Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by madars on Friday May 16, 2025 @10:21PM
(#44011560)
All those promises are "parchment guarantees", to use Madison's term. For example, social security distributions were promised to be tax exempt, and they were from the institution of the program in 1935 up until 1983 - talk about reliance interest!
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by FireBeyond on Friday May 16, 2025 @09:34PM
(#44011374)
And presumably they’d take away my social security tax, too, right? If I was not going to get it? Right, right?
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by margalabargala on Friday May 16, 2025 @10:42PM
(#44011639)
You don't see the problem with funding things like social security or food stamps purely from the people relying most on those services?
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by Spivak on Friday May 16, 2025 @11:51PM
(#44011912)
But SS isn't a tax like the rest of our general taxes. I pay a specific SS tax on my payroll so that when I retire I'm entitled to a payout. If you take away the payout you need to take away the tax. Once you means test SS it becomes more like a welfare program for seniors and ought to be paid for out of the general tax pool like other welfare programs.
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by harimau777 on Saturday May 17, 2025 @03:55PM
(#44016553)
I'm not necessarily opposed to social security being switched to a more conventional tax (assuming that the new tax was at least equally progressive and raised at least as much revenue). However, I also don't see how that makes much of a difference. Social security is a welfare program, it always has been.
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by wat10000 on Sunday May 18, 2025 @10:47AM
(#44021794)
If SS tax was repealed, and income tax was adjusted to increase by exactly the same amount, would you be happy with it?
Re:Moody’s strips U.S. of triple-A credit rating
by margalabargala on Sunday May 18, 2025 @05:52PM
(#44024558)
I'm happy to vote for rearranging the labels of what the things are called if that's what the sticking point is for you.
In my humble opinion, this kind of broken promise borders on "the government defrauding the people".
It would be more legitimate to say "SS won't be there for you if you make too much" to those in their teens and 20's just entering the workforce -- but that won't have a major effect on cash outflow needed to satisfy SS obligations for 40-ish years (except for the small fraction of rich unfortunates who get SS because they become unable to work at a young age.)
You might also argue that the level of prying into people's finances implied by "means testing" is a form of illegitimate government overreach. If you believe this, in theory you should, for consistency, also believe that individual income tax ought to be eliminated (which many people consider a radical proposition).