The fix is simple, just raise taxes! I pay enough in taxes, I pay for my fair share. I would rather end social security and have a private retirement account. Increasing my taxes, once again just shows what a scam it is.

  • tswiftchair
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You are in the minority, even amongst conservatives.

    Amid doubts about the soundness of the Social Security system, most Americans reject the idea of reducing benefits for future retirees. When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.

    Democrats and Republicans differ modestly on the need to cut Social Security benefits. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say reductions in future benefits are inevitable (31% vs. 22%). Still, majorities across nearly all demographic and political groups say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way.

    Source

    Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that “74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way,” and previous Pew research found that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup pollinghistorically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download)conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found “77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.”

    Source

    • NeuromancerOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Notice most say they don’t want a reduction but it’s running out of money. You can’t have it both ways.

      I never said my opinion is popular buts it’s logical. My same SS contribution would be worth well in excess of 5 million dollars. That far beats the return on my SS.

      • tswiftchair
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s “running out of money” in the sense that there’s a projected shortfall, not that it’s going to be bankrupt in the near future. The projected shortfall means covering 80% of benefits in 2034 and covering 74% of benefits in 2097. But there are many proposals to address this shortfall and the Office of Chief Actuary collects all proposals and even provides a summary of each proposal and how much of the shortfall it will cover (PDF). So you don’t need to “have it both ways”; we can address the shortfall without reducing benefits.

        You’re also claiming it’s a scam when it isn’t. The purpose of Social Security is to alleviate poverty for seniors and it does that. Further, people receive more in benefits than they pay into the program, especially those of low-income who need it most (PDF). Lastly, regardless of your personal situation, the notion that private retirement investments would be better than social security for everyone is disputed.

        • NeuromancerOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based which doesn’t interest me. I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program. If they raise rates. I’ll just retire.

          That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

          • tswiftchair
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based…

            Some involve increasing payroll taxes while others involve taxes on corporations or investments. There’s also non-tax based proposals like raising the retirement age.

            I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program…

            The program is not mismanaged.

            That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

            This is not socialism. Further, every US president, including Republican, has supported or enacted legislation upholding social security since its inception.

            • NeuromancerOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              The program is not mismanaged.

              If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds. They don’t because it’s been mismanaged.

              Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution. We are already heavily taxed. I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

              How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

              • tswiftchair
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds.

                First, they do have the funds. The shortfall is a future projection. Second, this assumption is incorrect. There are a variety of factors that will affect the future income and cost of the program. Retirement of Baby Boomers and lower birth rates are two examples.

                Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution.

                When combined with other proposals, it is a viable solution in that it solves the problem of the shortfall.

                We are already heavily taxed.

                This is a matter of opinion.

                I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.

                I don’t know your personal situation but virtually all Americans keep the lion’s share of their money when it comes to taxation.

                How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?

                I personally would be willing to pay more taxes for more services, including social security, universal healthcare, and others.

                • NeuromancerOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  This is a matter of opinion.

                  I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes. That’s excessive. It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

                  And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income? I don’t. I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

                  • tswiftchair
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes.

                    Again, I don’t know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k. States with the highest income tax get up to 10% for over $5 million (New York) or 12% for over $12.3 million (California). And, of course, there are other taxes like capital gains. My point is, those paying over 50% in taxes are generally well above the median income, which is $40k for individuals and $75k for households.

                    It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%

                    Again, this is an opinion and I would also like to point out that to be in the top 5% someone has to make $335k or more per year or have a net worth of ~$1 million or more. And those numbers still don’t generally put someone in the 50% tax range.

                    And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income?

                    If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights. It would be near impossible for an individual to have adequate housing, food, and transportation just about anywhere in the country for $20k per year (or $37.5k for a household). However, someone can live very comfortably just about anywhere in the country for $315k per year (37% of $500k).

                    I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.

                    This is not currently an option. Neither Republicans or Democrats, Trump or Biden, are offering a meaningfully smaller government. In fact, depending on parameters, this hasn’t been an option for the last hundred years.