That’s a hard pass for me. I’d rather opt out of social security. It’s a ponzi scam. If the government had put that into a private account, I’d have millions of dollars in there.
If they increase the cap or remove it. It’s more of my wages stolen. You’re correct. It’s a small group but as I am part of that group, as such I don’t more of my wages stolen.
We live in the same neck of the woods. Do you think our cost of living has went up over the past few years or stayed the same? I’ve seen drastic increases and would like to keep more of my money.
Removing the cap helps ensure SSI stability, so overall, that would be a good thing even if it means 10% of high wage earners have to pay the same rate as the other 90%.
If social security collapses, millions of seniors will be destitute, and those of us who have been paying into it all our adult lives will get nothing and riot in the streets.
You don’t fully comprehend the ramifications of what you’re calling for.
If the government had put that into a private account, I’d have millions of dollars in there.
I assumed you started working in 1977 for $120k/year (that’s $630k in today’s value btw) and retired today, contributing 6.2% monthly from the start and put it in a 6% monthly compounding savings account, you’d be just shy of millions ($1.9m).
I did not account for raises because if you’ve made over $7m in your lifetime, you don’t need the cash payout from social security anyway. It’s a safety net for people who can’t afford to save for retirement - and they’ve been paying into it their whole lives, too.
I’m not a fan of how social security has been handled (or that I’m not going to benefit as much as boomers have) but social security for everyone benefits the country.
I started working in 1988. I haven’t made less than 100k since 2000. I’ve averaged since about 2010 over 400k a year.
Increasing how much I pay into the system; doesn’t increase the amount I receive. That isn’t in the design.
401k allows about double social security with the cap. I have about 5 million in my 401k which shows social would have done better in a private account.
Yes, you do. A healthy country benefits all citizens.
There’s a financial burden we all bare when people can’t afford to live. We’re spared part of that burden through the underprivileged receiving social security
Yes, you do. Trickle down economics is a proven disaster that has eroded the middle class. It’s much better for the country to help bring the bottom up than to further increase wealth inequality by further funding the rich with our tax dollars.
You’re against wealth transfer but you’re proposing another one…this time to the wealthiest people in the country. And you’re fine with that because you get some more scraps out of it.
I’d be more sympathetic to your plight if you paid your fair share in taxes…but you richer you are, the less you contribute proportionally. You’re not the 1% but your attitude is why there’s so much anger toward the rich.
I am not suggesting a wealth transfer. Keeping my own money is not a transfer. Trickle down didn’t hurt the middle class. That’s some weird liberal re-write of history. If that was the issue then why didn’t the democrats fix it? NAFTA and other trades agreements are what destroyed the middle class. When companies could move jobs to China or Mexico , that removed the factory jobs many middle class people depended on.
You are suggesting a wealth transfer. Do you think private banks give you 100% of the interest your money makes? Where do you think the extra money goes?
Democrats didn’t fix it because Democrats can’t fix shit
And nafta is not the only reason for wealth consolidation. The fact remains that wealthy people largely do not choose to “trickle down” anything. It’s been a massive failure and you’d have to do mental gymnastics to see it as working. Or just be extremely selfish
Yes. Don’t you support electric cars to help with climate change? Without Elon we wouldn’t have a viable electric car industry. It’s crashed over 100k good paying jobs. That’s trickle down in action.
I am not proving your point. Tesla hasn’t started production yet but would have regardless of musk’s involvement. And since then, he made the company worse because he’s an idiot who happened to have the money to take over a promising company.
They would have went bankrupt. Do you think they let Elon in out of the kindness of their heart? They were out of money. It was let Elon invest or go BK. You think Tesla would have been better off BK? lol.
"Tesla Motors was incorporated on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. Eberhard and Tarpenning served as CEO and CFO, respectively." "Tesla's first car, the Roadster, was officially revealed to the public on July 19, 2006."
"The Prius was developed by Toyota to be the "car for the 21st century; it was the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle, first going on sale in Japan in 1997 at all four Toyota Japan dealership chains, and subsequently introduced worldwide in 2000."
I will concede that Musk may have made some marketing decisions that contributed to the popularity of Tesla cars vs other brands but I do not believe that "Without Elon we wouldn’t have a viable electric car industry." If there is money to be made in a business then someone will inevitably step in to fill the market niche. That's a core tenant of how capitalism is supposed to promote the efficient use of resources.
Also, I'm not sure who the "we" in your comment is referring to. I personally do not have any type of car industry, viable or not. Are you suggesting that US car manufactures should be nationalized and owned collectively by all citizens?
Furthermore, I do not support electric cars as a major contribution to the solution to climate change.
I like your characterization of Musk as "the flavor flav of Tesla". He is or tries to be a hype man, a personality, capable of creating a cult of personality. He hired engineers and workers and told them to build things he wanted. The solutions those people created to his (and the other members of the board of directors) demands are what Tesla became. I'm not convinced he knows anything about running a company (Twitter).
He’s shown he can run Tesla. That doesn’t mean he can run any company.
I also think he’s more of a liability as Tesla now.
Elon was a great hype man and knew other rich people who could invest. That’s why Tesla was successful. He had giants pockets books to fund it. It wasn’t just his money. Thiel was another large investor m
Gotta jack that corporate tax rate way up Morty. Get it way up there. Financial services, insurance and landlords are like 20% of the GDP alone. Tax the ever living fuck out of those leaches.
We already have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Your solution is to tax them more when they can just move to a lower tax income country?
You’re living in a fantasy world if you think US cooperations pay “some of the highest corporate taxes in the world”.
And YES. I’d pass a law mandating that anyone wanting to draw profit from the U.S. market has to pay U.S. taxes. Fuck those corporate freeloaders. Their tax breaks don’t benefit me at all.
All your masters had to do was throw you a slightly bigger bone than the other dogs in the yard to distract you from the fact that they’re eating steak in orbit instead of sharing the wealth.
My solutions to a lot of econimic problems do not fit this small textbox, even when I leave the mountains of data out of it that I have at my fingertips.
If you are afraid of not making enough money, read on topics like:
Corporate Wage-Theft
Profit-Motive undermining efficiency
Unionization
Living Wages
It is okay to be angry about a real issue, that being the month often lasts longer then your bank-account.
But please dont fall for low-effort fearmongering from the people stealing from or lying to you.
"A mortgage is affordable if the mortgage payment (principal and interest) amounts to 25% or less of the family's income."
What percent of your family's income do you pay (or have paid in the past) for the principle and interest on your mortgage?
Since your high income gives you some flexibility in choosing a housing situation I'm curious how much of your income you decided to allocate to this expense.
For all three of my homes I pay about 5000 a month. My monthly income is 30k a month. That is my guaranteed pay per month that I use for budgeting. Any other income is not used in my budget.
Thanks for the reply. So you spend about 17% of your income on housing. (assuming 5k is the total for all three). Some people are currently looking at spending 25-30% of their income or more on housing just to get the cheapest houses available. Imagine if you had to spend 9000 each month just to be able to live in one house and maybe you can understand why some people are upset.
If you meant 5000 each for the three houses then hopefully the two not currently owner-occupied are either being rented out or generating equity through appreciation. Therefore they function more as an investment asset than a primary residence.
I live in all of them. I put large downpayment down. I like to keep my housing to now more than 30% of my income. 30% is the recommend limit and try to stay under that.
We already have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
Ahhhh, the classic “I’m just going to say nonsense and hope people don’t notice.”
America’s taxes are below the global average and rank the 81st highest in the world, which is a bizzare definition of some of the highest in the world.
What kind of insane conservative nonsense is this? “We used to have something” means we still have it? Or people wanting to do something means it already exists?
So you’d be fine being taxed at 50%? I wouldn’t. In most other countries the citizens pay a higher burden than the corporations. So you’d be fine with 50% of your wages gone?
I’m glad we agree. People making less than ~300K are certainly paying their fair share, it’s time for corporations to step up and face that 50%+ tax rate.
The difference between Social Security and a Ponzi Scheme is the Ponzi lures people in with promises of high rate of return. Social Security is involuntary and promises flat returns (not even rate since deduction amounts are different based on earnings).
Social security is no different. It’s claim much more than the average person puts in and the government isn’t generating any real interest to pay for it.
It’s why the system is in trouble. It’s a ponzi design. I have no interest in it. It steals wealth from people.
Add comment