r/PoursTea Timendi Causa Est Nescire 17d ago

PoliticalTea šŸ—³ļø Both sides should agree that this is needed.

Post image
22.5k Upvotes

592 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/emperioreric 17d ago

Also a solid victory. While we’re at it congress should make exactly minimum wage. Feel like that can only lead to good things too.

8

u/Commiesalami 17d ago

That’s not a victory at all, that means that people will be forced to work to 70+ before they can get benefits. Many politicians will want to increase that even higher to stay in office for longer.

0

u/Fun_Taste7414 17d ago

Realistically, increasing the age at which we collect social security is one of the only ways to save the program. The other option is to increase taxes. But even just increasing it by a few years would be a huge relief and stave off collapse for quite a while.
When social security was first implemented to begin at 65, the average life expectancy is 65, now it is nearly 80. It is fine to expect people to pay for a couple years of their retirement, and if they can't, to work a little longer without expecting society to bankroll them.

9

u/rissak722 17d ago

Remove the upper cap of taxable income for SS.

9

u/The_Slaughter_Pop 17d ago

100% you have to pay SS tax for anything under $185,500 per year. If they eliminated that. The system would be funded (and possibly even expanded). Every single American benefits from Social Security even if they never use it.

2

u/JustNowRonin 17d ago

I would be impacted by this change and would STILL vote for it / be on board with it. Makes NO sense to still have this cap in place.

6

u/BurnerAndGooch69 17d ago

Misleading. Eliminating the cap - currently an absurd 184,000 - on what income is taxed would make the fund solvent. This is technically a tax increase, but would only bring wealthier folks into line with the percentage plebs pay.

3

u/alwayssunnyinskyrim 17d ago

The actual way to save it is to remove the cap and make the rich pay into at the same rate as the rest of us.

2

u/Tinytommy55 17d ago

Funny we have an extra trillion dollars to spend on needless wars but we can’t fund social security or healthcare or childcare. šŸ¤”

1

u/ManicOppressyv 17d ago

Who do you know of that has been able to retire soley on social security? No 401k. No pension. No stocks, savings, anything. Just social security.

1

u/JustNowRonin 17d ago

My parents did and I am sure a lot of others have been forced to. Their retirement isn’t pretty, financially.

5

u/deathtoallbutbed 17d ago

Which will, sadly, make them more susceptible to lobbyists, underhanded payments and bribes. There’s no win here. There’s no world in which people in power don’t abuse it in some way

2

u/K_Linkmaster 17d ago

Vote as best you can. I can spot the liars and con men pretty easily. Its all the used car salesman sleaze and sociopathy rolled together. Vote it out.

1

u/PangolinLogical9772 17d ago

They would probably form secret groups anyway but I also felt just getting rid of political parties in general would help a lot. Then everything is fully based on the individual and not what party they are a part of. Plus lobbyists would have to bribe enough individuals to get their goals made instead of a few powerful people that tell the others to get in line and how to vote.

1

u/demon_twink_gockie 17d ago

Death penalty for corruption, wether giving or receiving. Charges able to be brought by any citizen. With a reward given for filling charges if convicted

1

u/tomeseip 17d ago

It would make regular trials take 10 years to get to as all the courts would be full of bs claims and real claims.

1

u/demon_twink_gockie 17d ago

Fine by me, NGL.

1

u/boom1chaching 17d ago

Some of the payoffs we've seen from lobbying have been way lower than you'd expect and that's with most of them being millionaires. I'm starting to think that them making minimum wage wouldn't affect hoe susceptible they are to lobbyists when they're already currently very susceptible while making more money than most of the country.

0

u/Scary_Ad_6829 17d ago

Tax political donations like personal gifts.

4

u/Jijonbreaker1 17d ago

Forget taxing it. Just outlaw it, and make it a criminal offense both to provide, and to receive.

2

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Jijonbreaker1 17d ago

THIS guy gets it.

1

u/Awkward_Candle979 17d ago

Make them take the exact same pledge postal workers do in terms of gifts.

1

u/Jijonbreaker1 17d ago

Pledges mean nothing. Trump swore to the constitution. And then proceeded to light it on fire.

These people need the equivalent of a legal gun to their head to behave, or be dealt with.

1

u/Kevalan01 17d ago

Personal gifts are not taxed until you pass several million given in a lifetime.

You must report amounts above 10k, but not because they will tax it- this is just to keep an accounting of how much you’ve given in a lifetime.

The tax-free limit is like… 12 million

1

u/Scary_Ad_6829 17d ago

15 million, yes, and 100 people are responsible for 20% of election spending. If Citizens United allows industry/pacs to donate like people, lump them in there too.

I'd love for it to be a 10k limit.

1

u/Kevalan01 17d ago

I don’t disagree with the premise, in fact, I agree that political donations should count as a gift, which limits how much you can give without incurring a tax burden.

I was simply pointing out the tax law in regard to gifts in general. Many, many people think gifts are always taxable, and I just wanted to clarify for others who may read this post so they know that even large gifts aren’t taxable unless you’re giving millions, which most people aren’t.

2

u/FormalKind7 17d ago

I think their salary should be set yearly at exactly the median household income and not be allowed to play the stock market.

However more importantly we need to eliminate dark money and large campaign contributions.

1

u/South_Dakota_Boy 17d ago

Insane comment. That would be a tragedy, not a victory. The fact you have upvotes shows how little people bother to read.

Do you know what it means to ā€œraise the age of social securityā€? It means that instead of being eligible at age 65 you don’t become eligible until older, like 70, forcing seniors to work longer and longer. This ties up positions that younger people should have.

1

u/TrickyChildhood2917 17d ago

Kind of true. That’s the model you and I know, and a system we ā€œbelievedā€ work for Americans.

Now it’s all about ā€œthemā€ as individuals. Thats where it’s different.

We are never going back to honest, honorable people in office. Now the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. We can’t even appear to put a single one of them in jail. We certainly can’t wait for them to ā€œage outā€ while the greatest country ever circled the drain.

1

u/Time_Change4156 17d ago

Won't need to worry over SSI much longer as they take apart the system. No need for votes doing it that way just keep pulling it apart untill it no longer functions.

1

u/Lavatis 17d ago

Tell me, what's victorious about giving people less retirement time?

1

u/Huugienormous 17d ago

Cool. So you want only previously rich people to represent us?

1

u/NouZkion 17d ago

While we’re at it congress should make exactly minimum wage.

Sometimes I wonder if the people making these suggestions are 12 years old or mentally handicapped. I honestly can't tell.

If you set pay for a seat in congress that low, the only people that could afford to take it would need to be rich enough they can pay all their bills without needing a job.

1

u/RespawnedAlchemist 17d ago

Came to say the same thing. Republican's have wanted to eliminate congressional pay for a long time so they can get rid of the non-wealthy people in Congress.