Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
You are in the minority, even amongst conservatives.
Source
Source
Notice most say they don’t want a reduction but it’s running out of money. You can’t have it both ways.
I never said my opinion is popular buts it’s logical. My same SS contribution would be worth well in excess of 5 million dollars. That far beats the return on my SS.
It's "running out of money" in the sense that there's a projected shortfall, not that it's going to be bankrupt in the near future. The projected shortfall means covering 80% of benefits in 2034 and covering 74% of benefits in 2097. But there are many proposals to address this shortfall and the Office of Chief Actuary collects all proposals and even provides a summary of each proposal and how much of the shortfall it will cover (PDF). So you don't need to "have it both ways"; we can address the shortfall without reducing benefits.
You're also claiming it's a scam when it isn't. The purpose of Social Security is to alleviate poverty for seniors and it does that. Further, people receive more in benefits than they pay into the program, especially those of low-income who need it most (PDF). Lastly, regardless of your personal situation, the notion that private retirement investments would be better than social security for everyone is disputed.
All involve increasing taxation or making it needs based which doesn’t interest me. I have zero interest in paying more to a mismanaged program. If they raise rates. I’ll just retire.
That’s the problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.
Some involve increasing payroll taxes while others involve taxes on corporations or investments. There's also non-tax based proposals like raising the retirement age.
The program is not mismanaged.
This is not socialism. Further, every US president, including Republican, has supported or enacted legislation upholding social security since its inception.
If It was managed properly, they’d have the funds. They don’t because it’s been mismanaged.
Increasing taxes isn’t a viable solution. We are already heavily taxed. I’d like to keep some of my money for myself.
How much more are you willing to pay to prop the system up? Another 6%?
First, they do have the funds. The shortfall is a future projection. Second, this assumption is incorrect. There are a variety of factors that will affect the future income and cost of the program. Retirement of Baby Boomers and lower birth rates are two examples.
When combined with other proposals, it is a viable solution in that it solves the problem of the shortfall.
This is a matter of opinion.
I don't know your personal situation but virtually all Americans keep the lion's share of their money when it comes to taxation.
I personally would be willing to pay more taxes for more services, including social security, universal healthcare, and others.
I pay a little over 50% of my income in taxes. That’s excessive. It’s unfair to ask the top 5% to continually pick up for the other 95%
And how much more would you like to pay? Half your income? I don’t. I want a smaller government. Not a nanny state.
Again, I don't know your personal situation, but the top federal income tax bracket is 37% for individuals making over $500k. States with the highest income tax get up to 10% for over $5 million (New York) or 12% for over $12.3 million (California). And, of course, there are other taxes like capital gains. My point is, those paying over 50% in taxes are generally well above the median income, which is $40k for individuals and $75k for households.
Again, this is an opinion and I would also like to point out that to be in the top 5% someone has to make $335k or more per year or have a net worth of ~$1 million or more. And those numbers still don't generally put someone in the 50% tax range.
If I, or the majority of other Americans, paid half our income, we would be in dire straights. It would be near impossible for an individual to have adequate housing, food, and transportation just about anywhere in the country for $20k per year (or $37.5k for a household). However, someone can live very comfortably just about anywhere in the country for $315k per year (37% of $500k).
This is not currently an option. Neither Republicans or Democrats, Trump or Biden, are offering a meaningfully smaller government. In fact, depending on parameters, this hasn't been an option for the last hundred years.
You also have to include social security and Medicare. They are a tax as well. We have property taxes as well. The list of taxes we have is insane. State is another 10%.
From my base pay of 17k a month. I end up with a little under 8k after taxes.
The stop asking me to do it.
Maybe you missed the platform most candidates were running on. It was the elimination of several government agencies. To me that’s a good start. The budget should also be tied to revenue. We need to balance the budget where expenditures do not exceed revenue.
We can go on and on about this forever. Your opinion is that taxes are too high.
To be clear, your position is you would rather many Americans be destitute so that you would pay fewer taxes.
Trump himself stated, "I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare." He also added ~$8 trillion to the national debt in his previous term. Additionally, he said he would balance the budget prior to his first term and did not do it.
We need to spend less. It’s not that complicated. Our spending is out of control. The only required expenditure is the military.
Trump has said he will eliminate the department of education. That’s a first step in making the government smaller.
Spending less is very achievable but your initial post and claims were about cutting social security specifically. And if you're saying we should only spend on military, that means cutting approximately 74% of federal spending and function. This is a deeply unpopular position that is not supported by either major political party, which makes it extremely unlikely to happen.
Nevertheless, he did no such thing when he had the opportunity in his first term. Further, he has stated he would protect some of the largest expenditures in the budget.
It’s a good place to start. It keeps the poor, poor and causes our budgets to continue to grow.
The deficit spending was declining until Covid. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t have funded anything for Covid ? That’s the majority of the expense
Research suggests otherwise:
"Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state, and they lift more people above the poverty line than any other program in the United States. Without Social Security, 22.7 million more adults and children would be below the poverty line, according to our analysis using the March 2023 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are aged 65 or older, 6.2 million are under age 65, including 900,000 children."
Source
Data from the Social Security Administration itself also doesn't seem to support this (PDF).
This is incorrect. National deficit and debt increased every year under the Trump administration. Further, Trump's own 2020 budget, which was released before Covid in March 2019, projected a $4.8 trillion deficit for 2020-2024 under his own policies (PDF).
https://www.nber.org/digest/nov99/social-security-increases-wealth-inequality
No,studies say it does.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/182120/how-social-security-helps-the-wealthy-most/
Your cites don’t refute my claim.
Your second source merely discusses a New York Times article that talks about how rich people benefit more from social security because they have longer lifespans. It does not suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people. In fact, it even suggests raising the maximum earnings at which social security taxes are paid or reducing benefits for higher paid workers, which is effectively investing more in the program.
Your first source is much more in-depth but also doesn't suggest that getting rid of the program would help poor people overall because it is specifically looking at inheritances. It does suggest that social security can worsen intragenerational wealth inequality because it can't be passed on as inheritance and social security represents the majority of the wealth of poor retirees. Meanwhile, social security represents a small portion of the wealth of wealthy retirees so they are able to pass on more inheritance. Thus, intragenerational wealth inequality is worsened. But there is no indication that inheritances of the poor would be sufficient to replace social security. The paper also notes that other, more important factors contribute to intragenerational wealth inequality and states that wealth inequality would only be reduced to a minor degree without social security.
These sources actually suggest that wealthy people benefit more than poor people and, therefore, the program should be strengthened for the poor. Exactly the opposite of getting rid of it.
No, that’s a weird conclusion. Since there is nothing to inherit which is what both articles talk about, it shows the inability to transfer wealth which leaves the poor, poor.
Except that, by their own words, removing social security doesn't solve that problem.
Actually it does. That’s the point of the articles and they explain why. Cato says the same the same thing.