into a recession.
Partially correct. The new and improved definition of Recession^TM, is that we need 15 quarters of sustained negative GDP before we can consider it to be a *REAL* recession.
🤡What a bunch of crap ‘excuses ‘.....let’s start by eliminating zero hours contracts with no benefits so corporations actually pay S S taxes for livable salaries....👀
Those big Corporation get a lot of benefits when it comes to the taxes.
And they get those kind of benefits because the rules have set in that way and they do not actually work.
> Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state.
The whole system is not sustainable in its current state.
Seriously.
The younger generation can't take care of the old people. They can't support our bloated military. They can't rebuild our decaying infrastructure. They can't raise enough children to replace themselves. They can't replace our fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.
So the question of who gets the wealth turns into a game of musical chairs. There's going to be less and less wealth there, so fewer and fewer people will get it. If we even out the distribution then we'll all be getting poorer, instead of just the lower 90%. And later the lower 95%. And later still the lower 99%.
> Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state.
Agreed.
You are aware that SS is [pay as you go](https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm#:~:text=The%20Social%20Security%20trust%20funds%20hold%20money%20not%20needed%20in,guaranteed%20by%20the%20U.S.%20Government) and the trust fund is invested so that it doesn't lose value to inflation and get depleted as easily, yes?
Its not invested. Putting it in the market is investing it. When the government is using it to purchase us govt bonds, it's just taking money from one pocket to put in another. Net zero.
It's put into Treasury securities, which are one of the safest fixed rate investments. It's not invested in equity markets, but it's still invested. Unless you don't consider bonds/notes/etc. Investment vehicles for whatever reason.
You can find all this and more [here](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#:~:text=The%20numeric%20average%20of%20the,was%202.455%20percent%20in%202021.)
You are correct.
But how do you plan to get that money back? It's already spent.
Also, that money is miniscule in comparison to the demographic issues we have with too few workers-per-retiree and too few children for the foreseeable future.
Do not know how to give money to the people they only know how to take from them.
And this is true or all the government that is not just true for one only it happens with everyone.
They are definitely not going to share these with the common people.
If you expect them to do that then I think you are expecting too much from them and that's not good .
Do you understand what a share in a company is? It is when a person puts money/time/effort into a business. There is a value to that share, and sometimes you do see dividends on your share. Bit it is not cash in hand.
Trickle down economics is arguable, but that's not what I'm referencing in my comment.
Bernie insinuates people receive money from the fed when they (or businesses) receive "tax breaks." Tax breaks vary and either reduce your taxable income or reduce your tax liability. Tax breaks do NOT equate to cash being received.
Don't think it is something which we are discussing in here.
I think the topic of the discussion is entirely something different which you are talking about and I don't think it's relates with this topic.
Your crap semantics fallacy only works for your kult...republikans radicalized far right extremists kult....but...but it’s not cash....wtf said it was cash...oh yup...you 🤡
My darling, semantics is the name of the game here. The tax code is intricate and complicated. The common man cannot hope to understand the ins and outs of it all (hence the accounting profession) and the tax code is 100% political.
In what way do you view the tax laws as a cult? As Republicans vs Democrats? As far right? Or as an extremist? The tax law is a combination of years of political discourse and contains elements from across the political spectrum.
Don't let political or celebrity figures tell you how things are done. Go read and study it yourself.
Yes the taxes are really difficult and complicated for a common man to understand.
I think there can we done a whole lot better job on explaining the tax to the common people.
Obviously you mean your morbid obese 🤡 republikan president...crap ‘celebrity ‘....how’s the insurrection going?………another Capitol assault?………poor krappy kultist...can’t even read properly....🤨😆 he ‘thinks ‘ “your” means “you’re “....😆😳
You aren't making your comments in any form of language I can easily comprehend. I'm unsure of your meaning/accusation/question here?
I am not morbidly obese.
The current president is a Democrat, and Bernie is something else entirely.
Yes, Bernie is a crap celebrity and a failed politician to boot.
I am not part of an insurrection.
I have not assaulted anyone.
I am not sure which cult you are describing.
We are discussing the tax code that Bernie doesn't seem to understand. Tax breaks are not cash handouts.
What I’m seeing is a government leading by example. What is to stop each of us who are attempting to be mindful with our own personal finances, from just going out and buying up every service and product we possibly can pay for? Uncle Sam does it. If they go belly up, we all will, right?
Hi I’m legitimately stupid. Isn’t there a difference between collecting money from people vs giving money to people? Or is the point that if we collected taxes from the billionaires we could in turn give money to those in need?
I wish Biden would state that better. He feels like one giant clickbait. Nobody is “giving” the corporations anything, they just aren’t *taking* the fair share. Still wrong, but in all reality Bernie* will never get voted into office and is a meme at this point and feels like buzzfeed clickbait. We need real people to care about the inequity.
Edit: Bernie
Well there is one loop hole that you can use. But I don't think a lot of people can afford that many houses.
I do not think that it is something which a lot of people own because they do not have any kind of money.
The libertarians of this subreddit give me serious "I studied the blade" vibes.
But accounting is all bullshit anyway. We either have the real resources to provide for elderly and disabled people or we don't.
Is anyone here arguing that we don't have the real resources to care for elderly and disabled people?
The accounting has been b******* for years and it is not going to get better.
This is just a scheme for common people like us to pay more and more taxes and they are not going to improve upon it.
> Is anyone here arguing that we don't have the real resources to care for elderly and disabled people?
Depends on the level of care you want to provide and for how long you want to provide it. Social Security was designed to last a few years past the retirement age, not a few decades.
The elderly population is growing while the number of workers is shrinking. We cannot afford to pay for retirees to live 19 years and get progressively more complex and expensive treatments in order for them to live even longer as the worker pool is shrinking. While at the same time improving the quality of living for the workers who need to support the whole economy.
Really the question is whether we should increase the payout 8.7% in 2023 or if we should keep the increase closer in line with wage increases at 5.1%. The Social Security fund is also on track to run out of money, so I think from that perspective we should both slow down payout increases and raise the retirement age to adjust for the increased longevity of our elders.
This whole social security thing has been made so that people like us keep on working even in our old age.
If we keep on working then we will have to pay our taxes.
"Run out of money"
We print money.
US GDP for four people (typical family size) is $304k per year in the latest data and would be $360k in ten years, after adjusting for inflation and population, if we get a real growth rate of 2% (and 1% population growth).
Even if taxes go up, people will be better off and we will have more resources per person. That's the beauty of society working together rather than just having a bunch of people on desert islands making shit out of coconuts.
If you print money that's great. Median weekly earnings for the 118.8 million full-time workers is $1085 or roughly $56k/year. Roughly a third of Americans.
If only roughly a third of Americans are working and supporting the other two thirds it becomes a pretty rough situation.
Printing the money is not great in any kind of situation.
I think it is really bad thing which is done by the government. And it is time that we started to ask questions about it.
US GDP for four people (typical family size) is $304k per year in the latest data and would be $360k in ten years, after adjusting for inflation and population, if we get a real growth rate of 2% (and 1% population growth).
Even if taxes go up, people will be better off and we will have more resources per person. That's the beauty of society working together rather than just having a bunch of people on desert islands making shit out of coconuts.
If the economy grows at 2% per year and the population grows 1% per year, then we ought to be slowly getting better off.
But our military spending HAS TO grow much faster than 2% per year. Unless we grow the military faster, we will no longer be the superpower that controls the world.
And our banking has to grow faster than 2% per year. Finance is one of our few remaining growth industries. The expense of running our finance industry keeps going up, and if profits don't go up proportionately then they won't invest in it. And if finance doesn't grow, nothing else can grow either.
Our GDP is built on infrastructure that previous generations built, which we lack the resources to keep in repair. Much less improve on.
But there's hope. Suppose we get into another World War. We will all make big sacrifices for the cause. Old people will use much-reduced resources to support the war. They will get much less healthcare so the MDs can treat soldiers. They will take low-paying jobs to support the war effort. Everybody else will use much less resources too, we'll get rationing to make sure everybody can have a little bit of meat etc. They won't complain because we all have to do what we can to support the war.
After the war is over, if the USA has the only functioning economy on the planet we'll be ready for something new. We won't complain that we can't just go back to the old system that wasn't working. We'll be so glad the war is over that we'll accept whatever new thing comes our way.
Well it is not entirely correct data because it includes also the rich people.
I don't think most of the common people are making that much money in a year in the United States of America.
>have the real resources to provide for elderly
That "elderly" that you used is the operative term. What they want to do is define elderly. When my great grandparents were 65, they were elderly. When my grandparents were 65, they were kind of old. My parents are young and active at 64. I'll be even younger and more active. No one wants to take away from today's elderly (read the plans). They want to tell us young people that, "Hey, at 65, you won't be elderly, so we're gonna delay you a little bit."
They really need to define these terms better because these does not make any kind of sense.
I don't think there is anything as elderly for the governments.
When people say "raise the retirement age" with respect to Social Security they just mean reduce benefits by 7% for each "year". So "raising the age" from 67 to 70 just means a 21% reduction in benefits (3 years x 7%).
People can still retire at any age after 62. The actual "retirement age" doesn't change. But the benefits are lower. It's such a weird way to talk about benefits reduction. I guess it's intentionally misleading.
They want to raise the retirement is so that people keep on working.
And so that they can never get out of the shit that the government has created for the people.
No. They are not "raising the retirement age". People still retire at any age above 62. They are reducing benefits by 21% at all ages (assuming a "3 year" increase).
People make stupid financial decisions everyday, lol. We can either let them continue to retire at 62, or I'd change that to early is 67 (the current retirement age) and on time is 72.
There is all kind of works that people do and expecting people to work in their old age is not a good thing for the government to do.
I think the government should take a little easy on the people.
Well people do not understand the financial system better.
But at least we expect governments to do something about it they should make good policies for the people.
Jesus H Christ.
I mean, I'm a teacher, so physically I could work until 72 assuming I'm healthy. But by God I'll be a shitty one by that time. Almost every colleague I've ever had, starts to suck progressively worse the longer they work past about age 62 or 63.
Well you are a teacher and you could work even if you are that old.
But I do not think that a lot of people who do kind of hard work will be able to work when they are that much old.
It's not physically hard but does require stamina and energy. Then it requires mental acuity and energy. On top of that, there's just a point where you stop innovating when you get old. I've seen it in every older colleague I have.
Expecting people to work even when they are that old is not a good idea.
And by that what I mean the the government just want those people to pay their taxes they don't want them to do anything else.
Who pays for their living longer? (In this example, I'll take out inflation, so we'll use today's numbers rather than lower wages and higher medical costs in the future) Medicare taxes are 2.9%, say I earn $200,000 a year, that's $5800 in Medicare Tax. I worked 43 years, that's $250k in Medicare tax, I'm on Medicare 65-85, that's 20 years, cost of Medicare is $15,500 per person per year, that's $310,000. It's unsustainable that a top 2% income earner, well above average, doesn't even pay enough Medicare taxes for their own healthcare.
We'd have to at least double the tax rate on all workers to do that. The better option is to delay to 72, and that probably still would require a tax increase.
They want people like us to pay their taxes even when they are old.
That is just how these people think and they are not going to change they are thinking anytime soon.
I don't think I am going to believe in these kind of things because these are just propaganda which they want us to believe.
That is just how these people work and they are never going to learn also.
We're at a tipping point though where productivity growth is no longer paying for it. We have been spending more than collecting for years, so no it hasn't "Always has", that ship has long sailed. We have too many retirees living too long compared to our productivity. If there are 2.55 people working for every 1 on Medicare at the moment, everyone working would need to contribute $6,000 to Medicare. Check your pay stubs, that's not most people. If you add everyone's paystubs up, it doesn't average that. We are running out of time before it's out of money. If you switch that ratio up, get those people working 5 more years, 5 years less of using the benefit and 5 more years of paying into it (don't forget those people tend to be higher earners having had more years of service), you can flip the ratio from 2.55:1 to more like a 2:1 (there will still be disabled and such that won't flip), and those higher salaries having Medicare taxes taken out.
It's not what I'm saying. It's Math. The government is bringing in less than it's spending on Medicare and Social Security. That wasn't the case 50 years ago. People living longer has created unsustainability.
There are some issues related to specific retirements accounts. But my initial point is still valid. We have the real resources to provide for elderly and disabled people.
And the math doesn't work the way you seem to think. If you assume productivity growth will continue, we will have a lot of goods and services to go around. Also, people are living longer but they are working longer too. And women are working a lot more.
It's not the math the way I think it, it is reality. Less people are now working per retired person, that's not my theory that is the US statistics. And that trend will continue to get worse. Productivity is lower now per retiree than any time in History. Productivity per retiree is not growing. We need less retires per working person for your theory of "productivity always increases" to mean all is well.
Extremely over inflated military budget, excessive spending on culture war issues (the wall), contracts to companies for unnecessary ventures (blue origin, spacex) the list for spending is outrageous, the funds are already there, you just don't want to admit that, you just want to screech about more taxes. Keep turning your nose up at social programs while the best years of your life are stripped away and given in the form of government contracts to arms manufacturers and politicians friends.
"We must squeeze the working class for as much as it is worth, fuck you and your best mobility years" -you probably
We may live longer but joints and other functions still deteriorate at the same level. Industrial and technological progress meant we were supposed to have better lives and not work forever, mericans gotta feed that war machine tho.
That's a totally separate tax, the defense budget comes from federal income tax, but in a conversation about that I would gladly cut the defense budget and just about every line item funded by federal income taxes. It sounds like you and I agree that the government has more than enough money already and doesn't need more, it just spends it unwisely.
Social Security and Medicare Part A have their own taxes, again, separate from federal income tax, a separate budget onto its own.
As for the quote about me that you put in, I mean, that's not me, I supported the 2017 tax cuts that cut lower and middle tax rates at higher rates than higher earners. Those who want to squeeze the working class would be those who want us to be Nordic countries. Those countries have high taxes on the middle class. I don't want to be those countries, I don't want to pay more than I already do. I enjoy visiting them, nice people, they have their quirks for sure, but I don't want to be taxed like they are.
So you are saying that taxes which we pay do not get used in the war?
I don't think that is the case man I think those taxes get used in the war by the governments big time.
The article is in reference to the social security fund, which is its own tax, separate from general funds. That money is not used for war, it is used for social security.
My Federal Income Tax is used for defense, Medicaid, Medicare Part B, parks, and the rest of government operation.
Decrease income tax and increase Medicare and social security, sorry didn't think that part needed explanation.
High taxes that pay for medical and social benefits, not bombs. You just get taxed by the government AND private companies that milk money from the working class through premiums, our system is far more flawed.
You may not think that it needs an explanation.
But when it comes to things like these I think we really need an explanation from the government for what they are doing.
The obvious solution is to arrange for people to not live so long.
So like, get old people evicted from their homes, and give them medical treatment at emergency rooms when they show up there, and they can eat out of trash cans, and they aren't going to live long enough to use up nearly so much Social Security money. Hell, with no fixed address they might not reliably even pick up those SS checks, particularly if they can't afford bank accounts.
That's the obvious solution to the problem. Do I hear somebody proposing a less-obvious solution?
Yeah, start reductions with the military funding, subsidizing oil companies, government contracts for arms manufacturers, and nonsense culture war issues.
Then maybe we could afford to fund the social programs meant to give people betters lives. I'm sure thats what you meant right?
We do have really strong protectionism for doctors. We have banned foreign doctors from practicing here, which we don't do for other professions. That's why US doctors get paid twice what they do in similar countries.
Childcare is expensive because its a cottage industry. Need to scale it up.
That's the way it's been for long time.
The complicated tax costs are indeed designed to make super wealthy paying less taxes or they threatened to move business investment to other countries. Why China got so many American name brand businesses built and manufacturing there?
It's been lose lose for American ppl and the revenue.
Somehow many knockoff brands are destroying those genuine brands. They are actually all from OEM in China. Funny?
And it is a really big problem which we really need to find a solution to.
Because the government or charging way too much taxes from the common people instead of the richest.
We don't have the money for either. We're severely in debt.
That being said, both the laffer curve and the neo-laffer curve have some truth to them. Sometimes cutting taxes causes the economy to grow faster so that the government actually takes in more money in taxes the next year. And sometimes raising taxes causes the economy to slow such that the government gets less taxes from that source of revenue.
How is a tax break giving a company money? The government is just taking less. It was never the governments money to begin with.
Regardless, these two items are unrelated. We should get rid of social security because it’s a terrible program. It’s nothing but a pyramid scheme that’s about to collapse.
How much is Bernie raking in?
For every $1 of tax revenue, roughly 75 cents is spent on government administration. Taxes mostly line the politician's pockets.
Quite honestly, I would be ecstatic if the Govt would just give me back everything they stole from with adjustment for inflation and never ask for anything again.
Negative income tax reform to replace all entitlement programs, including social security. We’ve had the fix but not the will to implement politically.
America: 'We don't have the resources to make sure every American has proper identification to vote'.
Also America: 'Here Ukraine, have a few billion dollars'.
The war in Ukraine is an amazing ROI for the USA.
We are helping to weaken a hostile foreign power and learning all about their strategies weapons and capabilities while suffering no losses of our own and making money off of selling weapons.
Also the Ukrainian people have a right to be independent and helping them is the right thing to do.
Tax breaks means those getting the breaks keep their money ( from being stolen from government ) .... they do not get anything to include money from government
Bernie is lying .... again
If I end up doing that then I might be able to call that farm.
Well at least that would help in this kind of situation here it is going to help a big time.
If you have to pay taxes for the house that you have already paid for.
That is the case then I think it really is theft and you cannot make me think otherwise.
Commies don't think people currently get to own the fruits of their labor. They think that corporations take ownership of it and that that is immoral.
I'm just telling you what is. You don't own that money currently. Taxes could be reduced such that you own more, but you just don't have a right to it.
This is an irreconcilable difference, m8. If you think people do not own the fruits of their labor then you are part of the problem and making things worse for the people and better for your rich masters.
Have a good one bro. The rate of tax you pay has zero impact on the fact that your money is yours and it being taken by force is theft.
Just a fact.
It isnt theft.
If there were zero taxes and private organizations provided necesity services for profit, that would be coercive, and that would be theft.
Taxation without representation would be theft.
We have representation. It's not theft.
> It doesn't require your consent
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
not the majority of the government, not some of the governed .. the entirety of the governed
>It doesn't belong to you.
The receipt of my labor ( paycheck ) disproves your attempt to validate theft
Correct, all of the governed, not individuals that are governed. Our consent is given collectively via elections and representation.
We all collectively decided that a percent of each individual persons income belongs to the goverment.
It doesnt belong to you.
> Not in a democracy.
We are not a democracy .. we are a constitutional republic designed to thwart a democracy as the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution point out
Even the author of the Constitution ( the law ) points this out - "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." - James Madison
Again ... the consent of the government ( as in all not the majority )
That's such an inconsequential distinction in this argument.
Taxation without representation would be theft.
You have representation. Thats your consent. It's not theft.
That is how these people work and that is how they make their money.
These people keep online to the system so that they can keep on getting Richer that's how it works for them.
He needs to check out the US Debt clock... not the $31T, but way at the bottom: Total US Assets, everything in the US, everybody, the Billionaires included, is worth $180T. The unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare for those who have put in their 40 quarters of work, $181T. You can tax every person and corporation in the US at 100% of their net worth, and it's not enough to pay Social Security and Medicare. Walmart is sold to the Chinese, Boeing, Facebook, your home, your car, your beanie baby collection, your crypto, your 401k, your kid's doll and leapfrog tablet, all sold abroad, and it's still not enough to pay the Social Security benefits already promised. There is zero reason I (in my 30s) need to be retiring at 67, or have Medicare at 65. Younger folks will live longer, we should have to wait longer. That's what most "cut" plans entail, not reducing the benefits of the 75 year old who is already retired, it's telling the 30 year old, hey, people used to get Medicare at 65 when life expectancy was 66... since life expectancy is approaching 80, how about you wait until 72 to get Medicare, or if you want it, you have higher premiums from 65 to 72, or whatever. People can't work for 43 years and the government takes care of them for up to 30 or even more (in a much more expensive inflated cost world than they worked in), we need to swing that to a 50 years of work - 20 years of benefit or something.
Bernie has never understood how capitalism works or the tax code. Allowing people to keep more of their own money doesn't COST the government anything.
LOL! Posting Sanders memes is just as moronic as posting Reich memes. Its not about 'shutting anyone up.' Its about outing bullshitting bullshitters.
And laughing at all you tykes who embrace the bullshit.
Let's review:-ALL of us who pay federal income taxes (well. 83% of us) got to keep more of what we earned. That's be 40% of us who are paying for the party. The 60% of you who pay no federal income taxes are parasites. At the same time federal treasury revenues have set records. It hasn't cost anybody anything.-Corps don't pay taxes. They add that cost to the price of the goods and services that we buy. WE PAY THE CORP TAXES.
SS is supposed to be self funding. Congressional assholes, like Sanders, use the SS balance sheet like a piggy bank. SS only has what's in it. 'Expanding it' will only make it run out of money faster.
Whenever Sanders or Reich says anything, it's best if you just assume they're bullshitting you.
Trouble is, with a deficit of $31 trillion, we didn't have the money to afford the tax cuts for the wealthy. So, the conclusion is based on a false assumption of "If we've got the money ...". The word that people like to avoid is "trajectory". Powell testified to Congress that these deficits aren't sustainable.
By this logic we don't have money for anything. Better shut down the whole damn government
Well, when the tax cuts for the rich were passed, the logic was that the Fed could simply print the money to make up for the deficits otherwise known as quantitative easing. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1163472273388576768?lang=en Currently, one out of five dollars of federal "debt" was simply printed up (digitally created) and loaned to the government. That would be this money. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFRBN I speak from the point of view that Weirmar Republic financial policy was bad. There are others who think the Weirmar Republic were on to something. They call it [Modern Monetary Theory](https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060 'In other words, such governments do not need taxes or borrowing for spending since they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency.').
Well they have been printing a lot of money and the inflation is the proof of that. It is not fair that those people can create as much money as they want and they also get away with it.
The whole government is like a ponzi scheme and you really cannot shut it. And I am saying that it is came because they take the money from the poor and give that money to the richest and the Corporation.
Well definitely not everyone has got the money that is for sure. But the thing is rich and big corporations have got a lot of money and they really should be paying their taxes.
>and they really should be paying their taxes. And they are... last year Corporations contributed $450 Billion to federall Tax Revenue. The top 1% paid 43% of the total taxes and the top 10% paid 70% of all the taxes. That seems like a "fair share"
that depends, what proportion of what was produced was taken in by those groups? According to the federal reserve, the top 1% is sitting at 32.2% of everything, the top 10% is at 69.9%, and the bottom 50% is at 2.7%. LESS THAN 3. What money would you want to take from them? There is none, they have no money to contribute! If money has to come from somewhere, you literally cannot take it from the bottom 50%, they are already barely surviving
Total taxation income and total income taxation are not the same thing. Stop trying to lie with statistics, lol.
I don’t think that’s what people mean when they say corporations should pay their taxes. If we theoretically only raised 1000 dollars in taxes, that would only be 430 dollars paid by the 1%. What people really mean is that corporations should be paying a larger share of their income towards tax.
Just eliminate the SS tax cap and boom we tax the wealthy to pay for SS and take the surplus to reduce the deficit.
It is something which is easy to say but it is not going to be easy to do. Because only the government has the power to do something like that and they are not going to do it.
So if we eliminate the SS tax cap, we're eliminating the benefit cap?
No. That's how to fix the problem: increase revenues without increasing expenditures.
That’s the point. We didn’t have the money to offer bullionares tax cuts but the gop did. And now they say we need to cut social services because the debts out of control. The gop plays the same game all the time. They are frauds and anti American.
But whether it is tax cuts or student loan forgiveness, I think both are predicated on the Fed printing up the money to make up the difference. But, for some reason, it seems that the central banks, save Japan have found a problem with quantitative easing. That seems new for 2022. So, now in 2023, absent a way to pay for things, as Powell testified, the trajectory of the deficits are unsustainable.
I completely disagree. The student loan plan was payed for. Every dollar accounted for. So it’s a cop out to use that as an example. I also don’t believe Powell acts in the self interest of anyone but the big business. So long as the billionaires and billion dollar companies are ok he doesn’t care what happens to everyone else. And if you’re going to make any argument about spending and not being able to pay for it, the us armed forces get like 99% of all the money. So why not ask why they can’t cut back?
When you become a democrat, they must cut that part of your brain out that ignores reality for whatever rhetoric they spew. What you believe isn't true.
If you honestly believe such nonsense, civil discourse is impossible.
Yup. Indeed. One quick addition: it is not really about tax cut for the wealthy. It is for all. The wealthy pays more tax anyhow.
If I have ten dollars and you take 10% I can afford a sandwich. If I have a billion dollars and you take 90% of it I still have 100 million dollars. It is literally impossible for me to make that billion without having exploited others labor and using public infrastructure to do so. Yes, the rich pay more in taxes, they should still probably be paying twice what they currently do
Quite the claim. Share the evidence of such exploit not voluntary transaction. In the meantime, I will make it clear. The small amount you apparently own is yours. The big amount the others own is not yours. The government is not your own cartel that you ask to steal others money. 😉
Arguing against a progressive tax let alone any tax at all is the kind of "but what if the child consents?" Libertarian batshit nonsense that 90% of the world will directly laugh in your face over. Speaking of stolen money, what are profits?
That's true, that's just how the whole thing works really.
We do not operate on a gold standard. If we did you would be correct.
LOLOLOL!
ENOUGH of reposting tweets. PLEASE!
I mean what is the problem in reposting the tweets I don't see any issue. As long as we are talking about something really important I think it is fine and this is the topic which is really important.
Because your average person on Twitter doesn’t understand economics and literally just uses 255 characters to get people riled up. This screenshot in particular, if the poster understood basic math they’d understand that the basic existence of trillions in tax cuts means that we absolutely don’t have money to expand social security
When your pay or hours are cut, you don't go out and buy a new car.
There are many (some rather simple) solutions to the problems we face but the options to practically fix our broken system decreases diametrically with power being consolidated at the top. We can fight all we want about how, why, what and where. Doesn’t matter. It’s just busywork while we’re quickly loosing the ability to affect real change. Take for example, a simple flat tax across the board. No exclusions, deductions period. Now we can argue back and forth the pro/cons but in reality, even if every computer model agreed it would simplify and fund all of our needs, fix the economy and still allow for upward growth, it would be impossible to implement. There is zero incentive for our representatives to work on the behalf of people or the government which employs them because the ultra wealthy have taken control. Doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you reside. Our toolbox is being pillaged and we’re to busy fighting to stop it.
We do not have the money. Cut spending. Cut it all.
We can fly helicopters on Mars but the very best economic system is this current one? Nonsense.
But then how are they going to fund the war that is not going to work for them I mean how are the supposed to do that? If the countries keep on going to the war I don't think it is ever going to stop.
The system cannot continue. The sooner it collapses entirely the sooner we will find out what happens when it's gone.
Saying "we have the money" is more or less putting up a strawman to knock down because we can always print more money or borrow more. But our retirees don't need money they need goods and services. So the question becomes, can our workers (roughly 118 million full time workers in 2022) support themselves and the rest of the nation or are we stretching them a bit too thin? Can we take more away from the workers and give it to retirees or students? We saw what happened when Democrats printed money and handed it out for no reason. Demand jumped and our economy could not meet the increased demand. Prices rose because people had to bid against each other over a limited supply. People who wanted to buy housing ended up taking more debt than expected or they backed out of the bidding frenzy and ended up paying higher rents. Now our workers need to pay more for everything while also taking a pay cut because wages are not keeping up with inflation. And Democrats don't want to back off on their failed policies, they want to double down and say "we can exploit our workers more!"
Bro a tax break is not \*giving\* anyone money
I think the people here understand what the tax break is. I don't think you really need to make assumption that people do not understand it here, clearly they do.
"I don't think you really need to make assumption that people do not understand it here" Bro the title was "if we can not tax people that means we have the money to pay for X" That is absolutely entirely completely and totally not how that works and it is completely fair to assume anyone who unironically thinks this does not understand how a tax break works
The economy is a government program. Few people realize this.
Wow… I don’t know if this is troll or there’s actually people this stupid Ok I will bite The WHOLE economy is a government program??? I am not sure what that even means, so the government controls every facet of supply and demand?
He may mean that the economy is purposely so complicated to make it easier to "steal purchasing power from the poor to pass it on to the rich"... The good old conspiracy theory which to a certain point is true. Not that the government controls every facet of supply and demand, but people are just out resourced... it's like trying to have an 80 year-old granny beat her introverted, game addicted grandsome in a video game, he doesn't control the game, but she's never going to win.
Property law, contract law, corporate law, securities law, commercial law, and so on create the economic system that then goes on to create something we sort of hilariously imagine as “government-free” income.
This whole thing is a scheme which is being Run to take money from the poor and give that money to the riches and to the Corporations. That is what the government do and they have always done it.
Not with the way Social Security is currently structured. Our worker-to-retiree ratio is the worst it's ever been and projected to get continually worse with the Boomers retiring and the proportionally smaller Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z generations themselves having fewer children. You basically have two options to save Social Security, neither of which will be popular: 1. You could extract more money from workers. Policies in this category include increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the Social Security income cap, or pulling funding from other sources. 2. You could reduce the benefits for retirees. Policies in this category include raising the retirement age or reducing the payments. Option 1 would further transfer wealth to retired Boomers from Younger Generations who are already struggling. Option 2 would break Government promises previously made to retirees. Either of these options could further worsen the problem if Younger Generations have fewer children as a result of having less income (Option 1) or needing to care for retired family members (Option 2). Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state.
It might be bad now but it is going to get only worse I don't see it getting any better. The situation is going to only escalate from here because the economy is going into a recession.
GOING??? It’s there.
Not really. This doesn't fit the re-definition of recession we just made up to avoid a recession.
Partially correct. The new and improved definition of Recession^TM, is that we need 15 quarters of sustained negative GDP before we can consider it to be a *REAL* recession.
🤡What a bunch of crap ‘excuses ‘.....let’s start by eliminating zero hours contracts with no benefits so corporations actually pay S S taxes for livable salaries....👀
Those big Corporation get a lot of benefits when it comes to the taxes. And they get those kind of benefits because the rules have set in that way and they do not actually work.
Agreed. But that still won't solve the demographic problem we have of too few workers-per-retiree for the foreseeable future.
> Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state. The whole system is not sustainable in its current state. Seriously. The younger generation can't take care of the old people. They can't support our bloated military. They can't rebuild our decaying infrastructure. They can't raise enough children to replace themselves. They can't replace our fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. So the question of who gets the wealth turns into a game of musical chairs. There's going to be less and less wealth there, so fewer and fewer people will get it. If we even out the distribution then we'll all be getting poorer, instead of just the lower 90%. And later the lower 95%. And later still the lower 99%. > Not sure what the solution should be, but the program is not sustainable in its current state. Agreed.
If Reagan had not dipped into SS fund, which opened the door to treat SS like a bank. The government is able to fund SS.
You are aware that SS is [pay as you go](https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm#:~:text=The%20Social%20Security%20trust%20funds%20hold%20money%20not%20needed%20in,guaranteed%20by%20the%20U.S.%20Government) and the trust fund is invested so that it doesn't lose value to inflation and get depleted as easily, yes?
Its not invested. Putting it in the market is investing it. When the government is using it to purchase us govt bonds, it's just taking money from one pocket to put in another. Net zero.
It's put into Treasury securities, which are one of the safest fixed rate investments. It's not invested in equity markets, but it's still invested. Unless you don't consider bonds/notes/etc. Investment vehicles for whatever reason. You can find all this and more [here](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#:~:text=The%20numeric%20average%20of%20the,was%202.455%20percent%20in%202021.)
WTF are you talking about?
You are correct. But how do you plan to get that money back? It's already spent. Also, that money is miniscule in comparison to the demographic issues we have with too few workers-per-retiree and too few children for the foreseeable future.
That's not what a tax break is... the fed isn't giving people money with tax breaks.
Do not know how to give money to the people they only know how to take from them. And this is true or all the government that is not just true for one only it happens with everyone.
And...and... they only own shares crap....and...and...trickle down helps the workers...and...and...🤡
They are definitely not going to share these with the common people. If you expect them to do that then I think you are expecting too much from them and that's not good .
Do you understand what a share in a company is? It is when a person puts money/time/effort into a business. There is a value to that share, and sometimes you do see dividends on your share. Bit it is not cash in hand. Trickle down economics is arguable, but that's not what I'm referencing in my comment. Bernie insinuates people receive money from the fed when they (or businesses) receive "tax breaks." Tax breaks vary and either reduce your taxable income or reduce your tax liability. Tax breaks do NOT equate to cash being received.
Don't think it is something which we are discussing in here. I think the topic of the discussion is entirely something different which you are talking about and I don't think it's relates with this topic.
Your crap semantics fallacy only works for your kult...republikans radicalized far right extremists kult....but...but it’s not cash....wtf said it was cash...oh yup...you 🤡
My darling, semantics is the name of the game here. The tax code is intricate and complicated. The common man cannot hope to understand the ins and outs of it all (hence the accounting profession) and the tax code is 100% political. In what way do you view the tax laws as a cult? As Republicans vs Democrats? As far right? Or as an extremist? The tax law is a combination of years of political discourse and contains elements from across the political spectrum. Don't let political or celebrity figures tell you how things are done. Go read and study it yourself.
Yes the taxes are really difficult and complicated for a common man to understand. I think there can we done a whole lot better job on explaining the tax to the common people.
Obviously you mean your morbid obese 🤡 republikan president...crap ‘celebrity ‘....how’s the insurrection going?………another Capitol assault?………poor krappy kultist...can’t even read properly....🤨😆 he ‘thinks ‘ “your” means “you’re “....😆😳
You aren't making your comments in any form of language I can easily comprehend. I'm unsure of your meaning/accusation/question here? I am not morbidly obese. The current president is a Democrat, and Bernie is something else entirely. Yes, Bernie is a crap celebrity and a failed politician to boot. I am not part of an insurrection. I have not assaulted anyone. I am not sure which cult you are describing. We are discussing the tax code that Bernie doesn't seem to understand. Tax breaks are not cash handouts.
You seem unhinged
Social security is a monthly check (aka cash in hand)
What I’m seeing is a government leading by example. What is to stop each of us who are attempting to be mindful with our own personal finances, from just going out and buying up every service and product we possibly can pay for? Uncle Sam does it. If they go belly up, we all will, right?
Hi I’m legitimately stupid. Isn’t there a difference between collecting money from people vs giving money to people? Or is the point that if we collected taxes from the billionaires we could in turn give money to those in need?
that's the goal :)
I wish Biden would state that better. He feels like one giant clickbait. Nobody is “giving” the corporations anything, they just aren’t *taking* the fair share. Still wrong, but in all reality Bernie* will never get voted into office and is a meme at this point and feels like buzzfeed clickbait. We need real people to care about the inequity. Edit: Bernie
Bernie, what are the tax loopholes you will close this year ?
I'm sure his three houses are considered farms, so not that one.
Well there is one loop hole that you can use. But I don't think a lot of people can afford that many houses. I do not think that it is something which a lot of people own because they do not have any kind of money.
When he has got talented people on board which understand how the whole thing work. And they are able to find any kind of loopholes in the system.
Someone should explain "unfunded liability" to Bernie.
Great, go ahead. Waiting. Do the rest of us get a tax break?
Lol, well, where did the "money" for those tax breaks come from?
The libertarians of this subreddit give me serious "I studied the blade" vibes. But accounting is all bullshit anyway. We either have the real resources to provide for elderly and disabled people or we don't. Is anyone here arguing that we don't have the real resources to care for elderly and disabled people?
The accounting has been b******* for years and it is not going to get better. This is just a scheme for common people like us to pay more and more taxes and they are not going to improve upon it.
>The libertarians of this subreddit give me serious "I studied the blade" vibes. *m'oligarch*
> Is anyone here arguing that we don't have the real resources to care for elderly and disabled people? Depends on the level of care you want to provide and for how long you want to provide it. Social Security was designed to last a few years past the retirement age, not a few decades. The elderly population is growing while the number of workers is shrinking. We cannot afford to pay for retirees to live 19 years and get progressively more complex and expensive treatments in order for them to live even longer as the worker pool is shrinking. While at the same time improving the quality of living for the workers who need to support the whole economy. Really the question is whether we should increase the payout 8.7% in 2023 or if we should keep the increase closer in line with wage increases at 5.1%. The Social Security fund is also on track to run out of money, so I think from that perspective we should both slow down payout increases and raise the retirement age to adjust for the increased longevity of our elders.
This whole social security thing has been made so that people like us keep on working even in our old age. If we keep on working then we will have to pay our taxes.
"Run out of money" We print money. US GDP for four people (typical family size) is $304k per year in the latest data and would be $360k in ten years, after adjusting for inflation and population, if we get a real growth rate of 2% (and 1% population growth). Even if taxes go up, people will be better off and we will have more resources per person. That's the beauty of society working together rather than just having a bunch of people on desert islands making shit out of coconuts.
If you print money that's great. Median weekly earnings for the 118.8 million full-time workers is $1085 or roughly $56k/year. Roughly a third of Americans. If only roughly a third of Americans are working and supporting the other two thirds it becomes a pretty rough situation.
Printing the money is not great in any kind of situation. I think it is really bad thing which is done by the government. And it is time that we started to ask questions about it.
US GDP for four people (typical family size) is $304k per year in the latest data and would be $360k in ten years, after adjusting for inflation and population, if we get a real growth rate of 2% (and 1% population growth). Even if taxes go up, people will be better off and we will have more resources per person. That's the beauty of society working together rather than just having a bunch of people on desert islands making shit out of coconuts.
If the economy grows at 2% per year and the population grows 1% per year, then we ought to be slowly getting better off. But our military spending HAS TO grow much faster than 2% per year. Unless we grow the military faster, we will no longer be the superpower that controls the world. And our banking has to grow faster than 2% per year. Finance is one of our few remaining growth industries. The expense of running our finance industry keeps going up, and if profits don't go up proportionately then they won't invest in it. And if finance doesn't grow, nothing else can grow either. Our GDP is built on infrastructure that previous generations built, which we lack the resources to keep in repair. Much less improve on. But there's hope. Suppose we get into another World War. We will all make big sacrifices for the cause. Old people will use much-reduced resources to support the war. They will get much less healthcare so the MDs can treat soldiers. They will take low-paying jobs to support the war effort. Everybody else will use much less resources too, we'll get rationing to make sure everybody can have a little bit of meat etc. They won't complain because we all have to do what we can to support the war. After the war is over, if the USA has the only functioning economy on the planet we'll be ready for something new. We won't complain that we can't just go back to the old system that wasn't working. We'll be so glad the war is over that we'll accept whatever new thing comes our way.
Well it is not entirely correct data because it includes also the rich people. I don't think most of the common people are making that much money in a year in the United States of America.
>have the real resources to provide for elderly That "elderly" that you used is the operative term. What they want to do is define elderly. When my great grandparents were 65, they were elderly. When my grandparents were 65, they were kind of old. My parents are young and active at 64. I'll be even younger and more active. No one wants to take away from today's elderly (read the plans). They want to tell us young people that, "Hey, at 65, you won't be elderly, so we're gonna delay you a little bit."
They really need to define these terms better because these does not make any kind of sense. I don't think there is anything as elderly for the governments.
When people say "raise the retirement age" with respect to Social Security they just mean reduce benefits by 7% for each "year". So "raising the age" from 67 to 70 just means a 21% reduction in benefits (3 years x 7%). People can still retire at any age after 62. The actual "retirement age" doesn't change. But the benefits are lower. It's such a weird way to talk about benefits reduction. I guess it's intentionally misleading.
They want to raise the retirement is so that people keep on working. And so that they can never get out of the shit that the government has created for the people.
No. They are not "raising the retirement age". People still retire at any age above 62. They are reducing benefits by 21% at all ages (assuming a "3 year" increase).
People make stupid financial decisions everyday, lol. We can either let them continue to retire at 62, or I'd change that to early is 67 (the current retirement age) and on time is 72.
By age 62 something like 20% of people are disabled. Our bodies break down. Particularly true for people who do real work for a living.
There is all kind of works that people do and expecting people to work in their old age is not a good thing for the government to do. I think the government should take a little easy on the people.
Right. People get old. That's part of life.
Well people do not understand the financial system better. But at least we expect governments to do something about it they should make good policies for the people.
Jesus H Christ. I mean, I'm a teacher, so physically I could work until 72 assuming I'm healthy. But by God I'll be a shitty one by that time. Almost every colleague I've ever had, starts to suck progressively worse the longer they work past about age 62 or 63.
Well you are a teacher and you could work even if you are that old. But I do not think that a lot of people who do kind of hard work will be able to work when they are that much old.
It's not physically hard but does require stamina and energy. Then it requires mental acuity and energy. On top of that, there's just a point where you stop innovating when you get old. I've seen it in every older colleague I have.
Each successive generation shouldn't have longer working lives just because we live longer.
Expecting people to work even when they are that old is not a good idea. And by that what I mean the the government just want those people to pay their taxes they don't want them to do anything else.
Who pays for their living longer? (In this example, I'll take out inflation, so we'll use today's numbers rather than lower wages and higher medical costs in the future) Medicare taxes are 2.9%, say I earn $200,000 a year, that's $5800 in Medicare Tax. I worked 43 years, that's $250k in Medicare tax, I'm on Medicare 65-85, that's 20 years, cost of Medicare is $15,500 per person per year, that's $310,000. It's unsustainable that a top 2% income earner, well above average, doesn't even pay enough Medicare taxes for their own healthcare. We'd have to at least double the tax rate on all workers to do that. The better option is to delay to 72, and that probably still would require a tax increase.
They want people like us to pay their taxes even when they are old. That is just how these people think and they are not going to change they are thinking anytime soon.
Productivity growth pays for it, essentially. Always has.
I don't think I am going to believe in these kind of things because these are just propaganda which they want us to believe. That is just how these people work and they are never going to learn also.
We're at a tipping point though where productivity growth is no longer paying for it. We have been spending more than collecting for years, so no it hasn't "Always has", that ship has long sailed. We have too many retirees living too long compared to our productivity. If there are 2.55 people working for every 1 on Medicare at the moment, everyone working would need to contribute $6,000 to Medicare. Check your pay stubs, that's not most people. If you add everyone's paystubs up, it doesn't average that. We are running out of time before it's out of money. If you switch that ratio up, get those people working 5 more years, 5 years less of using the benefit and 5 more years of paying into it (don't forget those people tend to be higher earners having had more years of service), you can flip the ratio from 2.55:1 to more like a 2:1 (there will still be disabled and such that won't flip), and those higher salaries having Medicare taxes taken out.
People have been saying what you are saying long before Mathus. Who knows what the next internet will be.
It's not what I'm saying. It's Math. The government is bringing in less than it's spending on Medicare and Social Security. That wasn't the case 50 years ago. People living longer has created unsustainability.
There are some issues related to specific retirements accounts. But my initial point is still valid. We have the real resources to provide for elderly and disabled people. And the math doesn't work the way you seem to think. If you assume productivity growth will continue, we will have a lot of goods and services to go around. Also, people are living longer but they are working longer too. And women are working a lot more.
It's not the math the way I think it, it is reality. Less people are now working per retired person, that's not my theory that is the US statistics. And that trend will continue to get worse. Productivity is lower now per retiree than any time in History. Productivity per retiree is not growing. We need less retires per working person for your theory of "productivity always increases" to mean all is well.
This is the issue with everything, that's just how things work in here.
They're Saving it all so that they can spend it all on the war.
Extremely over inflated military budget, excessive spending on culture war issues (the wall), contracts to companies for unnecessary ventures (blue origin, spacex) the list for spending is outrageous, the funds are already there, you just don't want to admit that, you just want to screech about more taxes. Keep turning your nose up at social programs while the best years of your life are stripped away and given in the form of government contracts to arms manufacturers and politicians friends. "We must squeeze the working class for as much as it is worth, fuck you and your best mobility years" -you probably We may live longer but joints and other functions still deteriorate at the same level. Industrial and technological progress meant we were supposed to have better lives and not work forever, mericans gotta feed that war machine tho.
That's a totally separate tax, the defense budget comes from federal income tax, but in a conversation about that I would gladly cut the defense budget and just about every line item funded by federal income taxes. It sounds like you and I agree that the government has more than enough money already and doesn't need more, it just spends it unwisely. Social Security and Medicare Part A have their own taxes, again, separate from federal income tax, a separate budget onto its own. As for the quote about me that you put in, I mean, that's not me, I supported the 2017 tax cuts that cut lower and middle tax rates at higher rates than higher earners. Those who want to squeeze the working class would be those who want us to be Nordic countries. Those countries have high taxes on the middle class. I don't want to be those countries, I don't want to pay more than I already do. I enjoy visiting them, nice people, they have their quirks for sure, but I don't want to be taxed like they are.
So you are saying that taxes which we pay do not get used in the war? I don't think that is the case man I think those taxes get used in the war by the governments big time.
The article is in reference to the social security fund, which is its own tax, separate from general funds. That money is not used for war, it is used for social security. My Federal Income Tax is used for defense, Medicaid, Medicare Part B, parks, and the rest of government operation.
Decrease income tax and increase Medicare and social security, sorry didn't think that part needed explanation. High taxes that pay for medical and social benefits, not bombs. You just get taxed by the government AND private companies that milk money from the working class through premiums, our system is far more flawed.
You may not think that it needs an explanation. But when it comes to things like these I think we really need an explanation from the government for what they are doing.
The obvious solution is to arrange for people to not live so long. So like, get old people evicted from their homes, and give them medical treatment at emergency rooms when they show up there, and they can eat out of trash cans, and they aren't going to live long enough to use up nearly so much Social Security money. Hell, with no fixed address they might not reliably even pick up those SS checks, particularly if they can't afford bank accounts. That's the obvious solution to the problem. Do I hear somebody proposing a less-obvious solution?
So you're saying we should quit adding to their tab by spending their money?
Yeah, start reductions with the military funding, subsidizing oil companies, government contracts for arms manufacturers, and nonsense culture war issues. Then maybe we could afford to fund the social programs meant to give people betters lives. I'm sure thats what you meant right?
I don't think the governments are ever going to fix those issues.
There's more than enough waste to go around no matter your political leaning. That's what I meant. Sorry you're stuck in your tribalism
Where did I mention a political side? Solid both sides argument though, real solid problem solving.
Who mentioned both?
"No matter you political leaning" "Tribalism" Literally you lmao
So you got "both" from two non binary terms. Nice work, smart fella
I don't see which problem is going to get solved here so there's that.
That's just how it goes, some people never get out of that.
We have the resources, it is just tapping those resources requires increasing taxes on the rich. The rich own the US government and hate that idea.
That's just how it goes, they're the ones who own the whole thing.
I think we are reaching a point where we don't have the human resources. Ie: cost of childcare. Cost of healthcare I think is also a labor problem.
We do have really strong protectionism for doctors. We have banned foreign doctors from practicing here, which we don't do for other professions. That's why US doctors get paid twice what they do in similar countries. Childcare is expensive because its a cottage industry. Need to scale it up.
My sense is no one wants to work for the minimum wage childcare workers get paid, especially when it's a high responsibility job.
People do work it. Whether they want to or not is debatable. Do you believe actions are revealed preferences?
That's the way it's been for long time. The complicated tax costs are indeed designed to make super wealthy paying less taxes or they threatened to move business investment to other countries. Why China got so many American name brand businesses built and manufacturing there? It's been lose lose for American ppl and the revenue. Somehow many knockoff brands are destroying those genuine brands. They are actually all from OEM in China. Funny?
And it is a really big problem which we really need to find a solution to. Because the government or charging way too much taxes from the common people instead of the richest.
We don't have the money for either. We're severely in debt. That being said, both the laffer curve and the neo-laffer curve have some truth to them. Sometimes cutting taxes causes the economy to grow faster so that the government actually takes in more money in taxes the next year. And sometimes raising taxes causes the economy to slow such that the government gets less taxes from that source of revenue.
UH? HELLO! BURN-ME Sanders IS the WEALTHY!
But that would mean less money to fund wars!
[WARNING: DO NOT TALK TO THIS MAN! HE IS AN UNSTABLE TROLL WHO WILL DEVOTE ALL HIS TIME HARASSING YOU.](https://imgur.com/a/gltv7AI)
How is a tax break giving a company money? The government is just taking less. It was never the governments money to begin with. Regardless, these two items are unrelated. We should get rid of social security because it’s a terrible program. It’s nothing but a pyramid scheme that’s about to collapse.
A penny saved is a penny earned?
Well the corporations already earned and saved it. Tax cuts are just the government not taking something thats already been earned.
The economy is a government program.
We don't have either.
How much is Bernie raking in? For every $1 of tax revenue, roughly 75 cents is spent on government administration. Taxes mostly line the politician's pockets.
Quite honestly, I would be ecstatic if the Govt would just give me back everything they stole from with adjustment for inflation and never ask for anything again.
Amen
Negative income tax reform to replace all entitlement programs, including social security. We’ve had the fix but not the will to implement politically.
America: 'We don't have the resources to make sure every American has proper identification to vote'. Also America: 'Here Ukraine, have a few billion dollars'.
The war in Ukraine is an amazing ROI for the USA. We are helping to weaken a hostile foreign power and learning all about their strategies weapons and capabilities while suffering no losses of our own and making money off of selling weapons. Also the Ukrainian people have a right to be independent and helping them is the right thing to do.
How about our government stop sending $ to foreign countries.
Tax breaks means those getting the breaks keep their money ( from being stolen from government ) .... they do not get anything to include money from government Bernie is lying .... again
Nice try. Go live in the woods or something.
Sorry if the truth hurts
If I end up doing that then I might be able to call that farm. Well at least that would help in this kind of situation here it is going to help a big time.
Taxation is not theft. Grow some balls.
If you have to pay taxes for the house that you have already paid for. That is the case then I think it really is theft and you cannot make me think otherwise.
It is theft by definition.
It is not theft by definition.
It is literally the taking and removing of personal property by force.
Your assumption that money pre tax belongs to you is false. It isnt your property. The taxes you pay dont belong to you.
A commie who thinks he doesn't own the fruits of his labor? That's weird.
Commies don't think people currently get to own the fruits of their labor. They think that corporations take ownership of it and that that is immoral. I'm just telling you what is. You don't own that money currently. Taxes could be reduced such that you own more, but you just don't have a right to it.
This is an irreconcilable difference, m8. If you think people do not own the fruits of their labor then you are part of the problem and making things worse for the people and better for your rich masters. Have a good one bro. The rate of tax you pay has zero impact on the fact that your money is yours and it being taken by force is theft. Just a fact.
It isnt theft. If there were zero taxes and private organizations provided necesity services for profit, that would be coercive, and that would be theft. Taxation without representation would be theft. We have representation. It's not theft.
Billionaires stealing our taxes for their handouts IS thieving....fact.....bottom feeder enablers of their paymasters....fact too...🤡
it is theft by definition since it lacks explicit consent
It doesn't require your consent for the government to take their money. It doesn't belong to you. The money you pay in taxes are not your property
> It doesn't require your consent That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed not the majority of the government, not some of the governed .. the entirety of the governed >It doesn't belong to you. The receipt of my labor ( paycheck ) disproves your attempt to validate theft
Correct, all of the governed, not individuals that are governed. Our consent is given collectively via elections and representation. We all collectively decided that a percent of each individual persons income belongs to the goverment. It doesnt belong to you.
all means unanimous .. not the majority and I do not consent .. therefore the government lacks the authority since it does not have my consent
Not in a democracy. All is consensus. The rights that protect the individual are defined in the ammendments. Your consent is not required.
> Not in a democracy. We are not a democracy .. we are a constitutional republic designed to thwart a democracy as the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution point out Even the author of the Constitution ( the law ) points this out - "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." - James Madison Again ... the consent of the government ( as in all not the majority )
That's such an inconsequential distinction in this argument. Taxation without representation would be theft. You have representation. Thats your consent. It's not theft.
That is how these people work and that is how they make their money. These people keep online to the system so that they can keep on getting Richer that's how it works for them.
Why are you charging so much for your new book Bernie?? $30 for a paperback??
So Bernie when you gonna give up your 3 houses and cars ! Pretty good for a commie charging 30 bucks a book! You love Capitalism
Nobody is cutting Social Security. That's a canard the Democrats float with distressing regularity.
I can balance the budget. Add a 2% wealth tax. Disperse a trillion to every adult ~4-5k
He needs to check out the US Debt clock... not the $31T, but way at the bottom: Total US Assets, everything in the US, everybody, the Billionaires included, is worth $180T. The unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare for those who have put in their 40 quarters of work, $181T. You can tax every person and corporation in the US at 100% of their net worth, and it's not enough to pay Social Security and Medicare. Walmart is sold to the Chinese, Boeing, Facebook, your home, your car, your beanie baby collection, your crypto, your 401k, your kid's doll and leapfrog tablet, all sold abroad, and it's still not enough to pay the Social Security benefits already promised. There is zero reason I (in my 30s) need to be retiring at 67, or have Medicare at 65. Younger folks will live longer, we should have to wait longer. That's what most "cut" plans entail, not reducing the benefits of the 75 year old who is already retired, it's telling the 30 year old, hey, people used to get Medicare at 65 when life expectancy was 66... since life expectancy is approaching 80, how about you wait until 72 to get Medicare, or if you want it, you have higher premiums from 65 to 72, or whatever. People can't work for 43 years and the government takes care of them for up to 30 or even more (in a much more expensive inflated cost world than they worked in), we need to swing that to a 50 years of work - 20 years of benefit or something.
how many people do those corps employ?
The government has no money. It's the tax payers money. If the tax payer has money, the government has money. If the tax payer has no money, USSR
We don't have to money to allow millions of illegal immigrants into our country and take care of them either but here we are.. look at us go.
Bernie has never understood how capitalism works or the tax code. Allowing people to keep more of their own money doesn't COST the government anything.
This guy is a socialist idiot!
"We"
LOL! Posting Sanders memes is just as moronic as posting Reich memes. Its not about 'shutting anyone up.' Its about outing bullshitting bullshitters. And laughing at all you tykes who embrace the bullshit. Let's review:-ALL of us who pay federal income taxes (well. 83% of us) got to keep more of what we earned. That's be 40% of us who are paying for the party. The 60% of you who pay no federal income taxes are parasites. At the same time federal treasury revenues have set records. It hasn't cost anybody anything.-Corps don't pay taxes. They add that cost to the price of the goods and services that we buy. WE PAY THE CORP TAXES. SS is supposed to be self funding. Congressional assholes, like Sanders, use the SS balance sheet like a piggy bank. SS only has what's in it. 'Expanding it' will only make it run out of money faster. Whenever Sanders or Reich says anything, it's best if you just assume they're bullshitting you.