Tea Party said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

This fixes nothing.It just shows we are not a serious people. As long as we get more money, who cares why? If this was paired with less spending, that would be something, but this is just another version of paying people for votes, RINO style.

The problem i bigger government and all this does is lower what people pay into it. Perfect for the boomer generation, though.

---

Less taxes is a good thing 99% of the time.

Hopefully this is an instance of shouting the big impact item to gain support, then in the background the plan is to simultaneously make substantial cuts elsewhere to offset the loss of tax theft.

---

That never happens

They will just call this "Trump pushing for more tax cuts for the rich"

DC Draino is an idiot in so many of his postings.

so far this has no effect on polling.

it would take a competent campaign to alert all the seniors about this policy - and then to defend it against Kamala in a debate, and to ensure the entire country knows Trump will enact this.

Kind of like "a big beautiful wall"

While it will be fun watching the democrats deal with this, Trump is taking a page out of the democrats' playbook. I do not think this will ever happen.

rgag12 said:

---

Sounds great, but an idea that will get us further into debt.

---

The amount we are talking about here is a rounding error compared to the currend debt and the rate at which congress blows through money we don't have already.

I think I heard yesterday or the day before that this year the feds will spend over $2 TRILLON more than the budget.

Muy said:

---

Never understood how the feds can pimp the greatness of SS then take taxes out of it to use for themselves. Either eliminate it and let people pay taxes on and use that money as they want, or don't charge taxes on it.

---

Your first mistake was trying to understand the feds.

Your second mistake was thinking that the feds wouldn't double dip at every opportunity they could.

LMCane said:

---

DC Draino is an idiot in so many of his postings.

so far this has no effect on polling.

it would take a competent campaign to alert all the seniors about this policy - and then to defend it against Kamala in a debate, and to ensure the entire country knows Trump will enact this.

Kind of like "a big beautiful wall"

---

Well if you knew anything, you would know Trump just announced this two hours ago and all his post is is a screengrab from Truth Social from Trump's verified page.

I don't give a rat's ass about the guy that added his conjecture. This is about Trump annoucing a very smart initiative.

Bob Knights Paper Hands said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Sounds great, but an idea that will get us further into debt.

---

I hope it ends up getting paired with something else related to SS or other spending. Provide a baseline so people don't starve when they are older, but stop giving out things people merely want and stipntrying to provide a comfortable lifestyle for those notnearning themselves.

---

How about the feds get out of the savings business all together? Let's start there.

And SS was never intended to be the sole retirement vehicle - it was a knee jerk reaction created by the feds post Wall Street Collapse when a lot of people lost their savings overnight. The idea was that SS would, at the very least, provide for SOME mechanism of insured savings but it was never intended to be the only one.

Until the feds, of course, realized that people were still stupid with their money and they could use SS as a political tool. Which took all of about 8 minutes to happen.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.
Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

Say bye-bye to any investment in real estate, infrastructure, etc. if you did this.

Money would go overseas faster than you could blink.

Social security is unconstitutional and should be privatized. Unfortunately, politicians are too spineless to say that and act on it.

Why not come out and get rid of the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset and win the teachers votes.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.
Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

How about subjecting all forms of freebies to the tax. Such as anything given or subsidized (food, housing, etc.) and also subjecting employer provided health insurance premiums to the tax.

AgEngr12 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

How about we just get to keep our money? No more paying SS/FICA. I'll handle my ish, you'll handle yours.

---

It's cause old people who spent their entire life putting into it would get completely effed if you took it away.

It needs to go away long-term because it's unsustainable, but there's gonna have to be a grace period.

---

No doubt. Needs to be something along the lines of:

AGE

• 0-45 not eligible to participate SS, unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible
• 45-55 eligible for partial SS benefits if continue to pay into system, may opt out of SS for unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible
• 55+ eligible for full SS benefits if continue to pay into system, may opt out of SS for unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

AgEngr12 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

How about we just get to keep our money? No more paying SS/FICA. I'll handle my ish, you'll handle yours.

---

It's cause old people who spent their entire life putting into it would get completely effed if you took it away.

It needs to go away long-term because it's unsustainable, but there's gonna have to be a grace period.

---

No doubt. Needs to be something along the lines of:

AGE

• 0-45 not eligible to participate SS, unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible
• 45-55 eligible for partial SS benefits if continue to pay into system, may opt out of SS for unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible
• 55+ eligible for full SS benefits if continue to pay into system, may opt out of SS for unlimited Roth IRA contribution eligible

---

That's a good starting point.

Unfortunately, such a system would be demagogued by the left as a gift to Wall Street.

Wow. Great idea.
You don't even need a Venn diagram for that.

Matt Hooper said:

---

Wow. Great idea.
You don't even need a Venn diagram for that.

---

Government Venn Diagram

I like it. I'm 59 and would opt out under something like this. Let me keep that money and add it to my current IRA. Even without a long time horizon to retirement, I'll still get a better return having it properly managed instead of pillaged by politicians.

Just allow everyone to opt-out if they want to.

Our contributions and earned amounts (future payouts) can simply be frozen where it is.

Wanna contribute? Fine.
Wanna Opt-Out? Fine.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

How about we just get to keep our money? No more paying SS/FICA. I'll handle my ish, you'll handle yours.

---

George Bush says hello...

Irish 2.0 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

LOVE the no tax on SS benefits!

But Trump does need to "go after" Social Security and Medicare. They are not sustainable as is!

I am okay with him not mentioning it during the campaign, but once in office he needs to make the cuts where needed like last time!

---

If he were to offer a 'forfeiture' option where I forfeit any claim to Social Security, but I am required to put the SS money into an IRA, I would do it in a heartbeat. Charge 2% of that as an 'option fee' and let me take my money to the market. Offer it to anyone under the age of 45. You will reduce a massive group that will drain SS and all the money they put in is free now.

---

That isn't how ponzi schemes work, and make no mistake the government has turned SS into a mandatory ponzi scheme.

And that is why it's always dead on arrival.

You need to figure out how to fund all the remaining recipients, if you allow younger contributors to opt-out.

Otherwise, the entire thing is cut off at the roots and collapses.

That said, the longer we wait to re-direct funds, to solve that issue, the more expensive it will get. No time like the present.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.

• Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

IMHO
Social Security taken from your paycheck is tax deferred, one should expect to pay income taxes when receiving Social Security after retirement.
Social Security taxes on capital gains and dividends is way the heck to much administrative bull**** and would require a lot of additional Federal employees.
Eliminating the cap should, or might, greatly reduce the % taken from paychecks and eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.

ETA: leave the cap on employer contributions. Only remove the cap on employee income contributions.

AgEngr12 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

How about we just get to keep our money? No more paying SS/FICA. I'll handle my ish, you'll handle yours.

---

It's cause old people who spent their entire life putting into it would get completely effed if you took it away.

It needs to go away long-term because it's unsustainable, but there's gonna have to be a grace period.

---

Agreed but how to eliminate it long term gets very nasty. Should have been privatized from the beginning with the laws being taught in high school.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.
Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

Are you out of your F'ing mind. You want to tax the people that are already paying for most of the federal budget more?

How about the bottom 50% start paying their fare share.

Better yet, eliminate all entitlements.

AgGrad99 said:

---

And that is why it's always dead on arrival.

You need to figure out how to fund all the remaining recipients, if you allow younger contributors to opt-out.

Otherwise, the entire thing is cut off at the roots and collapses.

That said, the longer we wait to re-direct funds, to solve that issue, the more expensive it will get. No time like the present.

---

Kind of like the best time to plant a tree...

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Knights Paper Hands said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Sounds great, but an idea that will get us further into debt.

---

I hope it ends up getting paired with something else related to SS or other spending. Provide a baseline so people don't starve when they are older, but stop giving out things people merely want and stipntrying to provide a comfortable lifestyle for those notnearning themselves.

---

How about the feds get out of the savings business all together? Let's start there.

And SS was never intended to be the sole retirement vehicle - it was a knee jerk reaction created by the feds post Wall Street Collapse when a lot of people lost their savings overnight. The idea was that SS would, at the very least, provide for SOME mechanism of insured savings but it was never intended to be the only one.

Until the feds, of course, realized that people were still stupid with their money and they could use SS as a political tool. Which took all of about 8 minutes to happen.

---

One of the many reasons my grandfather would not take Roosevelt dimes in change when the came out in 1949. He knew then what a total political scam it was along with most of Roosevelt's bull**** programs were.

richardag said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.

• Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

IMHO
Social Security taken from your paycheck is tax deferred, one should expect to pay income taxes when receiving Social Security after retirement.
Social,Security taxes on capital gains and dividends is way the heck to much administrative bull**** and would require a lot of additional Federal employees.
Eliminating the cap should or might greatly reduce the % taken from paychecks and eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.

---

Eliminating the cap would just tax those paying the most even more. It needs to regressive, because income taxes certainly aren't.

I will ask you the same question. If you remove the cap are you going to increase the maximum monthly payment? Are you still going to cap it?

As I recall and hopefully someone will verity, Al Gore as president of the Senate made the deciding vote for the 80% of SS being taxed. 1995 I believe. President Clinton signed it into law.

rgag12 said:

---

Sounds great, but an idea that will get us further into debt.

---

Strictly speaking yes, but practically speaking it's nothing. Taxes on social security income is 0.8% of the US budget. Think of it this way, everytime we send money to the Ukraine it equally more than the taxes collected on social security income for an entire year.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I will ask you the same question. If you remove the cap are you going to increase the maximum monthly payment? Are you still going to cap it?

---

It becomes a math question. Removing the income cap would allow for a decrease in the 6.19% taken from your pay check. I exceeded the income cap for quite a while but something needs to be done to maintain solvency until the system could be privatized. By privatized, each person would be responsible for maintaining a retirement account and some regulations on the types of investments, very similar to 40@k plans.
The question then becomes what methods would the wealthiest earners do to reduce their Social Security burden.

You don't get a statement telling you how much you have put into the SS system?

If you are doing to make me pay more than the current cap then my payment when I retire shouldn't be capped. Allowing me to to pay a smaller percentage sounds great but you and I both know that won't happen. What will happen the cap will be removed and more money redistributed to those that are getting more than they paid in.

Tramp96 said:

---

I was this many years old when I found out they tax SS.

I had assumed this whole time it wasn't taxed, since in my opinion it was a tax to begin with.

---

SS was not taxed until Bill Clinton, he looked at it and said...wait a minute...SS recipients never paid taxes on their contribution...like a good democrat, he looks at things differently than most of us...

Tom Fox said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I am all for your scenario!

But my question stands. How are you going to pay those that are owed?

---

How?
Wages are taxed at a rate of 6.2% capped at $168,600.
Eliminate this cap and include capital gains and dividends as subject to the tax. The tax rate could also be raised.

I doubt that would pay 100%, but it's a start.

---

Are you out of your F'ing mind. You want to tax the people that are already paying for most of the federal budget more?

How about the bottom 50% start paying their fare share.

Better yet, eliminate all entitlements.

---

I agree that every wage earner should pay something. I also believe that the progressive tax rate is not fair. Remove all exemptions and set a flat rate. Simplify the tax code, fire half the IRS agents and remove using the tax code for social policy programs.

None of this could be done overnight but someone smarter than me should be able to come up with a plan long term plan.