4 ms·

Citation needed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget does not agree with this

by cure 7y ago

Citation needed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget does not agree with this statement. I'm assuming you are conveniently forgetting that the 'Social security', 'Medicare' and 'Other spending' slices of mandatory spending go to rich and poor: these programs pay out their benefits to all people regardless of how wealthy they are.

kevingadd 7y ago
Not to mention that social security and medicare funding comes directly out of every paycheck I get. It's dishonest to claim those payments are people leeching off the rich when a huge % of the beneficiaries literally paid for them.
- refurb 7y ago
  Considering the taxes scale with income and a low income person would, in no way, cover the costs, Medicare and to an extent Social Security are a wealth transfer to the poor.
  - cure 7y ago
    "Wealth" transfers to the poor to keep people alive and in good health and help lift them out of poverty are great policy. We need a lot more of those, because there are too many poor people, and they are suffering. The US is the richest country on earth, and this situation is plain wrong. In this particular case, though, any transfers are more 'chump change' than 'wealth' from the rich: Social Security tax is only levied on the first $132,900 of earned income (2019). With the exception of the surtax, Medicare taxes are only due on earned income. Rich people don't make the bulk of their money from a paycheck, so it really isn't like the rich are contributing a lot of their wealth or even income to the Medicare and Social Security systems. On top of that, the rich still get all the benefits of the same Medicare and Social Security programs. So what if they pay in a bit more over a lifetime than their nanny or the schoolteacher of their children? These are insurance programs, and that is how insurance works: everyone pays in, and everyone benefits, but not necessarily to the same extent.
    - refurb 7y ago
      I’m not arguing against the wealth transfers, simply stating that the OP comment that “the gov’t is for the rich” is wrong.

by cure 7y ago

kevingadd 7y ago

Not to mention that social security and medicare funding comes directly out of every paycheck I get. It's dishonest to claim those payments are people leeching off the rich when a huge % of the beneficiaries literally paid for them.

refurb 7y ago
Considering the taxes scale with income and a low income person would, in no way, cover the costs, Medicare and to an extent Social Security are a wealth transfer to the poor.
- cure 7y ago
  "Wealth" transfers to the poor to keep people alive and in good health and help lift them out of poverty are great policy. We need a lot more of those, because there are too many poor people, and they are suffering. The US is the richest country on earth, and this situation is plain wrong. In this particular case, though, any transfers are more 'chump change' than 'wealth' from the rich: Social Security tax is only levied on the first $132,900 of earned income (2019). With the exception of the surtax, Medicare taxes are only due on earned income. Rich people don't make the bulk of their money from a paycheck, so it really isn't like the rich are contributing a lot of their wealth or even income to the Medicare and Social Security systems. On top of that, the rich still get all the benefits of the same Medicare and Social Security programs. So what if they pay in a bit more over a lifetime than their nanny or the schoolteacher of their children? These are insurance programs, and that is how insurance works: everyone pays in, and everyone benefits, but not necessarily to the same extent.
  - refurb 7y ago
    I’m not arguing against the wealth transfers, simply stating that the OP comment that “the gov’t is for the rich” is wrong.