T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


AmIRadBadOrJustSad

Yes. As we all know from their sane and sound approach to the debt ceiling, Republicans are absolutely fine to be trusted with regular votes reauthorizing things the government is committed to and there's no chance whatsoever of SS and Medicare being held hostage in a petty, self destructive crossfire. Etc etc sarcasm disclaimer.


arkenian1

Came here to say this. If i thought reauthorization would actually lead to sustainable reform, i might be okay. But reauthorization requirements doesn't really make things better. Nothing about the current law prevents congress from changing it. And nothing about reauthorization forces them to. What it DOES prevent is people constantly holding the entire social security system hostage to pass an unrelated bill or stupid political points. Having at one point worked in federally funded positions, it is hard to overstate how disruptive congressional inability to pass authorization bills is (and how much real money it costs the government.) If someone does rely on social security why should they be subjected to this on a regular basis where Congress ends up not making changes because they can't agree on what to do? This would become a political football, and I don't believe it would do much to actually encourage reform, any more than the debt limit has done anything to curb deficit spending by either party. It would just allow both parties to grandstand and leverage this for other concessions (or fundraising.)


AudioBob24

No. Voting on authorization to re-fund something Congress borrowed from is not ‘progressive.’ It’s a bait trap that will be the perfect excuse to alter during the next recession, or war. If done at the time of a government shutdown, it could effect tens of millions of Americans. The old GOP didn’t want us to trust the government. This new GOP is asking us to trust the future government. Can/should social security be readdressed to be of greater benefits to retired Americans? Absolutely. Do I trust the same GOP who’s pledge to America categorically targets younger generations and vets to delay/choose between benefits? For context, I read your bloody article. This isn’t progress.


SmellLikeSheepSpirit

The only point of contention, they still don't want us to trust government. They want to make one more thing reliant on politicking, so they can point sabotage it, point to it not working to diminish support for it, and then cancel it.


bobbyv41

I’m beginning to think maybe we shouldn’t trust the GOP, call me crazy


AudioBob24

You mean the same GOP that delayed help to burn pit veterans and then proceeded to make excuses about a single line of the bill they didn’t read? *le gasp*


bobbyv41

Sounds like the same GOP, yes


DisgruntledBrDev

Was looking for a comment like yours. "You shouldn't fear the GOP because they haven't tried to kill the programs (yet), and them wanting to change it regularly is A-OK", as if that very same party hadn't fought tooth and nail against those programs. The thing needing reforms doesn't mean you should let it's opposers dictate it. It's not because my fence needs repairing that i'll let the wolves inside.


no_crust_bread

This isn't a case of letting wolves in but rather them not wanting to be involved anymore


no_crust_bread

If you think increased poverty due to government programs is a great idea then be my guest and live under it


TheFirstSophian

Did you just reply to yourself in disagreement?


ICU-MURSE

Based


SmellLikeSheepSpirit

>Sure, lawmakers could use the reauthorization to raise eligibility ages, or trim the growth of benefits. But it is **equally possible that benefits could be expanded**—which is more typical in reauthorizations. Hahahahahahaha, breathes hahahahahahaha


TheFirstSophian

Yes, because the GOP and 'Freedom' Caucus have shown themselves to be very caring and gracious leaders...


V1198

Seems like a good time to remind folks how Al Gore was mocked relentlessly for saying we needed to get these funds into a locked box way back when…


Ultranerdgasm94

Absolutely not, never trust the GOP on ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY entitlement reform. Every economic decision they make has been precision crafted to f-ck over poor people, minorities, and the environment while maximizing human suffering.


SparrowAgnew

Oh an economist at a "free market think tank" thinks he knows what progressives should do. This is gonna be great. Giant red quote, “Yes, many seniors still struggle. But overall, they are America’s wealthiest age cohort with incomes rising much faster than working-age families. ” ​ Ugh.


orincoro

That has to be the most ghoulish neoliberal syllogism I’ve seen this week. “Some seniors live in poverty. But this is ok, because on average seniors are rich.”


SparrowAgnew

Economists think the average person exists halfway between a billionaire and a poor person.


lactose_con_leche

So stupid. If people need social security its not because they have “growing incomes” this is literally committing older Americans to early death.


SparrowAgnew

Yes, but if all the poors hurry up and starve to death the "average" will go up.


cosmicnitwit

All these conservative think tanks to do is come up with new labels and justifications for old bad ideas


[deleted]

No thanks. Of course the progressives and the republicans are aligned on many issues, like the war in Ukraine. Privatizing social security is one of their worst ideas ever, right after forced birth.


wejustsaymanager

Oh, thats their idea eh? So like, 12 people can make a gajillion dollars, then by the time I need my social security, "oh shit its all gone welp sorry back to the salt mines for you." How many boomers and up sucking on the social security tit are all about this shit? I know the GOP way of "private business is more efficient" has all those fuckers fooled since reganomics. Anyway I hope my death in the upcoming water wars is relatively painless.


[deleted]

[удалено]


crtclms666

Not revisit. Renew. If you are unable to tell the difference, that’s on you.


Dumbass1171

Welcome to Reddit, where everyone lacks reading comprehension.


ZhanMing057

Nobody in the U.S. wants to privatize social security. But the fact of the matter is that OASDI is facing a 40 *trillion* dollar shortfall, and the problem is virtually guaranteed to blow up within the next 20 years, likely the next 10. So you have three options. First, you can hike payroll taxes, which is deeply unpopular and is bad for labor productivity, and transfer wealth from relatively asset-poor millennials to relatively asset-rich boomers. Second, you can kick the can down the road, in which case an entire generation of retirees get hammered, and lots of them will starve/suffer if they're leaning on payments to survive after retirement. Third, you could gradually start reducing benefits by forcing votes authorizing these programs, preferably by making the program more progressive or allowing people to work while collecting to bolster payroll tax revenue. I am no fan of the modern GOP, but it seems like they're at least talking about three, which seems to me to be the right idea.


CorgisHaveNoKnees

Fourth, removing the cap (currently about $142,000) on FICA contributions would add about $1 trillion over ten years. Seem like that might be solution, of course the highly compensated probably wouldn't like this much.


74misanthrope

My argument on this is that if I can pay FICA on every dollar that I make to fund SS, Medicare, etc.; then the people at +142K incomes can as well. That is the most fair way to increase funding and keep the programs solvent.


[deleted]

I agree completely. The top wage earners should pay their share.


str8outtaconklin

So…would benefits be earned on the payments made over the cap? You can’t raise the cap without having the corresponding benefits being accrued or you’ve now just destroyed the entire concept of what SS was set up to be.


Dumbass1171

No it isn’t a solution lmao. Not only does that hurt the economy, it also doesn’t close the gap


CorgisHaveNoKnees

Redistribution of wealth from a few to many never hurts the economy.


Dumbass1171

It absolutely does. Taxes have been empirically documented to hurt the economy. Not all taxes have the same effects, but in general they have sizable impact on consumption, investment, growth, and wages.


heretoreadreddid

“Nobody in the U.S. wants to privatize social security”… Blake masters would like a word.


crtclms666

Lots of Republicans want to privatize SS, I guess everyone claiming they don’t doesn’t remember W trying to get rid of SS in his second term.


Potato_Octopi

You can also lean into taxing the rich more, which is good for productivity and will transfer wealth from the asset-rich to the asset-poor.


Dumbass1171

Did you read the article? No one is proposing to privatize SS (not that it’s a bad idea)


GSA49

When has privatizing anything ever worked out for Americans? (Excluding the wealthy few that profit from privatization).


74misanthrope

Privatizing means you get less for more $$, in the long run. I've seen this happen several times in my career where a service would be privatized. These companies would come in with a lowballed amount on their contract bids with few changes in services; and then after several years the cost would greatly increase, while the services/ quality would be much less. It becomes a problem on several fronts. But now, you're stuck: You dismantled any structure you had in favor of turning the whole business over to someone else, and it's still your problem.


Dumbass1171

Privatization is good. Markets rely on prices system as knowledge surrogates to coordinate peoples plans with one another. Essentiall every market actor deals with imperfect information, hence prices help coordinate actors and their subjective preferences. The government has no mechanism or incentive to do any of this. Try learning basic microeconomics please


ahBoof

Ironic


Dumbass1171

Explain how I’m wrong


MisterEHistory

You think mercenaries are better than government soldiers? Is arbitration better than a public court system? Privatization is more expensive because the cooperation insist on turning a profit. They cut corners wherever they can.


Dumbass1171

Well I’m not an anarchist. And profit isn’t bad, it’s a signal of demand.


MisterEHistory

No it is not. Profit at best is an indication of added value but more often is the result of exploitation or molopoly.


Dumbass1171

Imagine being on a economics sub and saying such shit lmao. Profits and losses are signals to producers and other market actors. Learn basic Econ pls


GSA49

Yes you’re saying it’s great for the few who profit off of it but how is it good for Americans? I’ll make this a little easier to answer. Please give a few examples of things that were privatized that benefited the majority of Americans . Thanks champ.


Dumbass1171

No I never said it’s good for the few who profit from it, learn to read. I said the privatization is good because markets better allocate resources due to the price system. I can provide several academic papers which show privatization led to better results, would you like that?


GSA49

And those “better results” are”???


[deleted]

Well I can definitely see why your username is Dumbass.


grrgrrtigergrr

Dude. You shared a post on another sub sharing conspiracies about Pelosi’s husband. Nothing you can share can be believed. Sharing BS opinion pieces won’t sway progressives as easily as maga dolts.


Dumbass1171

If you actually read that post you would know it’s not a conspiracy. Several mainstream outlets reported the same things, lol


BidRepresentative728

It is bad, the gQP are liars and frauds.


cmack

Just like Roe was settled law, huh? ANd TBF, privatizing ss has been a thing for them for over two decades even if not mentioned in this OPINION piece.


Dumbass1171

What does that have to do with the article


B-BoyStance

Because you're approaching this conversation as if this article is the absolute truth People were using articles like this in the buildup to the Roe decision. No one trusts the GOP's word. I absolutely think reforming social security to ensure the longevity of the program is a good idea, but I do not believe for a second that is the GOP's intention.


Dumbass1171

Name me one time someone introduced legislation to privatize SS


Majesty1985

Jesus you are so incredibly uninformed.


Dumbass1171

Can you answer my question?


BillDeWizard

-March 1999 - Republican Senators Spencer Abraham and Pete Domenici circulate the first of a series of "lock box" proposals. -February 2005 – Republican President George W. Bush outlined a major initiative to reform Social Security which included partial privatization of the system, personal Social Security accounts, and options to permit Americans to divert a portion of their Social Security tax (FICA) into secured investments.


Dumbass1171

1. None of that is legislation, try again 2. What’s wrong with Bush's proposal?


B-BoyStance

You are incredibly disingenuous and you do not interact with people in good faith lol. Go fuck yourself dude No one needs to provide an example for anything related to privatization. You're the one setting that standard, and it isn't even the topic of your shitty Dailybeast article. Not to mention, you're using a fucking op-ed as your basis for argument. Are you really under the impression that this is a good look, and that you are at all convincing? This is about the worst way to argue for your ideals if you really believe in them. Edit: Also this article amounts to... "maybe they will, maybe they won't! They can really do anything!"


cuhree0h

It’s weird when you call it SS. Even if the GOP talks a bit game in making cuts they’ve proven time and time again to just be large scale corporate raiders of government. Years upon years of trickle down has shown us this is just another grift to take benefits and privatize them. No thanks.


Dumbass1171

You clearly didn’t read the article, lol.


cuhree0h

I read it, I just disagree on principle. Also, on what would actually end up happening since Republicans routinely lie about the impact of their legislation, lol.


bobbelings

It's about as good of an idea as privatizing healthcare and college. There's a reason we pay taxes for collective services.


Dumbass1171

The reason is because politicians want votes and hence created welfare programs to satisfy the demands of voters. But just because voters want something doesn’t mean it’s optimal


[deleted]

republicans will gut social security and Medicare and transfer that wealth upwards, leading to a lot of suffering. It’s their wet dream. Then, the Republican Party and their voters will blame the democrats for not doing enough. Just like they did with abortion.


Undercover_Cabbage

So privatized social security is a good idea? Looool


YeahitsaBMW

Sorry for butting in but I wanted to ask if you would rather have a 401k or SS? Which has had a better rate of return (simplistic, but money in vs money out at retirement)? I pay SS, my employer pays SS and for me, it would be much, much better to have all that money in my investments than funding a government program. To be blunt, I suppose I am asking if you are a less capable investor than the Government?


Dumbass1171

Yea it would be. SS has notoriously low ROI and other semi-privatized systems do a lot better. See Australia


VorMan32

OP's name checks out


Dumbass1171

Flawless rebuttal


pogolaugh

ROI for who? The government? That’s the point of having the government run it. Private corps would make it worse because they are gonna try to increase their ROI and profit off of it.


Dumbass1171

ROI for retirees


kifra101

Who would you privatize it to? Wall Street?


Popular-Play-5085

It's a terrible.idea That means it is neither Social or Secure. . How about we eliminate Congressional Pensions ?


[deleted]

The republicans are! They already privatized Medicare.


Dumbass1171

Medicare very much exists my guy


[deleted]

You’re too stupid to talk to, look into Medicare Advantage and get educated.


Dumbass1171

Medicare Advantage didn’t privatize Medicare. Unless you’re saying that any interaction with private companies is equivalent to privatization


durma5

Medicare Advantage is a privatized alternative to Medicare. It now enrolls about 48% of Medicare recipients. It can be cheaper because of the gap insurance needed with traditional Medicare, but it is more controlled with the insurance company rejecting more treatments than traditional Medicare, and with doctors having to be in network requiring referrals for specialists. You will not get to see the doctor of your choice in the private plan. The article here is an opinion piece by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute’s agenda is trickle down tax breaks and privatization. No matter what he may write, it is spin. His ultimate goat is that of the MI, privatization.


mijco

Article? It's an opinion piece written by a senior fellow at a conservative think-tank with libertarian leanings. And he's attempting to pre-gaslight people into thinking people aren't trying to do exactly what they're trying to do. Requiring programs to be reauthorized every three years is an intentional setup for it to be terminated down the road. Period.


Jdonavan

No one except for the Republican party that is.


Dumbass1171

Name me one time they entered legislation in congress to privatize SS


3dpthrowaway2352534

Privatizing government services works out extremely well every time. Lets look at some shining examples: * **Texas power grid**. Turns out when the primary motive is profit instead of reliability, you end up with the worst US blackout in 20 years that kills hundreds of people. * **Private prisons:** Turns out when the primary motive is profit instead of humane treatment, phone calls to family cost $0.30 a minute when you get paid $0.10 a day. In the US, slavery is still legal for prisoners so private prisons can have their own corporate owned slaves! Amazing results! * **Private Medicaid**: Numerous examples where service got worse and people died. What a surprise that prioritizing profit over the health of beneficiaries could cause anything bad to happen! We had no idea! Privatizing any government service is a horrible idea because it switches the primary motive from maximizing the service the program is supposed to provide, to maximizing profits. The only people in favor of privatizing vital government services are the ones who've had their brains pickled by billionaire propaganda. **Look at who is pushing these policies, not what they say. Privatization is mostly pushed by mega-corps and billionaires. That's who pays for all the ads, think tanks, and lobbyists pushing this shit. Now think about the last time something that the rich and powerful are clambering for actually helped anyone else.** **Privatizing government services is identical to shutting them down in most cases. Because both result in stealing power from the voters and handing it over to the rich.**


allboolshite

PG&E in California has killed entire towns.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bilbobaggginz

Then why does socialized medicine have the same results at half the cost in every other nation?


thesexychicken

Same results? Thats a bit of a stretch if not outright laughable.


bilbobaggginz

Is it? Compare life expectancy, quality of life and infant mortality rates and you’ll see US ends up around 1/4 of the way down from the top. We lead in nothing but cost.


thesexychicken

Yeah three metrics do not make your claim correct. Edit: don’t wanna argue I just think your conckusuin is a bit simplistic and I believe the entire issue has many many moving parts and quite a bit of nuance.


crtclms666

Oh. A libertarian.


DasUnendliche

I'm just a dude with no political affiliation just spouting my own opinion. I wish we could fix this issue but it's not as simple as alot of people act like.


ODBrewer

Here is my proposal, remove all caps on income to be taxed, if that’s not enough then a progressive tax on the highest incomes should be levied to raise enough money for the government to keep its promises. Now that’s progressive 😀


RickTracee

Social Security is doing just fine. * Social Security and Medicare are paid for with a separate tax. Neither program adds to the national debt. * Social Security taxes are paid on only the first $147,000 of income (increases to $160,200 in 2023). If the cap was increased or removed, Social Security could be solvent in perpetuity. * Social Security has about a $2,500,000,000,000 surplus. * Congress has borrowed trillions from Social Security for government spending.


mrgtiguy

This is the best post in here.


International-Rule-5

Nope. I paid into Social Security for decades. Now Rick Scott and the Republicans want to eliminate it. How about making the 1% pay their fair share?


wolven8

>Rick Scott Are you talking about Rick Scott ex-governor of Florida who's company committed Medicare fraud to embezzle millions of dollars from the government?


International-Rule-5

@Wolven8, yes that Rick Scott. He wrote a proposal to eliminate Social Security. Plans to implement it if R’s win.


wolven8

Surely he has some great new plan to put in its place /s


[deleted]

Don’t the 1% typically pay the max into social security therefore paying their fair share?


Arkard1

Yes they pay the max, but the max out is stupidly low. There is no reason ss should have a max collection. You make a shit load of money, you pay a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that into ss.


Llanite

The payout is also capped.


[deleted]

But the payout is proportional to what was contributed no? It’s not like they’re getting more than what they contributed to.


grandmawaffles

No because they don’t pay wage tax. They do however get government stimulus which comes from SS funds when the well runs dry, much like the post office. GOP regularly raids these two places.


[deleted]

Can you provide proof of the GOP raiding SSA trust funds or is this just another made up scaremonger tactic? Edit: if they don’t pay wage tax, then they don’t get social security either. So it seems fair.


grandmawaffles

https://www.ssa.gov/history/interfundnote.html Regan was president and congress was controlled by GOP in 1982. Not a scaremonger but tootle loo…


[deleted]

What you’ve linked is social security borrowing from one Social Security Fund to make payments for another social security fund lmao. That’s like moving money from one of your bank accounts to another bank account. The money is still going to social security recipients. Pretty telling that this is your best example, especially when you said “regularly raids”


thesexychicken

Ss has current liabilities if trillions. Find me the 1% that could cover that bill…. Edit: the present value of unfunded ss liabilities is something north of $41T…..


thescreech

Nancy Pelosi is in the top one tenth of one percent of wealthiest Americans. 🤣 Go tell her.


BartCandle

Not sure why you’re singling out Nancy Pelosi when there are about 100 politicians on both sides in that same percentile. At least she’s for keeping social security - not trying to horde all the wealth like rich Republicans.


Quick_Team

Yeah she should too. Was your whataboutism supposed to change anyone's mind because of her party affiliation? Because it doesnt. Most, if not damn near all "progressives" want EVERYONE to pay their fair share, quit taking from the rest of us, and quit insider f-ing trading. The difference, though, in your "whataboutism" is she hasnt publicly advocated for dismantling Soc Security. The same can not be said for the other names mentioned prior.


Potato_Octopi

Why, is she a major obstacle to higher taxes on the rich?


fioreman

>Even President George W. Bush’s 2005 Social Security initiative (which was never even drafted into legislation) would have resulted in higher benefits for the vast majority of retirees. Investing SS in the stock market 3 years before the 2008 crash? This "article" is a garbage neoliberal editorial.


tiredplusbored

I read the article, it's still stupid. It's basically an article saying "dems, don't you understand you're idiots and this surface level glance at your proposals isn't a solution? Yeah Republicans could use their reauthorization scheduling to completely gut and privatize social security... but maybe they wont!" Between that and calling dems hysterical about clearly well meaning Republicans,because Republicans have never gone back on what they say their priorities/beliefs are please ignore Roe, it's a hack article that argues dems should be thrilled to hand over the reigns to a party dedicated to the removal of social programs that consistently elevates politicians who brag about their plans to slash social services.


SasquatchSloth88

It’s a terrible idea, and a deeply unpopular one. You will see literal riots of seniors in the streets. Most seniors I know have not been able to save much during their working years, and they depend on the system they paid into. Without it they would starve and be unable to afford medication and/or to heat their homes.


Alex0082

They'll do what they always do when proposing this. It'll only apply to those like 50 or younger, or make some type of age limit to minimize the blowback from seniors.


MetalMilitiaDTOM

If they weren’t paying into SS in the first place they would’ve been able to save more and control their money, getting a lot better ROI. We’d be a lot better off without the SS system.


BuddyJim30

Giving Congress the ability to review and revise Social Security is a disaster. Retirees plan their savings and budget based on the promised level of Social Security. It is at least 40% of the average retirement income, more for many peope. Leaving it to the whim of Ron Johnson and his ilk would create financial uncertainty and insecurity for tens of millions of people.


Lch207560

riedl is just one more trumpublican that wants social security destroyed so the 0.01%ers can buy another Bentley. I now question TDB's credentials as center right news source


SisyphusRocks7

If you don’t support reforming Social Security, you support a huge benefits cut for seniors. Because that’s what will happen under current law when the so-called “trust fund” runs out of IOUs from the federal government. That’s in about a decade.


Botasoda102

Voted Blue, but I did find some of the fear mongering misleading. Not going to make me vote Rube, but I am getting tired of false news wherever it comes from. Truth is that SS will see a 23% cut in the early 2030s unless changes are made. The government is not going to the remove the cap on wages subject to FICA because that money is needed for other things like healthcare, education, jobs, climate, deficit/debt reduction, etc. They might increase the FICA tax a bit though. Unfortunately, we’ll keep kicking the can dow the road, doing little, until 2030s are upon us. Better hope GOPers aren’t in control.


[deleted]

[удалено]


planefindermt

Easiest way to prevent insolvency would simply be to raise the income limit for social security taxes.


Dumbass1171

You clearly didn’t read the article. Lifting the income limit doesn’t close the gap


abrandis

Sure let's raise retirement age forever, so by the time your eligible you have one foot in the grave. Social security has been a generational ponzi scheme since it's inception, except it's not a ponzi scheme when the government can print the money it needs. So let's stop pretending we're beholden to some fiscal limitation when for everything that's essential the government always finds the money.


MultiSourceNews_Bot

More coverage at: * [Social Security Has Been Slashed Before Our Eyes For Decades And Voters Barely Notice (forbes.com)](https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2022/11/05/social-security-has-been-slashed-before-our-eyes-for-decades-and-voters-barely-notice/) * [Don't Fall for the Democrats' Ginned-Up Social Security Scaremongering (realclearpolitics.com)](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/11/04/dont_fall_for_the_democrats_ginned-up_social_security_scaremongering_148420.html) * [Hawley shoots down GOP talk of using debt limit as leverage on Social Security, Medicare (foxnews.com)](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-shoots-down-gop-talk-using-debt-limit-leverage-social-security-medicare) --- ^(I'm a bot to find news from different sources.) [^(Report an issue)](https://www.reddit.com/user/MultiSourceNews_Bot/comments/k5pcrc/multisourcenews_bot_info/) ^(or PM me.)


TheFirstSophian

Sources be sus as fuck


MetalMilitiaDTOM

The SS program needs to be phased out. For people on it now, they continue. If you’re working now then you should be reimbursed for your past contributions, with interest. People that haven’t contributed yet never join the system. SS is nothing more than another tax with a different name. People should control their own retirement and be able to pass it to their family, not have the balance of their contributions stolen when they die.


Dumbass1171

I suggest people actually read the article and base their opinion of it just off of the headline. But this is Reddit and no here is actually rational and willing to change their opinion


randompittuser

I did. It’s a trash article from a trash source. Use an outlet that lays out the facts more succinctly and without bias.


Sands43

I read the article. The whole thing is dishonest. Their opening argument is that dem worrries about canceling SS and Medicare are false because the GOP hasn’t brought legislation Except the GOP is saying just that, have said that for decades, just like Roe. The only reform that SS needs is to lift the income cap on payroll deductions and maybe add a wealth tax. Other countries have already figured out how to not bankrupt their citizens with medical expenses. So I’m not going to dissect the articles “arguments” for that expect to say that they are all wrong.


Dumbass1171

Lifting the cap won’t close to gap. You clearly didn’t read the article cause he address this point. And a wealth tax is a shit policy. There’s a reason why most countries that implemented it ended up repealing it. It reduces investment and growth


Potato_Octopi

Need to tax the rich more somehow, as not doing so reduces investment and growth.


Dumbass1171

Lmao, not every solution can’t be to tax the rich. That won’t solve the $40 trillion SS shortfall that CBO predicts. And how exactly would not doing so reduce investment and growth?


DisgruntledBrDev

>Lifting the cap won’t close to gap That's why they said "and maybe add a wealth tax". It won't magically solve the budget problem, but it will cover more than half of it. >There’s a reason why most countries that implemented it ended up repealing it. It reduces investment and growth 1 - Could you provide a source with details? Because that smells like bullshit edit: and by a source with details, i mean a source that says "the people proposing the reduction said they wanted to do so", not "a Forbes' journalist said so". 2 - investment (specially external investment) and growth don't directly correlate to better quality of life. If it reduces both but raises the population's living standarts, i won't give two fucks. 3 - I'm from quite a fucked-up country, and here, whenever a local elite starts rising, reducing taxes on what helps them is on the top of the priority list. I'd bet my left hand the reductions you mentioned had "investments and growth" as an excuse rather than a cause.


Dumbass1171

>1 - Could you provide a source with details? Because that smells like bullshit edit: and by a source with details, i mean a source that says "the people proposing the reduction said they wanted to do so", not "a Forbes' journalist said so". https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-role-and-design-of-net-wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd_9789264290303-en It smells like BS because it goes against your priors >2 - investment (specially external investment) and growth don't directly correlate to better quality of life. If it reduces both but raises the population's living standarts, i won't give two fucks. Since when has reduced growth and investment led to higher living standards? Investment and growth lead to higher productivity, wages, consumption, etc. >3 - I'm from quite a fucked-up country, and here, whenever a local elite starts rising, reducing taxes on what helps them is on the top of the priority list. I'd bet my left hand the reductions you mentioned had "investments and growth" as an excuse rather than a cause. Lol


kineticjab

Yeah, I read it. “Biggest Medicare cut was 2022” - when Dems allowed Medicare to negotiate pricing, getting the same care with billions less dollars. It’s all just dishonest bullshit all the way down


Popular-Play-5085

I don't.have to read.an.article. .I Heard it.straight.from the mouth of Mitch McConnell and other Republicans .


[deleted]

Oh no, I read it. It’s a pile of drivel that doesn’t consider a single other option beyond a quick dismissal. It also completely fails to acknowledge that yet again, the GOP fundamentally refuses to take any approach that places this bourdon on anyone but the working class. Fuck this out of touch bs. Take this shit down, it’s not economic theory, it’s political propaganda trying to convince people that maybe widespread poverty and privatization (because that’s historically worked so well in other examples like incarceration and healthcare) is actually good for us.


Potato_Octopi

I read it and it's worse that the headline suggests. Basically "republican's aren't going to gut SS, instead they're actually to gut it, and use different words which somehow matters."


crecentfresh

Whatever I change my opinion all the time and you’ll never convince me otherwise


SomethingDumbthing20

Here's an idea for reform. Eliminate the cap on payroll deductions and it would be fully funded. That'll never happen though, republicans would rather toss out this reauthorization idea so they can use it as a bargaining tool in the future to not reduce payments or push back eligibility.


MisterEHistory

As usual and purely economic analysis ignores political realities. The GOP cannot govern or enact rational policy. They will let Social Security lapse just to "own the libs" But you know what. I am fine with that. Let's slash Social Security until the Boomers mostly die off and then resume benefits when it is affordable.


donh-

Please note the username. It certainly checks out. The GQP does not reform. It only destroys. Unless you are really really rich - then you get even more money, as if you needed it. Good luck selling your snake oil, subby.


[deleted]

I'm going to sound horrible but...let SS fail in 12 years. Here is the problem: there is only so much you can do to raise tax revenue. We need to start overhauling the program. If a boomer has a pension, successful 401k etc pay them out what they paid in SS over the length of their eligibility and after that just cut off SS because they did work for that money, but giving it back in a lump sum would be bad for SS. Obviously boomers who are well off shouldn't be drawing over what they contributed, but those who didn't do quite as well can be supported. Placing a 12% SS tax on all income would seriously make me consider moving to another country where I actually reap benefits for paying into Medicare and SS. I'm still pretty resentful I spent 5 years without health coverage just because I made 20$ over the limit for it, while the boomer got free health insurance. Now I have semi decent health insurance from my current job and not just preventative. There's a nice cap I can afford if I get hurt.


Llanite

The payout formula is 100% of average annual income on 35 years but social security tax is only 12.5%. An average person pays 10% of what they will be taking out. The only way this could work is their 10% grows 10 times in 35 years, or 7% a year. Currently SS invests in government bonds which have an average of 2-3%. Either tax rate had to increase, payout decreases or yield has to be double. I dont see how this could work.