A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with Greenwald Research, finds that most Americans are willing to accept tax increases to prevent benefit cuts.

The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans. It also found that only 15% of respondents preferred keeping tax rates the same, even if that means reducing benefits.

https://www.aol.com/85-americans-willing-raise-taxes-153018526.html

Jeez you're relentless with the bitching and crying. You must be having a really miserable retirement

It seems unlikely!

 

But I guess the 'respondents' might have all been unemployed.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Jeez you're relentless with the bitching and crying. You must be having a really miserable retirement

 

How relaxed would you be after being so wrong for so long ?

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

If survey done by AARP members, why not, as most pay very little or no tax on income, if that's what is going to get taxes.

 

I get more than the average Soc Sec disbursement, and it's non taxable.

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

If survey done by AARP members, why not, as most pay very little or no tax on income, if that's what is going to get taxes.

 

I get more than the average Soc Sec disbursement, and it's non taxable.

 

Not to mention most of them us are looking back at decades of paystubs where 15% of their our salaries went toward what some people are now calling "entitlements".    

 

I think it's important to differentiate between Social Security that's getting paid back to retirees who have paid in all their lives and "Social Security" for those who may have never paid in a dime.  But that probably makes me a mean person, a deplorable.

 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

If survey done by AARP members, why not, as most pay very little or no tax on income, if that's what is going to get taxes.

 

I get more than the average Soc Sec disbursement, and it's non taxable.

One of the sponsors of the survey was the US Chamber of Commerce. As Americans know, their program is very conservative and advocates for very low taxation.

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Jeez you're relentless with the bitching and crying. You must be having a really miserable retirement

While I don't ordinarily indulge in personal comments, I have to ask if you've gone off your meds. Are you hearing voices or seeing things not visible to most of us? All I did was quote a news article. Not a word was mine.  No "bitching" or "crying" in the text. That it could generate such an over-the-top response from you should be a cause of major concern.

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Jeez you're relentless with the bitching and crying. You must be having a really miserable retirement

The irony of your post escapes you, I presume?  That is, a bitch bitching about alleged bitching, which wasn’t bitching to begin with.  

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I think it's important to differentiate between Social Security that's getting paid back to retirees who have paid in all their lives and "Social Security" for those who may have never paid in a dime.  But that probably makes me a mean person, a deplorable.

 

I too think it's important to make that differentiation. But I would phrase it like this: I think it's important to pay back social security to those who have paid into it and their qualified dependents'. But I don't support paying it to imaginary beings.

 

"The only people who can legally collect benefits without having paid into Social Security are family members of workers who have done so. Benefits are based on the qualifying worker’s earnings record and the most common form of such arrangements come as spousal benefits. Other Social Security benefits may be afforded to survivors (typically widows or widowers) or children."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-receive-payments-never-113011191.html

 

2 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

How relaxed would you be after being so wrong for so long ?

Are you experiencing hallucinations similar to those of Frank83628? I'm going to try and offer you a little cognitive therapy here. I'm going to quote from the original post and then you can tell me where you see the bitching and crying.

 

"85% of Americans Willing to Raise Taxes to Save Social Security, Survey Shows

A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with Greenwald Research, finds that most Americans are willing to accept tax increases to prevent benefit cuts.

The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans. It also found that only 15% of respondents preferred keeping tax rates the same, even if that means reducing benefits.

https://www.aol.com/85-americans-willing-raise-taxes-153018526.html

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It seems unlikely!

 

But I guess the 'respondents' might have all been unemployed.

Even Trump highlighted the Nordic education system lately, so he is on a roll, to improve the education possibilities, and that means the socialist model, so I guess next will be health care, 

6 minutes ago, TimBKK said:

The irony of your post escapes you, I presume?  That is, a bitch bitching about alleged bitching, which wasn’t bitching to begin with.  

It certainly was bitching in the OP. Non stop I hate Trump derangement. The majority of which gets proved to be wrong.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It seems unlikely!

 

But I guess the 'respondents' might have all been unemployed.

Because, you, as a self-proclaimed socialist, don't believe that most folk don't want to see government support in their old age be diminished? You're not fooling anybody.

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

It certainly was bitching in the OP. Non stop I hate Trump derangement. The majority of which gets proved to be wrong.

Now your seeing Trump derangement in a post that didn't cite him and was only about Social Security? You are an  invaluable natural resource of irony. 

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I too think it's important to make that differentiation. But I would phrase it like this: I think it's important to pay back social security to those who have paid into it and their qualified dependents'. But I don't support paying it to imaginary beings.

 

"The only people who can legally collect benefits without having paid into Social Security are family members of workers who have done so. Benefits are based on the qualifying worker’s earnings record and the most common form of such arrangements come as spousal benefits. Other Social Security benefits may be afforded to survivors (typically widows or widowers) or children."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-receive-payments-never-113011191.html

 

I'd add that a lot of people lump programs into "Social Security" when they're fear mongering that we'll lose it.  They're social security programs, but with a small s.

 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

If survey done by AARP members, why not, as most pay very little or no tax on income, if that's what is going to get taxes.

 

I get more than the average Soc Sec disbursement, and it's non taxable.

That would only be after deductions

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'd add that a lot of people lump programs into "Social Security" when they're fear mongering that we'll lose it.  They're social security programs, but with a small s.

 

Really? Because Americans are unfamiliar with what Social Security does? This is laughable. They may not now much about the details but to claim that they don't understand it's  basically a retirement program is just nuts. Stop making things up.

Just now, flexomike said:

That would only be after deductions

No, I don't even have to file a 1040, I'm so poor...

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

No, I don't even have to file a 1040, I'm so poor...

So your Social Security payment is less than 12000 dollars a year, think that is the minimum filing point

13 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

It certainly was bitching in the OP. Non stop I hate Trump derangement. The majority of which gets proved to be wrong.

 Was Donald Trump mentioned at all in the quote. It was about a polling showing strong public support for social security? The only Trump derangement I can see any evidence for is yours. You are an invaluable and apparently unstoppable rsource of irony. 

4 minutes ago, flexomike said:

So your Social Security payment is less than 12000 dollars a year, think that is the minimum filing point

Just checked and it's 14600 dollars, how can you survive if you don't make that much in a year

Some tax increases at the upper limits are okay. But should also limit benefits to citizens only. 

Just now, flexomike said:

Just checked and it's 14600 dollars, how can you survive if you don't make that much in a year

Also just checked and the average payment is $1763, so you are not above average - 555

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans.

 

In other words, 85% of the pre-selected survey respondents believe THEIR benefits should increase, but only if that means raising taxes on OTHER Americans.

It is half of your social security plus any additional income like interest etcv...add the two numbers and if it is 14,600 or more you have to file fed taxes.  I believe that is correct according to irs site.

12 minutes ago, flexomike said:

Just checked and it's 14600 dollars, how can you survive if you don't make that much in a year

Married filing jointly or deductions, keeps my under.

 

I can be very creative, if actually asked.

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

In other words, 85% of the pre-selected survey respondents believe THEIR benefits should increase, but only if that means raising taxes on OTHER Americans.

Or they could have the top wealthy people pay on all of their income and not be exempt after the first 150 k or so of income.... a guy making ten million a year pays same total amount into soc sec as a guy making 150 k...a guy making 100 million a year pays same total as the guy making 150 a year...therein is the rub...if the super earners paid the same percent into soc sec of their total income as the smaller earners with no cap it would go a very long way towards better funding.  But the rich have lots of congress in their pockets so that not likely to happen.

41 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because, you, as a self-proclaimed socialist, don't believe that most folk don't want to see government support in their old age be diminished? You're not fooling anybody.

No I'm a Marxist.

No free ride, work or die!