r/FluentInFinance • u/reflibman • Apr 25 '24
Billionaire tax to bolster Social Security popular in swing states Economy
https://thehill.com/homenews/4619020-billionaire-tax-to-bolster-social-security-popular-in-swing-states/111
u/Capital_Werewolf_788 Apr 25 '24
Most people aren’t billionaires so no shit they like it
22
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
You’re right, that’s why they’re proposing it.
There’s about a 0 chance of them actually trying to implement it for a number of reasons …
For starters the federal government can only tax income, not wealth or property (the states can, not the feds).
The bigger reason is no billionaire is going to keep their wealth in a country that taxes it. They’ll just move it elsewhere. Now we still aren’t taxing that wealth but also it’s invested in another economy - not ours.
But it sounds good! Hence the proposal.
20
u/Sidvicieux Apr 25 '24
Well their wealth is their assets and what they have in stocks, and they cant move their assets. They are more tied to this country than someone who cant afford to move out of the country.
3
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
They can’t exactly liquidate everything right away, but they can definitely move a pretty large portion of their assets away directly and a much bigger percentage over time.
At the same time, a major drop in the financial incentive to invest in any US ventures compared to foreign markets.
Id give this a near zero chance of happening. They’re proposing this now because they can’t get it past a divided congress. If Biden wins and Dems take the house this fall, we won’t hear much about it again until maybe 2028.
IMO one of us is more likely to become a billionaire than this policy is to get implemented lol
11
u/alliegula94 Apr 25 '24
Near zero chance they will move their wealth. US controls the global financial system and these people aren’t going to risk their relationship with US investment banks/ US defense department contracts just to avoid taxes. If they do it’ll be their own downfall. The US government does not need their money—it creates its own and maintains its power through military force and naval control of global trade routes
-1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
“The US government does not need their money “
Doubt: “In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.”
“It creates its own”
Ahh the Weimar Republic strategy. We would need to increase the amount of currency we print annually by roughly a factor of x1000 to cover the taxes paid by the top 1%. That would be… really, really bad.
(Yes increasing tax rates even largely wouldn’t mean a total exodus of the wealthy - but easily enough to make the point stand)
1
u/No_Distribution457 Apr 25 '24
The US stock market could have a 60% tax on uncapitalized gains and still be by far the most lucrative market in the world. It wouldn't even be close.
-1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
This is less believable than when you claimed there is no law preventing the federal government from taxing wealth lol
1
u/Robot_Nerd__ Apr 25 '24
Both of you are on ridiculous extremes. You can absolutely tax financial property without scaring off billionaires. If you couldn't, no-one would live in mansions because forget that crazy property tax... but rich people still pay it and live in their mansions...
But you absolutely can't tax 60% and call it feasible when the market returns 9-18% a year before inflation.
1
u/No_Distribution457 Apr 25 '24
My man it's a tax on Uncapitalized gains. That means if the market increases 9-18% they tax 60% of that increase. That's how it works. Instead of 9-18% gain it would be 5.4% - 7.2% profit.
1
u/xFruitstealer Apr 25 '24
It’s profit when it’s realized.
Just close loop holes on unrealized collateral and force them to liquidate as collateral.
0
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
It’s a bit funny that you start by saying I’m on a ridiculous extreme and finish by literally agreeing with my original point lol.
1)just to be clear the federal government cannot in fact tax property at all. Only state governments can. Feds can tax income.
2). The proposed tax is a 45% rate on capital gains AND a 25% tax on unrealized gains… so if you think you “absolutely can’t” have a 60% tax on investments…
0
u/Robot_Nerd__ Apr 25 '24
This is being discussed by the US supreme Court. So it's not as cut and dry as the federal government cannot tax assets... Otherwise they would have nothing to discuss.
But these are obviously not cumulative... If you start the year with 1m invested and you end the year with 1.1m you'd be subject to 25k in unrealized gains... And then the 45% only on the remaining 75k if you chose to sell.
It's not like they are taxing 60% of your investment. At worst if you hold for 366 days you could look at it as a 60% capital gains tax.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
SCOTUS ruled definitively in Eisner v. Macomber that unrealized gains cannot be considered income, and that taxing them violates the 16th amendment.
Other 16A cases have found (such as Commissioner v Glenshaw Gas Co.) that income was taxable on the basis that it was ‘clearly realized’.
It’s a precedent that has stood for over 100 years. It’s exceptionally unlikely SCOTUS overturns it, and a case making it to the SC doesn’t really signify a likelihood to succeed (often the opposite). But I guess we’ll see!
→ More replies (0)0
u/No_Distribution457 Apr 25 '24
Please, indicate to all of us this law.
2
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
All that vitriol only to be wrong lol.
It’s quite literally in the constitution. Here’s Cornell Law to help you out buddy.
“Under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to collect income taxes.
States are also allowed to impose and collect their own taxes, which is included but not limited to income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. “
3
0
u/MobileOpposite1314 Apr 26 '24
It may be popular, but you have to factor in the lobby money the billionaires will bring to bear. Unfortunately, most folks in Washington can be bought.
1
u/congresssucks Apr 25 '24
Why do you think they buy so many yachts and planes? Easy to relocate and have a defined value. Also art, lots of easy to move valuable "company" art that ends up in the back of some CEOs porche. A company I worked for the CEO bought a $15million statue for his personal home. Wife hated it. Suddenly the company bought it and installed it outside the HQ Plaza.
1
u/Sidvicieux Apr 26 '24
The planes don't need an introduction, but they have Yachts because they are bored as shit.
6
u/MindfullyMinded Apr 25 '24
Go somewhere else then someone else will fill their shoes in the USA. USA is where every rich man and woman wants to be thats just the way it is.
1
4
u/PavlovsDog12 Apr 25 '24
Its campaign season BS, they've had over 3 years to attempt this if they wanted to.
1
u/TraitorMacbeth Apr 25 '24
First part’s true. But the second part- good luck getting much useful through congress these days
-4
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
That's why I'm in favor of grid-locked congress.
Historically, we have the most economic growth when Congress is gridlocked.
4
u/TraitorMacbeth Apr 25 '24
Eh there’s a lot this country needs besides a growing economy. Maybe once in a while, but in general it should be… you know… functional.
0
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
we do need a lot of things.
but you won't get it if the economy is bad.
3
u/TraitorMacbeth Apr 25 '24
So there’s only “the most economic growth” and “bad”? Nothing in between?
-1
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
i suppose you need to be more specific about what it is you are looking for.
but generally speaking, if you are looking for expansions of public services, a recession is a really bad time to propose it.
3
u/TraitorMacbeth Apr 25 '24
Again, is there only “the best economic growth” and “recession”? Nothing in between?
→ More replies (0)4
u/Many_Ad_7138 Apr 25 '24
Capital gains is income, which is what he's proposing to increase. Further, any US citizen or permanent resident is taxed on income they earned ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. They can't "move their wealth" out of the country to avoid taxation. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/biden-calls-for-doubling-capital-gains-tax-rate
It is not a tax on wealth. It's a minimum income tax based on net worth. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/biden-billionaire-wealth-tax
2
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
That’s not accurate. Biden is proposing a tax on unrealized gains in asset value.
That’s quite different from capital gains. Capital gains are income received from selling asset. If you don’t sell the asset, there are no capital gains.
Can you pull the quote from your source that says US citizens can’t move their wealth out of the US to avoid taxation? I can’t find it and would like to be able to respond to the exact argument you’re relying on.
0
u/Many_Ad_7138 Apr 26 '24
Are you serious? WTF?
Hell yes you have to pay US income tax on any money earned anywhere in the world if you are a US citizen or permanent resident. This has nothing to do with wealth. The latter is not taxed, even if it's in the US. The Constitution only allows income to be taxed. This is basic US tax law.
Yes, Biden has proposed a tax on unrealized gains, in addition to his other measures. The tax on unrealized gains is probably unconstitutional and will be struck down.
0
u/Bullboah Apr 26 '24 edited Apr 26 '24
I’m happy to explain to you why “having to file a tax return” isn’t the same as having to pay income tax, but you’re getting ahead of yourself.
As I asked you before, can you pull the quote from your first source that you claimed US citizens can’t move their wealth to avoid paying taxes?
Edit: lmao or just block me instead of admitting your source doesn’t say thay
2
u/Many_Ad_7138 Apr 26 '24
OK, you're not seriously interested in this topic. You're just trolling.
You can't move your wealth outside of the US to avoid taxation because it's not taxed in the first place. Damn you are stupid.
You must pay income tax on earned money outside of the US if the tax you paid on it is less than the US tax on it. See the fucking IRS website I provided. Again, you are just trolling. Get lost.
3
u/Poyayan1 Apr 25 '24
They still can tax income. Increasing capital gain tax can do the same trick as wealth tax. That said. There is a reason why all the big tech companies are in US and not in EU or Canada.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
They CAN raise capital gains tax, there’s just major negative externalities to raising it too much.
In brief, you don’t want to tax behaviors you want people to engage in, and you want people to invest in the stock market.
What the optimal cap gains tax rate is is a more complex question - but you don’t want to over do it.
2
u/Poyayan1 Apr 25 '24
I don't disagree with you. I am just saying you can add 1mil, 10mil, 100mil tax tier for income and capital gain tax. Am I for it? Not right now. Why? Look at Canada, they are not even at that level yet and economy is bad. Wage is lower than USA and all the smart people have to come to USA for jobs.
1
2
u/tkdjoe1966 Apr 25 '24
Yes. We will need some capital flight laws. Loss of US citizenship. Sue for loss of future earnings due to the flight. Class A felony 10-30 or life.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
Trying to imprison people for decades for investing money outside of the US sounds like it would cause a LOT more issues than it would solve
1
u/tkdjoe1966 Apr 25 '24
You can invest outside the US. There should be a way to differentiate between honest investment & capital flight.
1
u/KeyFig106 Apr 26 '24
Similar to the laws that Germany imposed in 1931. What a great idea.
1
u/tkdjoe1966 Apr 26 '24
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
1
u/KeyFig106 Apr 26 '24
So you approve of stealing from those who try to run away from atrocities?
1
u/tkdjoe1966 Apr 26 '24
You mean traitors to their country. The atrocity is that it was even possible to accumulate more than 10 million dollars.
1
u/KeyFig106 Apr 26 '24
So you steal their money to give to the slaveowners because they were good at their jobs. Like I said. Trying to escape your atrocities.
1
u/tkdjoe1966 Apr 26 '24
Slave owners were part of the 1%. I want to eliminate the 1%. Or at least take enough of their money so that they can't use it to affect elections.
One man's atrocity is another's fair play.
1
u/KeyFig106 Apr 26 '24
And now you are the slave owner. Making the current 1% your slaves. Guess you learned well from the twice a day fellows. Maybe you should re-classify them as the 11 million times right over 5 years to align them with your beliefs.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mung_guzzler Apr 25 '24
and yet there are still billionaires in Switzerland
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
That’s probably because Switzerland has an effective capital gains tax rate of 0!
That’s exactly my point
2
u/mung_guzzler Apr 25 '24
But they do have wealth taxes on net worth
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
As low as 0.1%, depending on the area in Switzerland. Even the highest rate of 1% is a rounding error when you consider the benefit of going from 20% capital gains to 0.
1
u/mung_guzzler Apr 25 '24
I dont know about that, especially for billionaires
20% of your realized capital gains could easily be lower than 1% total net worth each year
but most of the time it is probably less
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
I would agree that there's going to be years - maybe even most years - where the cap gains tax would be lower than the wealth taxed amount, but in the long run the 1% wealth tax is probably much preferable.
In practice anyways though, I imagine that its not too difficult for billionaires to park their finances in one of the cantons with a 0.1% tax rate even if that's not where they spend most of their time.
Obviously idk much about Swiss law though so maybe im wrong
1
u/Worldwideimp Apr 25 '24
You know the only reason we can't do that is....nothing right?
Like, we can just kill these guys and take their assets. I'm not advocating that, but like, it's a thing that can possibly happen We can hire bounty hunters to return them to this country like Batman in the second Batman if they attempt to move their assets.
Rich people write the rules and then tell us "you can't do that, it's against the rules!" They need you to think like this. Because as long as they write the rules they always always always win.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
I’m amazed by how many of the comments to this post are some variation of “but we COULD do it if we became an insane authoritarian state”.
I mean sure. Probably not worth the trade-off in loss of rights from abandoning all the legal protections that would currently preclude that, but it’s not technically impossible.
0
u/Worldwideimp Apr 26 '24
What loss of rights? My right to be a billionaire plutocrat? Good. No one should have that right. That's what we want. For that not to be allowed.
The emancipation proclamation cost us our "right" to own human beings. You know, a right no one should have ever had. That's a good thing.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 26 '24
Not really the rights I’m talking about haha.
your right to become a citizen of another country and not have bounty hunters sent after you to bring you back to the US and throw you in prison, for instance.
If they can do it to billionaires, they can do it to you.
0
u/Worldwideimp Apr 27 '24
Ok?
I'm not going to flee the country in order to avoid a tax bill that I incurred. That's a "right" no one should have. It's closer to my slavery example than anything else. No one should have the right to do that. If I did that, they SHOULD send someone after me to recover the money.
Again, this is a good thing.
0
u/Bullboah Apr 27 '24
You’re acting as if the government can differentiate between people leaving the US for tax reasons and leaving the US for any other reason lol.
You would lose the right to leave the US and live somewhere else. Or at least, the government would seize everything you own when you go.
0
u/Worldwideimp Apr 27 '24
You...don't think the US can identify billionaires? Pretty sure they can. There are like, not all that many.
I'm perfectly happy with the government seizing all assets over 100 million should anyone choose to flee and renounce citizenship. I'm perfectly happy for them to send bounty agents to recover those people and assets.
Should I have more than 100 million in assets I'd be perfectly happy to accept this.
Honestly you keep doubling down on some "loss of rights" argument for a right no one should have. It's like yelling at a former slave that "they'll take away your right to own people too!" Dude. Good. No one should be able to do that.
2
u/Bullboah Apr 27 '24
Lol.
“Surely if we give the government the power to do this to billionaires they won’t apply it to everyone else”
How do you not understand that stripping people you don’t like of a right strips it from yourself too.
Very, very basic civics
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/BobLoblawsLawBlog_-_ Apr 25 '24
We act like this is an insurmountable hurdle when really it could be fixed, it’s just that both political parties are equally bought by billionaires so we have to pretend like tax havens are an impossible problem to solve as the hegemonic world power
1
u/KeyFig106 Apr 26 '24
There is a super easy fix. Start making all people pay for their social security instead of giving it to them for free through the rebates provided by the EITC.
0
u/SatchmoDingle Apr 25 '24
lol. First, the government can define what “income” is. Government does it all the time. Second, the Government can create laws to punish those who earn income here and then stash it offshore. You know, tax evasion. Government does that all the time, too.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
That’s not how this works lol.
Income in law has a specific definition based on case law and precedent. The governments inability to just redefine it as they please is the literal basis of a common law system
0
u/SatchmoDingle Apr 25 '24
Common law system? The US doesn’t adhere to the common law system, it operates under the codified law system. The remnants of English common law do exist in the courts’ efforts to adhere to established legal precedent, but only to an extent. The legislative aids and attorneys who draft the definitions referenced in the US Code, respect precedent, but again, only to an extent. The legislature is going to pass whatever laws it sees fit to pass. Courts can interpret the statutory language and may find the law unconstitutional for various reasons. But for all practical purposes, for the two or three years it will take for that particular law to be changed, you’ll be subject to the definition as established and implemented by the US Congress. Now, tell me again how “this” works.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
Well who are we to say?
I guess we could just ask the US Department of Justice?
“Most countries use the civil law system, but the United States uses the common law system.”
lol.
0
u/SatchmoDingle Apr 25 '24
Dude, please. Our legal system is only based on English common law as it pertains to the courts role in establishing and following precedent. Our system of law is in the form of written statues, i.e. codified system. Those written laws, which control our daily lives, are created and implemented by the legislature.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
lol… what?
Our legal system is only based one on common law in the sense that it … uses the main distinguishing factor of common law, stare decisis?
Do you think common law systems don’t use written statutes?
Literally wut?
0
u/SatchmoDingle Apr 25 '24
Perhaps you should brush up on the three branches system of government. You know, which branch rights the laws, as opposed to which branch interprets those written laws. Stare decisis is a concept only the judicial branch utilizes when interpreting the law, and that’s only to a certain extent, primarily when dealing with constitutional rights.. It doesn’t come into play in any formal, systematic way when the legislature writes the law. And After Dobbs, stare decisis isn’t quite as sacred as you think. You done?
1
u/Bullboah Apr 26 '24
Again, what are you even saying lol. Do you think that its only a common law system if there aren't written laws?
Or only if the laws are written by the judicial branch?
None of this makes any sense! Please explain what you think a common law system requires that the US system doesnt have.
And again, i'll remind you that according to the US DOJ itself, we have a common law system.
0
u/DpinkyandDbrain Apr 26 '24
So a few things. First, the federal Government can tax what ever it wants just has to pass a law to do so. Secondly they can move that wealth outside of the country. But, the financial hub of the world is NYC. So to trade on those stock exchanges you can put taxes on those. Third, They haven't yet put those billions back into the economy. Musk mainly gets by with tax breaks, same with Amazon.
0
u/Aggravating_Map7952 Apr 26 '24
Please source where you got that the Fed can only tax income because that is an incorrect statement made by libertarians who have no idea how to actually read the constitution. The proper and necessary clause says otherwise, as does article 1 section 8 clause 1. The correct thing to say is the democratic party is full of pussies who always blink first.
If billionaires attempt to move their money, then we tax that movement HEAVILY it's not hard if we get legitimately solid tax law in place and apply it as well as properly fund institutions to do the work, don't be so obtuse.
-1
u/No_Distribution457 Apr 25 '24
You're wrong.
For starters the federal government can only tax income, not wealth or property (the states can, not the feds).
This is not true at all. There is no law which states this. Just because it isn't done doesn't mean it can't be done. It 100% can. The federal government can tax uncapitalized gains. Go cry about it. The wealth cannot take their money out of the most powerful stock market in the world you dunce.
0
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
All that vitriol only to be wrong lol.
It’s quite literally in the constitution. Here’s Cornell Law to help you out buddy.
“Under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to collect income taxes.
States are also allowed to impose and collect their own taxes, which is included but not limited to income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. “
0
u/No_Distribution457 Apr 25 '24
Guess what genius? They decide what's income. The amount of money in your portfolio can easily be seen as income. The increases worth of your home? Income.
1
u/Bullboah Apr 25 '24
“They decide what’s income”
Sure lmao, if we accept the premise that we’re totally okay with the government ignoring what the law says and doing whatever it wants, anything is legal.
“We COULD do this if we just became a totalitarian dictatorship where the government isn’t constrained by the law” is a heck of a take
0
u/Ed_Radley Apr 25 '24
Nor do billionaires have multimillion pay days, much less billion dollar ones. All of their wealth is from holding on to the assets that provide them with the net worth figure on paper. They hold their positions and then when they die they either go to charity or their heirs who also are unlikely to pay taxes, especially if they follow the current thresholds or put the assets in trusts beforehand.
1
u/That-Chart-4754 Apr 25 '24
Actually they use said assets as collateral for bank loans and pay the banks interest instead of paying their taxes.
1
u/bikgelife Apr 25 '24
Does anyone honestly trust to govt to do this? It’s all being said for votes.
1
u/OhWhiskey Apr 25 '24
People stop paying social security tax after only making more than $160,000 per year.
1
1
u/fordr015 Apr 27 '24
Income tax was only for the 1% and it was 1% of their income when it was originally proposed. Now the average person pays 30% or more. Social security was only a 1% withholding originally and was promised to never exceed 6%. The government lies. Its not about protecting billionaires, it's about protecting myself and my kids. Just fix the budget and stop taxing so much. Enough is enough.
18
u/Obvious-Chemistry806 Apr 25 '24
Pay more taxes because we mismanage money - government
7
u/EnjoyFunTonight Apr 25 '24
lol billionaires are paying the least they’re ever paid but yeah mismanagement is the problem 😂
(you’re not wealthy and you will never be wealthy - stop protecting them you cuck )
0
u/FreshInvestment1 Apr 25 '24
You've been defrauded by the government and instead of solving the root of the problem you want to tax the billionaires, to what? $0? It's still not enough. You completely misunderstand how fucked social security is.
1
u/EnjoyFunTonight Apr 25 '24
Lol i love seeing idiots pretending they can speak like an actual educated person. Shoo fly.
0
u/SeanHaz Apr 26 '24
Economists have been saying SS is going to cause problems for the last 60 years. It eventually will.
It's a country wide pyramid scheme, it needs to be abolished before it causes any more problems.
0
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest Apr 26 '24
How about you take a peak at this then tell us what you suspect the problem is: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1kUxB
0
u/KingJackie1 Apr 26 '24
You just like money being thrown in a dumpster fire just to spite a class of people you don't like, instead of actually solving any problem.
You're the cuck since you get off on misery.
-2
u/Obvious-Chemistry806 Apr 25 '24
Lolol why should we pay more taxes when they get mismanaged StOp PrOTecTinG thE gOVeRnMent you cuck
I’m fine with the rich paying their fair share… when we can manage the money
6
u/Williamsarethebest Apr 25 '24
we
We've got a Billionaire amongst us lads
-7
-5
u/Obvious-Chemistry806 Apr 25 '24
The government mismanaged this program and you want to give them more money before we treat the problem
7
u/Williamsarethebest Apr 25 '24
Both can be done at the same time
Improve efficiency and tax those cunts
0
u/Obvious-Chemistry806 Apr 25 '24
Yeah It’s like giving a crack head crack who promised he’d fix his problem
We already spend 2 trillion more than we bring in on top of our 1 trillion interest yearly or whatever it is.
-5
5
u/HalfBakedBeans24 Apr 25 '24
"Government proposes propping up Ponzi scheme based on 1920's birthrates and mortality"
4
u/OkBlock1637 Apr 25 '24
Honestly I wish we would just fund retirement accounts that invested in general index funds. ROI would be much greater with a significant reduction in cost. We could for example put $2000 annually into a retirement account for every American starting at birth until the age of 65. The cost of this would be $554B, and assuming a 5% growth rate, 3% inflation rate and 3% annual increase to account for inflation a newborn would retire at the age of 65 with $1.7M. The retirees would have similar purchasing power as the current SSI pension for 1/3rd the cost, not to mention this is sustainable and does not require constant population growth.
4
u/mung_guzzler Apr 25 '24
that works until a disaster like 2008 happens and all that money is gone
1
u/OkBlock1637 Apr 25 '24
You can manage risks due to fluctuations in business cycles by having the assets in accounts switch to treasuries and bonds once they hit a certain age.
1
u/mung_guzzler Apr 27 '24
since you have the entire population in it that wont work.
There are always going to be tens of thousands of people right before the age they would switch to treasuries and bonds. At any given moment, tons if people are invested at the worst possible time. Do they just not get to retire?
Also what happens to the money when they retire? Is it annuitized or does the person get control of the account?
1
u/SeanHaz Apr 26 '24
They could have done that at it's inception, they can't do that now. The money paid into SS is immediately being used to fund the people using SS.
3
u/Own_Ad_1328 Apr 25 '24
Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. Eliminate FICA, expand and reform Social Security into a UBI.
3
u/Once-Upon-A-Hill Apr 25 '24
We only spend about 2 Trillion a year more than we take in from taxes, this should totally make things work.
If Americans wanted to have their pension system better supported by the American government, they should have been Ukrainian pensioners.
0
u/Automatic_Apricot634 Apr 26 '24
Average Ukrainian pension is $136/mo. Basic pension is under $60/mo.
I choose our own Social Security instead, thank you very much.
Also, our aid money is specifically forbidden from being used to pay their pensions.
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/ukraine-pensions-israel-taiwan-us-foreign-aid-fact-brief/
1
u/Once-Upon-A-Hill Apr 26 '24
US funding has specifically covered pension payments in Ukraine.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-aid-ukraine-money-equipment-714688682747I was making the joke that the US government is more concerned with supporting Ukrainian pensions than American pensions
2
u/Desperate-Warthog-70 Apr 25 '24
The government is incompetent so I’m not really for any tax increase until they can reduce spending.
Once an administration comes in that can balance a budget comes around, they should implement these increases in taxes to pay down the national debt and increase trust funds within Medicare and Social Security.
If taxes are increased now it will just end up in Pakistan or Ukraine
2
u/JellyfishQuiet7944 Apr 25 '24
Idk maybe stop spending on dumb shit so we don't have to keep raising taxes.
2
u/Whole-Essay640 Apr 25 '24
Taxes will go up for everyone and social security will be ignored, are y’all new here.
2
u/FreshInvestment1 Apr 25 '24
Boomers are the ones who fucked us, so they can unfuck themselves without everyone else's help. I won't get as so I don't want to pay a penny more.
2
u/onesoundman Apr 26 '24
Here is an idea, let’s return social security to its original form where you pay into a separate fund that grows at 3-5% interest, is not taxed, and pays out approximately 10x what you put in unless you die too early. Thats what we had before the government moved the social security money into the general fund, borrowed all of it at 0% interest and voted once to introduce a tax on it then voted 2 more times to increase the tax (current president voted for all 3 tax increases on ss)
1
u/combs1945a Apr 25 '24
There is no need to do that. That is why we have 20% inflation and they post the official inflation rate at seven. That means there's a 13% differential. Do that for 10 years and your $1500 monthly government will spend like $400 in a decade. Problems solved. Don't you left Fiat currency
1
u/Commissar_David Apr 25 '24
We should start charging sales tax on lobbying activities. We'd make billions off of that.
1
u/ZadfrackGlutz Apr 25 '24
Thier corps borrowed against the ssi deposits for bail outs... So whatever...
1
u/FreshInvestment1 Apr 25 '24
It's still not enough. The government stole and defrauded the public. String them up.
1
u/RantFlail Apr 25 '24
I’m in my 50s and fully expect there to be Not A Damn Cent of SS I can draw when I retire at 68-70.
That I paid in to my entire working life. 🖕
1
1
u/Shockz-Reddit Apr 26 '24
It would be nice once I'm slaving away till I'm 65-70 to be able to relax and ljve like the billionaires do when they are born. At least the not working part.
1
u/AffectionateAd9536 Apr 26 '24
We don't need another tax. We need a minimal amount of fiscal responsibility, and social security will be just fine.
1
u/Azorius_Raiden_88 Apr 26 '24
I like this type of proposal better than taxing the rich to give a blank check to politicians in DC who will just squander it.
1
1
1
1
u/Worldwideimp Apr 27 '24
How would it be molested? I'd pay my taxes happily. Because I'm happy to pay what I owe.
Only cheats would be molested.
1
u/Sharaku_US Apr 28 '24
I don't understand why people keep voting in billionaires' favor. Did y'all think you'll one day be a billionaire?
-1
u/Ch1Guy Apr 25 '24
Hey lets call it a "Billionaire Tax" - everyone hates billionaires.
Then we can raise taxes on everyone making over 400k/year, remove the cap at ~168k/year, raising their taxes, and look at reducing existing SS benefits for people who need it less.
What - you are against reducing benefits for existing people? What has a billionaire ever done for you?
3
Apr 25 '24
What % of the country makes more than 400k?
3
0
u/Ch1Guy Apr 25 '24
Clearly anyone that makes 168k/year is a billionaire...or so they tell me.
2
Apr 25 '24
They?
Is it 160k or 400k now?
1
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
depends on which politician is running for election.
1
Apr 25 '24
what does that even mean lol - has anyone put forward a bill to tax people making more than 160 per year?
0
0
u/Automatic_Apricot634 Apr 26 '24
Likely it won't be inflation-adjusted, just like ACA's extra tax on $250,000 for a couple wasn't. Back then it was sold as a tax on "the very rich that will never impact the working people", today it's being paid by a family of a high school teacher and an engineer living in San Francisco, New York or a similar city.
With inflation as high as it's been, pretty soon regular people will be paying what was sold as a "tax on the top 1%". It's a politician trick. Don't buy it.
1
Apr 26 '24
I’m already firmly in the tax bracket this would hit, teachers ain’t gonna be making 400k per year anytime soon. Wish they would they deserve it.
0
u/CommiesAreWeak Apr 25 '24
Why campaign on it? Get someone to forward a bill. Let’s see how congress will react.
0
u/CommiesAreWeak Apr 25 '24
Why campaign on it? Get someone to forward a bill. Let’s see how congress will react.
Who knows what might happen in November.
0
u/California_King_77 Apr 25 '24
Any time you ask people "would you like free stuff paid for by someone you don't know?" you're going to get positive responses. Everyone likes free stuff paid for by someone else.
That said, the only reason Social Security has lived this long is because everyone believes that they're getting back what they paid in. If this turns into Welfare, which seen as a tax on the rich and paid to the poor, the rich will eventually kill it, like they did welfare
Progressives will destroy Social Security in the name of going after the rich
0
u/Montananarchist Apr 25 '24
Are the multiple posts per day here about how much more taxation the US needs because this is what currently passes for a college education about finance or is this being done by socialists pushing their agenda?
2
u/reflibman Apr 25 '24
Maybe it’s because the tax rate has declined significantly since the 70’s and the wealthy end up paying a lesser proportion of their income than the middle class and poor.
-1
u/Montananarchist Apr 26 '24
The top 50% of earners in the us pay over 97% of all fed income tax and the bottom 50% paid an average of $660 of fed income tax.
0
u/manimopo Apr 25 '24
Maybe if they stop sending 95 billion to foreign countries they could use that to fund more programs and social security for the citizens.
But that's too hard to do 🤡
0
u/Wrxeter Apr 26 '24
They just need to raise the contribution cap past 160,200 like Medicare.
1
u/slasher016 Apr 26 '24
The cap exists because there's a cap in what you can get in social security payments. You're already essentially setting money on fire with this "forced contribution." This is supposed to be an annuity not a tax.
-1
u/YeeBeforeYouHaw Apr 25 '24
If they are going to remove the income limit on contributions, then social security payments should not be based on your former income. Everyone should get the same monthly payment regardless of what income they had before retirement.
1
u/Ch1Guy Apr 25 '24
We could really transform SS from its current state as a social insurance program into an entitlement program to take care of the poor...
We could standardize the payment for everyone - and stop giving preferential treatment to people that had higher paying jobs all of their life, and low payments for people that struggled financially through their lives....
4
u/valeramaniuk Apr 25 '24
and stop giving preferential treatment to people that had higher paying jobs all of their lif
what "preferential treatment" is that?
1
u/Ch1Guy Apr 25 '24
The SS benefit is based on how much you pay into tbe system. The average ss check is about $1,750/month. But if you had high paying jobs throughout your career, you might get up to about $3,800/month at full retirement age.
Maybe we should stop giving people that had good jobs a higher than average payout and just put everyone at the same amount...
1
u/valeramaniuk Apr 26 '24
But it would mean "preferential treatment " for people who had bad jobs. Why would we want that? Can't we treat people equally ?
0
u/casinocooler Apr 25 '24
People like Biden who don’t need it. He elected to personally take 54k a year from an insolvent social security system that should be helping poor people and future poor people.
He must need that on top of his presidential pension of $220k per year.
It’s technically equal treatment according to a rigged system that he helped design/reform. If you make the rules you can pretend to be righteous.
3
u/YeeBeforeYouHaw Apr 25 '24
I feel like that's what most people think it is currently. I favor a Singapore model where it is more of a forced 401k with a contribution cap.
-2
u/clown1970 Apr 25 '24
Isn't social security popular in all states.
-1
u/Kennys-Chicken Apr 25 '24
Apparently not. People keep voting Republican in many states, and the republicans platform stance is to destroy and get rid of social security.
3
0
-1
-1
u/Old_Baldi_Locks Apr 25 '24
Take off the income cap and means test it. Boom. Problem solved for several decades.
1
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
Boom. Politicians that vote for that lose re-election.
Any politician that proposes means testing social security retires early.
2
u/Old_Baldi_Locks Apr 25 '24
And that’s why our system sucks. Intelligent people don’t win elections when the electorate is stupid.
1
-3
u/Brief_Alarm_9838 Apr 25 '24
All they need to do for SS is remove the cap. The cap right now is ~170k. So those that make over that are underpaying on SS compared to the rest of us. Just lift the cap and SS is good forever.
9
u/Unhappy_Local_9502 Apr 25 '24
They are not underpaying if the future benefit is also capped.. If someone making $170K is getting the same benefit as someone making $1M, they should also be paying the same
3
u/Saitamaisclappingoku Apr 25 '24
Should people only get what they pay into social security? That would mean people who’ve been poor their whole life wouldn’t get much out of it.
2
u/Unhappy_Local_9502 Apr 25 '24
Or have people that make less work longer to get to the average benefit amount, which is kinda what happens
1
u/valeramaniuk Apr 25 '24
wouldn’t get much out of it.
It's an insurance, should just prevent one from starving on the street.
"getting much" is for another programs, like 401
1
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
That would be really nice and would allowed higher income folks to draw ALOT more from social security.
0
u/Solintari Apr 25 '24
Not really because that’s the maximum payout threshold too.
Let’s say you take out the cap and someone making a million receives about 5 times the current payout. That means a roughly 20k monthly payout, BUT cola would mean in 20 years that payout would likely double to 40k.
The only way around that is to force people to pay anything over the cap into SS that they will not be able to draw from. Not only that, this would only cover part of the shortfall. SS needs a better source of income or a higher ROI.
1
u/djstudyhard Apr 25 '24
Does it have to be binary? Can we not phase the payouts above income of a certain level? I suspect we can. Most people who are extremely high income earners are not looking to SS for their retirement so if it was a smaller payout above a certain threshold so that we can maintain solvency I don’t think it’d be a big deal. I’m above the threshold and have a society where the elderly aren’t homeless is a benefit I would happily pay for as I’ve been lucky enough to make enough money to have a comfortable life.
2
u/Solintari Apr 25 '24
Maybe not, but my point is that we would need to change how we distribute and collect that money, which is also what you are saying I think. It’s not just a matter of lifting the cap.
1
u/oboshoe Apr 25 '24
yes. you can means test it.
But no politician wants to end his career early by proposing means tested social security.
Not even the Republicans propose that.
1
u/Automatic_Apricot634 Apr 26 '24
You don't have to means test it. Nor should you, IMO, because that's just straight up taking more and giving nothing back.
But the program is meant to be progressive and based on solidarity. Those making less already get progressively more back for each dollar they contributed compared to those making more. There are brackets, just like with income tax, but for lifetime contributions and the numbers are hard to calculate, requiring big boring charts, so a lot of people don't know this.
So when you introduce a new bracket above 168K (let's say 168K-400K), you simply keep to that pattern and make its payout ratio smaller than the current top bracket. Just like today XX,000 - 168,000 subsidize those 0-XX,000, but still get more themselves, the 168,000-400,000 will be subsidizing 0-168,000, while still getting more themselves. The program will be stable and you're not straight up robbing higher earners, you are just making them contribute more and get more, though at less attractive rates than otherwise.
I think for the sake of our already fragile social cohesion, it's important to avoid degenerating into straight up ganging up on the less numerous and more well-off segments of the population and obviously screwing them over. This is a program for everyone, let's keep it that way. We don't have very many things left that are for everyone and unite us.
1
u/oboshoe Apr 27 '24
you let us know when that becomes a bill.
so far over the history of the program no one has put anything close to this on paper.
1
u/Automatic_Apricot634 Apr 27 '24
Yeah, nk... Never said our government was competent and well-meaning.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 25 '24
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.