Social Security's math is not that complicated at this level...but if you tell the average person it is not sustainable as-is and has constantly required higher funding, they refuse to hear it. It has to be some villain's fault. And we wonder why tech bros no longer believe in Democracy. - ThreadSky

csciuto.bsky.social • 22 days ago

Social Security's math is not that complicated at this level...but if you tell the average person it is not sustainable as-is and has constantly required higher funding, they refuse to hear it. It has to be some villain's fault.

And we wonder why tech bros no longer believe in Democracy.

Comments

csciuto.bsky.social•22 days ago

You seem to know a lot about this: is my understanding that in 1983, the Boomers--then entering their prime working years and not wanting to pay more income tax--started taxing their grandparents' SS benefits, and now that they're old, they want that tax removed?

pinktweets.bsky.social•22 days ago

If you want to read the entire history, here is the Greenspan Report that formed the basis of the 1983 legislative amendments. https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html

pinktweets.bsky.social•22 days ago

Yes, that is when they started taxing benefits but it was an entire package of changes designed to shore up long-term sustainability. To what extent it was about boomers not wanting to pay more in FICA, I don't know. They did in fact increase the rates in 1984 as a result of the legislation.

pinktweets.bsky.social•22 days ago

Most people do not realize that the income tax on Social Security benefits goes right back to Social Security, helping to replenish the reserve (aka "Trust Fund)"

https://www.cbpp.org/research/taxing-social-security-benefits-is-sound-policy

pinktweets.bsky.social•22 days ago

People want to eliminate as much tax as possible. This is just one kind of tax they don't want to pay. People are just not very civic-minded.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/eliminating-taxation-of-social-security-benefits-would-be-unwise

csciuto.bsky.social•22 days ago

Heh. I didn't know that myself nor had I seen this rationale:

"Lawmakers chose the 85-percent figure because actuaries estimated that no Social Security beneficiary had paid (through withholding from his or her paychecks) for more than 15 percent of his or her own benefits."

pinktweets.bsky.social•22 days ago

In 1983, the taxable amount was 50%. It was increased to 85% in 1993, under the Clinton admin.

I seriously do not understand the bend thing.

csciuto.bsky.social•22 days ago

I have a relative who has been super happy about Windfall Elimination being removed, having worked ten years private sector and 30+ public.

The Bend is the whole reason that and GPO existed and people don't seem to even get that it exists.

csciuto.bsky.social•22 days ago

That has a logic to it for sure although today I think we're way over 15% on the high end. I've never looked into where the "bends" in the benefit formula came from but the interaction of the bends and tax seems politically toxic if we tried to do it today.

csciuto.bsky.social•22 days ago

I figured they'd just target us prime-working-age Millennials to pay for this, but I guess we're going to outright gutting the government...but the reality is, it's not particularly the Boomers' fault this time we got Trump.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply