White House aides have discussed Social Security tax, eyeing shortfall

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

During an hour-long meeting in the Oval Office, before they went to film a video together about student debt, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pitched President Biden on his vision for hammering the Republican Party over one of the most potent issues in American politics.

Biden has for weeks leaned into the simple message that he is determined to block GOP efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare for millions of seniors. Left unanswered in these attacks is what Biden, himself, wants to do to address the massive funding shortfalls facing the programs, which face catastrophic benefit reductions within a decade if lawmakers take no action.

In that Jan. 25 meeting, Sanders pushed the president to fully fund Social Security for more than seven decades by expanding payroll taxes on affluent Americans, rather than just on workers’ first $160,000 in earnings, as is the case under current law. Sanders also asked the president to back his proposal — highly unlikely to pass Congress — to not only defend existing benefits but also increase them. He wants to provide another $2,400 per year for every Social Security beneficiary.

This previously unreported discussion between Biden and his onetime presidential primary rival reflects a broader behind-the-scenes effort inside the White House to decide how, or if, the party’s message on entitlements should go beyond criticizing the GOP. Biden aides have in recent weeks discussed proposing raising payroll taxes on the rich to fund Social Security, but it is unclear if the president will ultimately endorse that measure when he releases his budget in March, according to three people familiar with international deliberations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. One of those people cautioned the talks were preliminary and it is still likely the White House opts not to advance the plan.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/02/23/biden-white-house-social-security/

[multigraincracker]

1. A one week National strike

of all workers that make less than $160,000. per year might get their attention. How they do it in France.

[brooklynite]

2. Let us know when somebody organizes one...

The labor movement doesn't work the same way in the US.

[multigraincracker]

5. Yet

We are working on it.

I’m a little busy right now working on repealing Michigans Right to Work Law. Some progress with my new Governor.

[brooklynite]

11. How difficult is that with a majority Democratic legislature?

[multigraincracker]

12. That is just

the second step. First step was when I moved back to Michigan and got the new Governor elected.
She now knows me by my full name. Not bad for an old retired factory worker.

[thatdemguy]

14. So your for forcing people to work for unions?

I believe unions can be and are a good thing. But I disagree being forced to work for one is a good thing. It also goes against the beliefs of freedom of association. I was a union electrician for years, but if I got layed off I was not allowed to try and find a job anywhere but with the union.

[multigraincracker]

15. No one is forced to

work anywhere.

[thatdemguy]

18. well when I worked in the union

I sure was, I had no choice whom I worked for. And that is one of the many reasons I dont work for the union anymore.

Another big one was I told I had to give a paycheck to the political fund or I would get laid off. I made at the time 250 a week after taxes, and my rent was 485. No way could I afford to give 25% of a months income over, I went to the hall about and was told tough luck foremans can lay off who they want to. I then lied to my foreman saying I would pay it the next week and did not, just got lucky I did not get caught.

[multigraincracker]

21. I am 73 years old and retired from my Union

job 21 years ago with benefits. I volunteered to pay a reduce dues that they didn't require me to. Like $3.00/month.
They just increase my dental to 4 cleanings per year, it was 2. Also I now get 2 free pair of eyeglasses per year. I get a free lawyer, still.
Because of my union, while I was working I got a free college education at a State University. My only cost was for books.
I was fired 3 times. Two of those times they got me my job back before I could get out of the door, the third time it was 3 days later with full pay.
The first year there, I was working with an older guy that had just got his 18 year old daughter a job there. One day she came up crying because the new foreman told her she had to give him oral sex or he would put her on the tire job. He call over the union and 2 hours later the whole plant walked out on a wildcat strike that lasted 3 days. That foreman was fired to get us back, all 3,000 of us.
Yep the union was not perfect, I had some arguments with them, but I always had a contract on me and they went by the contract.
I'm a big backer of the UAW. I can't speak for other union, especially POAs.

[thatdemguy]

22. I agree some unions are great

and some really suck. Like the one my ex FIL was in when he worked for GAF at the shingle plant. Also local 24 electricians union was the one I was in sucked.

The short version of the story with my ex fil, he was electrocuted on the job. Went to the hospital where is got treated and sent home with strong drugs. He got home took the painkillers and went to sleep and GAF wanted him to come in for a pee test. Well he was drugged out that day and went the next. He was fired when he hit the gate, and the union refused to stand up for him. He tried to sue, but the union would not provide the lawyers and he could not afford to get his own.

[KPN]

52. THIS 1000 times!

Nothing and no-one is perfect, including unions. It galls me no end when people focus on imperfections or, by contrast, claim perfection. The Repuqs -- with the mainstream media as accessories -- have turned "focusing on imperfections" into an mass manipulation art form. Their modus operandi: tear down as opposed to build up.

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Better that we force workers Not to Unionize?

That's what the US does now in right to starve....I mean right to work, states.

Workers make more money if they are unionized it's a proven fact.

As union membership has dwindled throughout the years in the US. The average income adjusted for inflation has dropped.

I made good money as a worker in a unionized canning factory even with dues. When I made the mistake and went to a shop that wasn't unionized, my wages and benefits kept getting smaller as compared to my friends in the union shop.

At first, I got a small raise going to the other shop but after a year, I was making 15% less than my friends in the union shop including dues. I eventually quit to join the military.

[thatdemguy]

20. not how it works.

In right to work states you are allowed to unionize, but you cant be forced to join a union to get a job. Its a free choice, vs non right to work states where you have no choice.

[multigraincracker]

23. The choice "right to work" gives is

that you don't have to pay dues and you still get the benefits the union negotiated. I'm fine with not having to pay dues, but not for then taking advantage of union negotiations.
That is how they plan on busting the unions.

[MichMan]

33. The reason those who opt out are still represented is due to exclusive representation clauses

That are part of the contracts that the union negotiates. That means only that union can negotiate on behalf of all of the workers. That is a clause that unions always insist be there as they can't take the chance anyone will represent themselves or be represented by another union.

If that was removed from the contract, the union wouldn't have to represent the ones that opt out, and they would have to negotiate their own pay and benefits,

[bluestarone]

36. What gets me is, People thinking like you.

Why in the hell would you go to work in a Union place? If you're so set in your thinking, WORK SOMEPLACE ELSE, for Christ sake!

[Farmer-Rick]

38. Yeah, they claim to allow unions, until you actually really read the legislation

The legislation forces unions to pay for defending non union employees. Unions go bankrupt when the people they are supporting don't pay dues.

"27 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union."

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations#:~:text=27%20states%20have%20banned%20union,agreement%20negotiated%20by%20the%20union.

Let's see corporations give away benefits for free. They would go bankrupt, which is the goal of these states - to put unions out of business.

That's why they are called right to starve states.

[MichMan]

42. If the unions eliminated the exclusive representation clauses of their contracts...

They wouldn't have to represent anyone who opted out and those people would not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement.

I've never heard of one union agree to get rid of it. I wish they would just to see the people opting out be on their own.

[Farmer-Rick]

51. Yeah because without it it's not a union

Which exclusive clause bothers you?

The one that only this union can represent this bargaining unit, or the one where you can't be represented by more than one union at a time?

I've heard union busters use the exact same complaint for two different things. So, it kind of sounds like a red hearing.

In the end forcing unions to represent, pay for and provide legal services for non dues paying moochers is guaranteed to bust up a union and put them on the fast track to bankruptcy. Which is why union representation is down.

The right to starve states have forced unions to give out free benefits.

[MichMan]

53. The one that says only this union can represent this bargaining unit.

That forces them to represent the non dues paying moochers. If it was removed from the contract, they would no longer have to represent them and then those who opted out would be on their own. I'm just explaining why they have to represent everyone.

Seems fair to me; if people don't want to pay dues, they should have to negotiate on their own.

[mobeau69]

39. "Work for unions"? Where did that come from? Geez.

[newdayneeded]

3. Yet, hardly anybody mentions that

the super wealthy Americans hold between 1 and 3 trillion in offshore accounts. Get that money back in US circulation and tax it at 15% you could fund social security for many years.

[CousinIT]

4. THIS. n/t

[CousinIT]

6. They could raise the cap to 250K - MAGAts would whine....

....."they're raising taxes on the middle claaaaaass!

GOD FORBID we tax THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE MONEY. That just ...makes too much SENSE!

[MichMan]

8. President Biden promised no one making under $400k would see any tax increases.

I don't believe he will break that promise by increasing payroll taxes. Would it even pass the House?

[CousinIT]

27. True, he did. Could restart cap at $425K

That might work too. But Republican'ts won't pass anything that isn't a cut, privatization, and/or abolishment of Social Security. Not because it's not fair or feasible - but just because that's what they want - they want it gone because big corprats don't want to pay anything into it - at any level.

[newdayneeded]

7. Plus, i don't mean to be morbid,

but, weren't the majority of covid deaths of the age group collecting social security. I got to believe there's way less draw on social security than there was 3 years ago. Again, please forgive my morbid-ness. just strictly addressing the money change.

[progree]

10. Maybe: the 790,000 age 65+ deaths with Covid represent 1.5% of the age 65+ population

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/deaths-among-older-adults-due-to-covid-19-jumped-during-the-summer-of-2022-before-falling-somewhat-in-september/

As of the week ending October 1, 2022, the United States has lost nearly 1.1 million lives to COVID-19, of which about 790,000 are people ages 65 and older. People 65 and older account for 16% of the total US population but 75% of all COVID deaths to date.

US population: 334 million on 1/1/23 ( https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/new-years-day-population.html )

Age 65+ population: 16% of 334 million is 53.4 million

790,000 deaths is 1.5% of 53.4 million.

So it's not huge, but it's not insigificant either.

Unfortunately, in February, the CBO forecasts the SS trust funds depletion date will be 2032 rather than the 2035, which is what the annual SS Trustees annual report forecast back in June.

The SS Trustees annual report in June 2022 forecast a depletion date of 2035. That was a one year increase from the 2034 date projected in the 2021 annual report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/social-security-will-become-insolvent-earlier-than-predicted-government-report-says/ar-AA17D96O

[JudyM]

13. Thanks for adding this info, progree, really helpful.

[progree]

32. 🌺

[friend of a friend]

9. Can Social Security be changed where all types of income must pay into it?

Something like when you make out your taxes, all income that is taxable, Social Security tax must be paid if it hasn't been taxed already such as payroll. People make money buying and selling stocks, why not add that to Social Security?

[multigraincracker]

16. There is a movement to

tax all Capital Gains as regular income.

[Happy Hoosier]

26. I'm MOSTLY in favor of that...

I'd personally offer a credt against taxes on capital gains from taxes paid on earned income, that way working people can genuiniely build wealth, but the rich, drawing most of their income from cpaital gains, would have to pay like anyone else.

[multigraincracker]

29. wealthiest 10% of Americans own a record 89% of all U.S. stocks

[multigraincracker]

30. May I have some more please.

well he did say please.

[kellytore]

17. Keep the tax at the first $160,000 of income

Then the tax goes back into effect after $400,000 of income.

[CousinIT]

28. I personally like that idea (mentioned elsewhere in the thread) but...

..MAGAts won't pass anything that's not a cut, privatization or abolishment.

[honest.abe]

55. Why give 160,000-400,000 earners a "free ride"?

I know Joe made some campaign promise but it doesn't make sense to me.

[slightlv]

24. I'm one of those weird people who

wants all types of income taxed equally. WHY should only "earned" income be taxed? What is "earned" income vs "unearned" income? Even the concept is esoteric and meant to be beyond our unlearned understanding. /sarcasm. Capital Gains, pass thru earnings, etc., should all be taxed. Most of the money made by the "rich" these days is not "earned" as we know it in the vernacular. It is simply digits in a computer passing to another computer. Find a way to tax those digits. Why should the sweat of our brow be worth less than the comfort of some rich guy pressing the enter key behind an accounting computer? (No disrespect meant to any accountants here, to be sure... I can't add 10 digits and get the same result twice! LOL)

I do believe we are going to eventually shake out to a more equitable way to tax income... all kinds of income. But there is going to be much screaming from those who, up to this point in time, have made up like the proverbial highway bandits. The time is quickly coming for pitchforks, tho. People are not going to stand for it much longer. Especially not when they've worked all their lives only to have their old age to be spent scrounging for food and shelter because some rich guy made off with all the money they put into their government insured retirement accounts (aka social security).

[multigraincracker]

31. I'd be in favor of a wealth tax, not income.

That would be a tax on stocks and property. It would work if it was only on those with more than $10million in wealth. It would not take a huge percentage to more than cover what is paid in now.

[Warpy]

44. That's what the original progressive income tax structure was meant to do

Arguments at the time stated that men who earned low wages by the sweat of their brows shouldn't be taxed the same as the Robber Barons and that a progressive tax structure was the fairest, one that would fall most heavily on those who could afford it. It worked quite well for quite some time, but the post WWII, Korea and Vietnam War inflationary periods saw even blue collar workers getting hit by higher and higher tax brackets because it had never been indexed to inflation. Reagan was swept in on a promise to end it and the mess we have now is the result. We've got lots of billionaires to show for it but not much else.

The wealth tax, while popular in some circles, wouldn't be enough to fund the government any more than impoverished workers paid depressed wages can, while the wealthy hide their money and get away without paying on a pile of sweetheart deals from Congress and accounting tricks. At least we finally got a corporate minimum tax, now let's see who actually pays it.

All this stuff was debated for a couple of decades over a century ago and the progressive income tax was what they came up with. If only they'd thought to index it, but we were on the gold standard then and inflation wasn't a problem.

[multigraincracker]

45. Make America Great Again,

Like the tax laws of the 50s and 60s.

[Warpy]

48. Yeah, but INDEX THEM THIS TIME

Republicans did the same thing with benefits, tied them to a fixed dollar amount during a period of high inflation. Medicaid was started as a health insurance of last resort for the working poor. The $1500 in assets people were allowed to have was generous in the 60s. It meant destitution 30 years later, the only people who qualified were nursing home patients who'd spent everything they had.

So progressive taxes are only part of the solution. Indexing is the other part.

[multigraincracker]

49. Thanks

[Warpy]

25. So get the minimum wage raised nationally

There is no way the slave states should get away with that $7.25/hour starvation wage. Business owners scream bloody murder until their business increases because people have more money to spend. Also, OASDI contributions go up.

Reagan jacked up the OASDI contribution six times during his rotten presidency to disguise what his policy of pushing wages below subsistence was doing to his base, the retirees and soon to be retired who needed their insurance against extreme poverty in old age.

Allowing Congress to rob overpayments was just icing on the poison cake.

[MichMan]

34. This

Minimum wage should be at least $30 per hour; maybe even more

[multigraincracker]

46. I'd go for a maximum tax law.

But, we have the best government money can buy.

[former9thward]

35. Who actually pays $7.25 a hour?

Not McDonalds or Walmart. They are at least twice that or more for entry level. I don't think many pay it because there are just too many entry jobs available which are in the mid teens.

[Warpy]

40. Try any town in these states

I guarantee you that jobs are hard to come by and the ones out there pay that $7.25/hour.

Not everybody lives in cities or near enough to them to get the wage effects.

[MichMan]

41. I live in a rural type area and no one is paying minimum wage.

[Warpy]

43. Minimum wage in Mich. is $10.10/hour

so of course no one is paying $7.25 there. Try Mississippi. Or Oklahoma. Or Utah. Or Texas.

[MichMan]

47. So, no one is paying the $10.10 min wage either

[WiVoter]

37. Entitlements?

I don’t think so!

[snot]

50. Dems should at least start with Sanders' bill,

if only to try to nudge the Overton Window closer to where it should be.

"Currently, only income up to $160,000 is taxed; {Sanders' & Liz Warren's} bill would tax income over $250,000.

(snip)

“'When you have a situation where somebody who makes $100 million a year contributes the same amount into the Social Security trust as somebody making $160,000, obviously, an essential part of the solution is to lift that cap,' Sanders told TPM. ..."

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/02/warren-and-sanders-introduce-new-bill?fbclid=IwAR23P3Frc5UUW2if8TcCHuF1usmvijoxrkGCmXLzisohthO9Z0r6hzcdGCQ

[MichMan]

54. Since benefits are tied to contributions, would the wealthy receive bigger monthly checks?

[snot]

56. The article states,

"The bill would expand benefits by $2,400 a year." So low-earners would get a much bigger increase relative to their actual contributions than high-earners would.

I can live with that.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

57. Wealthy would probably get more, as they do today.

Last edited Sat Mar 4, 2023, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The SS check is related to your income (below the cap) for your highest-earning 35 years, adjusted for inflation.

So, wealthy would have put more in, and they get higher monthly checks. To compound this, the wealthy can afford to hold off on collecting SS until they turn 70, to get the max.

If everyone gets an additional 2400 per month, then the wealthy will still get more.

If the cap was raised, or removed, the wealthy would contribute much more during their earning years, and receive an additional modest bump during retirement. I don't understand why we still have a cap.