If social security gets fucked by the time I need to start using it, I’m just going to go around lighting shit on fire. And I’m not exaggerating.
be strategic. don’t get the restaurants and coffee shops please
There are 4,597 Walmarts in the United States. Not suggesting anything, just putting that fact out there.
I want all my money back.
Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it’d be hugely popular, too.
That is, it will be hugely popular with everyone but the Epstein class and those that do their bidding.
Just raise the cap.
It’s kind of insane to me that there’s an annual cap on social security payments. If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That’s ass-backwards. You shouldn’t pay anything for the first chunk of money, and then pay more as you make more.
Yup.
Social security is one of, if not the most popular, government program with Americans.
Looking at Social Security and the constant gaslighting about how it’s a “Ponzi scheme” and it’s “going to fail at year X” demonstrates not only how out of touch the Epstein class we have for politicians are, but also the extent they and the corporate media is willing to go to give a false impression about things.
It could easily be made solvent with just a few steps, all of them quite popular with the American people.
People already have a shocking lack of saving. We have had the cons trying to destroy Social Security since its inception, and now we get fElon telling people they won’t need to save for retirement, FFS:
If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That’s ass-backwards.
It looks ass-backwards when viewed in isolation and today’s tax policy. When the cap rule was put in place in 1937, the marginal tax rate was 79% and this would be for income over $5million ($115million in 2026 dollars). The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn’t increase above the that income.
We broke the system by removing that large marginal tax, but leaving the Social Security income cap in place.
It’s exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.
It’d be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.
For that matter, it’d be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans. I have a feeling that cons would be quite quick to start agitating to raise the retirement age because they always seem very keen on having people working more, even when they don’t want to. They also love to take away services and benefits from the average American.
It’s easy to see how slow our system responds based on the realities going on around us.
It’s exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.
It’d be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.
I would certainly entertain an age cap on office holders. What we have right now with almost entirely geriatric leaders is the lack of representation of those not in the senior citizen demographic. Its a version of tyranny of the few. This is exacerbated by the voting power being focused in those that don’t have the suffer the consequences of their choices, and instead leave those for younger generations.
I’m open to other ideas about how to address this too, but I don’t dismiss an age cap on office holders immediately.
For that matter, it’d be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans.
You don’t have to wonder. We’ve experienced this already in the life of Social Security. The original blueprint wasn’t designed to have a large retired population. You were supposed to die before reaching retirement. Social Security was to support the aging survivors that didn’t die yet to keep them out of abject poverty.
Retirement age increase is only one of three or four big levers on how to alter how Social Security operates and is maintainable.
The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn’t increase above the that income.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a good reason for the cap to exist. I expect it’s a compromise to get rich people and idiots on board.
hey, when you study history you aren’t supposed to study economic and tax systems knock it off
If you were rich you would feel the opposite. You’d feel that you don’t/won’t need social security so you shouldn’t have to pay for a service you won’t use.
I’m not sure about the rich, but most people don’t like being surrounded by homeless and starving people. They also don’t like seeing their extended family homeless and starving after working their whole lives.
They also absolutely do not want to pay for social services that would minimize/mitigate those people being seen. Even when the overall cost would be cheaper in the long run…
I’m not rich to the point of no longer needing to labor, but I did hit the social security cap one year. I was pissed when I learned why my take home jumped up. I would have rather kept paying.
It’s selfish to want to keep a little more of your vast wealth like you describe. That’s cartoon villainy.
And those special snowflakes should be told: with great power, comes great responsibility.
rich people don’t think they have any power. they think they are ‘worse off’ than middle and lower classes because everyone is trying to steal their money.
Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it’d be hugely popular, too.
Just raise the cap.
I would be “negatively” affected with the raising of the cap. I still support raising the cap.
I’d also like what Al Gore wanted to do in the year 2000, a “social security lock box”. Stop letting Congress spend the annual contribution surpluses on non-social security spending.
Too late for that now. We’re past the surplus years.
Removing the cap is a complete no-brainer but on its own not enough to solve the problem. The fact we can’t even do that gives me zero confidence that it will be solvent to fully pay benefits when I ultimately retire.
There’s a polished calculator for the impact of each policy change here: https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
Imo there are many reasonable solutions, but the only “free” thing that won’t upset the public is removing the cap, and we can’t even do that.
Yeah but raising the collection age limit is likely the end result unfortunately.
Just out of the Boomer demographic. Convenient.
I cannot believe how many boomers I heard express doubt as to whether they’d ever collect it, since they thought it was going to be Greatest Generation/Silent Generation taking it all.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions to the potential shortfall. The Fair Share Act, introduced by Democrats Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, would strengthen Social Security and Medicare by requiring people earning over $400,000 to pay payroll taxes on all income above that level. Supporters say it could fund the program for 75 years, though high earners oppose it.
A bipartisan proposal from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia would create a new investment fund, allowing Social Security to invest in stocks and other assets, starting with a $1.5 trillion Treasury-backed boost.
These people in the bolded paragraph can be [redacted] .
“Lets tie more things to how the stock market is doing” is a crazy take for a fund that’s supposed to be stable.
Tim Kaine is an HRC favorite.
The word you are looking for is DEFAULT. The ruling class if floating the idea of defaulting on social security in 2032.
They borrowed (stole) the extra that was paid in, with the promise of paying it back when needed. Now that the bill is due, they want to default.
They have money to bail out the rich to the tune of trillions, tens of trillions between it all not even including the fed and their hocus pocus to subsidize the richest. But they can’t save the post office they sabotaged, nor do they have the cash to pay their debts to retirees, the ones that also paid those goddamned subsidies to the rich and corporate welfare and bailouts. The rich don’t even pay taxes, and the corporations pay way lower rates than we do, even before their write offs which brings most of theirs down to 0%.
They sabotage it and use that as an excuse to privatize it.
Say no to the government DEFAULTING on America!
Fat-cat social security recipients won’t be leeching off our hard-working millionaires and billionaires for much longer. Think of all the tax breaks we’ll be able to afford to give to the wealthy with that kind of money!
We’ll just end the program and people will no longer have to contribute! Honestly the number of fuckwits who would be excited about this is the sad part. Then they’ll cry the leopards are their face when they are being forced into amazon labor camps at 83. Stupid people can’t keep nice things. They never understood their value and didn’t have to sacrifice for them. So the lesson will have to be learned again.
Nuh-uh, they’ll obviously be rich in the future and then people like them better watch their step!
We should use all these savings on our tiny military.
Why do I feel this is just a ploy for boomers to take even more of my money and then never let me collect SS…
Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose. Thats why the Republicans put a paramilitary army on the streets, and it’s also why the Democrats won’t stop them. They work for the same people.
Pulling up the ladder behind them.
The actual choices are to cut paments, lift the cap or divert other revenue (such as a wealth tax on billionaires) to the trust fund.
As if they could be bothered to divert some of the trillions in bail outs and subsidies and tax breaks and corporate welfare to the richest. No we have to default because for the first time the money coming in is less than the money going out, nevermind we took the excess of paid in over paid out for the last 100 years, with the promise of paying it back later.
They are floating the idea of Defaulting, to see how much pushback they get.
Well, I saw fElon say people won’t even need to save for retirement, because, well, reasons. Because that dumbass can see the future.
*In the US
