Posted on 08/13/2024 10:34:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With Kamala Harris becoming a rock star by inviting rock stars to open her act, it’s clear she’s focused on generating excitement through pure fluff. But whereas Harris captures headlines with showmanship, Donald Trump has an opportunity to resonate deeply with a far more substantial and often overlooked voting bloc: those who have paid into the Social Security system. If Trump zeroes in on this group, he can unlock a political goldmine that could propel him back into the White House.
In what even the New York Times admits could be a game-changer, Trump has proposed ending income taxes on Social Security benefits. This proposal speaks directly to millions of Americans who feel the sting of being taxed twice on the money they’ve worked their entire lives to earn. It’s a commonsense policy that cuts through the noise of partisan bickering and addresses a core issue that affects a massive segment of the population.
The Democrats now find themselves in somewhat of a pickle, wrapped in a conundrum in the midst of a riddle. They can’t win for losing on this. If they oppose Trump’s proposal, they risk alienating retirees — a group that’s already feeling the pinch of inflation and looking for relief. Moreover, they would have to explain why a tax break for Social Security was acceptable when proposed by Democrats in the past but suddenly becomes unpalatable when Trump suggests it.
Critics argue that eliminating the tax could reduce government revenues by $1.8 trillion over the next decade. But this perspective ignores the fundamental unfairness of taxing Social Security benefits in the first place. This money isn’t new income; it’s a return on years of hard work and contributions. For the government to tax it again is not only unjust, but also counterproductive,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If focus groups say it’s a winning issue, Kamala will also come out for it, and two weeks later the media will have convinced most people it was her idea to begin with.
That's not a federal issue. That's a local issue.
It happened while Reagan was president, but I'm pretty sure it was not his idea.
To a point. But if spending does not get cut massively, it doesn’t matter. Spending has been out running any increases in tax revenue for decades.
And no one wants to stop spending.
Bookmark.
Since LBJ the entire SS Trust Fund is placed in General Revenue. Which was and is a crime. The govt.spends money right out of General Revenue (including SS fund money which should not be there, and is in excess of total general revenue) and then borrows from the Federal Reserve Bank to make up the difference in money they should not have spent.
Then sends the “bill” for this credit borrowing right back to the taxpayers. Neat trick and absolute bullcrap. The Trust Fund should be left out of General Revenue, and also left alone (not borrowed against like some piggy bank they can raid).
Yes. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote. That “bipartisan” crap again— how many of the bipartisans were ALL Uniparty?— All of them, assuredly.
The “republican” side of the Amendments were raising the Full Retirement Age. The taxation of benefits were ALL democrat supported and pushed. They are always about taxing everything— including cow flatulence or their own bloviations, both of which smell the same.
It’s enough to get a cremation.
Next thing you know that idiot Kamala will also promise to end tax on SS... But she’d renege and never really do it. We’d probably end up with a tax hike on it instead.
Goodness, where is that? I live in a county people think has high property taxes. A million dollar home here doesn’t pay even close to that.
A fiends property is assessed at 750K and he pats about $3600 a year.
The gov’t wants to keep us poor so we are dependent on gov’t services ruled over by them.
Look up: privatized social security and Galveston, Texas
Look for the Forbes article. Many others to look at.
You could be making more then double what you get now.
The numbers are higher now as the articles below are almost 20 years old.
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform - 2005
https://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/ba514.pdf
FTA: We’ve averaged an annual rate of return of
about 6.5 percent over 24 year
Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return - $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual’s salary, better than Social Security’s.
_________________________________________
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - 2011
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/?sh=5ac504623283
A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
Lets all remember to thank Bill Clinton for passing the tax on SS Benefits to begin with.
I very much resent the expression “entitlement programs”. I paid into SS and Medicare since 1967. I’m not going to last long enough to even get my money back much less any imputed earnings on the money.
RE: Lets all remember to thank Bill Clinton for passing the tax on SS Benefits to begin with.
Actually, Prior to 1984, Social Security benefits were entirely tax-free for recipients. The taxation of Social Security benefits began in 1984 following the passage of amendments to the Social Security Act in 1983. These changes were implemented primarily to address funding concerns for the Social Security program.
The bill that led to the taxation of Social Security benefits was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on April 20, 1983. This legislation was known as the Social Security Amendments of 1983.
The primary motivation was to address the financial challenges facing the Social Security system. By the early 1980s, the Social Security trust funds were nearing depletion.
It’s important to note that while Reagan signed the bill, the decision to tax Social Security benefits was not solely his. It was the result of complex negotiations and compromises between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as recommendations from economic advisors.
So, Trump’s current proposal is going to face the same questions and concerns about solvency that Reagan faced 40 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.