387
The United States will need 7 million migrants to cover old age support programs for baby boomers
(english.elpais.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
387 points (96.0% liked)
News
23014 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or eliminate the cap on the tax so they actually pay their fair share. That would fix all the problems that Social Security and Medicare have in an instant.
I make a little more than double the cap. I'm in favor of increasing or eliminating the cap but that would double my check in the future. (Not quite, I haven't made double the cap my entire working life, but it would increase it a lot.) That would still help a bit because not all of our withholdings go to basic social security. Some goes to disability, spousal benefits, etc. Increasing taxes and benefits proportionally, which is the way benefits are structured now, doesn't solve anything.
I believe social security has a lot of value so I'm in favor of not just fixing the funding, but expanding it as well. But if you want to make it healthier just with payroll taxes they would have to be progressive, like income tax, without increasing benefits.
Seems like you don't know how the SS bend points work.
Removing the cap would go a long way, but it's not enough by itself. We'll still need more people, or a time machine with a fertility clinic in it. From what I can tell, boomers seem to be thinking we're going to find that time machine somehow.
I've never seen any math that disproved that. Now if you're looking at actual federal income tax paid, maybe, but social security tax is based on income, it doesn't get reduced by often fraudulent deductions and credits. So a lot more income is taxable under social security tax than federal income tax which is laden with loopholes and complexities. So when Jeff Bezos in 2007 paid $0 in income tax, he likely would have paid tens or hundreds of millions in Social Security tax if there wasn't a cap, because he did have income. Of course, we aren't legally able to get the actual numbers because of privacy laws, but there have been some leaks recently if you want to see some of the numbers.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/social-security-reform-options-to-raise-revenues
There's a ton of right wing sites that would tell you eliminating the cap is a complete waste of time horrible for the economy, bringer of the end of days, etc.
Bezos, like many ultra wealthy, most likely paid himself some token amount in wages. Many CEO's used to pay themselves $1, just to say they had an income. They have accountants that decide how much he should claim as wages, just to maximize the returns from Social Security, without paying into it any more than needed.
And the guy who leaked the tax info of the billionaires got sentenced to prison beyond the maximum threshold - because the judge explicitly wanted to make an example of him.
That's why abortion has been under fire for decades and contraceptives are next, which i bet wil make the Korean 4b movement explode here.
Which then begs the question of will we back off cause birth rates are generally unaffected but with less "for fun" sex or go full handmaids tale.