Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 06 Aug 2025, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 1:06 pm

Increasing the Payroll Tax Rate

Raising the rate burdens younger and lower-income workers disproportionately. Social Security is already regressive in terms of taxation—this deepens that imbalance.

This is also indisputably true. Would you be okay with cutting a few hundred billion from the pentagon? I mean, we might not be able to defend ourselves from Mexico or Canada, but our seniors wouldn't become homeless street people.
 

Fuelman » 06 Aug 2025, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 1:50 pm

A quick look at some data shows about 15% of households make $200k or more. Those individuals actually making the $200k or more will be a much smaller percentage. 

That top 15% already pays around 75% of Federal income tax revenue and puts plenty into SS.

It's not their fault that SS is screwed up. If everyone is so concerned about SS, everyone should be willing to pony up. Whatever that means, raise the contribution rate across the board, put more on the employer. There are a lot of options but that would actually take balls to try and change the system.

Distribution of household income U.S. 2023| Statista https://share.google/rE3wXWgf4cqaJfLdD

Why not a bailout? Aren't America's seniors too big to fail?
 

ROG62 » 06 Aug 2025, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 9:08 pm

doubtful...

Virtually certain. After made-to-order, bought-and-paid-for loopholes, the wealtiest pay a very small percent on their income. The top marginal tax rate under FDR was 90%. Virtually NO ONE paid that rate. 

The top marginal tax rate and the actual top tax rate don't just vary - they live in different zip codes. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 05 Aug 2025, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2025, 6:46 pm

Because Supply Side Hucksters keep piling up the deficits.

Maybe you should stop enabling them.

You mean like your boy Biden did?? You know, that $8.4 trillion of it.

Seems that all your demands for more SOCIALISM is having its intended effect.
 

jerra b » 06 Aug 2025, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 2:07 pm

the  republican plan.

- reduce benefits. to people now getting less than 1800 it will mean less money for lights, medicine, rent and oh food.

 -increase the retirement age to 68.

the problems don't need explanation except that some may be homeless or without gas or electricity.

now those are hardships.
 
 

What are the physical differences between no-thing, some-things, any=thing, every-thing evolving at the same time inhabiting space in its universal position now?

Comparing potential outcomes against actual outcomes balancing as displaced currently here one at a time is kinetically what? Eternity as eternally changing form since displaced part of the whole processing done so far.

What do you actually understand about thermodynamic principles with a principal believe nobody can know why, how, which, what, where, when, whom one has become since replacing their own previous 4 generation gaps live in the last 100 years of your specific 2 parents, your specific 4 grandparents, your specific 8 great grandparents, your specific 16 great great grandparents that generation that sustained population each rotation of the planet specifically in this atmosphere, this solar system, this galaxy, this universal moment perpetual motion is limited to physical substances from atoms, molecular characteristics, gaseous, liquid, mineral states of existence combined into 2 spontaneously positioned results of periodic elements combined sustaining combinations of chromosomes never same reproductions twice inhabiting space now as natural time adapting uniquely here never creating or destroying the natural process limiting each ancestor to their relative series parallel time displaced as living forward per heart beating 24/7 intellectual projections of 7 days a week 52 weeks this planet remains 3rd rock from the star.

You won't accept all you have been since a fertilized cell is only your own brain's fault as it is manifested by your we believe scenarios corrupting every great great grandchild forward regardless your own children, nieces, nephews cousins, friends, community, country, spiritual philosophy or supernatural intellect.

Joining a social consensus cradle to grave pretending there is safety in numbers of divided interpretations about existing in series parallel situation believing life is a quadratic linear equation of anything else is possible simple corrupts everyone pretending life is more than personal time living with a beating heart of their own body never same form twice same chromosomes from a fertilized cell to decomposed corpse living one sole displacement daily here.

You perform by typecast social consensuses historically driven to repeat the exact social behavior of your previous 4 generations so far.

Simple right and wrong ways to interpret living eternally separated.

Actual results of compounding chromosomes and the purebred/hybrids between 5 basic ancestral lineages of this species native to this universal location.

Black, brown, yellow, red, white/caucasian male female arriving great great grandchildren with the potential to become 1 of 16 great great grandparents if they only become 1 of 2 parents after birth.

half life compounding chromosome displacements relative to specific ancestral lineage and generation gap currently here. Eternal life never exceeds time adapting as displaced daily here.

Physical absolute humanity punishes any sole for being honest about what they been since conceived regardless the narratives governing tomorrows midnight to noon, dawn to dusk within geometrical longitude time zones and latitude temperate zones between equator and bipolar axis points of rotation revolving around the star.

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:21 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:21 pm

Not paying the wealthy is just as immoral as not paying the poor - except for the part where the poor starve from it.

At THAT point, it becomes the lesser evil. That said, I don't think we have to cut benefits for the rich OR the poor. There are other tweaks - and then there is a bailout. America's seniors are WAY too big to fail.

Some people might call limiting payouts to the idle rich a tweak.
Depends on the slippery slope dilemma...

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:13 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:13 pm

Soc Sec is not going broke because it has to. It is going broke because they want it to.

It could be fixed any of a dozen ways - means testing, raising the cap, another percentage point in collections, a **** BAIL OUT, under the pretense that America's seniors are as worthy as the banks that were built on their **** labor. There are lots of ways to save the system - failure is only inevitable because failure is the PLAN, Has been since reagan.

A one-time bailout is like fixing the dam.
We have to figure out the reason the thing was inadequate to its task.
Why's it overloaded in the first place?

If there's **** intentionally doing that as you claim, we gots ta getum.
Like it or not SS is part of the American fabric now. It needs a housecleaning.

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:45 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:45 pm

This is also indisputably true. Would you be okay with cutting a few hundred billion from the pentagon? I mean, we might not be able to defend ourselves from Mexico or Canada, but our seniors wouldn't become homeless street people.
 

Inaccurate as usual.

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:46 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:46 pm

Why not a bailout? Aren't America's seniors too big to fail?

That's an option but it would be a bailout every year.

It's difficult to balance out when people take more out of SS and Medicare than they pay in.

https://401kspecialistmag.com/social-se ... ey-pay-in/

Social Security Taxes vs. Benefits: Americans Take Far More Out Than They Pay In
 

DeezerShoove » 07 Aug 2025, 7:03 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 7:03 am

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:21 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:21 pm

Not paying the wealthy is just as immoral as not paying the poor - except for the part where the poor starve from it.

At THAT point, it becomes the lesser evil. That said, I don't think we have to cut benefits for the rich OR the poor. There are other tweaks - and then there is a bailout. America's seniors are WAY too big to fail.

Some people might call limiting payouts to the idle rich a tweak.
Depends on the slippery slope dilemma...

I see the slippery slope, and I find it cautionary. I don't like slippery slopes - like to avoid them. I am not recommending cutting benefits to the rich. 

In my order of preference, cutting benefits to ANYONE is not at the top. But cutting them to the rich has priority over cutting them across the board. It's not less wrong, but it is less evil - and it's logistically more sensible.

If you think about murka as a family, imagine your dad comes up short, and you and your brothers are at the effect of this. Now, little Pewbert - I'm naming your brother Pewbert - needs medicine, and you all need food. Dad prioritizes Perbert's medicine, because he will die immediately without it, and he tells the rest of you *** to forage, or go to bed hungry three nights a week. Did he make the right choice?

I have no way of knowing. I haven't created any background for Pewbert. But I could, and then we would have an answer.

I hope that clarifies my argument. Wait - what were we talking about?
 

*31stArrival » 07 Aug 2025, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 7:13 am

Inaccurate as usual.

So you are lauding my consistency, then. 

I graciously accept your praise, and I thank YOU for that brevity. It is the sole of wit. 
 

Fuelman » 07 Aug 2025, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 8:02 am

That's an option but it would be a bailout every year.

It's difficult to balance out when people take more out of SS and Medicare than they pay in.

https://401kspecialistmag.com/social-se ... ey-pay-in/

Social Security Taxes vs. Benefits: Americans Take Far More Out Than They Pay In

A bail out need not be annual. It can be PART of the solution. We COULD start holding corporations to the same standard as European countries do, such that Americans would stop getting disabilities from the poisons hidden in their foods. That'd cut some **** costs to the system. But we blame the sick people instead of the poisoners. 

Raising the age of retirement is a fairly obvious and major component of the solution. It's brutal, but it's perfectly defensible based on the program's original intent, which was to stop outlier oldsters from starving when they CAN'T work. It wasn't to cushion perfectly healthy oldsters who just don't WANT to work. If the age of retirement had tracked the average life span mathematically - if that function had been built into the system, from the beginning, - then the required contributions would have dropped over the years instead of rising, and the system would be embarrassingly flush with cash.

But if wishes were horses, all men would ride - and we are where we are. I would prefer raising the age over ripping off wealthy contributors to the system. And I would prefer ripping off wealthy contributors to ripping off everyone. I think these priorities are simply sane and rational, while being respectful of contract law and common decency.

But don't even TRY to tell me that a bailout is not doable. Don't even **** try. The last bailouts I particiapted in were so that the idle rich were not threatened with the loss of their second private jet.   

Riddle me this: Would you support legislation requiring that every dollar cut from social security triggers a dime being cut from israel? Would that be okay with you, if israel had to shoulder just a tiny bit of the burden along with Gramma and Papa?
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Aug 2025, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 9:28 am

So you are lauding my consistency, then. 

I graciously accept your praise, and I thank YOU for that brevity. It is the sole of wit. 
 

Understanding natural time living in plain sight is the sole of witnessing one's position being alive proportionately displaced universally here now. Context debating anything else is possible is simply denying all one has been since arrived a fertilized cell placed in between eternal separation of current populati9on present in this atmosphere equally alive so far.

Your social testament of reality is all your ancestor believed possible last 350-400 generation gaps pretending nobody can know why or how life only exists as eternally separated by hearts beating in series parallel displacement now.

Intellectual typecast minds die protecting reasonable doubt about their own time living so far. Pride with self deception doesn't allow honesty by anyone just navigating space in plain sight with equal opportunity to become 1 of 16 biological great great grandparents even if died only became a mom or dad.

Chromosomes position ancestors, context directs social outcomes 2 days a week same rotation of the planet dawn to dusk. Factual tomorrows are midnight to noon and end of the day is noon to midnight 24/7 cradle to grave experience by each great great grandchild added since conceived.

Accountability demanded, accountability delivered by chromosomes in streaming DNA results inhabiting space daily here. Again, check thermodynamic principles beyond the principals of humanity social narratives defining life beyond adapting in one's own skin.

jerrab » 05 Aug 2025, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2025, 5:30 pm

it will be trumps fault if he does not order raising the cap on social security tax

why didnt joe?

Cannonpointer » 07 Aug 2025, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 9:52 am

A bail out need not be annual. It can be PART of the solution. We COULD start holding corporations to the same standard as European countries do, such that Americans would stop getting disabilities from the poisons hidden in their foods. That'd cut some **** costs to the system. But we blame the sick people instead of the poisoners. 

Raising the age of retirement is a fairly obvious and major component of the solution. It's brutal, but it's perfectly defensible based on the program's original intent, which was to stop outlier oldsters from starving when they CAN'T work. It wasn't to cushion perfectly healthy oldsters who just don't WANT to work. If the age of retirement had tracked the average life span mathematically - if that function had been built into the system, from the beginning, - then the required contributions would have dropped over the years instead of rising, and the system would be embarrassingly flush with cash.

But if wishes were horses, all men would ride - and we are where we are. I would prefer raising the age over ripping off wealthy contributors to the system. And I would prefer ripping off wealthy contributors to ripping off everyone. I think these priorities are simply sane and rational, while being respectful of contract law and common decency.

But don't even TRY to tell me that a bailout is not doable. Don't even **** try. The last bailouts I particiapted in were so that the idle rich were not threatened with the loss of their second private jet.   

Riddle me this: Would you support legislation requiring that every dollar cut from social security triggers a dime being cut from israel? Would that be okay with you, if israel had to shoulder just a tiny bit of the burden along with Gramma and Papa?

I read the current SS shortfall is 1.2% of GDP, and for the foreseeable future. Strange way to state that number, why not just say $360 billion. That's a pretty heavy lift each year but our government prefers to add other priorities to the deficit.

Raise the contribution rate on everyone, put 2/3rds of it on the employer. VAT tax, nominal fee for every trade on wall street, there are plenty of options 

I have no particular affinity for Jews, they just happen to be the ones putting Hamas in the grave. As soon as they are beat down or completely erased to set them back a couple decades, then you can cut every penny to Israel as far as I'm concerned.
 

The Internet says it takes 11.5-18 years to recoup the total amount your labor was taxed for Social Security.

I am the Unicorn!
I've been collecting SS(at 62) for 3 years now. At my current benefit, 4.7 more years and every dime will have been returned to me. Total of 7.7 years.

Figure that one out!
 

Cannonpointer » 06 Aug 2025, 11:49 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:49 pm

Virtually certain. After made-to-order, bought-and-paid-for loopholes, the wealtiest pay a very small percent on their income. The top marginal tax rate under FDR was 90%. Virtually NO ONE paid that rate. 

The top marginal tax rate and the actual top tax rate don't just vary - they live in different zip codes.

Very doubtful as it's based on their personal income, not business...

ROG62 » 07 Aug 2025, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 4:14 pm

Very doubtful as it's based on their personal income, not business...

Poor guys never buy jets. Or Rolls Royces.

And neither do rich guys - yet these items seem to sell.

Can yopu solve the riddle, Grasshopper? Wax on, wax off...
 

Fuelman » 07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm

I read the current SS shortfall is 1.2% of GDP, and for the foreseeable future. Strange way to state that number, why not just say $360 billion. That's a pretty heavy lift each year but our government prefers to add other priorities to the deficit.

As to "other priorities," can you name one that supercedes keeping our word to our seniors?

Fuelman » 07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm

Raise the contribution rate on everyone, put 2/3rds of it on the employer. VAT tax, nominal fee for every trade on wall street, there are plenty of options

The contribution rate is already brutal - and it doesn't matter which pocket it comes out of, the employer still pays it against the labor of the employee. If the employee does not work, the SS tax does not get paid - so it's a tax on labor. Raising it raises the cost of labor - which puts downward pressure on wages.

A VAT tax is a horrible idea. The VAT tax is paid upstream from the consumer, so that the consumer is not only hit with the VAT tax, but with an obligatory profit on the VAT tax, since money has to get paid. VAT taxes are extremely inflationary.

A tax on trades discourages trading - that's axiomatic. Do we want to discourage trading?

The budget is bloated. DOGE was supposed to fix that , but it was a flash in the pan - another promise broken. Trump wants to give the pentagon - indisputably the most wasteful of all federal agencies - a trillion dollars. The 360 billion could be shaved off of that, and the Daddy Warbuckses could just **** deal with it. Should we REALLY be dithering about where to get the money, when we spend more on weapons than the next NINE countries combined. COMBINED! Are we REALLY under such a threat that we need to **** our seniors? How can we POSSIBLY be shipping money to israel and discussing stealing our people's social security at the same time? How is that possible - unless we have been overtaken by fifth columnists?

Trump is putting America second (at best).

Fuelman » 07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 3:47 pm

I have no particular affinity for Jews, they just happen to be the ones putting Hamas in the grave. As soon as they are beat down or completely erased to set them back a couple decades, then you can cut every penny to Israel as far as I'm concerned.

So it's not the genociders that you support - it's the genocide. Got it. Doubt it - but got it.
 

ROG62 » 07 Aug 2025, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2025, 4:14 pm

Very doubtful as it's based on their personal income, not business...

I just realized that I probably need to be more direct with you.

The richest Americans don't have any personal income. They don't need it. The get things like stock options instead of wages - and then they borrow against their holdings. The pay last year's borrowing with this year's borrowing. Whatever they need, they borrow against assets. 

From 2014 to 2018, Elon Musk's wealth grew by $13.9 billion, but he paid only $455 million in federal income taxes, reflecting a 3.27% tax rate on his wealth growth during that period. 

Now, we don't have to go into the whole, "That's a **** of a lot more than YOU paid" gayness. Let's just not. I have a MATH QUESTION.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the top marginal tax rate - the rate at which Elon Musk is exposed - is 3.27%?

Because if you DO believe that, I need to correct you - with a link to the IRS website.

And if you DON'T believe that, I need to correct you - with a link to your last post in this thread. I said the rich do not pay at the marginal rate, and you said, "Very doubtful."

Oh, wait - it right up at the top. Look. You were wrong. It isn't "doubtful" that the rich pay below the marginal rate after made-to-order loopholes. It's just a fact.