3 ms·

So, before the 2028 solvency crisis?

tedivm 4y ago
The "solvency" crisis is one of the dumbest things that has been shoved down our throats. For decades there wasn't a social security or medicare fund. What was there was taxes. Workers paid taxes, and those taxes went to retired people. There was no fund. Then people freaked out about the boomers and what that would do to retirement. So they created a fund- they started collecting more than they needed, invested it in government debt so it would grow, and used that to get over the bump. We can easily solve the "solvency" crisis by simply raising taxes. Remove the "cap" that says people are only subject to the social security tax on the first $160,200 of their income and the "solvency crisis" completely disappears. In fact if we completely removed the cap, rather than just raising it, we could afford to pay out more in social security while still extending the life of the "surplus" fund for almost a century.
- sclarisse 4y ago
  Nice diatribe. Anyway, if it is so simple and easy, it raises the question: why hasn’t anyone legislated this yet? You know, during one of those sessions where both houses and the presidency are of the same party (two occasions in recent memory, one for each party) and put all talk of crisis to rest?
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Probably the same reason the Democrats never legislated abortion rights into law: never let a good crisis go to waste. The priorities of both major parties are: 1. Keep the donors happy 2. Keep getting elected 3. Line up a cushy position as a lobbyist or other government orbiter after retirement Pretty sure actually serving their constituents is at the bottom of the list for most politicians.
  - Blammar 4y ago
    Perhaps because rich people would pay more, so they tell their pet legislators that bill better not pass? It's always about the money. I'm not saying this is actually true -- it's just my hypothesis.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > why hasn’t anyone legislated this yet? Because it's not necessary yet, and the political issue is useful to both parties. Democrats get to go "we should tax the rich more to fix the gap". Republicans get to go "look how badly this is run, we should privatize it". Neither side wants a horde of seniors (who vote, in large numbers) actually losing their Medicare/Social Security benefits, so when the time comes, they'll vote to add funds and celebrate themselves for saving it for another few years.
  - u801e 4y ago
    Probably because the majority in the legislative is not filibuster proof, and there are always a few representatives or senators who disagree with the proposal and prevent it from going to a floor vote. Recent examples of such individuals are Manchin and Sinema. Lieberman was another one who managed to get the public option removed from the ACA before it was passed.

The "solvency" crisis is one of the dumbest things that has been shoved down our throats. For decades there wasn't a social security or medicare fund. What was there was taxes. Workers paid taxes, and those taxes went to retired people. There was no fund. Then people freaked out about the boomers and what that would do to retirement. So they created a fund- they started collecting more than they needed, invested it in government debt so it would grow, and used that to get over the bump. We can easily solve the "solvency" crisis by simply raising taxes. Remove the "cap" that says people are only subject to the social security tax on the first $160,200 of their income and the "solvency crisis" completely disappears. In fact if we completely removed the cap, rather than just raising it, we could afford to pay out more in social security while still extending the life of the "surplus" fund for almost a century.

sclarisse 4y ago
Nice diatribe. Anyway, if it is so simple and easy, it raises the question: why hasn’t anyone legislated this yet? You know, during one of those sessions where both houses and the presidency are of the same party (two occasions in recent memory, one for each party) and put all talk of crisis to rest?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Probably the same reason the Democrats never legislated abortion rights into law: never let a good crisis go to waste. The priorities of both major parties are: 1. Keep the donors happy 2. Keep getting elected 3. Line up a cushy position as a lobbyist or other government orbiter after retirement Pretty sure actually serving their constituents is at the bottom of the list for most politicians.
- Blammar 4y ago
  Perhaps because rich people would pay more, so they tell their pet legislators that bill better not pass? It's always about the money. I'm not saying this is actually true -- it's just my hypothesis.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > why hasn’t anyone legislated this yet? Because it's not necessary yet, and the political issue is useful to both parties. Democrats get to go "we should tax the rich more to fix the gap". Republicans get to go "look how badly this is run, we should privatize it". Neither side wants a horde of seniors (who vote, in large numbers) actually losing their Medicare/Social Security benefits, so when the time comes, they'll vote to add funds and celebrate themselves for saving it for another few years.
- u801e 4y ago
  Probably because the majority in the legislative is not filibuster proof, and there are always a few representatives or senators who disagree with the proposal and prevent it from going to a floor vote. Recent examples of such individuals are Manchin and Sinema. Lieberman was another one who managed to get the public option removed from the ACA before it was passed.