• @carl_dungeon
    link
    English
    501 year ago

    I have a solution- since the GOP is gonna fuck you anyway, republicans should just forfeit their social security altogether and bootstrap themselves up. I bet that’d cut the issue in half!

  • @SinningStromgald
    link
    471 year ago

    Republicans can’t pick a leader but they are damn sure everyone but them and the rich should get less, or as little as possible.

    • @Jerkface
      link
      71 year ago

      I mean if God didn’t want them to have everything they can grab, why did He put it within their reach?

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    361 year ago

    Republicans are trying to take away your retirement!
    Under the Republican plan, you’ll have to find a new job at 75 when Social Security runs out.
    Under the Republicans your Lipitor and Eliquis bill: $400/mo. Under Democrats: $10/mo

    Wall-to-wall ads should be focused on something like this. Imagine if all the boomers actually realized they were about to have to start paying a ton more or come out of retirement.

    • @Frozengyro
      link
      71 year ago

      They’ll make it go in effect on 20 years.

    • @Wrench
      link
      -101 year ago

      Yeah. Fuck us in California or any high cost living area even harder.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        Typically, when people say tax the high wage earners, they aren’t talking about your average person even in high COL areas.

        I can’t speak for what exactly OP was envisioning, but I generally agree with the comment. In my mind, the tax wouldn’t apply to anybody making less than $500k a year (or $1mil if filing jointly).

        If you’re making that much money… you don’t have my sympathy with taxes. I have family in the SF area, that would be a life changing amount for them.

        • @Wrench
          link
          01 year ago

          The current wage cap is $160k

          That’s not poor in CA, but that’s still struggling to own modest property territory.

          The problem with federal wage taxes is that it doesn’t account for cost of living. $80k is very comfortable in some areas of the country, and renting a room and living frugally in another.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            im with you that that wage cap is too low. But I think it should also be progressive and cut off at like 250k in today’s dollars.

  • @captainlezbian
    link
    English
    191 year ago

    In retrospect it sure was sad being a 16 year old who knew that I’d be one of the oldest people who didn’t have a chance of ever getting that program, I’d just spend into it purely to pay off the people who take it from me.

    Or angering. I’m angry that I’m paying for these people to steal this from me and the people younger than me

    • @Supervisor194
      link
      22
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not theft, it’s a social program that used to not exist, and because of it not existing, life was so shit for old people that everyone was demanding something like it.

      The idea that diligent investment in retirement savings might be a solution was rightly laughable, considering the Great Depression was going on. People who had retirement accounts they needed in 2001 and 2008 might tell you it still is laughable, but you can’t piss and moan about that until it completely fucks your life at retirement and the only answer you get is “OH WELL” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Social Security would be 100% solvent for the next 75 years by making two changes: lift the income cap and apply the tax to investment income as well as regular income.

      If you don’t see benefits it will be so conservatives can continue to reduce the tax burden on the rich, full stop.

      The military budget is bigger than Social Security and nobody bats a fucking eye - whether there’s an R or a D next to their name. But yeah, we’re the spending problem.

      Edit: predictably, the military apologists come in to mention than “defense spending” is not as high as “social security,” because of course “defense spending” doesn’t include “veterans benefits” and isn’t 100% discretionary and not at all paid for with a payroll tax. Get fucked, the lot of you.

      • @just_change_it
        link
        21 year ago

        The military budget is bigger than Social Security and nobody bats a fucking eye

        This is incorrect. National Defense spending is 13%. Social Security is 23%. Sauce: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

        Most people don’t realize that entitlements have been the lion’s share of the US budget for a long time. Defense spending used to be much higher but has declined significantly since the cold war.

    • @meco03211
      link
      71 year ago

      And then in decades have a bunch of idiots needing assistance cause they opted out.

  • Hairyblue
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    Democrats should run on guarantee social security. Tax the rich.

  • @CharlesDarwin
    link
    English
    131 year ago

    The cons sure do have their fixations. They use all that culture war nonsense to get people to vote for them so they can turn right around and screw over (nearly) everyone.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Unfortunately they all fall for it, and even worse they get mad at you and go scorched earth on relationships for trying to point it out.

      I’m not even saying look at opinions and hypotheticals, let’s look at results and reality.

      At this point they seem to be willing to burn it all to the ground instead of admit they had been duped.

  • @anon_8675309
    link
    71 year ago

    Part of me wants it to happen so that we can step back and say, “is this what you really wanted you fucking idiots? Because it’s what you voted for!”