2026-08-27 21:38 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@Gerudo@lemmy.zip 2026-08-28 03:09
Not going to lie, I was upset when I saw the headline. Then I actually thought about it, and yeah, that sounds about right.
-
@arotrios@lemmy.world 2026-08-28 03:39
Goddamn, I’m so sick of this bad faith argument. Fucking Fortune bullshit. Remove the Social Security Cap on incomes over $184k and this problem goes away. It’s really that fucking simple. TAX THE FUCKING RICH ALREADY.
-
@CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2026-08-27 23:36
The promise of retirement for Millennials is just a mirage. Conservatives keep sabotaging social security even thogh it has worked for 3 generations. Eh, Gen X told each other that sort of thing for years, and believe me, I stashed the maximum I possibly could in things like 401K when I could because of that sentiment. Gen Y stands to be the benefactors of the largest wealth transfer in history, by the way. It won’t be equally distributed, but still. bordencastle.com/…/the-great-wealth-transfer.html The numbers are staggering enough to seem unreal: roughly $84 trillion in assets will transfer from Baby Boomers to younger generations over the next 20 years. To put it in perspective, that’s more than three times the current U.S. GDP. It’s the single largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in recorded history, and it has been quietly building momentum for years.
-
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2026-08-27 21:54
Baby boomers are collecting 265% of what they paid into Social Security A median-wage worker retiring in 2027 can expect about $730,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits, compared with less than $200,000 paid in taxes by that worker and their employer combined Adjusting the $200k for inflation, that’s around $800k. If anything, SS recipients should be getting back more than $730k. That’s deferred consumption which was recycled through public spending into increased domestic growth. Growth that the vast majority of these workers never got to see, as their salaries fell behind the inflation rate. But ask the editors of Fortune Magazine what they think of uncapping the Social Security tax, so it applies to people making more than $180k/year. Ask them how they feel about paying for SS directly out of the General Fund, rather than getting a special Poor Tax that can’t be exempted through deductions and credits. Ask them how they feel about paying for SS out of an Equities Transaction Tax, such that trillionaires issuing the next round of IPOs take responsibility for the millions of senior citizens who they are brain-fucking with AI slop on a daily basis. Social Security is the promise this country (kinda-sorta) makes to its elderly. If you worked your whole life, you won’t be impoverished the day your employer doesn’t consider you a value-add anymore. The taxation scheme for SS is fucked, but only because it taxes labor income rather than labor value. We’ve seen the gross wealth in this country rise from $2.2T to $167T between 1960 and 2027. And you’re telling me we’re running out of money to pay our retirees? Fuck off. Anyone should be able to see through this bullshit.
-
@jtrek@startrek.website 2026-08-28 03:12
First of all, "there's no money for this" coming from the federal government is a lie, on any topic. They just don't want to, and take advantage of people not knowing how money works. There's always money for bombs, but for schools and social services not so much. Second of all, as others have said, capping social security payments per year is stupid. It should be progressive. The first $x don't get taxed at all, then higher rates as your income goes high. Third, it shouldn't be tied to your personal contributions. We live in a society, despite what anti social conservative monsters say.
-
@RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 2026-08-28 05:37
Their own graph illustrates how bullshit their own argument is: In the text they are comparing taxes without interest at “less than $200,000” (aka as $197.000 or “almost $200.000” if the author weren’t a ghoul) with benefits without interest at $730.000, without mentioning interest/inflation adjustment at all. Since taxes were paid decades before the benefits will be received, their accumulated interest is going to be much higher, which is illustrated well by the graph. If the graph can be trusted, then with interest the break even point of contributions/benefits happens at 82 or 83 years of age. The usa life expectancy is 79 years. So according to their own data, the average boomer will have contributed more than they will receive. And that is with the current regressive taxation scheme, where high earners contribute less.
-
@DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 2026-08-28 02:52
I’m proud of Lemmy’s response to this. I expected “boomers bad”, but found most comments calling out the bullshit.
-
@CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2026-08-27 23:27
Oh, cool, a multi-prong attack on Social Security, just like I commented on that other article here on Social Security. Get the younger generation all whipped up and butthurt about the “olds” collecting what is characterized as “too much”. While the oligarchs bitch about “balancing the budget” by cutting services. Instead of the fucking obvious option - lift the caps. I wish I could downvote this article more than once.