How long are you guys going to blame Dems for your own spending?
It’s not simple. Not at all. That’s why the GOP screwed up. They did the fun part before they did the hard part.
I’m not. Read my posts. I blame BOTH parties.
Have a cookie. You’ll feel better.
I suppose you think raising taxes is the solution.
What makes you think I feel bad?
Your need to be “saved” from the evil liberals.
Have a glass of choccie milk with your cookie.
Raising some taxes is the solution to some problems. Like removing the income limit on SS taxes and make it a progressive tax above like $300,000. Boom, SS funding into the infinite horizon solved while only raising taxes on top earners.
To add - simply lowering all taxes, and especially those on the top earners, is most certainly not the solution.
The average lifespan has increased, for mostly wealthy Americans. For the people who are most likely to benefit and rely on Social Security, lifespans haven’t increased appreciably. In some demographics (rural, white) they’re actually decreasing. The “longer life span” argument is a statistical sleight of hand. Lifespans are increasing for the people who don’t need Social Security.
A study that looked at life expectancy at age 50 based on socioeconomic status found women born in 1920 who were were in the highest economic group lived nearly five years than those in the lowest group. This gap grew to 10 years for women born in 1940. Among men born in 1920, the gap between the rich and poor was than six years, while the gap between those born in 1940 had risen to a dozen years. For those in the lowest economic groups, life expectancy did not grow during the 20 years separating the two research groups.
Longer lives are being enjoyed mainly by wealthier people, and the longevity gap between those on the bottom and the top of the socioeconomic scale appears to be growing.
I would have kept effective taxation the same but redistributed who pays what, if it were entirely up to me.
Cutting taxes, we can all agree, was not a solution.
No. I think what you have is a hallucination or perhaps a psychosis.
Jesse, take it easy. The idea is to make SS solvent, not to use payroll tax to balance the budget. Raising the eligibility age (including early retirement, which was not raised when the full benefit age went from 65 to 67) to 70 would most likely do that without raising the cost. Once the “baby boom” bulge plays out, the system could be fiscally stable for the foreseeable future.
Under the 2018 tax cut, the rich pay a higher percentage of total individual income taxes then they did before the tax cut.
People born in 1920 and 1940 have already reached or outlived the average life span.
That’s not saying anything. The pool is smaller.
No. It is much too soon to agree on that. It will be a year before we know the real effect of the individual cut, but the corporate tax cut in particular will probably take a couple of years before we know the effect on the economy and net tax revenue. Most people agree that tax increases hurt the economy and thus usually do not produce the number crunchers revenue predictions, so unless you think that our tax rates were perfect in 2017, there is a good chance that the new tax cuts could increase revenue.
Pool of what?
So like I was saying and documented, the average lifespan for people most reliant on Social Security hasn’t increased appreciably, certainly not enough not enough to justify raising the eligibility age average lifespans for the wealthy have increased considerably, which raises the overall average.
As adroit said, raise the cap.
No one seriously thinks that tax cuts increase revenue. That’s just wishful thinking.