Tweet fixado
Why fight on the hill you are willing to die on when you could fight on the hill your enemy is willing to die on
English
Subverting Social Security
10.4K posts
Subverting Social Security
@SubvertingSS
The Hardest Thing To Explain Is The Glaringly Evident Which Everybody Has Decided Not To See—Dominique Francon in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead
Entrou em Mart 2020
1 Seguindo362 Seguidores
This is a common misconception.
“Because either way I’ll be consuming what younger people are producing, there is no difference between Social Security and personal savings.”
In the case of savings/personal investment, you are purchasing goods that retain/grow in value specifically because you want to sell them for dollars in the future. This can be stocks, real estate, precious metals, baseball cards or beanie babies. The point is—when you need cash you have something to EXCHANGE with future workers for their dollars. The workers won’t buy your real estate/stocks/gold/collectibles unless they value them more than their dollars. They don’t become poorer funding your retirement consumption.
In the case of Social Security, you are promised that the government will SEIZE dollars from workers and deliver them to you, with no recompense given.
We are made poorer when the government takes our $$ and gives it away to retirees. We are not made poorer when retirees sell us their summer home.
delaniac 🌹🌱@ChadNotChud
private savings obscure this fact because they make you feel more independent, but they’re a “Ponzi scheme” in exactly the same sense that social security is
English
Advancing American Freedom by increasing the amount of money the government gives away to retirees.
Straight to hell, all of you.
Advancing American Freedom@AmericanFreedom
It's time to end Social Security's outdated earnings test and let people work if they want to. @RachelGreszler offers a solution:
English
@GreenPlusAnE Whose demands? Who exactly gets to decide what the demands of 2026 are?
If you took a poll I’m pretty sure you’d find “fulfilling Social Security’s promises” is demanded by 100 million-or-so people.
English
Bingo. Perpetuating Social Security as it stands isn’t the goal. The goal is a federal budget that meets the demands of 2026, not 1983 or 1935. That means radical change is in order.
dylan matthews 🔸@dylanmatt
The Clinton budget was unbelievably brutal to pass; Al Gore had to break a Senate tie. The big q is: if you get a once-in-a-generation hike on top earners, do you want to spend it all on the elderly? Or do we have other priorities?
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke Bless you sir. That actually means a lot.
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke Okay. I think I got what you're saying. Basically, you're saying the better approach is to challenge the underlying presumption that "politicians have any right to make such promises in the first place". Right? I agree with this.
English
Not only is this incredibly dishonest—benefits are capped, too, so this makes sense—it flies directly in the face of the other dishonest claim the exact same people make, which is that “it’s not a tax, it’s a savings program.”
Senate Budget Democrats@SenateBudget
MURRAY: Is it true that people making under $184k pay a 12.4% Social Security tax rate? DAHL: Yes. MURRAY: And the rate for someone making $1 million? DAHL: 2.2%. MURRAY: So, a 12.4% tax for people making less than $184k, but 2.2% for a millionaire or .0002% for billionaires.
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke It’s exactly the wrong messaging is what I’m saying.
English
Right, they view it as a “if I pay my taxes I earn a benefit” agreement with the government.
Charles Cooke AFFIRMS that view by saying “this is how it works, the benefits are capped just like the tax” and then he says the lie being told is that it’s a savings program, which nobody anywhere is saying.
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke What in the video clip is unclear or dishonest?
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke I'm certain you wouldn't find any. So we can agree there is no *explicit* claim of this. But that shouldn't excuse the exploitation of this perceptual "grayness". If we want to have productive discussions to fix things, we need elected people to speak clearly and honestly.
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke That Social Security’s popularity doesn’t depend on people misinterpreting it as a savings program. That’s what the OP is getting at—‘if you say it’s a savings program, why do you need to scrap the cap?’
But nobody actually makes that claim, he’s tilting at windmills.
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke He put “it’s not a tax, it’s a savings program” in quotes. You don’t put quotes around things people only imply but never say.
I know it appears nit-picky, but there’s an important lesson being missed here.
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke Understood. But, to be fair (and honest), theirs a fine and subtle line here. And politicians have exploited this perceptional "grayness".
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke I know they’re implying it. The OP said they **claim** it.
Trust me, you’d be hard pressed to find any politician or pundit make claim that Social Security is a savings program.
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke "These claims are different than saying explicitly that Social Security is a savings program."
Yes. They cleverly avoid *explicitly* saying it while artfully leaving the impression it's a savings program.
So sorry you don't see this.
English
@ChrisCuilla @charlescwcooke Right, because they paid their taxes with the expectation of collecting a benefit.
To them, they have a legitimate claim—not because they think their money was saved—but because they’ve been told ‘this is how it works’
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke "Social Security’s popularity is NOT dependent on people misinterpreting it as a savings program."
That's not entirely clear. Many people get outraged at any changes that might not "give them back *their* money".
English
“You earned it”
“That money is yours”
These claims are different than saying explicitly that Social Security is a savings program.
Social Security’s popularity is NOT dependent on people misinterpreting it as a savings program.
What it’s dependent on is people viewing it as a means of securing future financial security.
Social Security’s contemporary critics try to convince the public that Social Security isn’t a GOOD way of securing future financial security, rather than countering the claim that politicians have any right to make such promises in the first place.
English
@SubvertingSS @charlescwcooke Perhaps not directly. But it is clearly implied with the frequently used phrase "your money". This is meant to mislead people into thinking there is some kind of savings account they've been contributing to. I have little doubt that is not an accidental deception.
English
These stupid fucks
Cato Institute@CatoInstitute
The US’s fiscal trajectory is deteriorating faster than most politicians are willing to admit. However, Cato’s director of Tax Policy Studies, @adamnmichel, explains how to slash deficits and fix the problem. Hint: it isn’t taxes. ow.ly/rzhq50YxEbJ
English
@ElongatedWinner @GreenPlusAnE somehow this is a profound insight
English
@GreenPlusAnE If you dropped social security and medicare AND THE FUCKING PAYROLL TAXES FOR THEM then we would still be running a massive deficit.
English
Blame Social Security and Medicare for America’s long term debt problem.
Without them, we’d be running a surplus!
English
@reddyac @Hstlinghosptlis @fuckyouiquit most benefits get paid to people who have no earthly need for them
English
@Hstlinghosptlis @SubvertingSS @fuckyouiquit We need the money Dr. a lot of people are struggling out there. We are suffering and your extra contributions will help us all out. We can pay out benefits to those who really need it to be able to get by.
English
6% of eligible voters in the US earns more than $184k a year. The other 94% would absolutely benefit from this and remember who saved social security. That 6% also still benefit from it. Try again.
Bit Paine ⚡️@BitPaine
this would be the largest tax increase in American history. whatever party approved this would never hold office again.
English
@GreenPlusAnE Great, Russ. Why blame Social Security for the tangible effect of impoverishing young families when you could blame it for the abstract effect of increased debt.
English
@MarcGoldwein It’s the hill they’re going to die on.
If anybody ever decides to meet them there In battle
English
Amazing how many progressives are rushing to the defense of multi-millionaires that supposedly need more than $100,000 of government benefits.
(And FWIW, we out a large and hugely progressive revenue option a few months ago. Along with the SFL, it could save Security.)
Roosevelt Institute@rooseveltinst
CRFB is searching for Social Security solvency in the wrong place. The problem isn’t retirees getting too much—it’s unchecked income inequality starving the system of revenue. Capping benefits isn’t reform; it’s a distraction from the real solution.
English