Trump’s budget director reveals plans to attack Social Security and Medicare
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Opponents of Social Security and Medicare are so eager to end these two overwhelmingly important and popular earned benefits that they can’t contain themselves. Mick Mulvaney, the Trump administration’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, is the latest to make crystal clear the longstanding plan to destroy both programs.
Speaking at a conference of state legislators hosted by the anti-government American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), Mulvaney just revealed that he plans first to go after what he sees as more politically achievable cuts. He explained that the next step, presumably after Trump is in his second term , will be for the administration not just to cut these programs but to end them as we know them.
Tags
Who is online
107 visitors
Republicans love the unrich, just look
Did you even read and comprehend what you seed when you try to "Bash" this administration ?
"He said the key is to find programs that siphon money from entitlements , but aren’t part of the core programs. He pointed to Medicare money going to pay students’ medical school tuition as the type of target the administration could try to tackle without cutting into Americans’ benefits."
And the Democrats aren't filthy rich themselves? The biggest trick they ever pulled was getting the poor to think that liberal millionaires and billionaires have their best interests at heart.
The damn gop just convinced us they do not care about working families.
It is not Democrats who blew up the deficit giving breaks to big multinational corporations and the very rich who got over 80% of the gop's tax cuts even though they did not need them. Good luck selling SS cuts to voters...
Nope, all poor, welfare takers and always getting all that "free stuff", just like the right wing media has been saying for years. /s
This article/seed has nothing to do with wealth. Personal or otherwise.
The point was pointless and was not only absurd, it was also absurd.
Then I guess that goes double for the post I was responding to since he posted the article. But I guess you have to deflect since you can't defend left wing hypocrisy.
I think not. The bag by the rail you picked up.
Didn't know we were discussing the Dems, although you should be aware, which you most likely are, that the dems have never thought of destroying the safety nets. And how do you respond to that
And that's all you have, typical
Social Security and Medicare are very popular, have helped tens of millions of Americans live healthier, longer and more fulfilling lives and provided not only a sense of security for aging Americans but relieved a huge burden on their children so parents could maintain some independence even after retirement.
So what's the problem? Well Republican ideologues will tell you in very scary apocalyptic terms that "Social Security is unsustainable! It's going bankrupt and it's just a matter of time! Oh no!". But what they don't tell you is that it's solvent through 2035 paying 100% of benefits from the Social Security trust fund that was built over 80 years. Because of the boomer generation aging it will eventually not be able to pay full benefits if we keep the current withdrawal at the same capped rate.
This is a great thing for those ideologically opposed to the very idea of social security and Medicare. Those pure capitalists who see huge opportunities for profit bilking the elderly pushing prices for drugs, health care, heat and other utilities to the very brink of what the elderly can afford, because that's what capitalism does. And they want to take the $5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund and force Americans to invest that money directly into private companies which of course would inject a ton of money into private interests who would be able to use that money to turn big profits for their shareholders, potentially those social security recipients, so that's a good thing, right? Problem is, to have the chance of higher gains, you also have to increase risk which means the "security" part of "social security" would have to be abandoned. If the fund your parents invest in goes south, they're going to be moving in and sleeping on the couch because they have no more income coming in, their retirement investment went poof when the stock market had a few very bad days.
So how do we avoid such a thing? Well, we increase the social security deposit rate. It would take just 1.5% to fund Social Security through the next century. So why are Republicans so frantic about it and constantly claiming Social Security "doesn't work" or is "failing" when there's such a relatively easy fix?
Because many Republicans don't want to fix it, they don't want it working as well as it has been, they're ideologically opposed to the government taking care of anyone even if it is the elderly. If they could they'd speed up its demise, they'd cut its funding instead of increasing the deposit. They know if they allow Democrats to increase the deposit and fund it through the next century they lose their best chance at destroying one of the pillars of what they see as "socialism" in America. So even though it would be great for Americans, provide more security for our elderly, and prevent a lot of likely suffering and homelessness, many ideologues want to kill it on principle. They want those grandparents to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, to have made better choices earlier in life, have had a better job and made smarter retirement investments, which would be great in theory, but in practice it equals pain, suffering, medical bankruptcies, heartbreak, sadness and even suicide.
Democrats wealth is fair game if you want to bring up how much a Republican is worth. Democrats want to turn safety nets in to cozy nests that discourage work incitives and personal responsibility. Not so much with SS or Medicare but definitely with welfare programs that trap people in generational cycles of poverty. It's in the interest of Democrats to have a dependent underclass.
You should really know what you are talking about instead of making up your own stories, you are not good at it.
Do you have anything to refute what he said? Probably not, I'm sure.
Don't need to, fortunately I know how to read and comprehend
Not surprised, trump has to pay for those tax cuts somehow and of course, the middle class/poor will be the ones paying. Exactly what the dems said when the tax cuts were proposed in the first place. But would the GOP listen? Of course not. All they heard was, "tax cuts", and they jumped on board.
Meanwhile, our debt is increasing faster than ever. You know, the debt? That thing the right complained about DAILY while Obama was in office, and suddenly stopped when trumpy was elected?
When republicans are in office the deficient don't matter...Dick asswipe Cheney
His plan would significantly reduce the deficit. Yes it matters. I hope he can get it done.
No it won't. More bs from republicans as usual. I fucking worked all my life and paid into it and I expect my share back when I retire. If you don't want your share that's up to you but keep your hands off mine
My MIL is 93 and my mom is 84, so they can go fuck themselves if they try to take it away from them.
SS and Medicare are not "entitlements". They were paid for by the people who receive the monthly "benefits".
If Trump or the gop gave a rip about deficits why did they blow up our federal budget with massive tax cuts for the very very wealthy and big multinational corporations other than to blame cutting Social Security and Medicare on the exact same budget deficits the gop caused to go up dramatically to begin with? It is called "Starve The Beast" and it is manufactured bullshit. That is why the damn gop is losing voters by the millions. People are sick and tired of the damn gop's lies and false grace...
Debt and deficit are related, but not the same thing. Our DEBT is skyrocketing, it's not even CLOSE to going down.
Remember, the last admin took over an economy that was HORRIBLE, and it takes a lot of money to reverse that trend, that's why the last admin added so much to the debt, to save the economy... Trump took over an economy that was doing quite well and he is STILL adding to the debt. What's HIS excuse? Answer? He doesn't have one. He is cutting taxes and increasing spending. A 3rd grader could tell you that math simply doesn't work.
All these older folks that voted for trump and rely on the SS and Medicare have got to be kicking themselves about now.
"Economics is just math" - Bill Clinton - last man to balance a budget...
One of the many things the right seems to forget. He was a master at working WITH congress to get things done as well.
Clinton had a balanced budget when the GOP controlled Congress.
Funny Clinton couldn't get his own party to work with him!
First off, we should remove the cap on contributions then means test...
More redistribution of wealth?
Will it only stop when everyone has the same amount of money?
It's the Trump tax cuts that blew up the debt. Those same tax cuts benefited the richest 10%.
Still waiting on the trickledown, man.
You mean that isn't billionaire math ? NO ?
I thought that was just some math only billionaires understood. Kinda like alt facts.
sarc
Yes, the damn gop's unfair tax cuts for the very very wealthy and for big multinational corporations do redistribute our national debt burden from the wealthy and from big multinational corporations onto the backs of all hard working tax paying American families. Did you mean that kind of wealth redistribution?
Um, you said in one line, "GOP controlled congress", and in the next line, "couldn't get his own party to work with him".
Just so you know? Clinton was a Democrat. So your comment makes no sense.
You will have to try to sell that to someone else.
Sorry, but the wealthy pay a much higher percentage of net income taxes than their share of AGI. Out tax system is progressive, and the wealthy have always paid more than their "fair share".
Thanks you as well.
If the tax rates are progressive then the rich are paying their share of income taxes.
Except that, the very wealthy do not pay a higher percentages of their total income in total taxes compared with working class families though they did get the lion's share of the gop's unfair tax cuts...
here, let me explain.
Clinton had a balanced budget. Not for the entire time he was in office.'
Clinton took office in January 1993. In the midterms of 1994, the GOP won both Houses of Congress.
When Clinton was first elected, he had a Democratic Congress. He did not have a balanced budget under a Democratic Congress.
Since Clinton didn't work with the Democratic Congress to get a balanced budget, it is clear to you that he worked with a Republican Congress to get a balanced budget.
My comment made perfect sense.
Who do you think can afford to see a tax increase of say, 10%.
You?
Or..
Bill Gates?
Case closed.
The wealthy pay far more of their income as taxes than do middle class.
That is a simple fact, easily verified.
Sorry, I don't want anyone to have to pay more in taxes. I want government to spend less.
Why do you want someone to pay more than they are already? Do you think that money is spent wisely?
Then why did you vote for trump? LOL
I m not a one-issue voter.
I look at more than one category before making a judgment about a candidate.
I sure wish everyone did.
LOL
I do too, trump just didn't make the grade for me. I just couldn't get over his ways and means of accomplishing anything he does.
That disqualified him for me.
Okay.
Isn't that the way it is for everyone?
They pick a candidate they like and think they will do a good job, especially in areas that are important to them.
I think many people probably still vote like I used to, straight party line, easy breezy and your done.
After the crash of 07 08 I decided doing that was just lazy and worse it was how bad politicians get power over us, So I started researching all the candidates and voting for the person I think is most qualified for the position they are seeking.
Just hope you never need either one. However if you do DON'T TAKE
Again you show your lack of knowledge, too bad you weren't around when he was in.
Read and heed Tex
Fine give me back what has already been taken and that includes all the payroll taxes and we will call it even.
Dennis, If you were getting $45.00 more per hour from the tax cut you sure as hell were not poor before. I'd say not even middle class.
if its only 2 grand more a year so what you sure dont work much either ?
sorry something just doesn't fit
Yep, i could live with that.
Let the hyenas fight over the scraps that are left.
That said, like most Americans i really don't have a problem paying taxes to fund our Government but i get damn tired of hearing i don't pay my fair share and even more tired of how our politicians take care of themselves first while not doing their jobs. Cutting a fat hog in the ass as it were ....
Its absolutely shameful and we need to do something about it.
It's that New Math.....
O no wonder I didn't understand it. Thanks
$45 per week, not per hour, equals about $2,000 per year...
Sorry we spent that. Try back later, currently we're broke.
I was around when Clinton was President. Clinton had a Dem Congress when he was elected, and then the GOP took over in the midterms.
Anything else I can clear up for you?
Social Security isn't a savings plan. What you are doing is paying current benefits for people already retired.
The world's largest Ponzi scheme.
I understand all that. I also know appx what I paid in and what I hope to take out. If my math is correct I win. If not, I don't care I'm dead.
I had no choice but to participate if I can come out a winner, I will.
It's easy to work with Congress once you become a centrist.
Could be.
I consider myself somewhat of a centrist and I take flack from both sides a whole lot.
Many times it takes this form " Come support our side or your a loser."
One land, two ideologies can not totally govern it all themselves only as they want at the same time. Reality does not work that way. Wars have been fought over it.
When people figure that out us centrists don't seem so bad.
Yes, but I would suggest that the two ideologies in question are "reason" and "emotion".
We are a country whose citizens think so little that they actually read websites like Alternet.
You have one set of hyper-emotional morons saying things like "fuck your second amendment", sending the other set of hyper-emotional morons running out to buy an AR-15 before guns are illegal.
On this very seed, you can witness people having an actual discussion about "if they do away with Social Security"....like it's actually more likely than all life on earth being wiped out by an asteroid at the stroke of midnight on a Shrove Tuesday.
I read some of these comments, and I wonder whether or not everyone is aware that Harry Potter and Iron Man are not actually real people.
It's depressing.
Fine with me, you just remember how much it cost YOU to have simple surgery 1K plus, dooo
You really don't know what you are talking about. The tax cuts didn't do anything for working americans. You are all about Fake News
How about this one
https://truthout.org/articles/new-study-shows-medicare-for-all-would-save-us-5-1-trillion-over-ten-years/?fbclid=IwAR2aMDN0DFftzV-iXy4E-OyBTsv0f1JNq6P5ahNPfGr0Nv6GMxKPlG7HD0c
if you wish to dispute what I wrote, do so. Present any and all facts you claim to have that dispute what I actually wrote--not what you think I wrote or what you think I meant.
Alternet.
Truthout.
Dude....facts are nowhere on the horizon. This is all about finding somebody who "validates feelings".
While I agree I dont see anyone volunteering to leave America to live out either particular ideology elsewhere, so it kinda seems we're stuck with each other, then the choice becomes to work together or fight till there isn't much left to fight over or about, ... our choice still at this time. For how much longer, I'd say no one knows. United we stand devided we fall .. At what point is the question.
I suggest both ideologies have both. The dems have their reasons and feelings so do the republicans or what used to be the conservatives. We actually are all humans first and foremost. At least I hope so...lol
Depends on which "both" you're talking about.
Centrists deal in reason. Extremists deal in emotion.
Democrats and Republicans are really not all that different. Centrists and extremists are.
BS
Another TX dissing facts because they can't comprehend truth
Wow Jack, look at all that emotion you display
Feel free to present any facts to prove me wrong.
They usually don't.
He does that on a daily basis.
He never does!
[deleted]
Clean slate eh?
removed for context
removed for context
removed for context
I asked you for some facts and you conveniently ignored it.
Kind of lame to cry when others do the same to you.
Nope, don't need to spiro agnew ..... already have one
[Removed]
So if you put money in a bank, they don't have to give it back to you because it's an, "entitlement"? Medicare and SS are the same thing; you pay into it, and get it back after you retire. That's called EARNING it.
This from the guy who thought SSI was in deficit.
Why would anyone read anything the Heritage foundation puts out?
"First off, we should remove the cap on contributions then means test..."
So you DO support the reduction of earned benefits! Welcome to the GOP...
Had to sleep with my calculus teacher to get an A. Thankfully she was gorgeous and willing to tutor me.
Sounds like they want to redistribute your fica tax payments away from YOUR retirement to a shiny new wall.
MMmmm...yeah.
Sure...….just MY FICA tax payments.
R-e-a-l believable there.
All of our fica taxes. Mandatory taxes on every working American to fund retirement benefits. They aren't talking about cutting the taxes. Only the benefits. I thought you were opposed to taxes.
I AM opposed to tax increases until people in govt. demonstrate they can handle money responsibly.
Thus far, they haven't proven they can do that, and I really don't understand people who want to give the govt. more money when they do such a piss-poor job with it now.
And for the record, govt. can stop SS any old time it takes a notion to. Those benefits are not promised to anyone. When we pay FICA taxes now, that money is to pay benefits for current beneficiaries, not for our own retirement.
Well, "SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE!" - Gohmer Pyle - USMC...
He just died a year ago... Had no idea.
[deleted]
I wonder what the name of the next conservative party will be.
[Removed]
Perhaps, "Leave your wallet at the door party?"
They could change it from the GOP to the DOA...
Or maybe Conservatives Honorably Reject Ignorant Shameful Trump, the CHRIST party....
Or something a little more hip to attract young people, like Conservatives Optimistically Oppose Liberals, or COOL...
I wonder what the name of the next conservative party will be
Looking at the dedit today we I dont know thats anything we have to worry about, I see no real at least financial conservatives left to even have a party. Most trumpublicans don't seem to care.
And the Democrats plan to cover these two programs that make up 40% of the budget alone while we're 21 trillion in debt???? Crickets, I'm sure. Or massive tax plans that will see capital and wealth fleeing the country.
You do realize that these are programs that people pay for over a lifetime of WORKING, right? How would YOU feel if you spent your life paying into something, being told it's yours, only to have the government say, "Oh, that's yours? Fuck off, ours now!!!"?
And you still have the balls to say..."Well, the Democrats!!!!", really? Give it a rest. This is coming from the REPUBLICANS.
Please refresh my memory.
Weren't you in favor of inheritance taxes?
[Removed]
Do you know what 'the inheritance tax' entails? Do you know the number of individual families that 'the tax' would affect?
Thought not on both.
Oh, okay. So when the people working today lose what they paid in to due to austerity programs due to short sighted massive spending programs, I guess you'll still be blaming Republicans instead of the party that never met a spending bill it didn't like (except for ones that protect the border).
You seem to confuse me with someone else... a LOT.
Who is it again that wants to cut Medicare and SS? Who is it again that wants to cut taxes and increase spending, (the military by 5.6% for example)?
It's not the democrats. Oh yea, remember when Obama asked our republican congress for 3.7 billion dollars to fix the border problem, and congress said no? I do. I also remember Bohener telling Obama to write an EO, which he did, and the right bitched about that too. 3.7 billion, and the right came out of their skins... But donny wants almost 30 billion for his wall and the right is screaming...."Yea, build that fucker!!!!"
Did you notice that the 10 poorest states in the country are all read, and 8 of the 10 richest states in the country are all blue? Weird huh? By all means, keep cutting taxes and increasing spending, just like donny is proposing, then when the economy crashes, you can pin it all on the next president which will be a democrat... Wash, rinse repeat. Never ever accept responsibility for ANYTHING.
If you are against the inheritance tax, I apologize.
Good for you!
Enough and well said!
I know.
Why do you care about the inheritance tax?
I care about all taxes.
I think taxes should be a concern for all voters, and really can't understand people who want to give govt. more money to waste.
I agree, I think the worst part of it all is the waste. Government waste, theft and misuse is utterly ridiculous. IMO: No company could stay in business under the same conditions. No wonder we are 22 trillion dollars in dept. Soon we wont be able to handle it, then what ?
I mean WTF I sure as hell cant run my life like that what the hell makes anyone running our government think that's acceptable ?
And I se no politicians these days too concerned about it.
Good luck America !
That is why I support a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Politicians in general can only be counted on to spend money, and often not wisely.
Boy that's for sure. As far as an amendment I'm not sure only because there may be a time when it is totally necessary for a time to go over budget. and I personally dont like rules anyway so...lol
I too would love a balanced government budget , I think it's ridiculous not to have it.
Personally I'l love to see the governments budget done like I did, I always lived below my means saving for what I needed, wanted and for when I would have limited resources left to offer the world.
$22,000,000,000,000.00 in dept scares the shit outta me !
You don't either or you would still be screaming about the tax rebate to the upper classes and you don't
Oh, please.
Do tell me more about this mythical tax rebate to the upper classes you dreamt of.
If....by some 10 trillion to one chance....they did away with Social Security, you'd feel like most financially successful people do all the time. You will have spent years paying tens of thousands of dollars for a government program exclusively benefitting somebody else. Welcome to white male privilege. Sorry if it's not as glamorous as you'd imagined.
But the money was never yours. It was always theirs.
Your taxes went to pay for beneficiaries at that time. You don't have an account at SSA. You never did. They don't owe you shit.
I sure dont see that as the same.
When you earn money and its taxed you know it is no longer yours its becomes property of the government.
If you do not chose to pay that large of an amount in taxes in on that amount of income you either find loopholes or dont earn as much ... But it's your choice.
When you pay into a required joint account with the privilege of also drawing out of that joint account at a later date, then they they close the account before you get that privilege, I'd consider that crooked as hell.
I agree, although unfortunately that will never affect me. I agree with you on this, Its your money. If The government mismanaged the fund that isn't your fault any more that a poor person's fault the rich should not be penalized for the politicians not doing their jobs.
Gee, I'm sorry you had to worry about that. It must have been tough.
lol
LOL.. Sorry, I do stand by what I said before about everyone keeping their own money. And Good for you.
I just never had that problem. And never will. So it is kinda hard to empathize. Instead of being jealous.
LOL
:)
The really repugnant thing about an Inheritance Tax is that much of it has already been taxed once and most likely more than once.
Taxing previously taxed money is fundamentally wrong on many levels.
That's what we've been doing.
Just like people do with SS taxes.
It's not a joint account. If you don't believe me, try to withdraw it.
It's a tax, assessed to pay for a social program. It's no different than the taxes assessed to pay for food stamps or welfare, except that it's capped and the benefits are currently available to everybody.
They're not going to discontinue the program. That's hysterical emotional nonsense.
The math is pretty clear. They're either going to have to means test it, raise the retirement age, raise taxes, reduce benefits, or some combination of those.
The preferred mixture of those is simply a function of political leaning.
Actually, IMHO, the repugnant thing about the ESTATE tax is that neo-nationalists have convinced 'the huddled masses' that they have a vested interest in who gets hit with it. 0.0006% of the population are effected by the Estate Tax. That's about 2000 people in the U.S.
BTFW, SSI was already taxed once yet we pay taxes on it AGAIN...
Neo- nationalists?? ....... bwaaaaahaaaahahaaaa-hardy-har-har.
So, there is only 2000 people who have significance estates and businesses to hand down in the USA that will get inheritance taxed? Thats your number and you're sticking to it?
Too bad, as your numbers are ridiculously low but if they help you sleep at night by all means keep believing them. A goods nights rest is key for good health and i do wish you good health.
So what? Just another odious practice that's all.
Trump supporters used pretend that they were patriots, now according to Trump, they're neo-nationalists.
Since it's based on FACTS, YES.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/05/3200-wealthy-individuals-wouldnt-pay-estate-tax-next-year-under-gop-plan/?utm_term=.7319641a789e
So post a link that cites another total.
So it effects at least 61 million MORE people than the Estate tax.
Yet the Estate tax is oh so much more worthy of 'repugnance'...
Do you ever read at at all or do you just listen to Fox and Fools
Oh..... I suspect in the end they'll make us wonder why we bothered to plan.
Lol, i don't need to post another link. Yours does just fine as you need to reread your own link. The number you presented remains way off based on that link alone. But thats just the typical crazy liberal math i guess eh? 2+3 = 2
All double/triple/quadruple/etc taxes are repugnant and to your way of thinking simply represent a Tyranny of the Majority. Yeah, lets punish success in the US just a little bit more. I'm mean really, as long as its not you getting taxed why not right?
Actually, no, NO it doesn't, but I'm sure you'll still pretend it does. 5-3=2.
Yeah, understood. All you got now is attempts to obfuscate what you really said.
Carry on with your false narrative self .......
Judging from your reply, doubtful.
Conversely, I view it as your inability to have a cogent discussion.
5000 eligible before Trump's tax cut, 2000 eligible now.
I offered no 'narrative', I offered a link with facts, which is far more than you have proven capable of.
It's actually many thousands of times more than that.
No. It wasn't. Do you understand how it works at all? It IS a tax when you're working. That tax goes to pay benefits to current beneficiaries. At no point is it your money. Once you become a beneficiary, the income from that program is taxable under certain conditions.
PROVE IT.
Based on an amount that is TAXED.
Oh and BTFW, the SSI Trust has almost 3 TRILLION in SURPLUS. The SSI tax that I paid last year wasn't going to pay last year's beneficiaries. The SURPLUS was doing that.
Lol, all you got is false narrative. That's it. 2018 returns haven't even been filed yet and you're quoting how many will be charged estate tax? Hilarious.
But look quick! A Tyranny of Majority is showing .... have it no shame?
Of course it doesn't. Not when it comes to the usual shtick some try to push here.
All you've got is your flapping gums, yet you seem to think that's golden...
Odd you would ask for what you cannot yourself provide.
This makes negative amounts of sense, and shouting it in all caps doesn't make it better. Did you want to calm down and try again?
Out of curiosity, what was the highest level of math you studied? How about accounting?
The taxes you pay go to current beneficiaries. Any tax money left over goes into the trust fund.
In 2017, SSA collected $836 billion in taxes but paid out $916 billion in benefits. The $80 billion shortfall was offset by interest on the existing trust fund assets.
SSA is now projecting that they will need to start depleting the trust fund several years earlier than previously thought. Hence the need for the program to be altered.
Actually, I did provide a link with numbers. Why keep denying it?
According to YOUR link:
So you link says 4700 in 2013 were effected and mine says 5000 in 2018.
Perhaps you can explain cogently why you think that those numbers are contradictory?
My link states that 3000 were removed from the list by Trump's Tax cut. That leaves 2000.
Actually, it makes prefect sense. Income tax is deducted from your GROSS income, NOT your income AFTER they deduct the SSI tax.
The number I contested was 0.0006%.
Ahh. I think I see. So your point is that even our taxes are being taxed. Is that pretty close?
Which is about 2000 people...Do the math.
My point it that one pays income tax on the total from which the SSI tax is deducted. So you've already paid income tax on the income from which the SSI tax is derived.
BTW, the person who is inheriting has NOT paid ANY income tax on the inherited amount until they inherit. In many instances, the very wealthy, and let's face it, that's who we're talking about, have large quantities of tax deferred assets they have never paid taxes on.
With good estate planning much of the time that estate tax is simply passed on to the customer driving up the cost of doing business in the US further putting us at an economic disadvantage compared to other countries without a death tax. The business has to purchase very expensive life insurance to cover the cost of the tax and that is baked into their quotes and hourly rate they charge customers.
With GOOD estate planning there is NO estate tax...
How so? Please give me the details.
Ever heard of trusts? Most of my wealthy clients don't actually 'own' their homes. They are owned 'in trust'. There are all kinds of loopholes that let wealthy people enjoy their wealth without paying taxes on it.
I have done. Yours is faulty. The estate tax impacts nearly 1% of American households.
Not necessarily. If we're talking about an old person leaving money to adult kids, well maybe. But if we're talking about the heirs being minor children or young adults who are still part of the household, then that's not necessarily so. The household was taxed as that money was earned.
That's closer to true now than it was 15 years ago. Back then it was much more prevalent.
Actually, not so much. Really wealthy people can't put very much of their assets into tax deferred vehicles. The 401(k) limit for 2018 is only about $25k. If you do that every year for 20 years, you still only deposit $500k. The max SEP contribution is $55k. Meanwhile you're paying taxes on all the proceeds generated by your other $10 million or whatever you have.
It's not like anybody has $100million stashed in an IRA somewhere.
Not actually so.
Trusts have beneficiaries, and distributions are taxable events.
Sure. It keeps them from getting sued for the money. They're not particularly helpful from a tax perspective.
Yes I’m very familiar and there is a limit to the amount you can put into your trust that is tax exempt. They are good for protecting future growth of an asset but if you have a large estate you simply cannot just put it into a trust and avoid gift-death tax. You are not giving me details on how to avoid all estate taxes.
Again, post a link that give that stat.
Perhaps eventually but they can live in multi million dollar houses while paying little to no taxes. The property taxes are different than if it were 'privately' owned too.
BTW, we haven't even touched on Capital gains, which is where the wealthy make most of their wealth and where taxes are deferred or in some cases, non-existent.
If you are in a position to be inheriting an estate over 11 MILLION, I suggest that rather than ask me you hire an estate lawyer.
BTW, if you ARE going to be inheriting that kind of money, you should be more than willing to pay at least SOME estate taxes.
In 2013 it was about 1 out of five hundred that would be about 650 thousand people in the USA.
I have UHY but you made it sound like you knew how to avoid estate taxes better than they do that’s why I asked.
The Social Security TRUST Fund is 3 TRILLION in surplus. The 'inter-governmental' debt is secured through Special Issue Securities which are backed by the 'Full faith and credit' of the US government.
As of 2015, the 'inter-governmental' debt owed to the SSI Trust fund was 5.1 TRILLION, which is WAY more than we owe China...
Here, get educated:
BTFW, if "WE" default on the debt owed to the SSI Trust Fund, will China keep buying our Treasury Bonds?
I believe you have omitted three or four zeros.
Net worth for a 99th percentile household is $10.3 million in 2017. The estate tax exemption is 11 million.
As you've indicated already, 4700 estates actually had to pay some level of estate tax. This represents .2% of all the people who died (article already cited). It does NOT, however, account for all the people who had to make some form of arrangement to move assets or set up life insurance trusts or jump through various other hoops to eliminate their liability. Those families are impacted, even if they are successful in eliminating the tax liability.
Yes....but.....
No...there kinda is.....
Which is how bank accounts work, isn't it?
The unfunded liabilities do not mean there is no trust fund. However you are correct, the program is going to need to change or go broke.
Also ALREADY indicated is that 4700 was from 2015, by 2018 it was 5000 and was cut by more than half by the Trump Tax Cut, down to 2000.
The .0006% [equivalent to 2000 people] you have been attempting and failing to refute is a percentage of the POPULATION, not the percentage of people who died.
You have yet to post a link that supports your claim.
I note that you've changed your parameters from a percent of households to % of all people who died, i.e estates. I have been referring to the population from the start and IMHO that is the relevant metric.
How so? The only way for that to happen is if the US government defaults on it's debt to the Trust.
I provided a link that proves that SSI benefits are being paid by the interest from the Trust, NOT the principle.
The only 'scheme' going on here is the GOP and now the neo-nationalists pushing the LIE that the Trust has no right to collect the long standing debt. I ask again, if the US defaults on the debt to the Trust, WHO will buy our Treasury Bonds in the future?
When Bush was running 2 wars on the cuff, it didn't seem to bother the GOP that the SSI bonds [borrowing] were getting a 5+% interest rate. Reagan didn't mind when they were getting over 15%.
IMHO, with all of the threats to the Trust, the Trustees should demand a HIGHER interest rate on future bond issues, at least a .25 point higher then the lowest rate that they are forced to take now...
From you link:
You left out the 'who die' out of your 'calculation'.
I presume by that comment that you aren't one of the boomers who have been paying into the system and having their contributions 'borrowed' to keep the government afloat for the last 50+ years.
I'm retired and my SSI income is JUST above the poverty level of a single person. Luckily I'm married and my spouse is still working full time.
From THAT comment I presume that you refuse to recognize that the SSI Trust is SOLVENT.
If you REALLY give a shit about budget, you're looking in the WRONG place for dealing with the debt since SSI is NOT part to the Federal budget. .
Actually, it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with felling 'warm and fuzzy', it has to do with MATH. The SSI TRUST FUND hold Treasury Bonds, as does the Federal Reserve and our other debt holders.
Are you claiming that those bonds have no value?
Why is 'that DEBT' the only one you seem to care about? How about the DEBT that the Trump tax cut just created? How about the DEBT that the 20% increase in Defense spending just created? How about the DEBT that the Tariff bailout just created? How about the 3 million in DEBT created by Trump's weekly golf outings?
Where is your outrage for all of THAT DEBT?
Out of curiosity, where would you prefer them to invest the SS trust fund, if not US Govt bonds? Should it go into the stock market? Foreign bonds? Or do we just bury it in a hole in the ground?
Interesting that you don't refer to any level of retirement savings. Did you expect more Social Security?
What gave you the idea that I have an issue with the Trust Fund accepting Treasury Bonds? My issue is that there are some here that don't think that the government should honor that debt.
As for retirement savings, having a heart attack without health insurance took care of that about 10 years ago...but hey, we saved our house...
Nope.
That doesn't sound very blissful or arrogant.
That's an obtuse comment. The Trust Fund is in surplus. The debt is the government's, NOT the Trust Fund's.
Nor do I but you seem incapable of understanding the distinction between the Trust Fund and the Federal treasury.
I refuse to rely on BS from the Heritage foundation to inform me of facts. SSI has a very thorough and transparent website with all the facts anyone would need to make a truly informed argument. You should try reading it for yourself and coming to your own conclusion rather than counting on Heritage to give you the 'Readers Digest' version of the facts...
Unfortunately Dulay, many in washington seem to see our money as their money.
- 321steve, 2018
lol
They transfer every dime of the SS trust fund into the Treasury every year. Then when interest payments come due, they issue MORE 'bonds' and file them on top of the other almost 3 TRILLION they [we] owe SSI.
I know, it almost reminds me of when I was a child. I had a savings account my folks would barrow from to pay bills some times. One day my little savings jar was empty except for a note that said something like "Sorry, we had to borrowed all your money, we'll pay it back when we can."
and the amount,
I was puissed.
Eventually I did get it back after I had moved out, (with no interest of course.)
I'm hoping for the same here and a little interest would be nice.
Like I said earlier IF we get screwed out of our SS and medicare I have no reason to remain in the USA, Screw me that bad, I'm outta here. This country won't get another dime out of me.
Should members of Congress grow a pair AND RAISE THE CEILING AS TO PAYMENTS INTO SOCIAL SECURITY SO THAT FOLKS WHO DON"T PAY A PENNY MORE BEYOND EARNINGS OF $127,200 to $128,400 … pay into it like most Americans … ON THEIR FULL INCOME.
An individual with income and earnings of i.e. $1 million/year, DOES NOT PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY ON HIS LAST …
… $872,000!!!!!
Those who enjoy this favorable anomaly, do so because the lobbyists who "make the rules" via buying legislators, can well afford to pay the same was as the middle class American worker … BUT DON'T!
If everyone paid into Social Security on all income … IT COULD BROADEN THE BASE AND LOWER THE RATE …
… for everyone.
The game is rigged by ORGANIZED WEALTH which literally fucks over the working class that will pay to close the deficit exploded by the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations … with tax increases down the road, and, the rape of social security, medicare and medicaid.
So do you also want to raise their benefits or just steal from them to pay for others?
So do you also want to raise their benefits or just steal from them to pay for others?
Their benefits would be calculate like everyone else's! They have more income, the pay into Social Security accordingly, AND, BECAUSE THEIR INCOMES ARE GREATER …
THEIR BENEFITS WOULD BE CORRESPONDINGLY GREATER AS WELL!
I'll give your question the benefit of the doubt and assume it was legitimate … rather than a rhetorical question to mislead.
There are people who believe that the income base for Social Security taxation should be unlimited, but benefits should be capped.
So it's a fair question to ask whether or not you feel that way.
It would drain the reserves faster. Statistically, affluent people live longer. Also, most Americans collect many times more SS benefit than their contributions could ever have funded. That's somewhat problematic when the benefit is capped. It's much more problematic when the benefit is unlimited.
That may not be accurate but it's a difficult math problem.
What if the interest incurred from the Trust investing 'my' SSI tax went into 'MY' account, instead of into the Trust as a whole?
IT'S YOUR MONEY RMANDO. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE IT TO THE GOVERNMENT YOU'RE FREE TO DO THAT. They're not taking mine without a fight.
Trump’s Budget Director Reveals Plans To Attack Social Security And Medicare
How does this make our country Greater ?
Maybe get rid of some of the sick and elderly ?
Just say so if so. Soylent green we can understand.
sarc kinda
No. I have paid into this since I was 13. I want it back.
Me too, with interest !
Hell even when I was a kid and my parents would borrow out of my piggy bank I got interest.
lol
Exactly.
The IRS is another bunch of bs.
If an overpayment is not discovered within a certain time frame, it's water under the bridge. If there is an underpayment, you owe them forever.
You bet it is, I set up my withholding so that they didn't take out more than I would owe at the end of the year. No interest, no extra.
I handle witholdings the same.
One time I was stupid and didn't properly include the total cost basis of some stock options sold. Well, x number of years latee I realized this. This means my return was quite a bit less than it should have been. I went to file an adjusted return and they said "oh, you are a year too late". WTH? You know what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.
No dinner, show or even a thank you eh ?
No surprise.
.........................
I messed up the first year on a new job and didn't have quite enough taken out, But I'd still rather pay a little at the end than have them taking my money for the year and not paying me interest on it.
Just something to the effect of "have a nice day"...
Not even a kiss?
Not even a kiss.
Those rat bastards.
Not even a kiss.
Those rat bastards.
LOL .. You did good actually I've seen some of those IRS employees. Getting screwed by the IRS and not having to give them a kiss at the end is getting off easy I'd say.
If trump has his way, you'll never see it. It will go right into the pockets of people that don't even need it.
This is going to turn into a hornets nest.
Thankfully though at least come january we may have some since of balance return.
We'll see. the dems want stuff too.
True. If trump DOES do away with Medicare and SS, and everyone loses what they have paid in? It will be decades before there is another republican president.
People will start vacating America, me along with them.
And that is no shit, Take that part of what I've worked for all my life and I'm done here.
Screw me once, I don't give ya a second chance if I can keep from it.
Holland may be nice.
I wouldn't be surprised if some folks have turned into lame ducks within the past few days.
What's that phrase? I think we've hit a "pivot point"?
Perhaps but the world still revolves around one man for now.
That is what they all said about The Emperor Caligula, too...
Yep an another part of why not to underestimate trump. Who knows how a person with too much power will act. and what is too much power to any given individual. I'm thankful we have a more balanced congress coming on board. I hope they do their job.
Do you realize what you put in is less than 1% of major surgery today
Maybe so but I put it in unwillingly with the promise I would have healthcare when I got old.
So sorry I dont see it as my problem. If they vote to change it for the future that's their choice, Just dont try to change the contract over me without my consent. I lived up to my end of Their deal.
Not very different from how I see it.
How is this any different than someone breaking into my house and threatening me and my family for my money?
I have a permanent solution for that.
LOL.. Well, I'm not gonna get homicidal about it, LOL
But I would start making plans if they steal my SS and medicare to leave the country and never give America another dime.
Right you can't go there. But the analogy easily comes to mind.
Can't disagree with ya there.
Talk to the republicans because you don't have health coverage at dicent prices.
And move to where? The majority of countries with full health care use high taxes to pay for you. BTW you would pay more than ever
I'm good at doing research. I do believe I could still find a place where the government does not make false promises to steal your wealth and trust.
IMO: Neither political party is no longer fiscally responsible and together I have little doubt they are well on the way to bankrupting his country.
You try paying off $22,000,000,000,000.00
Yeah lets add health care for all americans to that... Duuu... seriously ?
Good Luck America !
We just want the stuff we already paid for - our Social Security. Which we paid into and are still paying into.
Tesslyo, I want what's mine back as well, I also would like interest on my investment that I was forced to make, be cause if I had saved that money on my own it would have been in some sort of interest baring account like most of the rest of my investments were.
As far as what the dems want, some of it is probably needed like highway refurbishing , bridges, the schools and education in general, but both sides always have wants as well as things that the country really needs.
Its the wants before the needs is why we are now 22,000,000,000,000,00 dollars in dept and still the country is falling apart. With both sides contributing to the debt.
And...Both sides still want to control it all.
Good luck America
I want a responsible cooperative government but I don't think I'll see that either, thankfully at my age, I dont need it. So....
Party on.
SS isn't a savings account. It isn't your money once the govt. takes it.
Your payments are going to pay for current beneficiaries.
Govt. can change benefits any time it deems fit to do so. Or end benefits, for that matter.
All true look at how many times the American government has reneged on their promises and contracts. Wait till we file for bankruptcy the world will know we dont keep our word if we dont choose to.
Native americans and now Deca people already know that.
One man leading making decisions for a time then the next leader says .. . well No we dont want to do that.
I guess that's why executive orders suck. and probably always have for some.
I do know for myself after paying into these programs all my life if the government decides to renege on the deal forced on with me to take my money, I will be doing all I can to ever avoid giving this government another dime, up to relocating once more , this time abroad.
And I doubt I'm alone in this.
Yep, and that is one reason I am always amazed when people want to pay higher taxes to a govt. that isn't a very good steward of that money. It's like they think "Hey, here's some extra money. Let's see how fast you can waste it."
LOL
I second that.
Yep. We don't need multi-billion dollar planes or ships we'll probably never use. We don't need to know the mating habits of the yellow-bellied, red-hawked tree lizard in Timbukto, we don't need a gazillion federal agencies duplicating each other's work. We don't need to be the world's protector and policeman.
We need sane national security and to take care of our veterans.
Yes on both the veterans and the national security !!
I'd add we also need fiscal responsibility throughout our government including campaign finance reform. (Perhaps that would also help lessen the division of us the politicians now rely in part on to take office) Plus our tax dollars would go so much further if we could get rid some if not much of the waste, incompetence and corruption !!
We could start with being able to replace government employees that cant or won't do their jobs, and reexamining our wants and Needs list(S).
As far as buying what we dont need I certainly agree, however as far as being the worlds police force, I used to agree, until I realized I'd rather we be that force that another country and we became just another country they policed.
As far as the crazy stuff we study... thats wants, not needs. In my world my needs come first, when and if there is EXTRA then the wants are looked at.
$22,000,000,000,000.00 in dept scares the crap out of me. To be adding to that daily is insane. Wants should be put on hole till we get that under control, they wont be.
Saying, Good Luck America.... Is where I'm at.
LOL. After my dad retired from the Navy, he went to work for the Dept. of Labor for 10 years and I can still hear him bitching about some of the incompetents he worked with and couldn't get rid of.
We may indeed be screwed. No Congress will ever pass a term limit on themselves. Not many will ever not spend money, because each and every one of them are expected to "bring home the bacon" to their district or state.
I know some people honestly believe that some of the newer members of Congress are going to "make a difference" but there simply not enough of them to effect any change, IMO.
Don't think luck is going to be very helpful.
LOL
Sadly I dont really either.
I know some people honestly believe that some of the newer members of Congress are going to "make a difference" but there simply not enough of them to effect any change,
Yep more likely the change will come from the new members, adapting to the system. As usual.
I say it is well past time to assert some pressure on other countries to obtain some favorable deals for us.
If they aren't willing to pay to protect themselves, and expect us to do it, at least we should get SOMETHING out of it.
Many times we do get stuff, some non material. But maybe it's time we do start outsourcing some of our policing of the world but who can we let take up the slack ?
And who would be the first ones to do it id we didn't ?
If the two are one and the same, maybe.
We really don't need to police anything other than ourselves.
Let the others figure it out for themselves for once.
And no, I am not advocating for burying our heads in the sand.
But the constant expectation from the rest of the world is way past the point of enough already.
Our country should be an example to the rest of the world, and if people in other countries want to imitate what we have done here, let them!
O they would, China, Russia, Iran, would be happy if the USA stepped aside I think.
Probably others as well. Someday maybe we can retire and just let anther nation or nations police the world but that would probably also end policing us as well.
Better IMO: WE be the world police.
LOL
24/7/365 political biased dirt news spread world wide ... $22,000,000,000,000.00 in debt... .... a nation devided..... leaders constantly under investigations ... infrastructure falling apart..... healthcare cost out of control... immigration a mess... and two month old elections in question
Who the Hell in their right mind would even want to imate the American government these days ? perverts and crooks ! lol... Maybe.
And yet, people are willing to go through hell just to come here, and some very rich people from all over the world seem to think their children need to be American citizens.
Maybe we should ask for some of those loans to European countries we made after WWII?
Or maybe at LEAST just the interest on those loans?
hell, we have saved the world twice, and rebuilt it both times. Let some others shoulder some fucking responsibility for a change of pace!
OK IF twice is enough.
For me it kinda was by time of a third time I probably won't give a shit either way anyhow.
While I agree much of natural resources have been pretty well reserved and protected which is a huge advantage but I believe our talent pool is slipping judging by the amount of incompetence I see constantly in the american workforce not to mention the american government, Ok is good enough now. Hurry it up, because the next buyer already has their money in hand type society.
Ya think maybe we have $22,000,000,000,000.00 worth of natural resources we can spare as well ? Because we may have to before it's over. Bankruptcy comes at a price.
If I were a new country just starting looking to imate one...I think I'd keep looking.
And how old are you?
In my 60s.
Been here, there and done a thing or two.
I'm sure that your other sources don't say what you would have us believe they do either.
All the lies told on the campaign trail cannot compare to the harm being done out in the open and the lies being told to mask horrific policies being enacted.
While the media failed and kept focus on the bright shiny objects, all the swampy dirt happened with no challenge to the lies.
Nothing about Trump is about the American people, it is about how Trump can dupe the people into following him over a cliff and blindly go along.
Everything is about Trump, his family, his money, his properties, his golf courses, his lies, his twisted bizarre belief system.
Nothing is about helping veterans, the poor, the American people in general or about improving anything. He is on a burn it all down mission to destroy the environment, hand our country parcelled out to any one with an open checkbook and the GOP turns a blind eye while they go behind their own constituents backs secretly looking how they can make a personal profit without being caught in an ethics scandal.