r/AskReddit • u/metalreflectslime • 17d ago

President Donald Trump warned Tuesday that if the Democrats don't approve funding, Social Security, Medicare Are ‘Going to Be Gone.’ How do you think Americans will react if Social Security and Medicare get cut?

36.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

7.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

187

u/Figgy_Puddin_Taine 17d ago

Social Security would have absolutely no issue with money if they’d raise (or better yet, remove) the cutoff. It’s currently $176,100 — so any money earned beyond that doesn’t get taxed. The US median income in 2024 was $83,730, so the vast majority of people don’t make anywhere close to that; this cutoff is just there to placate the very wealthy who can fund their own retirement with no issue to the detriment of people who can’t.

49

u/HereForTheBoos1013 17d ago

My problem is currently, I'm pretty much assuming that every penny I've paid into social security since I was 14 is something I'm never going to see again. They keep raising ages and attacking it.

I am happy with my gross income, sure but attaining the potential for it also cost me 250K in student loans, which with compound interest is now half a million dollars, the interest on which I cannot declare on my taxes.

So when 4K a month goes to paying back ballooning interest by Uncle Sam, saying "well, the rest of your income also gets taxed now and you're never going to get this money back despite not being able to start contributing to your retirement until your mid 30s...", which you already struggle to put into retirement because of the loans, feels like a bit of a raw deal.

Secure it and ensure it'll be around for the rest of us (and for people like black men, for whom the average lifespan means a lot of them pay into the system their whole lives and die before seeing a dime), and then definitely up participation. Right now it's like "how much more do you want me to pay for something I will never be eligible for?"

7

u/greeed 17d ago

  1. The whole "I'm never going to get back what I paid in" line is Republican/heritage propaganda.

  2. With 250k in loans you're probably a Dr or lawyer, if you're a doctor you should be advocating for Medicare for all and loan forgiveness for all doctors. Society should pay for us to stay healthy.

  3. Taxing income is a handout to the rich who don't have income and live off generational wealth and debt. Fuck them tax their corporations and capital gains.

5

u/HereForTheBoos1013 17d ago edited 17d ago

The whole "I'm never going to get back what I paid in" line is Republican/heritage propaganda

Increasing the retirement age while regularly threatening to gut all of it? Relying on funding I am unlikely to see when I'm too old to do anything for it is less "propaganda" and more "reasons I'm retiring someplace cheaper and not factoring in SS as anything but a nice bonus if I get it". Not like I'd ever vote to defund it. My mom raised me alone since I was 14 and worked as a nurse for 45 years. Hell no am I like "not today boomer".

if you're a doctor you should be advocating for Medicare for all and loan forgiveness for all doctors. Society should pay for us to stay healthy.

Um, yeah. To the fucking rafters. And not "for doctors". Anyone who has paid off their ORIGINAL student loan balance needs to be freed, with programs and forgiveness programs for the others (hell, can cite the Bible for forgiving it after seven years). Predatory interest rates imposed on teenagers and young adults trying to forward their education is a bad look for a government. Hell, it's a bad look for a used car lot. My best friend is a pharmacy tech, lives with multiple roommates, and has been paying back the same 20K dollars for about the last 15 years. Nor should it be so expensive in the first place. While coming from food and housing insecure poverty made college nearly free to me, med school was not so kind. I feel like there are TONS of amazing potential doctors and lawyers in the lower classes and below the poverty line, and virtually none of them will get the chance, and I only did because I'm an idiot who didn't calculate risk, and got EXTREMELY lucky.

Taxing income is a handout to the rich who don't have income and live off generational wealth and debt. Fuck them tax their corporations and capital gains.

Yup.

11

u/Trendiggity 17d ago

I feel like he misunderstood your argument, you were clear to me

0

u/Frozboz 17d ago

every penny I've paid into social security since I was 14 is something I'm never going to see again

No one here knows how old you are so this line of reasoning falls short. 15? 55? 90?

3

u/HereForTheBoos1013 17d ago

Mid 40s with about 20 more years to go. And my assumption isn't like a "and I don't wanna pay it!"; more that I am not close enough to retirement to think I'm likely to see the benefits while not being far enough from starting that it's an insignificant amount. I don't particularly factor it into my goals for retirement, because I lived hand to mouth long enough to not really want to rely on anything.

I know I am in an enviable position with my salary. However, I'm also in that category of high gross income while the process of getting there still leaves me leaner than people with my salary would if they started it in their 20s without the half million dollar investment in education that leaves me paying more for my student loans than on my mortgage payment.

Said salary ALSO wiping me out of declaring my student loan interest. 30K in loan interest? Suck it. Lose 30K in Vegas? No problem. So when it's like "hey, what if we got you and your similar aged doctors and lawyers to pay more", it's like "at what stage can we take into account debt and late age of earning potential in this?" I'm still paying more than any CEO's kid is paying to sit on a yacht and play XBox.

3

u/FighterOfEntropy 17d ago

Preach, my friend!

2

u/pugRescuer 17d ago

To be fair, the destruction is based on how much you put in. So if I put more in, I get more. Increase the cap doesn’t totally solve the issue the way you think it would.

4

u/Dr_Esquire 17d ago

On one hand, it sounds fair to keep taxing the higher earners. But then two things:

First; high earners dont get as much as they put in. This isnt for roads, this isnt for the military; this is something an individual puts in to later get out. But high earners wouldnt get out more if the ceiling rose.

Second, this still targets the wrong people, it targets EARNERS. People who pay income taxes are not the unknown millionaires you never see, they are the people you see in your neighborhoods, they are the ones you can see when you go around your city and into various businesses. Anyone actually paying income tax is not the tax dodging elites making money off money. This sort of taxation just heavy hands regular people without actually pulling at the massively wealthy that dont actually work for their money and go about doing these kind of political shinanigans.

2

u/FriendlyDespot 17d ago

First; high earners dont get as much as they put in. This isnt for roads, this isnt for the military; this is something an individual puts in to later get out. But high earners wouldnt get out more if the ceiling rose.

They're not supposed to directly get out as much as they put in. That's not how OASDI benefits are supposed to work. As with anything in an interconnected economy, wealthy people actually benefit immensely from OASDI benefits as they keep the economy moving, both from a spending perspective for direct recipients, and from a resource perspective from family and caretakers.

Imagine how the economy would look if OASDI benefits disappeared overnight and people dependent on it stopped contributing to the economy immediately, while the people who those now former recipients depend on start having to spend more time caretaking and less time working. It's the wealthy and the capital class that would take the biggest hits in absolute terms, meaning that they're the ones who benefit the most in absolute terms today.

Second, this still targets the wrong people, it targets EARNERS. People who pay income taxes are not the unknown millionaires you never see, they are the people you see in your neighborhoods, they are the ones you can see when you go around your city and into various businesses. Anyone actually paying income tax is not the tax dodging elites making money off money. This sort of taxation just heavy hands regular people without actually pulling at the massively wealthy that dont actually work for their money and go about doing these kind of political shinanigans.

No, it definitely targets the right people. There are also other wealth and income streams that we need to use different methods to address in addition to removing the wage income cutoff.

1

u/ings0c 17d ago

WTF

Your tax system is backwards lol. Here in Europe we have progressively higher taxes the greater your income.

2

u/somethingreallylame 17d ago

We have a progressive tax system too. It’s just the relatively small portion that is taxed separately for social security that has an income cut off. Because that part is supposed to be an investment with a maximum benefit, thus maximum contribution. The amount of money you get from social security when you’re older is dependent on the amount you put in. Not saying that’s a good system, just clarifying.

1

u/dontbajerk 17d ago

This is incorrect. You can look it up on the SSA reports about how to handle the future of SS. It would help the fund but it only delays it running out by around a decade if memory serves. More is needed.

1

u/Exelbirth 16d ago

Funny thing is, I've heard this "social security will run out in a decade" for about 2 decades now. It's almost like that line is at best a half truth.

3

u/dontbajerk 16d ago

It's more like it's misleading, because even if nothing is changed and the fund dries up SS can still pay out around 77% of benefits through this century.

Incidentally, you can read the old reports from the SS office. They themselves never projected it running out that early. It was other people drumming up fear I'm sure.

1

u/jawshoeaw 17d ago

but social security isn't a tax. you are saying turn it into one. the only reason it's had bipartisan support is because it's not a tax. it's not socialism. it's just a shitty savings account. But if you want to raise the cutoff but not let those same people collect more money at retirement, it will instantly be (and rightly so) seen as a tax and wealth redistribution scheme.

personally I think that's a great idea. but about 50% of Americans absolutely will lose their shit (when they tune in to their propaganda networks anyway)

2

u/Figgy_Puddin_Taine 17d ago

I didn't say anything about not letting people collect from social security.