Biden has yet to say just how he would strengthen Social Security and Medicare trust funds

[Social Media]

 

CNN — 

In his latest move to differentiate himself from House Republicans on entitlement programs, President Joe Biden is making a pretty big promise.

He is vowing to shore up the shaky finances of Medicare’s trust fund, extending its solvency to the middle of the century instead of the expected depletion date of 2028.

“I will not cut a single Social Security or Medicare benefit. In fact, I’m going to extend the Medicare trust fund for at least two decades,” Biden said Thursday in a speech in Florida, echoing similar comments from his State of the Union address earlier in the week.

[Tug]

I’m sure there is a well qualified expert team working on this as I type get her done Joe!

[Damrongsak]

Print Mo' Money.

 

What's all this "I", "I", "I" stuff?  I dislike politicians.  Now, if I was Emperor ...

[Credo]

Oh, gee, I am still waiting for the Republican plan where they were going to cut it.   They never did specify exactly what would cut -- except Rick Scott, who was just going to end it.   

His statement was made on Tuesday and on Friday. you want a plan?

[bamnutsak]

Rick Scott, Columbia/HCA, while he dodged a bullet on that one, and took a massive haul o' cash, should be consulted as he is an expert of healthcare/Medicaire fraud.

 

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I’m sure there is a well qualified expert team working on this as I type get her done Joe!

Exaclty. This isn't some dodgy republican administration, with their "Repeal, and Replace" strategy - which conveniently left the "Replace" bit completely undetermined for years.

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

US Dems are a lot like Labour in the UK.

 

Lots of virtue signalling, lots of promises. But no idea how to pay for it.

[Chomper Higgot]

The answer is simple.

 

Raise taxes on the rich, in particular the hyper wealthy.

 

It’s well past time to put a stop to feeding the lie of ‘trickle down economics’,  the damage it’s done and the damage it continues to do.

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

US Dems are a lot like Labour in the UK.

 

Lots of virtue signalling, lots of promises. But no idea how to pay for it.

A very odd thing to say given the recent near crash of the Sterling Gilts Markets and the nation’s pension industry caused by an unfunded budget attempting to hand out tax cuts to the already wealthy.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A very odd thing to say given the recent near crash of the Sterling Gilts Markets and the nation’s pension industry caused by an unfunded budget attempting to hand out tax cuts to the already wealthy.

"Near crash"..................................................

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

US Dems are a lot like Labour in the UK.

 

Lots of virtue signalling, lots of promises. But no idea how to pay for it.

As opposed to the Republican Party which always pays for the spending? Reality is that both parties are responsible for spending and being unwilling to tax to cover the spending. Yes, there is a difference as glaringly shown in the 2017 spending when the Republicans additionally cut taxation, primarily for the corporations and wealthy. 

[wwest5829]

Hmm, raise the contribution on income caps to match the rise in inflation since Social Security and Medicare came into being. No, not all at once but demonstrate raising the cap is long overdue and the reason is the wealthier citizens influence with politicians dependent on campaign contributions. A groundswell of support is needed from the American working class upon which any hope of continuing a participatory democracy depends. Loose their belief in the country and the USA is lost.

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The answer is simple.

 

Raise taxes on the rich, in particular the hyper wealthy.

 

It’s well past time to put a stop to feeding the lie of ‘trickle down economics’,  the damage it’s done and the damage it continues to do.

In order to raise taxes on the rich, one would need to define "rich".

 

How much annual salary would you say would put you in the "rich" tax bracket?

[John Drake]

Seven very good recommendations here, especially the introduction of means testing as a way to limit benefits for high income individuals.  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/changes-americans-are-willing-to-make-to-fix-social-security.html

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Seven very good recommendations here, especially the introduction of means testing as a way to limit benefits for high income individuals.  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/changes-americans-are-willing-to-make-to-fix-social-security.html

According to that article, one proposal from the Democrats got 88% support from Democrats and 79% support from Republicans Namely:

Raising the payroll tax cap is the one proposal that got “overwhelming bipartisan support,” according to Kull.

In 2022, Social Security payroll taxes are applied on up to $147,000 in income, a level that is adjusted each year. That means high earners may pay Social Security payroll taxes for just part of the year.

 

Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren's proposal to resume levying tax at $250,000 would extend Social Securitys solvency for 75 years. Actually it would exend if longer if the portion of their proposal that would the benefit level was cut from their bill.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/sanders-warren-bill-would-extend-social-securitys-solvency-expand-benefits.html

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

In order to raise taxes on the rich, one would need to define "rich".

 

How much annual salary would you say would put you in the "rich" tax bracket?

Let me correct you.

Under the topic of discussion (US President Biden has yet to say just how he would strengthen Social Security and Medicare trust funds)  what matters is pledges President Biden has made on who will not pay higher taxes.

 

I’ve suggested raising taxes on the rich and in particular the hyper wealthy.

 

So let’s see what US President Biden has said about who’s taxes will not go up:

 

Firstly he has this to say:

 

“Joe Biden believes that there’s no greater economic engine in the world than the hard work and ingenuity of the American people. But for too long, the economy has worked great for those at the top, while working families continually get squeezed.”

 

I think most Americans will agree with that.

 

He then adds this:

 

“Under this historic agreement, nobody earning less than $400,000 per year will pay a penny more in taxes.”

And from Biden’s 2022 ‘State of the Union Speech’:

 

“Biden reiterated a promise not to raise taxes on households with annual income below $400,000, a pledge he's made since his presidential campaign.”

 

Therefore any increases in taxes to fund social security must under Biden’s pledge and campaign promises not be funded by raising taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000.

 

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/28/president-biden-announces-the-build-back-better-framework/

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/02/biden-reiterates-400000-tax-pledge-to-fund-agenda.html

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Seven very good recommendations here, especially the introduction of means testing as a way to limit benefits for high income individuals.  https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/changes-americans-are-willing-to-make-to-fix-social-security.html

Excellent. Thank you for posting.

 

Despite the clear bipartisan support amongst the electorate the problem remains getting the intransigent Republicans within Congress to back proposals that deliver what voters want.

 

Rightwing extremists within the Republican Party wish to see the Social Security budget placed under annual Congressional approval, which would undoubtedly turn it into a blackmailing chip with those reliant on Social Security being the being the pawns in play.

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

According to that article, one proposal from the Democrats got 88% support from Democrats and 79% support from Republicans Namely:

Raising the payroll tax cap is the one proposal that got “overwhelming bipartisan support,” according to Kull.

In 2022, Social Security payroll taxes are applied on up to $147,000 in income, a level that is adjusted each year. That means high earners may pay Social Security payroll taxes for just part of the year.

 

Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren's proposal to resume levying tax at $250,000 would extend Social Securitys solvency for 75 years. Actually it would exend if longer if the portion of their proposal that would the benefit level was cut from their bill.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/sanders-warren-bill-would-extend-social-securitys-solvency-expand-benefits.html

I personally would like to see a bit more Bernie and Warren thinking put into practice.

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

US Dems are a lot like Labour in the UK.

 

Lots of virtue signalling, lots of promises. But no idea how to pay for it.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility, I think you'll find have your parties backwards.

 

At least since the Reagan presidency, Republicans have consistently increased the federal deficit, while Democrats have regularly reduced it.

 

According to the figures in the article below, which come from the Research Division of the Federal Bank of St. Louis, Reagan took the deficit from $79 billion to $152 billion. Bush 41 took it to $255 billion. Clinton got it to a surplus of $128 billion. Bush 43 took it from a surplus, to $1.4 trillion deficit. Obama more than halved the deficit to $600 billion. As of June 2019, Trump was on course to get it back to over $1.1 trillion.

 

Here's how the deficit performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Trump

 

In fact, Trump left the White House with the largest peacetime budget deficit in American history and a national debt exceeding 100% of the economy for the first time since World War II.

 

So the idea that the Republicans are better than the Democrats at finding ways to pay for government spending is just completely wrong-headed.

 

The figures also show that Labour Governments in the UK are much better at running the economy than the general perception.

 

As the article below states, "despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives."

 

Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let me correct you.

Under the topic of discussion (US President Biden has yet to say just how he would strengthen Social Security and Medicare trust funds)  what matters is pledges President Biden has made on who will not pay higher taxes.

 

I’ve suggested raising taxes on the rich and in particular the hyper wealthy.

 

So let’s see what US President Biden has said about who’s taxes will not go up:

 

Firstly he has this to say:

 

“Joe Biden believes that there’s no greater economic engine in the world than the hard work and ingenuity of the American people. But for too long, the economy has worked great for those at the top, while working families continually get squeezed.”

 

I think most Americans will agree with that.

 

He then adds this:

 

“Under this historic agreement, nobody earning less than $400,000 per year will pay a penny more in taxes.”

And from Biden’s 2022 ‘State of the Union Speech’:

 

“Biden reiterated a promise not to raise taxes on households with annual income below $400,000, a pledge he's made since his presidential campaign.”

 

Therefore any increases in taxes to fund social security must under Biden’s pledge and campaign promises not be funded by raising taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000.

 

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/28/president-biden-announces-the-build-back-better-framework/

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/02/biden-reiterates-400000-tax-pledge-to-fund-agenda.html

Why do you never answer questions?

 

Unless you did and agree with the figure of $400000

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Why do you never answer questions?

 

Unless you did and agree with the figure of $400000

 

The only question applicable to the subject of discussion is how is President Biden going to fund Social Security.

 

The President has made very clear statements on where on the income scales he will not raise taxes.

So sorry, I’m not interested in your continuing baiting over months across multiple threads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pomchop]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The answer is simple.

 

Raise taxes on the rich, in particular the hyper wealthy.

 

It’s well past time to put a stop to feeding the lie of ‘trickle down economics’,  the damage it’s done and the damage it continues to do.

Biden has given the answer already as to how he will pay for it.  He will change the cap on social security payments into the system which currently stops at 160 k per year in earnings.  A guy that makes 20 million a year now pays exact same into soc sec as a guy that makes 160 k a year.  He is going to force giant corps who make billions of dollars and figure out how to pay ZERO in federal taxes to pay a min fed tax rate of 15% and also close a lot of the loopholes that are available only to big corps and super rich. 

 

There is much more but the amount of $$ that the richest of the rich would pay into fed taxes is HUGE...and frankly it is not even a big deal to the 1% who already have more $$ than any sane person could spend it 20 lifetimes.  The very idea that a person with asset and income of tens of millions per year who has an army of tax lawyers and accountants looking for off shore loopholes etc and end up paying no tax or less tax than a secretary is absurd.

 

Why that seems hard for people to understand is a mystery...unless of course you happen to be among the richest of the rich in the usa which I kind of doubt includes anybody on this forum.

[bamnutsak]

Joe Biden Has Plans to Change Social Security: Is Congress on Board?

 

Prior to being elected president in November 2020, Biden released a four-point proposal that he proclaimed would strengthen America's top retirement program by extending its solvency. In no particular order, Biden seeks to:

 

Increase payroll taxation on the wealthy
Boost the special minimum benefit for lifetime low earners
Raise benefits, via the primary insurance amount, for long-lived beneficiaries (ages 78 to 82)
Shift the COLA tether to the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E)

The linchpin to Biden's proposal is to increase the 12.4% payroll tax on high earners. In 2023, all earned income (wages and salary) between $0.01 and $160,200 is subject to the payroll tax. If you work for someone else, you and your employer split this tax liability down the middle. Meanwhile, the self-employed are on the hook for the full 12.4% tax up to the maximum taxable earnings cap (the $160,200 figure).

 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2023/02/11/joe-biden-has-plans-to-change-social-security/

 

Damn, Sleepy Joe had a plan.

 

Gettin' stuff done.

 

 

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The only question applicable to the subject of discussion is how is President Biden going to fund Social Security.

 

The President has made very clear statements on where on the income scales he will not raise taxes.

So sorry, I’m not interested in your continuing baiting over months across multiple threads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You once posted that I and another should "share our wealth". You'd made an assumption that we are wealthy.

 

On what did you base that assumption?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

Biden has given the answer already as to how he will pay for it.  He will change the cap on social security payments into the system which currently stops at 160 k per year in earnings.  A guy that makes 20 million a year now pays exact same into soc sec as a guy that makes 160 k a year.  He is going to force giant corps who make billions of dollars and figure out how to pay ZERO in federal taxes to pay a min fed tax rate of 15% and also close a lot of the loopholes that are available only to big corps and super rich. 

 

There is much more but the amount of $$ that the richest of the rich would pay into fed taxes is HUGE...and frankly it is not even a big deal to the 1% who already have more $$ than any sane person could spend it 20 lifetimes.  The very idea that a person with asset and income of tens of millions per year who has an army of tax lawyers and accountants looking for off shore loopholes etc and end up paying no tax or less tax than a secretary is absurd.

 

Why that seems hard for people to understand is a mystery...unless of course you happen to be among the richest of the rich in the usa which I kind of doubt includes anybody on this forum.

Alarm Biden has refunded the IRS, plugging the inspection gap created by Trump through which the wealthy, hyper wealthy and corporations dodge taxes.

[RichardColeman]

LOL, he's not yet got the bribed young people their university debt forgiveness over the line, now he's ramping up more vote buying he'll not deliver on .

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, puchooay said:

You once posted that I and another should "share our wealth". You'd made an assumption that we are wealthy.

 

On what did you base that assumption?

I don’t recall ever telling you that ‘you should share your wealth’.

 

I don’t assume anyone is wealthy on the basis of things they’ve said on an anonymous Internet forum.

 

 

[puchooay]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t recall ever telling you that ‘you should share your wealth’.

 

I don’t assume anyone is wealthy on the basis of things they’ve said on an anonymous Internet forum.

 

 

Selective memory syndrome. Just as I suspected.

[puchooay]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t recall ever telling you that ‘you should share your wealth’.

 

I don’t assume anyone is wealthy on the basis of things they’ve said on an anonymous Internet forum.

 

 

OK. Not "share" but "spread". Same assumption though.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

OK. Not "share" but "spread". Same assumption though.

 

 

No assumption on my part about your wealth in your cross thread posting.

 

Perhaps getting back to the topic in under discussion (I’m not it) will help you avoid getting into spacious semantics and save you wasting time trawling through past threads in an attempt to score ‘points’ with snatched comments out of context of the thread they were made in.

 

 

 

 

 

[puchooay]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No assumption on my part about your wealth in your cross thread posting.

 

Perhaps getting back to the topic in under discussion (I’m not it) will help you avoid getting into spacious semantics and save you wasting time trawling through past threads in an attempt to score ‘points’ with snatched comments out of context of the thread they were made in.

 

 

 

 

 

Wriggle wriggle. 5555