Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Apparently there are a couple proposals floating around congress (that wont see the floor before mid-terms) to address the issue. The R one wants to totally revamp the program, but I haven't seen the details. The D plans calls for adding SS tax to existing transactions that are currently not taxed for SS... i.e stock market sales and such.
I'd be very curious to know what those details are. The easiest solution continues to be raise the limit, but that's not going to get a lot of republican support.
As long as it’s not the same plan of “act like everything is fine, continue to be oblivious” I think Americans will take it. Lucky for you and everyone we only have a month more to deal with Left control.
One idea I found intriguing would be letting people opt of the SS program. I understand SS is a security net, but I think there is a path where this can work.
Removing the income cap is enough and will be where they end up. They're afraid to pull that band-aid off, though.
Going from a non-energy state stance to a full bore energy state. Transportation and energy are part of every aspect of these inflation increases. Asking the Saudis to increase pumping (you know, until after midterms, *wink*, *wink*) isn't the answer. Asking Iran and Venezuela to increase pumping isn't the bloody answer. Turning all our spigots on would be turning a huge knob.
It's an idea. I think it's really dangerous though. Even though SS is not supposed to be the primary source of income, it is for many elderly people. I don't even want to image what it would look like now if those people could have opted out decades ago. I wouldn't underestimate how many people would opt out right now too if they were told they could get another $250-500 a month if they did.
I'm highly against this. We'd end up supporting a ton of these folks anyway.
That’s a good point.
Would you support that? I would. Easy for me to say since I don't exceed it and probably never will. My biggest concern is usually the impact on small businesses, but places I've worked didn't have many staff outside the owners that did exceed $160k so I'm not sure how much of a burden it would be for them.
Yes, and if we reach back into the depths of this board when the DJT tax cut was discussed heavily this is the one thing I lamented wasn't part of it. It was the perfect opportunity.
www.bls.gov
Why not, from the very beginning, create a hybrid system where half goes to SS as normal and the other goes to the worker to decide how to invest?
I'm all for green energy and alternatives, but I'd definitely be on board with full bore pumping. In reality, and not including all the transportation needs, we still don't have enough energy to supply the world's demands. Big reason why I'll stay heavily invested in oil.
Because we can't trust people to make wise decisions? If we could, there would be no need for SS at all.
I agree the idea comes with some reservations. Id still be interested to see it fleshed out some more. Its a tough situation because I do believe in having a security net for the elderly, but disagree with forcing people to disproportionately pay into a program that may not even be there for them.
Don't we already through other government aid programs?
Oh, that goes back to the genesis of SS. When it was created it was sold to the American people by FDR and cronies as a piggy bank for old age. When challenged and it went to SCOTUS administration lawyers argued that SS was a tax and was legal because it was a tax. It never would have survived scrutiny it if was obvious that it was a piggy bank - just the thing that the administration at the time cried to the hills that it was.
Think of the government programs we have now. They are parsed into food, food for kids, medical care, medical care for kids, utility help, rent help, etc. They're parsed that way for a reason - because we understand that folks, given free reign on aid monies, would in some significant part piss it away and come back with their hand open.
Anything and everything that keeps people on the government teet and dependent on the power of the government.
My kid has a mandatory core class on that right now in 7th grade. And this school is in a pretty blue district.
Sure, in theory this is correct. But do you see the horde of politicians who make their living and vote getting off of victimhood declarations to turn around and tell those folks who were unwise with their monetary gifts that they had their chance and blew it? Of course not. They'll label those that resist further aid as heartless monsters and demand more. Always more.
Besides that and my own stressing of personal finances I sure hope they don't need it Just like I won't either. Maybe their generation will be able to solve this like mine, my parents and grandparents couldn't. Not getting my hopes up though since we seem to be the minority here.
Careful, man. We're not suppose to talk about package sizes in the PSF.
These are the numbers that reflect what Americans are facing every day and are why this issue, not abortion, will be what sways the voters.
You have more faith than me then.
As a famous man once asked "Are you better off than you wereYou have more faith than me then.
If they get up there and tell it like it is, "it's bad, really bad, and going to be bad for a while" just like Powell has said, I'm not sure that eases any pain. The only plan I've heard about is what is going on now with the Fed raising rates until they see inflation peaking and begin the pivot. But that pivot isn't the halfway point to our economic problems. It's likely just the real beginning of a recession as unemployment starts rising fast and wages drop. This is the part that worries me the most for people because you can't bail them out. Doing that just risks bringing back inflation.
Can you please unpack this a little more? I'm not smart enough to understand how tax cuts help but don't lead to more available spending and lowering inflation.As a famous man once asked "Are you better off than you wereYou have more faith than me then.
If they get up there and tell it like it is, "it's bad, really bad, and going to be bad for a while" just like Powell has said, I'm not sure that eases any pain. The only plan I've heard about is what is going on now with the Fed raising rates until they see inflation peaking and begin the pivot. But that pivot isn't the halfway point to our economic problems. It's likely just the real beginning of a recession as unemployment starts rising fast and wages drop. This is the part that worries me the most for people because you can't bail them out. Doing that just risks bringing back inflation.fourtwo years ago?"
Tight money is the answer. Has to be. But we also need tax cuts as the other side. Funny how when you write it down on paper it becomes so obvious to "just do the opposite of what the Biden administration has done" to fix it.
I think it will have a huge effect on a lot of peoples for sure. I can't do it though. I won't BS you or anyone and say I'm NOT voting democrat this time around. I'm in a no exemptions state with a state GOP not willing to budge. With 3 ovulaters in the family, my vote goes towards their choice.
It does seem counter-intuitive on the surface, but human nature takes over and causes the desired outcome. What happens is decreasing taxes put more money in the pockets of Citizens during a period of known inflation and economic stress. The result is more money in the economy BUT it's not government provided money. Instead, it is completely controlled by the spender and since we , the spenders, know times are tough, we tend to become very discerning on how we let those dollars go, creating a very stable "fair price for goods" ratio. Psychologically, it boosts the moral of the citizen to feel they have more control and spending power. The actual value of the present-day dollar in hand in strengthened over the promise of a future-dollar supplied by the government in form of aid or relief at an undetermined time in the future. Circulation of money in the economy is bolstered, confidence in the markets return, eventually allowing for relaxation of rate hikes and a return to normalcy.Can you please unpack this a little more? I'm not smart enough to understand how tax cuts help but don't lead to more available spending and lowering inflation.As a famous man once asked "Are you better off than you wereYou have more faith than me then.
If they get up there and tell it like it is, "it's bad, really bad, and going to be bad for a while" just like Powell has said, I'm not sure that eases any pain. The only plan I've heard about is what is going on now with the Fed raising rates until they see inflation peaking and begin the pivot. But that pivot isn't the halfway point to our economic problems. It's likely just the real beginning of a recession as unemployment starts rising fast and wages drop. This is the part that worries me the most for people because you can't bail them out. Doing that just risks bringing back inflation.fourtwo years ago?"
Tight money is the answer. Has to be. But we also need tax cuts as the other side. Funny how when you write it down on paper it becomes so obvious to "just do the opposite of what the Biden administration has done" to fix it.
If they have solutions I have yet to hear them.
Thank you for a very candid response. Honestly, we don't tend to speak like that much to each other around here. Very refreshing.
There are solutions. You just don't approve of them. Let's make it extremely simple: did we have this economic/inflation problem 2 years ago? 5 years ago? We didn't. What changed? Policies. Was the pandemic a factor? Yes but only to a degree because these are the exact same scenarios we have experienced before and what is the common denominator? They all begin with irresponsible spending in government by very aggressive "reform" bills that are corrected by anti-inflation measures. On the simplest level, the fix is to simply undo the policies of this administration or put another party into office who will.
Sadly I agree. I wish I didn’t, I’d in principle want it privatized. But the reality is when we created this entitlement, and that’s what it was because we started by paying people who had never “paid in”, we created a reliance and dependence. The only way to keep it afloat will be to remove the cap. Again I wholeheartedly hate that in principle, but again realize that we’ve created this dependence and we have it now to support. That’s not to blame anyone because we’ve now all paid into this system and yes we all want what we deem is ours, but the reality is there is nothing that’s ours. Our money has been used to pay the previous folks and so on and so on.
www.republicanleader.gov
Supply chain seems to have a ton of bi-partisan support. That was a big part of the CHIPS Act. The only thing I don't like about these plans (both parties do it), is that it always gives a bunch of free money to big corps and picks and chooses which ones.
Here is the House Republican's "Commitment to America Plan":
An Economy That's Strong - Commitment to America
From the plan
Inflation: Curb wasteful spending, pass pro-growth tax and deregulatory policies
Energy: Maximize production of reliable, American-made energy and cut the permitting process time in half
Supply Chain: Move supply chain away from China, expand US manufacturing, enhance America’s economic competitiveness and cyber resiliency
www.euronews.com
Thanks Biden!
How are European countries helping people pay their energy bills?
Countries are stepping up to help their citizens pay the bills this winter, when households are expected to bear the brunt of the energy crisis.
I think this goes to show why energy independence is important.
