- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 56% of GOP voters want govt to pay more in monthly SS benefits/medicare
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:22 am to Bass Tiger
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:22 am to Bass Tiger
quote:A small but important caveat. Currently, SS is helping fund the debt, rather than contributing to it
......where did the $35 trillion of US debt go? SS ....
1
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:25 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
We're actually butting heads over the wrong issue, the issue is why is SS and Medicare having funding shortfalls when it was supposed to be well funded through payroll taxes and the employers matching contributions.
The issue is......where did the $35 trillion of US debt go? SS and Medicare should have been adequately funded for generations, we should have roads paved in gold and jewel encrusted bridges with $35 trillion of US debt.
Conduct a thorough audit of the $35 trillion of US debt and you'll find out why SS and Medicare are on the precipice of insolvency.
We should all agree on that.
The main issue is the Gov is too big to be "policed".
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:27 am to BCreed1
quote:Well I had the idea that If be. getting a road. Surely that obligates the government to do it?!
And there is your flawed logic. People did pay via forced taxes with the idea of monthly payments.
quote:And no where in th tax code does it specify what your SS payout will be in perpetuity. Quick question… can SS payments be increased? If Congress can increase benefits (and they have multiple times since SS was created).. Congress can also cut them.
Nowhere in any tax code or program does the state or federal gov say that when you reach a certain age, we will use your income taxes to build you a road on your private property.
I realize no one wants to believe it.. but SS payout has always been subject tot he whims of Congress. Like any of our tax money. The fact that you believed future congresses will keep their promises is… well… naive.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 10:34 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Congress promises all sorts of stuff it never delivers on. Why is SS some immutable promise?
You are still trying to equate things that are not the same brother.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:29 am to BCreed1
quote:.. as long as we cut other people benefits.
All of us want a balanced budget.
quote:Who has possession of the “fund” now?
The difference is they want to end a program and allow the current gov to just take the fund.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 10:30 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:34 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Well I had the idea that If be. getting a road. Surely that obligates the government to do it?!
quote:
And no where in th tax code does it specify what your SS payout will be in perpetuity.
OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:35 am to Taxing Authority
quote:This thread is proof.
“It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:36 am to BCreed1
quote:You can repeat that as many times as you like. But future congresses are not encumbered by previous congressional actions. The SCOTUS has been very clear about that.
You are still trying to equate things that are not the same brother.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:37 am to BCreed1
quote:Where does it define payout as an immutable amount?
SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:39 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
All of us want a balanced budget.
.. as long as we cut other people benefits.
Wow.
quote:
quote:
The difference is they want to end a program and allow the current gov to just take the fund.
Who has possession of the “fund” now?
You are again making a false/flawed retort. Who has possession of it has nothing to do the subject. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said.
I stated that you would like for the gov to end it and just keep all monies paid in. Where that money is doesn't have anything to do with that. Who administers it has nothing to do with what you feel is the right way to go. That being to end it and the Gov just keeps all monies paid in.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Currently, SS is helping fund the debt, rather than contributing to it
Good point. The recipients are rich in assets which means they’re good with money.They’re probably sending some of those checks directly back into T-bills or MMMFs which indirectly drives demand for Treasuries.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:40 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
“It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain
This thread is proof.
No, we understand what the federal gov has become. Some of us want to hold them accountable. Others want to just end it and the Gov take the monies collected for a specific purpose and that thought process is why the federal gov is to the point that it is.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:43 am to Taxing Authority
quote:The key difference is the unique tie of SS to US debt obligations, and how those interrelate w/ the 14th A.
You can repeat that as many times as you like. But future congresses are not encumbered by previous congressional actions. The SCOTUS has been very clear about that
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:47 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Good point. The recipients are rich in assets which means they’re good with money.They’re probably sending some of those checks directly back into T-bills or MMMFs which indirectly drives demand for Treasuries.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:52 am to NC_Tigah
Who do you think is receiving these checks?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:59 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Who do you think is receiving these checks?
SS taxes are converted to us debt instruments as soon as they are received. As long as there is surplus funding in the SSTF, SS is a means of US debt management rather than a contributor to it. I don't know what "checks" you're referring to.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 11:16 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You can repeat that as many times as you like. But future congresses are not encumbered by previous congressional actions. The SCOTUS has been very clear about that.
Nobody is stating that they are. You are arguing against a point nobody made.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 11:19 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Where does it define payout as an immutable amount?
Same as above. Not one single person in this thread on either side is saying congress can not change it or any other tax.
We fought for our freedom on taxation without representation. It is up to the citizens to stand up and elect people that will adhere to that.
But none of that has to do with the argument.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 11:26 am to Taxing Authority
Let's be more clear here.
- we both are on the same page when it comes to the very existence of it. If we were back in time when FDR put this out there, we would have stood against it.
- But that is not where we are in time. You and I are here in 2024. We both would rather have our money to invest. I could make a lot more just with dividends.
- I think income taxes need to go away too. But not the topic.
- We both think that welfare needs to go.
- Our difference is that I am not willing to allow the federal Gov to keep people's monies via a tax to simply get my wish of ending it. You are ok with that. That is our difference.
There are ways to end it and not have the federal gov laughing at the US Citizen behind closed doors calling us "suckers" "we took their money and will still find a way to tax them".
That is our only difference. The method to end it.
- we both are on the same page when it comes to the very existence of it. If we were back in time when FDR put this out there, we would have stood against it.
- But that is not where we are in time. You and I are here in 2024. We both would rather have our money to invest. I could make a lot more just with dividends.
- I think income taxes need to go away too. But not the topic.
- We both think that welfare needs to go.
- Our difference is that I am not willing to allow the federal Gov to keep people's monies via a tax to simply get my wish of ending it. You are ok with that. That is our difference.
There are ways to end it and not have the federal gov laughing at the US Citizen behind closed doors calling us "suckers" "we took their money and will still find a way to tax them".
That is our only difference. The method to end it.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 11:35 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
take the money we are sending to ukraine, israel, etc. and this would be easy peasy.
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News