FCC proposing a "WiFi tax"?

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by 540iSUP

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/many...nt-happen.html

I think what people are afraid of is the reports that SS will dry up by 2034. According to this article, SS funds are drying up, but they won't be gone forever. It looks like they will do a combination of raising taxes and pulling benefits in order for it to stay afloat.

Well, yeah. But that has nothing to do with "raiding" it, which has been a GOP talking point ever since Carter did the mundane thing of including its accounting in the omnibus budget.

What they were able to do is borrow against the surplus but they had to pay it back WITH INTEREST. Basically they could just use the surplus as petty cash until EoY. The program has actually generated income for the trust and will likely be one of the things that extends its life, even if for only 18 months.

But changes absolutely have to be made to it as they have repeatedly because times change. When it was developed people had more children to generate more income for the program and they died earlier. As our society has evolved people had fewer children, meaning less income coming in per recipient AND they were living longer, taking more money out.

So its pretty simple math that is killing the program. Back when it was formed the life expectancy for men was just under 60 and women 65. Up to an average of 79 years pre-covid, and more people are reaching that age as well, so considerably more benefits being paid out.

It was never meant to be a retirement replacement. For those who think capitalism is the answer remember WHY it was created in the first place. It was put in place as a sort of ponzi scheme (it always relied on the next generation to fund the current, from inception) because capitalism failed retirees, people who had left the workforce lost everything in the crash.

It was supposed to keep them from freezing to death and living off cat food. And honestly Im fine with it going back to being that. I likely would never need it, Ive already qualified for benefits but even maxxed out if I work later in life its going ot be once of those "oh hey, nice a check!" things. But Im perfectly fine paying into knowing for some people it means they wont be homeless and eating cat food in old age.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by unluky

Well - I am not one of the SS stolen funds people - but inaction by both sides to fix SS will cause it's demise if they continue on this path. Fortunately - it's not targeted to be in crisis.....until I am about ready to retire.

But if enough people "talk" about taxing 401K and those people wind up in power - then they'd could have the numbers to do it - correct?

Anywhere there is a pile of $ and those that sacrificed to get it, there is a group people who would love to get their hands on it. It's human nature and has been repeated in history many times over. Being concerned about it does not make a tinfoil hatter.........

Eh, this is just the old fashioned "slippery slope" argument with extra steps. Were in a thread about a wifi tax that even the article admits has been something that has been "talked about" for longer than half of this forums membership has been alive.

401ks wouldn't be hit for the very same reason social security WILL eventually be in crisis, doing anything is political suicide. There are only two ways to "fix" social security: Cut benefits or raise taxes.

Literally the ONLY possibilities. And both of those are dead in the water because if you talk about cutting benefits all of the old people will revolt because they "earned it" (despite people in their 90s getting benefits well beyond their contributions).

And raising taxes, well, its because the electorate lives in an aspirational fantasy where they will some day be the 1%. Right now the taxable earnings are slated to go up to a whopping 147k, next year. Anything above that and you stop getting taxed. Its a regressive tax but the first thing that happens the moment you even "talk" about removing that cap is people lose their minds over a tax that wouldn't impact 81% of households (its likely considerably fewer, just too lazy to do the math). So they are either pretending somehow taxing someone making 250k+ is going to impact them someday or they buy into the bullshit notion that someone is just going to stop earning more money if they had to pay taxes on it (which is the most asinine thing Ive ever heard but has been the GOPs platform for longer than I have been alive).

[AustinZ4]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

Well, yeah. But that has nothing to do with "raiding" it, which has been a GOP talking point ever since Carter did the mundane thing of including its accounting in the omnibus budget.

What they were able to do is borrow against the surplus but they had to pay it back WITH INTEREST. Basically they could just use the surplus as petty cash until EoY. The program has actually generated income for the trust and will likely be one of the things that extends its life, even if for only 18 months.

But changes absolutely have to be made to it as they have repeatedly because times change. When it was developed people had more children to generate more income for the program and they died earlier. As our society has evolved people had fewer children, meaning less income coming in per recipient AND they were living longer, taking more money out.

So its pretty simple math that is killing the program. Back when it was formed the life expectancy for men was just under 60 and women 65. Up to an average of 79 years pre-covid, and more people are reaching that age as well, so considerably more benefits being paid out.

It was never meant to be a retirement replacement. For those who think capitalism is the answer remember WHY it was created in the first place. It was put in place as a sort of ponzi scheme (it always relied on the next generation to fund the current, from inception) because capitalism failed retirees, people who had left the workforce lost everything in the crash.

It was supposed to keep them from freezing to death and living off cat food. And honestly Im fine with it going back to being that. I likely would never need it, Ive already qualified for benefits but even maxxed out if I work later in life its going ot be once of those "oh hey, nice a check!" things. But Im perfectly fine paying into knowing for some people it means they wont be homeless and eating cat food in old age.

On top of this, there is an income limit to contributing to social security. If this were eliminated, the program would not have these outcries of it drying up. Nearly 30 million Americans earn above the cut off limit for SS. And yes, I qualified for benefits 10 years ago (still have decades to "work still) and am happy to ensure ss gets funded for generations to come.