Lindsey Graham Thinks Seniors May 'Have to' Take Less Money and pay more tax on SS benefits
Seniors need to hear this loud and clear before voting time.
In a June 13 Fox Nation debate, Sen. Lindsey Graham said seniors may have to “take a little less” and “pay a little more in” when debating Social Security solvency
To get out of this mess, people like me are going to have to take a little less and pay a little more in. We’re going to have to adjust the age one more time
Meanwhile, Sanders proposal: "would extend solvency for 75 years while increasing benefits for recipients by $2,400 per year. Sanders’ proposal would ostensibly fund this expansion of Social Security via a tax on high-earning households, per CNBC.
]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-solvency-lindsey-graham-160343037.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Walleye
(36,439 posts)Whenever they say they want to save or improve Social Security they are fucking lying. They hate it and they’ve been lying about it for decades
Obvious85
(262 posts)Says the man who earns at least $200,000 per year as a Senator
Quanto Magnus
(1,035 posts)has a pension for when he's no longer a Senator....
the lies from the GOP continue in every subject.
Skittles
(160,363 posts)fuck that worthless POS
rurallib
(63,293 posts)The other tactic they talk of is means testing which would also destroy SS
Walleye
(36,439 posts)
OnDoutside
(20,672 posts)you wouldn't get to the end of the day before RW ads were plastered all over the media saying "....is coming after YOUR Social Security"
It's an open goal between that and Rick Scott's plan to tax the middle class...in fact,has anyone seen an ad for Scott's GOP tax plan ?
MichMan
(13,565 posts)That was who he was referring to when he said "people like me"
question everything
(49,102 posts)I've always thought that Social Security and Medicare should not be separate items. Just raise the tax brackets so that not everyone pays the same rates. Many pay more in FICA than income taxes.
And then pay benefits according to needs.
But then I was told that this would make it a "welfare system.". So what?
TimeToGo
(1,388 posts)NCjack
(10,297 posts)they skim out of the Nation's workers.
ProudMNDemocrat
(19,175 posts)Let Lindsey Graham try to convince Republican voters on SS and Medicare that they need to get less as workers pay in more.
The solution! Eliminate the Gross Earned Income cap. Tax a $5 million dollar Gross earner the same as one making $50,000 annually. SS solvency is solved.
But Ole Lindsey doesn't want the rich yo have to do that.
NJCher
(38,253 posts)Who is our most involved Social Security Democratic rep? I will write them with this idea and ask if they will promote it as an option to Graham's idea.
KS Toronado
(19,703 posts)Our monthly SS checks would increase by thousands of $$$s, I'm in!
Zambero
(9,782 posts)Oh, excuse me. It's the DEATH tax.
Gotta figure a "fiscally sound" way to balance things out by fleecing seniors and all others of modest means!
Chalco
(1,368 posts)who I love dearly despite his being a Republican A-hole, keeps complaining that Social Security keeps sending him $3000 a month when he doesn't need it. He assumes that no one needs it. He asked me how much I get. I told him. He said, Why? Do you need it? I replied, I need it to live on. I paid into it for 40 years. I need it.
He still thinks it's an entitlement program. He's not stupid. He's an MD and an attorney. He's brainwashed.
Mister Ed
(6,390 posts)Of course he did. And since he did, isn't he "entitled" to receive the money that was promised him? That was the deal.
Chalco
(1,368 posts)He ignores that fact that he and everyone else paid into it. He's delusional. I've said to him that
if you don't need it, send it back, or donate it, or give it to me or your sister. He said "I just put it
in my bank account."
NJCher
(38,253 posts)in my bank account."
He could just as easily wire it right over to you. $3000 is a good amount and it would make an appreciable difference in anyone's living conditions.
Like any republican, he loves money and can't get enough of it.
stopdiggin
(13,020 posts)some degree of 'means testing.' (an idea with some ethical consideration) Is that his position - or does he believe that it should be unavailable to the financially insecure as well? (in which case he's just an A-hole)
Chalco
(1,368 posts)the financially insecure think they're entitled to it. They don't put in as much as he does.
They get more than they're entitled to. According to his wife, if you can't afford to feed
yourself...you're not fit to live.
I could go on and on.
Another thing she said, why are people so worried about polar bears going extinct. Who
need polar bears.
stopdiggin
(13,020 posts)no real leavening in that batch of bread.
Chalco
(1,368 posts)
wryter2000
(47,606 posts)This can't go over well. How many people want their elderly parents living with them?
Obvious85
(262 posts)I tell my elderly mother this and she simply doesn't believe it, she thinks Republicans are looking out for her
ShazzieB
(18,927 posts)Not THIS elderly parent, that's for sure. 
MichMan
(13,565 posts)I listened to the entire debate with Sanders and Graham. Did you?
Graham said the wealthy should pay more in SS taxes and receive less in benefits.
Why do you think that would be something we should campaign against?
wryter2000
(47,606 posts)The message that he meant well-off SS recipients will be lost in what he said.
I wouldn't argue that except that other R's have been pushing the same message, notably Rick Scott. They think us little folks aren't paying enough in taxes. We really need to let voters know that.
The overall message from Rs since BushII has been "don't count on SS. You're going to have to do with less." Or my favorite from back then, "They need to make other plans." What other plans can a wage slave make?
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)There is a simpler solution - tax the rich. Then, we can extend to the life of Social Security AND get rid of that fucker Reagan’s tax on benefits.
Lindsey is no longer useful to the American people.
KS Toronado
(19,703 posts)why repugs want to reduce or kill SS is this. Whatever amount for SS that comes out of our paychecks,
our employers have to match that amount, in essence it's current pay we never see on a paycheck
stub. It's big business encouraging their R congress critters to reduce their payroll.
Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates
The current tax rate for social security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total.
The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)It's about decreasing business owners labor costs and making the employee ever more painfully dependent on the fickle largesse of their employer. The will of Republicans has been laser focused on eliminating any and all employee rights and benefits in all their forms since Roosevelt first promoted the concept of fair dealing in the 1930's.
It's been almost 5 generations since those days and the whining hasn't changed a bit. It's the great and great-great-grandchildren of those very sweat-shopists and slave-wagerists who now fearmonger about fabricated threats in their efforts to kill the snake of "socialism". When they call any reasonable solution to allay society's avoidable calamities "socialism" that's when they tell the REAL big lie. The lie they've been telling so long that they actually believe it's true.
Traildogbob
(10,202 posts)Let’s end the creme pie entitlements politicians get for life after office, that is passed on the the arm candy wives half their age. They should do investments and 401’s instead of tax payers coughing up that absurd retirement benefit for doing nothing in most cases.
If Dem’s can’t communicate a winning message among all the GQP corruption, theft, killing, Women’s health care and rights, voting rights, this election, we need our asses kicked. Sanders and Warren have been out front with this. Where are the rest of the entire Dem’s screaming this. How about it Jamie, this is handed to you on a silver platter.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)The GOP has consistently raided the SS fund to pay for all their BS wars and tax breaks etc since Reagan.
Tell the GOP to pay back to the fund what they have taken and keep their hands off the SS fund going forward.
What a phucking disingenuous prick he is.
OMGWTF
(4,481 posts)Why do Rethuglicans hate Americans?
MichMan
(13,565 posts)Never understood why they passed so many of his proposals.
DownriverDem
(6,680 posts)decide to vote for the MAGA repubs. Otherwise the Dems will decide how to fix their benefits.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,499 posts)He’d eliminate taxes for those making less than 50k, like SS beneficiaries?
I know my ex father in law loved that.
The republicans hated it but Obama got blamed for not making it happen.
Because the republicans hate everyone and we can’t have that!
We must throw it in their faces.
The GOP did that!
Wounded Bear
(60,849 posts)cloudboy07
(351 posts)we would save by getting rid of the republican party of do nothing ?
MichMan
(13,565 posts)If you listened to the interview, Graham was proposing that the wealthy ( "people like him" ) pay more into Social Security and receive less in benefits.
I must say that I was not expecting so many responses here disagreeing with his position.
progree
(11,463 posts)If I remember their proposal right, it, according to Sanders, would affect the wealthiest 7%, mostly by raising the max earnings cap.
Edited to add - The Sanders/Warren proposal has the wealthy paying more, but I don't recall anything where they get less.