Agreed. Public service sector employees like police, fire, teachers, and private sector workers like grocers and healthcare givers would be exempt. Heck, get the truckers to participate (my old man was a long haul trucker) and this country will be on its knees in 36 hours with the gutless politicians acting like a circling cat in its shitbox. That will show them how valuable their bribe monies ("campaign contributions") really are. The rotten gutless bastards.
It's not just the numbers of the baby boomers ( many of us), it's the fact that people are living longer. Years ago, when people were retired they might have collected ss for a few years on average. Of course there were always exceptions. Now, people could be collecting for over forty years. That a heck of a long time! How about this? The majority of baby boomers are working - not staying home and playing golf. Or maybe they started a second career or a small business. Many are even working part time in stores. I still would like to see a cap. SS is part of a three legged stool, and was never meant to cover 100% of income ; not even close as we know.
Another problem is this: There is a population of people who have never worked who delve into the ss retirement fund. I do not think this is going on since it was exposed in the media in the 1990s- but quite a few people were getting disability checks for being on drugs and alchohol and cashing their checks at the local bar. People who were doing this were on tv and admitting it, and laughing about taking taxpayers money and getting these checks. Working people were furious. ( Yes, I saw the original broadcast).
How about airports, ports, stores ( for food and prescriptions)? It's a thought but complicated. Also, did this actually happen or is it a proposal? No mention at all in MSM.
If 90% of the population has to pay Social Security taxes on 100% of their earnings, so should the remaining 10%.
I had not heard that. Have you been to these countries? Some people ( in Europe or even the Bahamas for instance) pay about 8 dollars a gallon for gas and call us lucky. Sometimes, the grass is greener as they say- meaning they're always faults.
Actually that tactic affords Trump credit where no such credit is due.
You miss my point.
The people making over ( think 130,000 a year) pay on that amount , but do not pay on over that. I definitely think they should and do not know why that was enacted? Maybe the old trickle down ( not pour down) economy? Perhaps if some of these people ( who actually are employers not the idle rich) paid more in- then they might say they would have to lay off many people. I don't know- but they might use it as an excuse.
It's tomorrow- I thought it was today.
Today much of congressional action could be considered conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals
That's a complete myth. It is extremely difficult to get onto Soc Sec disability and you definitely had to have paid into the system to be eligible. In fact you had to have paid into the system within the past five years even to make an application.
Also the disability insurance is handled by a completely different fund and so does not eat into the regular Social Security fund.
Agreed - including unearned income would be huge.
You're right Chicken. Trump doesn't respond well to weakness. Any response to a change in Social Security that weakens it's original goal to help provide for those at a time later in life when they need it, must be powerful and prolonged.
Well okay, but I have heard to people getting that who NEVER worked, and that the funds were taken together.
Again, I afford no credit to Trump here. I am giving the public a little credit - hoping that his support will be significantly reduced as awareness is raised.
Joblessness and homelessness were created by those who have power for their profit and for someone to blame for their bad legislation
Here's the rules:
I am not asserting that you are giving credit to Trump, or that Sanders and others are either. What I am criticizing is the rhetorical tactic of appealing on Trump to "keep his word", which is absurd and ineffective.
His appointments alone are evidence to call out Trump for his intentions to work with others to attack SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and every other instance of promoting the general welfare.
If anything, this rhetorical tactic ends up diluting and potentially delaying what should be an intense resistance to the certainty that this Administration is hostile to those programs.
That's another myth (at least to the degree that you are talking about). The issue isn't life expectancy but rather life expectancy starting at age 65 (i.e. how long you will collect). Back in 1950, a person that reached 65 years old had a life expectancy of about 14 more years. Currently, a person that reaches 65 years old has a life expectancy of 19 more years. So the difference is only 5 years. However they changed the law so that you don't start collecting your full benefits until you are 66 and that is moving up to 67 so we are really just talking about an increased benefit period of only 3 or 4 years.