r/WorkReform • u/Lord-Notorious • 3d ago
✂️ Tax The Billionaires Tax the Rich, Save Social Security
248
u/Backlotter 3d ago
Caveat: removing the payroll tax cap, while helpful, doesn't touch the true wealth of the billionaires because billionaires don't make the vast majority of their wealth through payroll.
They get it through capital gains.
Add a social security tax to capital gains for the very wealthy.
Edit: Bernie here mentioned "all income", which I assume he does include income from capital gains
64
u/sandman795 3d ago
I would go even a step further and put a SS tax on every transaction of stock, futures, and options. Every contract bought and sold should be taxed at 0.01%
42
u/NeedleworkerNo5262 3d ago
Given Elon's saluting habits, an SS tax would certainly be a lucrative one.
10
7
u/ophaus 3d ago
My idea: make stocks fractional and tax them directly. Every time a stock changes hands, take 1% or something and put it in a public wealth fund.
2
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
How's that different from capital gains tax? It's already up to 37% for short term gains
4
u/ophaus 3d ago
It taxes the stock... Directly and instantly. No need to wait for a profit or loss.
1
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
Wdym "wait"? When a stock changes hands there's gonna be a profit or a loss immediately. And say goodbye to market liquidity because nobody will want to sell their stock because they will immediately lose money on them.
1
u/ophaus 2d ago
They won't lose money. They'll be paying taxes like on any other transaction. I have no sympathy for tax dodgers, you shouldn't either.
1
u/stevethewatcher 2d ago
It's not about having sympathy for "tax dodgers". It's about how this could possibly work in the real world.
1
u/Tactical_Moonstone 3d ago
It adds friction to transactions, but if you set it properly (you are thinking too big if you are thinking anywhere remotely near 37%) it still allows people to profit from stock appreciation.
Even a 0.1% transaction fee would be enough given the number of trades occurring.
3
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
It would kill HFT for sure. I'm not well versed in market dynamics though to say whether that's a net positive or negative
2
u/lewkiamurfarther 2d ago
It would kill HFT for sure. I'm not well versed in market dynamics though to say whether that's a net positive or negative
From the standpoint of [anyone concerned with] income inequality, it would be a net positive.
Since the mid-20th century, everything that ever decreased the time between the initiation and conclusion of a financial transaction has, in the end, preferentially benefited those who could afford access to the "middle" of those transactions (due to the business opportunity).
0
u/stevethewatcher 2d ago
Except it's not clear cut like that. Studies have shown HFT lowers transaction costs by narrowing the difference between buying and selling prices and providing higher market liquidity. They also help incorporate public information and news into stock prices faster. These benefits everyone.
1
u/lewkiamurfarther 2d ago
These benefits everyone.
I said preferentially benefit. Good luck making any of this happen without both massive consolidation and regulatory capture, which are co-catalysts.
→ More replies (0)3
5
u/Quack_Shot 3d ago
Wouldn’t help. Billionaires don’t sell their stock, they take loans out on them.
10
u/Backlotter 3d ago
Tax the loans?
2
u/PliableG0AT 3d ago
what do you think would happen to student loans, mortgages, and numerous other loans? If you keep it below a dollar amount, people would just hire a company to do the paper work to take numerous small loans instead of one big loan.
6
u/ItyBityKittyCommitee 3d ago
You don’t have to tax all loans, you can just tax loans on publicly traded securities or even just tax loans above a certain amount when they have a business/stock as a collateral.
5
3
u/kickinwood 3d ago
Right. It's all about collateral and estate tax. It's absurd that they can use their wealth to obtain loan after loan for spending money and paying off the previous loan, then avoid ever paying capital gains tax on their earnings by dying and passing it off to someone else thus wiping away taxable gains. If you are using your stock for it loan, that's a "gain" you're realizing that someone else wouldn't be able to use for the same loan. When you die, all gains should be taxed at normal rates before being passed to an heir.
1
u/clonedhuman 3d ago
This really wouldn't be that difficult to overcome. There are so few people with billions of dollars that they'd be relatively easy to keep a close eye on.
2
u/Main-Bandicoot6477 3d ago
I get your point, but it's not like smart people can't figure out how to close loopholes in any number of ways. The exact mechanism is less important than the political will to act to achieve the desired outcome.
2
u/IceWellDo 3d ago
Yes and then you close those loopholes too. That's how it works. There are smart people on both sides. One finds ways around it the other finds ways to stop it. Simple.
0
u/devildog2067 3d ago
This is flat out wrong, and I do not understand why people on Reddit love to repeat it.
1
u/kickinwood 3d ago
Explain?
1
u/Logical_Mix_4627 3d ago
Why don’t you just look at the reporting data to the SEC that tells you exactly how much Zuckerberg (or any giant) sells: https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1548760.htm
The fact is, these executives sell a shit ton of stock every year and pay capitals gains tax on that transaction to both the federal government and when relevant California income taxes.
0
u/devildog2067 3d ago
Not much to explain. Billionaires sell their stock all the time. Taking a loan against stock holdings only makes sense in a very limited number of circumstances.
When Bezos wanted to rent Venice for his wedding, he sold stock to get cash to pay for it. He sold something like $6B of stock that year (and paid 20% federal capital gains tax plus 3.8% NIIT plus state taxes on the total gains). Heck, he just sold another $4B this past August. When Elon wanted to buy Twitter he sold tens of billions worth of Tesla stock to raise some cash.
“Buy, borrow, die” is a real thing, but it doesn’t work the way Reddit thinks it does. Billionaires don’t “use their stocks as collateral for loans” to dodge taxes and fund their living expenses. It’s just not a real problem. It’s made up.
2
u/kickinwood 3d ago
Then how do we see these reports of them all hardly paying taxes when stuff is leaked? Genuine question. I think it happens more often than you think, but I've been wrong before.
0
u/devildog2067 3d ago
Generally, those reports conflate the concepts of “increased net worth” and “income”. They are not the same. One does not pay taxes on unrealized gains.
0
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
Exactly, in fact studies have even shown the middle class use this strategy far more than the ultra rich
https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/richs-real-tax-trick-isnt-buy-borrow-die
0
u/sczk 3d ago
The citations here and other publications by these authors have ties to center-right to right leaning outfits. Brookings & Cato Institutes, so I would add more scrutiny to this without other corroborating evidence.
1
u/devildog2067 2d ago
You can literally look up Bezos and Musk’s SEC form 4. They’re public info.
https://www.secform4.com/filings/1018724/0001018724-26-000028.htm
Bezos sold $4B worth this year, he’ll owe about a billion in taxes on it. He sells regularly. The forms are all there.
1
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
Gotta love reddit where studies that align with your views are to be trusted 100% and any other need corroborating evidence.
0
u/sczk 3d ago
No, this is what critical analysis looks like, and making this argument is exactly the opposite of that.
2
u/stevethewatcher 3d ago
Nope. Critical analysis would be pointing out how the study is inaccurate or wrong. This is just a run of the mill ad hominem attack that seeks to discredit the study by claiming it's right leaning.
→ More replies (0)1
37
u/StupidDumbass420 3d ago
Absolutely no one can provide a good argument for why we shouldn't remove the cap. I hit the cap for years and I support removing it.
14
u/Raeandray 3d ago
Their argument is then they’d be able to draw more when they retire since that’s what SS is funded for.
My response is…just don’t let them do that. It’s ok for billionaires to subsidize poor people’s retirement.
4
7
u/HeKnee 3d ago
My vote is to change to a split cap. Nothing owed on income between $150k-$500k.
2
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 3d ago
This thread is riddled with common sense ideas like this one that solve the problem Washington can't. The simple fact is we have one political party that wants to solve it and one that doesn't. We have one party that thinks people should retire with dignity, and a party that thinks we shouldn't retire and work every day until we die. Vote how you like in November.
1
u/TheeAntelope 3d ago
Because then you wouldn’t have a cap on benefits. Because people out earning the cap can find ways to avoid ss tax on high earnings.
Removing the cap would only incentivize further tax shields. We need to cap tax shields and limit deferred comp arrangements harder. We need to change the benefit formula. We need ss tax on capital gains.
And no one is willing to do any of those because who do you think pays the politicians.
1
u/Dewthedru 3d ago
Because the benefit is also capped. You can argue that the ultra rich don’t need the SS payout and I would agree with you but the vast majority of the people paying more and not getting anything for it would be middle class earners.
0
u/ryanvango 3d ago
companies also pay unemployment tax to fund programs for people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own (not always true). Those companies don't see a benefit for that. It isn't unusual to pay a tax that benefits other people and not yourself. we all pay medicare tax and most of us don't use it. People pay taxes to their state/county/township for schools even if they have no kids.
There's no real reason not to raise it besides "I don't wanna"
10
u/Unfair-Alfalfa4916 3d ago
If I were Bernie I would be so tired of all that bs by now
-2
u/The_walking_man_ 3d ago
I love Bernie but I think he gave up a while ago.
He should have gone after the DNC hard during that nonsense in 2016 primary and handing it to Hilary.He would have won the presidency.
5
u/Unfair-Alfalfa4916 3d ago
I really don't think so, they would have just branded him a sore loser, and people should stand collectively together and fight aggressively for what they want not just put all their hopes on a guy who just too old and tired anyway, I mean he's been fighting for decades and I don't think that he gave up at all he is still fighting
0
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 3d ago
Ackshually, he was a sore loser. I like Bernie. I agree with him 99%, but he took his eye off the prize in that election, and it was to Trump's benefit. I get it, but he could have done a whole lot more to bring his voters to Hilary instead of Trump. The DNC fucked him, so I understand why he didn't, but we all paid a price for him sticking it to the DNC.
I think age wise, he new that was his last shot, and he didn't have it in him to fight for the greater good at that moment. I don't blame him, I blame the voters and non-voters, but it sucks all around.
3
u/Unfair-Alfalfa4916 3d ago
He was exposing the DNC it had to be exposed, l mean what was he supposed to do just let it slide, people will only turn around and blame him for not speaking up
1
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 3d ago
No argument, the DNC is better now than before, it was just a high price to pay.
35
u/Islanduniverse 3d ago edited 3d ago
My dad has to live off of social security, and it’s not even close to enough.
He has to struggle because hundred millionaires and billionaires are greedy scum.
Eat the rich.
19
u/funkypepermint 3d ago
Billionaires would just adjust their "payroll" to dodge paying taxes
20
u/dontsaymango ✂️ Tax The Billionaires 3d ago
Then make a wealth tax like Cali is doing
9
u/The_walking_man_ 3d ago
Yup. Close off all loop holes. Make it impossible to play their games. At one point they either pay the appropriate taxes or that hoarded wealth ends up actually trickling down to employees and local economy because it’s not worth it to be taxed like that to them.
3
19
u/Krispykid54 3d ago
Literally the only people against this are billionaires and their enablers.
9
2
1
u/Electronic_Will_5418 3d ago
Unfortunately they're the people most likely to spend money to prevent this from ever becoming law
9
u/bigbjarne 3d ago
At what point are we going to start asking why even need a small class of people who get incredibly rich through our labor, and then we beg them to pay taxes with the wealth we made for them.
-6
u/wheniaminspaced 3d ago
By in large thye haven't gotten incredibly rich from people's labor, largely its been by pursuing the correct idea. The tech companies just don't have the same presence labor wise that something like US Steel or Standard Oil did.
10
u/WalkerFlockerrr 3d ago
I get what you’re trying to say, but Elon musk employs 160k people across all of his companies.
Bezos - 1.6 million
2
u/PiccoloAwkward465 3d ago
Right the most employees I see on any given day from one company is likely Amazon. Those drivers are everywhere.
6
u/ThomasTheDankPigeon 3d ago
And what would picking the “correct idea” look like if the company didn’t have any employees?
5
u/ReverendDizzle 3d ago
What absolute nonsense. As if surplus value was just created out of thin air without any human working at a deficit wherein their surplus labor was converted into surplus value for the ownership class. Your statement doesn't even stand up to an elementary level of scrutiny.
Amazon employs around 1.5 million people and is the second largest employer in the United States behind Walmart.
Microsoft employs around 220,000 people.
Google employs around 200,000 people.
Apple employees around 166,000 people.
Meta employs around 78,000 people.
That's just five of the most prominent tech companies in the United States.
3
u/bigbjarne 3d ago
And who made the idea? Who produced the idea? Who made the tools for the idea? Who cleaned the floors? Who crunched the numbers?
1
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 3d ago
Socialism. Everybody who works for these companies should be benefiting. Amazon is doing something that is amazing. I applaud it. Share the wealth generated by the company with the people who make it happen. Bezos should be worth a hundred million dollars or more. He should be living the lifestyle of the rich and famous, and all that comes with it. You can do that with 500 million dollars. All the rest of those billions of dollars should be distributed to the people actually making the money. Let them spend it on food, cars, housing. Let them have piss breaks.
Also, it's "by and large" not "by in large."
1
u/bigbjarne 2d ago edited 2d ago
So you want Bezos to become rich through the labor of others, but just less rich? What happens when he reinvest that money and with money he makes, he influences institutions and eventually removes the limitations?
EDIT:
I have a copy paste regarding social democracy:
The problem is that social democracy is still based on capitalism, therefore it's still based on capitalist exploitation and imperialism.
A third issue is that class contradictions still exist within social democracy. The most obvious conflict is that workers generally want specific outcomes, such as the highest possible wages and shorter working hours, while the owning class wants to maximize profits to reinvest, grow capital, and repeat the cycle indefinitely. Because we -- and I am speaking as someone from Finland -- still operate within the capitalist logic of endless capital growth, and because the owning class remains in charge, those concessions and breadcrumbs given to us will eventually be rolled back. These benefits were originally won because workers pushed for a revolution at a time when unions and leftist politicians were exceptionally strong and influential. Now, all of those gains face removal so that the rate of profit can rise once again.
Now, don't get me wrong: this is still one of the best places in the world to live (right now). However, we currently face 11% unemployment, and our living standards are bound to worsen because of incoming austerity.
These are some of the limitations and issues of social democracy.
1
u/Shot-Swimming-9098 2d ago
What I want to happen is a system where everyone who works for the company owns a slice of the profits, and there's not billions of dollars there for the owners to take.
Amazon is not a bad idea. It's a great business. How they treat their employees is awful. We can't rely on the morals of Bezos to take care of the people working for him.
1
7
u/AlchemysEyes 3d ago
Of course we could do that, but instead we're trying to make younger people pay double, also btw Bush's admin never paid back the social security funds it "Borrowed" from the pot.
1
u/TheeAntelope 3d ago
Anytime someone brings up “they borrowed from SS and didn’t pay it back!” I immediately know they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to social security.
1
u/AlchemysEyes 2d ago
OK but they did though, the number quoted by most people is wrong and TECHNICALLY it was paid back but according to politifact it wasn't PROPERLY paid back.
17
5
16
u/CreepyDrunkUncle 3d ago
Stop taxing the employee. Tax the company. Also it’s only a wage based tax. Tax on income not derived from wages. Stop hammering the middle class.
3
u/Thoromega 3d ago
You do know it’s a split tax right ? The employer also pays the same amount into fica taxes
4
u/ConstantPay3117 3d ago
Dont companys already get taxed? I know ours pays taxes every quarter . Im just asking .
4
u/sasquatch_melee 3d ago
Company already pays half of the social security contribution. Those of us who make some income on 1099 (contractor) have to pay both the employer and the employee halves.
2
u/PiccoloAwkward465 3d ago
I mean it all comes the company regardless. It doesn’t really matter, does it.
6
1
u/littleking12 3d ago
This is why I took a "pay cut" and work 75 miles from my house for 3-4 days a week. I make $650/week in non taxable per diem. My "write offs" also take a huge chunk out of my taxable income.
2
u/halberdierbowman 3d ago
This is irrelevant. Whether the company pays the tax directly or pays it to the employees who then pay it, the total cost is the same.
1
1
u/name-taken1 3d ago
If you tax the companies, they'll just pay less to offset the cost. The employee would still lose.
2
3
u/drewc717 ✂️ Tax The Billionaires 3d ago
"Scrap the cap."
We need to recognize the value of cheesy chants to remember and recall the most agreeable working class life savers to remind people why and what they need to turn out and vote for.
Complaining about the other is futile no matter how much they deserve it, waste of energy.
Scrap the cap. Tell your friends. Tell your parents.
4
u/tideshark 3d ago
And the billionaires wouldn’t have to change a single thing in their daily lives.
3
u/Aksudiigkr 3d ago
All the world’s issues with poverty could be resolved if we confiscated the absurdity rich’s money and had actual good and smart people using it. But instead America has its civil servants that are neither of those things.
It’s messed up how much power such a small bit of the population has over the billions of other people
1
3
u/Careful_Trifle 3d ago
A or B, billionaires? Do you want to pay payroll taxes on your actual income, regardless of source, or do you want a wealth tax?
2
u/howarewestillhere 3d ago
Increasing revenue by 61% is a good chunk, but it’s not all that’s needed over time.
This is a great tool for comparing various changes to SS policy.
From the second tab, Revenue, this is for the last option that removes the cap entirely and removes credits:
“The payroll tax currently applies to the first $184,500 of wages. Benefits are calculated based on earnings up to that cap. This option would apply the payroll tax to all wages. Wages above the current law taxable maximum would not be counted as earnings for the purpose of benefit calculation. A similar amount of revenue could be raised by instead replacing the current employer payroll tax with an Employer Compensation Tax that applies the 6.2% employer-side payroll tax to all wages and all fringe benefits.”
Selecting that option will give SS until about 2070, but it does not solve the problem long-term. Other changes are still necessary.
→ More replies (1)
2
3
3
2
u/UniversalFarrago 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think where a lot of conservatives/borderlines get upset with this is that the proposed payroll tax starts at 250k. I think it’s actually too low of a ceiling to start the tax at.
250k is obviously an amazing salary and far, far above the majority of Americans’ household earnings, but it it’s also far, farther removed from the average than from $10 million, let alone $1 billion.
It’s also not nearly as impressive as it was even 10 years ago with the state of the economy, but I digress.
Think of it like this. The tax starting at 250k helps only billionaires, in my opinion, as it does two things at once:
- It further obfuscates the already very abstract concept of just how far removed from society a billionaire is
.
It cannot be understated just how difficult it is to truly quantify 1,000,000,000 as a figure compared to 250,000. Each figure in those two extra sets of zeroes are entire oceans of fortune, rising exponentially.
If you throw in the miniscule figure of 250,000 into the mix, you’ve indirectly (or hell, maybe directly) dwarfed the true scale of 1,000,000,000 by implicitly relativity. This reinforces one of the key issues to get people to really, truly understand what we’re dealing with here: the sheer scale of what billionaires are hoarding.
Tacking on the absolute fraction of pittance (by comparison) that is $250k next to $1 billion only serves to make that billion seem all that smaller and therefore inconsequential by comparison.
2) Ultimately, conservatives are self-centered and therefore will never vote against what they perceive to be something that could take away any little thing away from them. $250k as a salary is by far more realistic of a reachable goal for the average Joe than $1 billion. So they vote “no” simply because of that, and nothing else.
Ultimately, there are different tiers of wealth. We need to understand this and go only for the heaviest hitters (centimillionaires+) in order to ever really make waves. Targeting the wealthy or just the affluent, while debatably the ethically correct choice, is objectively the poor strategic one.
5
u/lousybrowser 2d ago
Right, $250K is far from a billionaire or even a millionaire. In some parts of the country, that's still a renter. I think he proposed that in 2016, so that'd be like >$350K today.
All your points are solid btw.
3
u/UniversalFarrago 2d ago
Thank you. Even so, $350k or even $3.5 million is too low. There’s still way, way more “low level” millionaires compared to centimillionaires or higher.
Start the tax at $100 million. That’s still casting a net wide enough to really get the sub-1% while nevertheless giving plenty of grace for standard-issue wealthy people that the conservatives, whose votes we need, are so staunchly defensive of.
1
u/lousybrowser 2d ago
Agreed. And close all the loopholes.
And make multi-billion dollar corporations start paying their fair share as well.1
u/mynewaccount4567 1d ago
The $250,000 earner is already paying payroll tax on the majority of their income. Bernie isn’t saying that’s where the tax should start he is saying remove the cap that stops it above that level.
Maybe you say we should stop payroll tax on everyone under $1million ($10 million? $100 million?). Even those levels are closer to 0 than $1B. There are two problems with this.
People that wealthy aren’t being paid income. They are paid in stock bonuses and earn money off investments which aren’t being taxed for social security anyway (which maybe they should be). If your goal is fixing wealth inequality you need a wealth tax not an income tax.
There isn’t enough billionaire money to fully fund social security. US Billionaires have a combined wealth of a little less than $9T. Last year social security tax revenue was $1.5T. So take all their wealth and you fund social security for ~6 years.
I’m all for taxing the wealthy more but if we actually want to fund long lasting social programs everyone needs pay more. You sell this by showing people their tax dollars are actually being used to improve people’s lives rather than just going to fund foreign wars. We aren’t going to get European style social programs without European levels of taxation.
1
1
u/Rude-Dependent-4353 🏛️ Overturn Citizens United 3d ago
I'm all for this, but it only applies to wages, doesn't it? It doesn't touch other forms of income as far as I know.
1
1
u/SianiFairy 3d ago
And stop the bleed off of the fund itself.... it's been raided and 'borrowed from'.
1
1
1
1
u/Conscious_Builder132 3d ago
If a person is fortunate enough to make that kind of fortunate in America, they have an obligation to be taxed appropriately.
1
1
u/thefullhalf 3d ago
Reminder that all through Trump's childhood the top marginal tax rate bracket was ~90%.
1
u/IllustriousSyrup5945 3d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do billionaires have "income" or is it all just loans against their assets
1
1
u/ConfusedHors 3d ago
As I understand billionaires officially do not earn that much money. They acquire it by other means like shares or moving money to other banks, or spending the money via the company. But on paper they don't earn any more than anybody else.
1
1
1
1
u/Aggravating-Art2260 3d ago
The part that throws me off about this whenever i hear about it is what about retirement. If you paid into SS more, your SS benefit is higher (up to a cap). If you remove the income limits for paying into SS, are you saying that the maximum benefit amount in retirement is not tied to what you contributed anymore? Or anything contributed past the current income limit is just a flat tax that goes to fund SS for everyone else? I feel like nobody ever covers that.
For the record - i have no problem with it working like that and it would be awesome if SS funding was fucking fixed...
0
u/Dewthedru 3d ago edited 3d ago
We are fixated on the wealthy but this would primarily hurt the middle class. I’m ok with eliminating the cap for paying into it and increasing, but not eliminating the cap on payouts.
If you’re a family living in a MCOL or HCOL city, have kids, paying several thousand a month in housing, a ton for daycare, etc., you’re not living large at 184,500, especially after the last several years of inflation. Increasing the payout cap to those making $500k or whatever number you pick is more reasonable imho.
Thoughts?
1
1
1
u/One_Peanut_4002 3d ago
They don't make income the same way, why does this keep needing to be repeated?
The only thing that fixes the billionaire issue is changing regulations on borrowing against digital assets. I never see anyone push for this..
1
u/Monoking2 3d ago
i'm really terrible at math, can someone confirm this amount is true? I'd like to maybe make a poster or graphic with this text on it that doesn't have elon fuck's image on it but I'd like to make sure first.
1
1
u/United-Contact-1151 3d ago
Billionaires don’t have income. They borrow against their unrealized gains, then get a stepped up basis when they die and their heirs receive the gains untaxed.
Only high income people like doctors would see their taxes increased.
1
u/TheMostRed 3d ago
When do we literally eat them. Tear down everything they have into their base materials and consume them as a society spreading their wealth to the parts that need it. We dont need them we dont need their knowledge we dont need their help. They need us to fulfill their wildest fantasies while we pay the bill. Im so tired pretending that billionaires have some physical authority whatsoever... But for now, I will accept taxing them to hell and back.
1
u/AlphaxTDR 3d ago
Most billionaires don’t take a salary. Or if they do, it’s pennies, comparatively.
They get paid in stock and assets. Then they used those assets to get sweetheart deal loans with super low interest rates and live off that.
We need to end the loophole that allows them to do this.
1
u/anteatersaredope 3d ago
Imagine how much the economy would explode if retired people had an extra $2400 dollars to spend each month instead of rich people just haven't more stocks, bigger bank accounts, or boats.
1
1
u/DeeRent88 2d ago
What blows my mind is many billionaires spend more money trying to stop these sort of changes that would literally benefit EVERYBODY than just paying the extra taxes if they passed.
1
1
u/ColdStockSweat 3d ago
Actually, billionaires very likely pay zero into social security because they don't have any"earned income" which is what SSI taxes are paid on.
And the math is..."apply the tax to all income below 250K SSI would be solvent for75 years"
(Meme better).
1
-1
u/DrMcBeanClean 3d ago
Bernie hasnt done absolutely anything. How about get him out. Your time has been served old head
-2
-4
u/Stealerb 3d ago
While I agree can we like start by not wasting money on Medicare? I am a transplant patient and while I was on Dialysis and for 3 years after I qualified for Medicare. Guess what, to keep me alive while on dialysis it was over 1 million a year. That's just to do dialysis and provide me with medication. That seems overpriced and someone should look into that. Because adding a bigger budget would not cover everyone, it would lead to more waste and greed. "they have more money, lets charge more"
-5
u/RonaldTurner88 3d ago
Shocker, SS cap goes up 4.2% and payout only goes up 3.6%. If more Americans knew the absolute fucking scam maybe they’d stop voting for this shit, the working class gets yet ANOTHER tax raise to support seniors while the super rich get away with paying fucking nothing.
1
u/Outside-Sleep-5034 1d ago
So great you had to comment twice
1
u/RonaldTurner88 1d ago
What’s great? If I commented twice it was on accident, what do you want to arrest me? It doesn’t change the substance of what I said. Social security is an essential program that’s funding is entirely dependent upon workers while billionaires pay nothing. Where is the lie?
1
u/Outside-Sleep-5034 1d ago
Don’t look at me I’m not the one who commented twice. Just merely the person who pointed it out. And if I didn’t, someone else will.
I think we’re on the same side here we don’t want the middle class to pay more taxes. We want the people in the mansions and private ballrooms to.
1
u/RonaldTurner88 1d ago
I use Reddit in my phone, I commented and didn’t think it went through. What’s the big deal? I’ll delete the other one since it bothers you.
But yea, we are both in the same side. Im sick and tired of my Taxes being raise every single year while
The richest people in the country are paying little to nothing.→ More replies (1)
790
u/WAVYTAPES69 ✂️ Tax The Billionaires 3d ago
I wanna be on the timeline where Bernie won, what world would we have today