4 ms·

> For anyone that advocates UBI. That's what social security is, UBI (with an age restriction). That's nothing like what a UBI is, you have to "invest"[0] into

> For anyone that advocates UBI. That's what social security is, UBI (with an age restriction). That's nothing like what a UBI is, you have to "invest"[0] into social security while a UBI is just money from the free money tree or wherever. The fact that the government turned it into a ponzi scheme by raiding its assets, thanks Reagan, doesn't mean it doesn't have qualifications beyond being a certain age, they send a letter yearly, I believe, which details your contributions and expected benefits. [0] even though, by their own calculations, you are better off financially by putting your money in a literal mattress it is still an investment

Kirby64 2y ago
> That's nothing like what a UBI is, you have to "invest"[0] into social security while a UBI is just money from the free money tree or wherever. Except - just like most progressive taxes, social security costs more for those who make more money and less for those who make less (beyond the income tax, but that's an aside). The only difference between UBI and social security is that, in theory, UBI would require no contributions what-so-ever to earn money out whereas social security requires contributions. The only difference is this makes UBI more progressively taxed than social security.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  OASDI and Medicare taxes actually regressive taxes. It costs you less (as a percentage) once you exceed whatever the current threshold is ($178k this year, IIRC). Remember that the definition of a progressive tax is that the rate goes up as your income goes up, a regressive tax is the opposite. Up to the current year's threshold, your OASDI and Medicare tax rate is constant, and then it drops.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    If we're being pedantic:. oasdi is extremely regressive (no tax at all above like 2x median household income, vs e.g. income taxes which continue ramping up until closer to 10x median income after becoming flat). Medicare tax is not capped, and is slightly progressive in that it jumps from 2.9% to (I forget like % higher) at somewhere around 3x median household income.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      Ah, you're right about Medicare. Not sure where I got that it was capped from. An extra 0.9% for wages over $200k. But yeah, we agree, the individual I responded to is mistaken in calling OASDI a progressive tax. It's regressive since the rate drops.
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    I mentioned the income cap. And no, that is not true. The benefit you get some social security is reduced substantially as you contribute to the upper end of the cap. You might be taxed less proportionally once you exceed the cap but also don’t receive more benefits. The benefits you receive in retirement when drawing on social security are proportionally less. For example (a few scenarios I ran here) with a “full retirement age” set to 2035 (when you’d be 67) If you earned a constant wage of $50k/yr, you would be able to draw $2044/mo in SS. Tax per year would be 6.2%, or $3100/yr. If you earned a constant wage of $150k/yr, you would be able to draw $3843/mo. Tax per year would be $9300/yr. You receive about 88% more benefits but contribute 300% more money. How is that not progressive taxation?
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      You're using the term "progressive tax" to talk about the benefit or return, which is not what it actually means. Progressive, flat, and regressive taxes are not about how the money gets used or redistributed. It's a simple thing: Is the tax rate constant across all incomes? Flat. Does the tax rate increase as income increases? Progressive. Does the tax rate decrease as income increases? Regressive. OASDI is a regressive tax. Flat for the first $176k, then drops after that.
      - Kirby64 2y ago
        And you're using far too strict of a definition of tax. Think of it another way: if I make $1, and the government takes $0.10, but then gives me back $0.05 later, but my rich neighbor who makes $10 the government takes $1 and he only gets back $0.10 later... how is my neighbor not taxed more (effectively) than me?
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  That's the thing, social security isn't a tax per se. If you put more money in you get more money out. Easy peasy. Up to a point then you get to maximum contributions but this isn't something I'm familiar with so YMMV. UBI is just "take from the rich, give to the poor" or, more likely, take from everybody by devaluing the currency and giving it to everybody but the rich, because we don't believe in "equal protection under the law", so they get nothing. Yeah, go ahead and downvote me for not pulling the party line...

Kirby64 2y ago

> That's nothing like what a UBI is, you have to "invest"[0] into social security while a UBI is just money from the free money tree or wherever. Except - just like most progressive taxes, social security costs more for those who make more money and less for those who make less (beyond the income tax, but that's an aside). The only difference between UBI and social security is that, in theory, UBI would require no contributions what-so-ever to earn money out whereas social security requires contributions. The only difference is this makes UBI more progressively taxed than social security.

Jtsummers 2y ago
OASDI and Medicare taxes actually regressive taxes. It costs you less (as a percentage) once you exceed whatever the current threshold is ($178k this year, IIRC). Remember that the definition of a progressive tax is that the rate goes up as your income goes up, a regressive tax is the opposite. Up to the current year's threshold, your OASDI and Medicare tax rate is constant, and then it drops.
- dmoy 2y ago
  If we're being pedantic:. oasdi is extremely regressive (no tax at all above like 2x median household income, vs e.g. income taxes which continue ramping up until closer to 10x median income after becoming flat). Medicare tax is not capped, and is slightly progressive in that it jumps from 2.9% to (I forget like % higher) at somewhere around 3x median household income.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    Ah, you're right about Medicare. Not sure where I got that it was capped from. An extra 0.9% for wages over $200k. But yeah, we agree, the individual I responded to is mistaken in calling OASDI a progressive tax. It's regressive since the rate drops.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  I mentioned the income cap. And no, that is not true. The benefit you get some social security is reduced substantially as you contribute to the upper end of the cap. You might be taxed less proportionally once you exceed the cap but also don’t receive more benefits. The benefits you receive in retirement when drawing on social security are proportionally less. For example (a few scenarios I ran here) with a “full retirement age” set to 2035 (when you’d be 67) If you earned a constant wage of $50k/yr, you would be able to draw $2044/mo in SS. Tax per year would be 6.2%, or $3100/yr. If you earned a constant wage of $150k/yr, you would be able to draw $3843/mo. Tax per year would be $9300/yr. You receive about 88% more benefits but contribute 300% more money. How is that not progressive taxation?
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    You're using the term "progressive tax" to talk about the benefit or return, which is not what it actually means. Progressive, flat, and regressive taxes are not about how the money gets used or redistributed. It's a simple thing: Is the tax rate constant across all incomes? Flat. Does the tax rate increase as income increases? Progressive. Does the tax rate decrease as income increases? Regressive. OASDI is a regressive tax. Flat for the first $176k, then drops after that.
    - Kirby64 2y ago
      And you're using far too strict of a definition of tax. Think of it another way: if I make $1, and the government takes $0.10, but then gives me back $0.05 later, but my rich neighbor who makes $10 the government takes $1 and he only gets back $0.10 later... how is my neighbor not taxed more (effectively) than me?
UncleEntity 2y ago
That's the thing, social security isn't a tax per se. If you put more money in you get more money out. Easy peasy. Up to a point then you get to maximum contributions but this isn't something I'm familiar with so YMMV. UBI is just "take from the rich, give to the poor" or, more likely, take from everybody by devaluing the currency and giving it to everybody but the rich, because we don't believe in "equal protection under the law", so they get nothing. Yeah, go ahead and downvote me for not pulling the party line...