politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Yup. Raise the income cap. That's all you have to do.
The last time Social Security was majorly reformed was back in the 1980s. They did it specifically to handle the pressures the Baby Boomers would be putting on the system. They set it on a path then, that while not as progressive as anyone on the left would like, was financially sustainable. But when planning something like that, it's a big demographic puzzle. When trying to plan a system for decades into the future, you have to assume a certain population pyramid and income distribution. They set the income cap then at a level where 90% of the income earned in the country would be subject to Social Security tax. We've had similar economic growth to what they estimated; we're not poorer, in terms of raw GDP, than we should be. What's changed is the income distribution. More of the nation's income is earned by those at the top. So now only 80% of the income or so earned is subject to the tax. In reality, we should just eliminate it entirely. Let all income be subject to it. If that ends up with billionaires paying a fortune in to Social Security and receiving a relative pittance of benefit in return, so be it.
To paraphrase Bernie, let them survive on mere billions.
Billionaires - especially ones like Elon - should be thankful that they were permitted to accrue so much wealth on the backs of so many others. Paying it forward by paying their fair share into SS is the very least they could do.