Fuelman » 06 Aug 2025, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑ With 110,000 employees, he pays plenty into SS.
Him personally? He probably pays self employment payroll taxes, to what degree I have no idea.
Edited for more accuracy.
Looks all perfectly legal to me. He may possibly pay zilch in SS taxes on his income.
doubtful...
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom Blackvegetable » 05 Aug 2025, 6:49 pm » wrote: ↑ What were Grifty and The Mitten paying in federal income tax, Bootspittle?

JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom just another MSM misinformation rube...*Huey » 06 Aug 2025, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑ Now lets look at the truth of the matter. The below is linked off of your first link and is the actual summary. You have been influenced to misrepresent theist of it. Isretirement age looked? Yup. And looking at auxiliary benefits for HIGH EARNERS? Yup. Will anyone at or near retirement be affected? NOPE.
Section 8 - Make Social Security Solvent Again Spending on Social Security will grow tremendously between FY 2023 and 2034, from nearly from $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion.
The RSC Budget is committed to preventing 23 percent across the board cuts in benefits that will hit every Social Security recipient in 2033. Unlike the Biden budget, which does nothing to prevent these cuts, the RSC Budget would phase in common-sense, bipartisan reforms that have been narrowly tailored to affect no senior in or near retirement. These reforms would collectively stave off Biden’s 23 percent cuts to Social Security benefits and eventually make the retirement trust fund sustainably solvent. These include modest and delayed changes to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) benefit formula, the retirement age, auxiliary benefits for high income earners, and gradually moving towards a flat benefit. President Biden supported similar reforms during his tenure as Senator and none of these changes would affect anyone in or near retirement.
https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rs ... nal325.pdf
Bottom of page 4.
Nothing to see here. Just a poor soul that was led astray.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom the full 15%Fuelman » 06 Aug 2025, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑ With 110,000 employees, he pays plenty into SS.
Him personally? He probably pays self employment payroll taxes, to what degree I have no idea.
Edited for more accuracy.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom Soc Sec is not going broke because it has to. It is going broke because they want it to.DeezerShoove » 05 Aug 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Isn't this just the prediction coming true?
Social Security is going broke...
Gee, where have I heard that before?
It's been so long that I forgot.![]()
Must be Trump's fault.
Before you slaves use the debt to put Soc Sec on the block, get off israel's dick.RebelGator » 05 Aug 2025, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Why would we need cuts in benefits..... we're only $38 Trillion in debt?
That goo-faced little queer is fine with betraying seniors out of benefits they paid for all their lives, so long as israelis can still give their people free college, free health care, and support for their socialist kibbutzes on our borrowed money.Mrkelly » 05 Aug 2025, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑RebelGator » 05 Aug 2025, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Why would we need cuts in benefits..... we're only $38 Trillion in debt?cut payments in social security, raise the retirement age
but give people that make over $50, 000, 000 a year a tax break
yup … that’s how you fix it
Not paying the wealthy is just as immoral as not paying the poor - except for the part where the poor starve from it.DeezerShoove » 05 Aug 2025, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑ And lots of folks NEVER reach the limit one time in their lifetime.
I always wondered about the ethics/moral dilemma of not paying rich people what they have contributed over their lifespan into SS.
If it's going broke and we're paying for illegitimate disabilities/hardship pay/etc anyway, why not set a limit for payouts to people who really don't need a measly few thousand per month?
So it ISN'T just jew cock - it's rich cock, too.RebelGator » 05 Aug 2025, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑ Sure, they get a tax break..... instead of paying $10 million a year, they get to pay $7.5 million a year.
What do you pay?
That *** could shoot someone on fifth avenue.Blackvegetable » 05 Aug 2025, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Trump?
Don't be silly....he's immune from accountability.
So it boils down to shopworn midwittery.
He is a liar, and you are a moron.
You are quite correct -there is a principle being violated, and it is completely unfair. And it is a dilemma, for people of principle.DeezerShoove » 05 Aug 2025, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑ But it IS a dilemma because there's a principle of fair play being violated...
...even if some poor folks get to eat.
Slippery slope.
Raising the age is better than cutting benefits - and easier to justify. When SS started, 65 was the retirement age and the average life span was a few months shy of 62. This means the majority did not live long enough to collect it.That is no longer the case.jerrab » 06 Aug 2025, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑ then increasing the amount that is taxed is the answer. but that may not happen. the republican plan is to reduce benefits which would cause hardship for many and raise the retirement age which will be disastrous.
Says the guy who supports sending billions to israel. With zero awareness of irony.RebelGator » 06 Aug 2025, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑ Their money is confiscated, it's not your's, so keep your filthy, greedy fingers off of it.
If they are wage earners, yes. No doubt. But that donut hole protects those it would most severely impact.Fuelman » 06 Aug 2025, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑ Adding Social Security taxes to the Federal tax rate at those levels make it pretty punitive, up to 40%. Now pay all the other taxes on top of that.
Maybe not a hardship but would definitely suck for that group.
HE looked like an idiot, you bigot! Respect his pronouns!
There is no denying this. It's wrong.MR-7 » 06 Aug 2025, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑ Raise or Eliminate the Social Security Tax Cap
turns Social Security into a welfare-style program rather than an earned-benefit system. The cap exists because benefits are also capped—removing it without adjusting benefits proportionally undermines the program’s contributory nature.