Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Zan15]

You just contradicted yourself. It's not fully funded, for that exact reason. The amount they had in reserves wasn't close to enough to pay for those who had already paid into the system.

It has long been on the road to insolvency, we've seen this coming since the 1990's, when they didn't plan for the spike in life expectancy, and their aging models were simply shit. Now, whether that was due to massive incompetence, or simply blatant corruption... I'll leave that for you.

At the end of the day, expecting more and more tax increases is simply not a viable option.

Yes, it is designed just like a Ponzi Scheme, new people paying in to cover the costs (losses) of the older. it literally relies on a continuous growth of new investors, and when that growth isn't met, they just raised taxes... over and over again.

No they planned for the spike, but they were a percent off or so. it happens, guess what they did not plan for a decrease in life expectancy in 2020 but it happened.
You can go back and look at every single report by the SSA administration, they have it on line.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/historical/1994TR.pdf

in 1994 they said 2020 would be 75/81.2. Their high cost projections were 76.7/82.9. Current rates: Male: 76.1 years - Female: 81.1 years. Not bad for a 25+ year prediction huh?


Where they fell short
-income projections relative to cost. We all know wages have been stagnant for decades for a large portion of the working population. The folks who saw the most increases have incomes that are not subject to the tax.
- Interest rates. Long term projections set them at 6.3%
- Labor force increase .5-2% a year. Yah they got this really really wrong. got it right on the high cost projection though.
- Wage increase of 5% a year from 2010-2070.
- Though they over estimated unemployment.


They keep them on file for you to read.
They also said in the 1990s the halting of any adjustments to taxes, retirement age and income limits would cause insolvency.


And no its not a Ponzi

[uuuhname]

It's time once again for Guess the Speaker!



That's Graham, on FOX News because of course it was, explaining why Biden's first 100 days have been "very destabilizing".

I understand the pearl clutching about the border, but he's trying the same thing with...well, every country on the list but Iran. Trump acted like a spoiled child and damaged every diplomatic relationship we had. Biden's trying to put things back, but Graham is calling that destabilizing. Remember when Trump unilaterally broke the Iran Nuclear Deal and then feigned surprise when they were upset? Biden putting it back is not the problem. Biden trying not to put small children in dog cages until they die isn't the problem, either. And China? Fucking seriously? Remember those tariffs that Trump started? How are those doing? Oh wait, they're still up and running.

And of course there's Afghanistan. Remember how Trump campaigned and ran on withdrawing troops there, and just...didn't? And now Graham is playing the "oh dears, oh dearie me, think of the children" card? Where was that argument when Trump said he would do what Biden actually did? (NOTE: I'm not a huge fan of this "everyone out of Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY" push, but that won't stop me from pointing out Graham's hypocrisy).

Graham is clearly trying what Trump did: just make up shit, and push the narrative as if it was the truth. With the southern border, at least there's something he can point to as evidence, but in each case his motive is 100% disingenuous.

Fuck that guy. Well...fuck his wife.

why isn't he in jail? where is the investigation into his role in the Georgia fiasco? same goes to those two senators that got voted out.

[Fugus]

I'm staying on topic.

I have no problem talking about this administration, and wanting it to fix issues like Social Security and the deficit.

Would you like to discuss those things.

You are going on a tangent into debunked ideology again like you did there and it’s useless as you just talk in circles and refuse to let in any data you dislike.

That was literally 19 pages of your tangent I saved this exact thread before it was locked. And you are doing it again.

If you genuinely believe this stuff, can you personally make a libertarian mega thread since you have less of a chance of getting in trouble for it as then it won’t be seen as a singular person being called out.

When you get to other subjects you seem pretty good but when you get on this subject you go into lalaland on it and it stretches into 10+ pages of useless back and forth that is more off topic than anything and more of a tangent into libertarian philosophy.

[Zan15]

They pay a higher percentage of their AGI, the top 1% does.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

Sure why don't you try it now with ALL THEIR INCOME and all the taxes.


Adjusted Gross Income is such a wonderful way to hide a lot of $$$ in the calculations.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2020/

and that does not even take into account the many ways to hide income in things like stock options.

[Machismo]

Only one of the studies used as support for the meta-analysis was related to crime rates, sweaty: now do all the other ones regarding unethical behaviors that aren't explicitly criminal.

It pointed to car types, and showed that BMW drivers really are assholes.

Very well, I agree.

Meanwhile, poorer people commit considerably more crimes.

So, we've learned that wealthy people are less moral, but more lawful.

- - - Updated - - -

Your ignorance of the studies isn't an excuse for your bad position on taxes. And no, i'm not gonna link them for you just for you to call them fake.

Diminishing returns on wealth are simply a fact, and are a super good reason for why we should be taxing the rich more.

These studies are your claim, not mine. Asking me to make a claim based off studies you are talking about, doesn't make much sense to me. So, I'd say the burden is on you, as these are your claims.

- - - Updated - - -

As was the birthrate.

"Breaking even" is not a geometric increase in participants, lol.

- - - Updated - - -



How long do you think the GOP are going to try and milk the "Middle East scary" cow?

I'm getting the distinct sense the public is just becoming desensitized to it, tbh. Folks don't seem as manifestly concerned about Iran now as they were even half a decade ago.

You literally just made my case for me, and you don't even realize it...

- - - Updated - - -

No they planned for the spike, but they were a percent off or so. it happens, guess what they did not plan for a decrease in life expectancy in 2020 but it happened.
You can go back and look at every single report by the SSA administration, they have it on line.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/historical/1994TR.pdf

in 1994 they said 2020 would be 75/81.2. Their high cost projections were 76.7/82.9. Current rates: Male: 76.1 years - Female: 81.1 years. Not bad for a 25+ year prediction huh?


Where they fell short
-income projections relative to cost. We all know wages have been stagnant for decades for a large portion of the working population. The folks who saw the most increases have incomes that are not subject to the tax.
- Interest rates. Long term projections set them at 6.3%
- Labor force increase .5-2% a year. Yah they got this really really wrong. got it right on the high cost projection though.
- Wage increase of 5% a year from 2010-2070.
- Though they over estimated unemployment.


They keep them on file for you to read.
They also said in the 1990s the halting of any adjustments to taxes, retirement age and income limits would cause insolvency.


And no its not a Ponzi

We've long known about insolvency, this isn't something that popped up. I get that they just wanted to keep on raising taxes, but at some point, people and businesses were going to push back. They had ample opportunities to adjust internally, by reducing their costs, pushing to increase the retirement age, or slowing down benefits.

You'll notice that the earnings cap has exceeded inflation and COLA adjustments, and that was a means to try and hedge their money as best they could... while not pissing off too many people.

Let's try raising the retirement age, first.

[Stormspellz]

They pay a higher percentage of their AGI, the top 1% does.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of...ta-2020-update

you made my point for me thanks, it doesn't factor in all the loopholes that lowers the actual amount paid, and tax foundation loves to use misrepresentation as typical koch founded think tank does

[Machismo]

You are going on a tangent into debunked ideology again like you did there and it’s useless as you just talk in circles and refuse to let in any data you dislike.

That was literally 19 pages of your tangent I saved this exact thread before it was locked. And you are doing it again.

If you genuinely believe this stuff, can you personally make a libertarian mega thread since you have less of a chance of getting in trouble for it as then it won’t be seen as a singular person being called out.

When you get to other subjects you seem pretty good but when you get on this subject you go into lalaland on it and it stretches into 10+ pages of useless back and forth that is more off topic than anything and more of a tangent into libertarian philosophy.

I'm talking about policies, and other people wanting this administration to raise taxes to pay for it all. Mind you, they want to raise taxes on other people, not themselves.

I think this is entirely related to the current administration, and what people are trying to push through while they are temporarily in power. If you don't like it, that's not really my fault, nor my problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure why don't you try it now with ALL THEIR INCOME and all the taxes.


Adjusted Gross Income is such a wonderful way to hide a lot of $$$ in the calculations.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2020/

and that does not even take into account the many ways to hide income in things like stock options.

So, you want to raise the payroll tax, is that right? We know why that earnings cap was put into place.

That's also including state and local taxes. Even with all of that, they are still paying a higher percentage of their incomes, as your own graphs show.

The real issue is that most don't have any idea how much they want to raise taxes, and who exactly to raise it on. The issue is things like "fair share" are political talking points, and not really something that the average person has any idea about.

[Fugus]

I'm talking about policies, and other people wanting this administration to raise taxes to pay for it all. Mind you, they want to raise taxes on other people, not themselves.

I think this is entirely related to the current administration, and what people are trying to push through while they are temporarily in power. If you don't like it, that's not really my fault, nor my problem.

You get it wrong, they want to raise taxes on the top who have been well below what they should since Reagan.

And they want to cut funding that is wasteful and unneeded in the extent they are paying and direct funding to where it is beneficial for the nation as a whole.

And I agree on raising taxes on those making over $400,000 a year given the unneeded tax cut the last administration gave them and blew up our deficit before the virus even hit.

Sorry but cutting all or even most taxes and funding will not help us and an unregulated free market won’t save anything.

[Elegiac]

So, we've learned that wealthy people are less moral, but more lawful.

So, exactly what I said? Lol.

[Machismo]

you made my point for me thanks, it doesn't factor in all the loopholes that lowers the actual amount paid, and tax foundation loves to use misrepresentation as typical koch founded think tank does

It literally says they pay more... any way you look at it.

The cold, hard numbers are there. Now, you could argue that you want them to pay even more, but to argue that they are not already paying more, is simply wrong.

[Zan15]

We've long known about insolvency, this isn't something that popped up. I get that they just wanted to keep on raising taxes, but at some point, people and businesses were going to push back. They had ample opportunities to adjust internally, by reducing their costs, pushing to increase the retirement age, or slowing down benefits.

You'll notice that the earnings cap has exceeded inflation and COLA adjustments, and that was a means to try and hedge their money as best they could... while not pissing off too many people.

Let's try raising the retirement age, first.

Insolvency mostly occurred after tax increase were halted. These were adjustments to the rising cost.

No "first".
They need to do the things i listed in combination.
They would have to increase the retirement age over 72 at this point. Can you imagine.
The side effect of raising the retirement age is a compounding effect on the new working generations as there will be less jobs for them to occupy.

The babyboomer effect should have been paid for by an increase mostly in the tax rate.

[Elegiac]

We know why that earnings cap was put into place.

Yes. Greed.

That's not a good thing.

[Machismo]

So, exactly what I said? Lol.

Great, wealthy people can be assholes. Luckily, I still support the liberty of assholes, and don't want this adminsitration to raise taxes on them, just so they can push even more government spending.

- - - Updated - - -

You get it wrong, they want to raise taxes on the top who have been well below what they should since Reagan.

And they want to cut funding that is wasteful and unneeded in the extent they are paying and direct funding to where it is beneficial for the nation as a whole.

And I agree on raising taxes on those making over $400,000 a year given the unneeded tax cut the last administration gave them and blew up our deficit before the virus even hit.

Sorry but cutting all or even most taxes and funding will not help us and an unregulated free market won’t save anything.

What exactly do you want Biden to make them pay?

How much will finally make you happy?

[Elegiac]

Great, wealthy people can be assholes.

Thus casting doubt on the validity of their opinions when they claim something is a punishment, as was the original point.

[Machismo]

Insolvency mostly occurred after tax increase were halted. These were adjustments to the rising cost.

No "first".
They need to do the things i listed in combination.
They would have to increase the retirement age over 72 at this point. Can you imagine.
The side effect of raising the retirement age is a compounding effect on the new working generations as there will be less jobs for them to occupy.

The babyboomer effect should have been paid for by an increase mostly in the tax rate.

Once again, this is something that was going to face resistance, and wasn't going to last forever. That's the point. At some point, people will just not allow more increases.

We knew about the baby boomers, which was why they spiked the rate to 6.2% for each. That was supposed to be the solution... it wasn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus casting doubt on the validity of their opinions when they claim something is a punishment, as was the original point.

So, if that's your argument, should be believe the opinions of criminals who want to take other people's money?

You are literally judging people, and deeming their value as humans, based on how much they earn.

This is now your argument.

[Elegiac]

So, if that's your argument, should be believe the opinions of criminals who want to take other people's money?

I'm not the one saying we should believe the rich when they whinge about a proportionate tax rate being a "punishment", so no.

[Zan15]

So, you want to raise the payroll tax, is that right? We know why that earnings cap was put into place.

That's also including state and local taxes. Even with all of that, they are still paying a higher percentage of their incomes, as your own graphs show.

The real issue is that most don't have any idea how much they want to raise taxes, and who exactly to raise it on. The issue is things like "fair share" are political talking points, and not really something that the average person has any idea about.

Yes increased payroll tax is one part of the solutions i listed.

Yes they are paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. They are also able to absorb a higher tax percentage and have no impact on their lives.

They also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes because they also own and buy things that are higher in cost. 250k home vs a 2.5 million dollar home. Oh look they are paying a higher property tax rate. Oh look they are paying a higher sales tax on the 125,000 car they just brought vs a 25,000 car.
Their spending is exponential vs their incomes not relative. They drive their own total tax rate up just as much as increasing the income tax rate does.

The real issue is that most don't have any idea how much they want to raise taxes, and who exactly to raise it on. The issue is things like "fair share" are political talking points, and not really something that the average person has any idea about.

No proposal ever has an exact amount, that all needs to be worked out and adjusted every so often. Way better then doing NOTHING.

[Machismo]

I'm not the one saying we should believe the rich when they whinge about a proportionate tax rate being a "punishment", so no.

Once again, you are judging people's worth as humans, by how much they earn. Just to be clear, that means we shouldn't heed the words of criminals who want to take everyone's money to pay for stuff, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes increased payroll tax is one part of the solutions i listed.

Yes they are paying a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. They are also able to absorb a higher tax percentage and have no impact on their lives.

They also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes because they also own and buy things that are higher in cost. 250k home vs a 2.5 million dollar home. Oh look they are paying a higher property tax rate. Oh look they are paying a higher sales tax on the 125,000 car they just brought vs a 25,000 car.
Their spending is exponential vs their incomes not relative. They drive their own total tax rate up just as much as increasing the income tax rate does.



No proposal ever has an exact amount, that all needs to be worked out and adjusted every so often. Way better then doing NOTHING.

We've increased taxes.

Let's try something new for a chance. I vote for decreasing benefits and raising the retirement age.

[Zan15]

Once again, this is something that was going to face resistance, and wasn't going to last forever. That's the point. At some point, people will just not allow more increases.

We knew about the baby boomers, which was why they spiked the rate to 6.2% for each. That was supposed to be the solution... it wasn't.

.

No they made it very clear in the reports of the late 80's and 90's that the current tax rate was not going to cover the baby boomer spike. go read them, they also knew taxes would not be increase in the foreseeable future which for the SSA was 10-25 year projections.


With how popular SS is, tax increases would not have faced much resistance at all. Only resistance is republican's which does not mirror the populations stance at all

[Elegiac]

Once again, you are judging people's worth as humans, by how much they earn.

In what world is not taking their opinions at face value mean they are "worth less as humans"? Fucking lol.

Just to be clear, that means we shouldn't heed the words of criminals who want to take everyone's money to pay for stuff, right?

Is this the part where you concoct some stupid little gotcha about how wanting higher taxes is equivalent to theft?