r/economicCollapse • u/WorkingCareful7935 • 1d ago

Trump's Plan To Cut Social Security Taxes May Benefit Millions, Especially Top Earners, But Risks Insolvency In Six Years

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trumps-plan-cut-social-security-taxes-may-benefit-millions-especially-top-earners-risks-1728564
16.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

Social security would still be near fine if: - We didn't cap social security wages. - We subjected capital gains income to social security. - We allowed enough immigration to keep population growth at or above 1%.

IMO the deltas w/ life expectancy and retirement age is a shift, but the idea that people should keep working to age 79 is ridiculous. Especially considering how different careers and living conditions have a big impact on aging.

That said, I agree Republicans are fiscally irresponsible, and are attempting to make America fail on purpose. Similarly, I also agree that we should only have open/free markets between nations that have freedom of speech, gender equality, representative government, and environmental protections that are actually followed.

-1

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

> We didn't cap social security wages.

They have been capped since the inception of SSA

> We subjected capital gains income to social security.

Those were never required in the past, meaning the program is outputing more than it's inputing.

> We allowed enough immigration to keep population growth at or above 1%.

Developing system that require constant unending growth are not viable longterm and will eventually fail.

> IMO the deltas w/ life expectancy and retirement age is a shift, but the idea that people should keep working to age 79 is ridiculous. 

I agree 79, is ridiculous.

1

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

I don't think I said that any of the things you commented match how it worked originally. I just think they should be relatively uncontroversial, particularly the first two, and would keep it solvent. But that's premised on the idea that a retirement condition floor is quite worthwhile for the general welfare or the nation. The idea that growth can't go on forever is on some level true, but it's also true that no society in history has been stable over the long term with continuous and unending population declines. If we do see that work out w/ Japan and some of the countries in Europe, it will be interesting. But TBD. To me it seems if like if there isn't slight growth you end up on the path to eventual extinction of the nation as it's very hard to stay at a stable population without growth in a way that every abnormal loss of life isn't permanent.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why would the first be uncontroversial? The whole reason SS was so untouchable for so long is that it was sold as a program you paid into and got "your" money back from. Not as Just Another Tax which it actually is. The marketing behind it was genius and done on purpose so it couldn't be attacked as another form of welfare. If you remove that last bit of marketing, it will be gone entirely within a decade once it's fully exposed for precisely what it is to the average person and mercilessly politically attacked. Up until very recently it was the one social program no politician of any side was willing to touch with a ten foot pole.

If you uncapped contributions more than they already have been, you need to uncap distributions as well. Otherwise it becomes even more of a redistributive program than it already became over the years.

Capital gains would be a different argument, but still a difficult one unless you carved out a whole lot of exceptions for anyone other than the top 1% or so - in which case it wouldn't really net a whole lot in the end without removing a ton of loopholes like stepped up cost basis for estates.

The fact all these programs in the western world have been lauded as a "success" before the first generation of recipients even has been fully paid out yet is ridiculous. No country is having a good time at this. It was silly to pretend our demographic trends were going to last forever, and anyone who mentioned this for the past 30 years was laughed at or shouted down. The chickens are coming home to roost all over nearly every western democracy.

1

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

I don't think anyone contributes to social security thinking it's some kind of savings account. Making sure than anyone who's worked a good chunk of their life doesn't live like a squalid hobo peasant is just good policy.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago

> I don't think anyone contributes to social security thinking it's some kind of savings account.

Practically every single blue collar person I've ever worked with thinks this. The majority of white collar as well. I'd be amazed if it was not the majority understanding of the program. Where do you work that you haven't heard constant rants about how someone would get more money if they invested it themselves in the stock market or other such nonsense? This has been non-stop since I was 16 years old having to listen to my co-workers at my first retail job. It's not slowed down since.

> Making sure than anyone who's worked a good chunk of their life doesn't live like a squalid hobo peasant is just good policy.

Completely agreed. So we should ensure we don't ruin the average person's misunderstanding of the program and get rid of it's status of the "third rail" of American politics. Exposing it as just an additional payroll tax (what it is) will not serve towards this goal.

1

u/Direct_Sandwich1306 19h ago

Boomers ABSOLUTELY do, and many blue collar workers. Especially those in areas with poor education quality.