Black/white pay gap climbing due to discrimination

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kyphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gap News
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
40 replies · 6K views
russ_watters said:
From the report:
Projected solvency could be restored
immediately with a permanent 16.4 percent benefit reduction for all
current and future beneficiaries, ...
:cry::H
Even as a retiree, who won't be collecting SSI for another 5 years, I'm fine with that.
hmmmm...
I guess I've just been lucky.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OmCheeto said:
Even as a retiree, who won't be collecting SSI for another 5 years, I'm fine with that.
hmmmm...
I guess I've just been lucky.
Yeah:
SSA said:
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.
For a lot of people, a 16% (or 21%) benefit reduction would be a huge problem. And it doesn't even fix the underlying problem of a retirement savings/pension program that doesn't provide growth -- it just makes it worse. In the Great Recession, the GDP dropped by 5%. That's about equal to what a 40% payroll tax increase would be...except, you know, permanent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR
olivermsun said:
So why not, for example, raise or remove the earnings cap?
As Hillary says, social security isn't just a program, it is a promise (to provide retirement income based on how much you pay into it; like a pension or 401k). I don't think it would be right to eliminate that promise for something like a quarter of Americans and don't think that would go over well.
 
russ_watters said:
As Hillary says, social security isn't just a program, it is a promise (to provide retirement income based on how much you pay into it; like a pension or 401k). I don't think it would be right to eliminate that promise for something like a quarter of Americans and don't think that would go over well.
Are you saying that it wouldn't be right for people over the cap to pay more without getting more benefits?
 
mheslep said:
Asked and answered some decades ago, starting at 7:40 here:



Thomas Sowell is one of my heroes. I wish he would run for President.
 
russ_watters said:
This is largely a myth due to the fact that the wealthy pay virtually all of the income taxes anyway (top 20% pay 87% of the income taxes) and the poor and lower-middle earners pay nothing or less than nothing (45% of households in 2015). As a result, tax cuts will always necessarily "favor" the wealthy, since you can't cut income taxes for people who don't pay income taxes. Essentially, the growth in income inequality has enabled the rich to pay an increasing share of the income taxes despite decreasing top tax rates (note: due to rising incomes, that doesn't necessarily even mean the rates they pay have decreased, since more income means more paid in the higher tax brackets). The share paid by the top 20% has increased to that 87% from 57% in 1969 and 69% in 2005.

This "inequality" isn't talked about much by the media, but presents a serious political/social danger in my opinion.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/...ll/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed/#.V-O4DPkrK00

Dang it Russ, there you go casting aspersions on the narrative by using facts. You heretic.
 
russ_watters said:
Yes, and what he said about it was wildly misleading. Very disappointing for such a highly respected businessman.

Not respected by me. Personally, I don't like his politics, and one other little item. Every year he is required to disclose the holdings of BH's portfolio. We know what companies he's invested in, and to what degree. So it really slays me to watch BH stock appreciate at the rate it does, knowing the growth of the companies he's invested in. The math doesn't add up. Something is not quite right in Buffetland.
 
russ_watters said:
Yes.
Given the premise of social security, it seems reasonable to ask whether people who would be severely impacted by a 17% cut in benefits need those benefits more than people earning more than $118k need their exemption.
 
olivermsun said:
Given the premise of social security, it seems reasonable to ask whether people who would be severely impacted by a 17% cut in benefits need those benefits more than people earning more than $118k need their exemption.
I'm not against asking any question; I think everything should be discussed. The answer to your question is yes. The problem is, the answer to that question is *always* yes and I don't think that is a road a capitalist democracy should be on.

My favorite question on the subject though is: do you want to make a bad program better or just keep making it worse?
 
Last edited: