182
Dems' Wealth Tax Bill Would Extend Social Security Solvency by 75+ Years: Analysis
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
182 points (95.5% liked)
politics
25346 readers
2655 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wealth taxes are notoriously tricky when they have been implemented elsewhere. But, in all those cases people had the option to repatriate their wealth to the US. I’m not sure history would repeat it self if the biggest dog on the block got in the game.
Also, not having to worry about SS for 75 yrs is an amazing amount of breathing room for one of our countries best programs. Every American adult would be able to have confidence in the program they are paying into.
This is worth a try. If it fails, it fails. It will be trivially easy to roll back a tax that isn’t working. At least we would have tried.
But need to get dems into house control and another senate seat or two for it to actually happen. 2024 matters a LOT!
That's my absolute biggest problem with this "young people want socialism" bit running around constantly. I've been paying into SS for almost 2 decades, and there hasn't been a single day that I've been able to think "even if I don't save $3mil for retirement as recommended, I know SS got me". I'm giving money away fully expecting to never get anything in return.
Socialism doesn't seem that bad when you are actively participating in it already. The tiny violins get real loud when it's also stated that the wealthy would be paying into a system they won't benefit from. Meanwhile I'm subsidizing every stupid ass Boomer in existence...
If we stabilize SS for 75 yrs it would create a radical change in the way people feel about gov programs.
Bring up SS in ANY company and people will say “if it’s there” or some variation. None of us trust the program. Few of us understand that the mistrust is an intentional product that the American right has been working to create from day one.
Wealth taxes are opposed by essentially all economists for being a nightmare to administer, raising less revenue than planned, and causing significant capital flight and other detrimental economic effects. Beyond that, there are also serious Constitutional questions. The Federal Income Tax had to be explicitly authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, remember. I'd be very skeptical that this SCOTUS would find that
actually meant to authorize a tax on wealth, not income.
Social Security is obviously a mess, but there are other options. Income past $160,000 isn't subject to SSA taxes. Raising that limit would do quite a lot, though it would anger some wealthy doctors, lawyers, and software engineers who like to pretend to be progressive.