Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!
-
No.
Just no.
-
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Education is extremely important.
-
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value. This would have smacked us hard.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value. This would have smacked us hard.
@Mik said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value. This would have smacked us hard.
I guess it was originally meant as sort of a personal savings plan, but these days it's pure redistribution. And redistribution is more fair than rich people keeping their money, just ask the left.
-
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
@Horace said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Based on previous proposals (not having read this article) I suspect the article is correct. The current cap is pretty low, and 250k is one of their frequently-used thresholds for taxing “the rich”. So yeah, I think they envision taxes at the low end and the high end and a donut hole in the middle.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@Horace said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Based on previous proposals (not having read this article) I suspect the article is correct. The current cap is pretty low, and 250k is one of their frequently-used thresholds for taxing “the rich”. So yeah, I think they envision taxes at the low end and the high end and a donut hole in the middle.
@jon-nyc said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
@Horace said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Based on previous proposals (not having read this article) I suspect the article is correct. The current cap is pretty low, and 250k is one of their frequently-used thresholds for taxing “the rich”. So yeah, I think they envision taxes at the low end and the high end and a donut hole in the middle.
Yeah, you're right. 250k household income would be exceeded by 7% of households, so at least that adds up.
-
Double-digit inflation and they are going to increase payments by $2400 per year?!
-
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value. This would have smacked us hard.
@Mik said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value.
It's the progressive tax regime. Those who make more money pays a bigger portion of it into taxes.
-
@Mik said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value.
It's the progressive tax regime. Those who make more money pays a bigger portion of it into taxes.
@Axtremus said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
@Mik said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
It's not fair to expect people who do well to pay in far more than they can ever expect to receive, even at present value, much less future value.
It's the progressive tax regime. Those who make more money pays a bigger portion of it into taxes.
NO SHIT?!?!?!?
Look, Social Security is set up so that those who make and pay in more, get more. But there is a limit to the maximum they can receive. Unless they are going to up the potential benefit accordingly then it's just another redistribution scheme instead of the forces savings plan that was intended.
-
-
@Horace said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Based on previous proposals (not having read this article) I suspect the article is correct. The current cap is pretty low, and 250k is one of their frequently-used thresholds for taxing “the rich”. So yeah, I think they envision taxes at the low end and the high end and a donut hole in the middle.
@jon-nyc said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
@Horace said in Bernie and Fauxcahontas want to give retirees more money!:
This legislation would lift this cap and subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax. Under this bill, over 93 percent of households would not see their taxes go up by one penny.
Sigh. I think they meant to say "all income below $250,000". Sort of a big deal to the logic of the sentence. And that is directly from the official fact sheet produced by the politicians proposing this. Not a single numerate proofreader among them. I wonder how many have ivy league educations.
I am surprised they don't just propose removing the cap altogether. What is the point of keeping it, but raising it to 250k? Which political cohort is that meant to appeal to, as compared to removing the cap entirely?
Based on previous proposals (not having read this article) I suspect the article is correct. The current cap is pretty low, and 250k is one of their frequently-used thresholds for taxing “the rich”. So yeah, I think they envision taxes at the low end and the high end and a donut hole in the middle.
Ok that helps, I also thought it was a typo when I first read it.
Social security (as I referenced only a few days ago in another thread) will be the hot topic soon, since it'll be dry in about 13 years. I'm not sure the solution other than to not overcomplicate it the way they seem to be. It should almost be a forced "401k" where you get as much out as you put in, plus the interest in earns along the way. That way the payout mirrors those who are withdrawing from the fund.
-
Ain't gonna happen.
