Trump Calls for End to Social Security Tax on Seniors

a reply to: chr0naut

Wanna Bet ?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

Wanna Bet ?

It would be unfair of me to take your money.

The following are explicitly codified as rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but are not considered as rights in the United States:

- The right to remedy
- The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
- The right to freedom of movement
- The right to asylum
- The right to a nationality
- The right to family
- The right to social security
- The right to desirable work and trade unions
- The right to rest
- The right to an adequate living standard (health, housing, and food)
- The right to education
- The right to culture

a reply to: chr0naut

The "right" to culture? Really?? Unless we're talking about fermenting, that is decidedly an unmeasurable "right".... .... along with the most of the rest of your stated "rights". The right to "rest". Belly laugh. Good one! How about the "right" to eat Skittles, or the "right" to lounge on the beach?

The "right" to family? Wha? As opposed to what? The right to ignore them? That's just silly.

"Rights" in the Bill of Rights are measurable things. Things that matter. Things that affect every person in every walk of life and ensure that they are allowed to pursue their full abilities.

You might want to look into the "right" to own Tupperware. I think that would be a good one. Got to watch out for those lids that always seem to stack up that don't match with the bases.

One thing that Trumponomics doesn't seem to have any answers for is where the money comes from if you cut revenue collection?

a reply to: chr0naut

Looks like Trump knew what he was doing. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Imagine, wages were up and paying a smaller percentage in taxes and tax revenue to the federal government went up. Isn't that something.

Go Figure: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts

Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.

whadyaknow

Here is Forbes.

Democrats claim the Trump tax cut bill of 2017 was a giveaway to the “rich,” but this episode of What’s Ahead shows that it had the opposite impact on high-income earners. In 2018 the top 1% ended up paying $16 billion more in federal individual income taxes than they did in 2017, while 99% paid a total of $80 billion less.

Go Trump

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

One thing that Trumponomics doesn't seem to have any answers for is where the money comes from if you cut revenue collection?

a reply to: chr0naut

Looks like Trump knew what he was doing. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Imagine, wages were up and paying a smaller percentage in taxes and tax revenue to the federal government went up. Isn't that something.

Go Figure: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts

Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.

whadyaknow

Here is Forbes.

Democrats claim the Trump tax cut bill of 2017 was a giveaway to the “rich,” but this episode of What’s Ahead shows that it had the opposite impact on high-income earners. In 2018 the top 1% ended up paying $16 billion more in federal individual income taxes than they did in 2017, while 99% paid a total of $80 billion less.

Go Trump

I suppose the money all came from NESARA/GESARA?

LOL

Also, did you notice that the US economy collapsed in 2021. Who do you think set that up, because it takes some time to turn an ocean liner, and a national economy, around?

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

The "right" to culture? Really?? Unless we're talking about fermenting, that is decidedly an unmeasurable "right".... .... along with the most of the rest of your stated "rights". The right to "rest". Belly laugh.

Good one! How about the "right" to eat Skittles, or the "right" to lounge on the beach?

The "right" to family? Wha? As opposed to what? The right to ignore them? That's just silly.

"Rights" in the Bill of Rights are measurable things. Things that matter. Things that affect every person in every walk of life and ensure that they are allowed to pursue their full abilities.

You might want to look into the "right" to own Tupperware. I think that would be a good one. Got to watch out for those lids that always seem to stack up that don't match with the bases.

You don't think that things essential for human beings should be codified as rights (you know, so they cannot be legally infringed)?

Effects of Sleep Deprivation

This is a thing in the USA because you guys don't have a right to rest: Police interrogators need clear guidelines on when sleep deprivation amounts to torture

Right to family life In the USA, children are routinely taken from their (usually poor) parents, with little ability to redress by the parents and often only based upon hearsay. Don't you think that is a human rights violation right there?

You don't have those as rights stated in the US Bill of Rights, as a US citizen. Just about everywhere else in the world does. And, if they were to be documented as rights, they are being infringed routinely in the USA.

I suppose the money all came from NESARA/GESARA?

a reply to: chr0naut

No, the tax revenue was from Trump policies that had the economy grow faster and created more jobs than expected. Nice try but you were chirping about how Trumponomics doesn't seem to have any answers for where the money comes from if you cut revenue collection. Were you just making that up??

Did you hear about this on your local news?

New Zealand's new pandemic plan includes forced injections while being restrained by police.

it might be time to focus on your governments policies

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Thank goodness you brought these up! Double tax people with limited incomes! But the people who borrowed money to make more money don’t have to pay it back. Sigh.

a reply to: chr0naut

You present unmeasurable human factors as "rights". Certainly I believe a person should be able to raise a family and pursue their life. How to legislate that? You see what I mean? The Bill of Rights codifies 'inalienable' rights to the people. Ideals that encourage equality in the eyes of the law.

You want to legislate morality, apparently. I think those ideals are -- for the most part -- self-enforced. You want to imply that police in the U.S. have a 'right to torture'. They do not. Not since the U.S. was first formed, and certainly not now.

We cannot legislate the "right to lack of sleep deprivation" Chr0naut. I get where you are coming from. There are beliefs which people endorse or otherwise believe in that are consistent with those within their same 'tribe'.

If parents -- even through a lack of their fault -- cannot provide for their children, shouldn't those children be provided for? What do you think should happen? Children shouldn't be the lower limit of where the law becomes involved, but they often are. If children are in danger, they MUST be protected. Even if they are to be protected against their parents.

It's an ugly world, man. There is far too much divide. There is far too much weaponizing of politics. We need to come together as people and help others and ourselves. I don't think those constants should be legislated. I think they come from a shift in cultural awareness.

U.S. Rights attempt to equalize people within the eyes of the law. Beyond that, families in peril have the ability to engage the police or social services to ease a violent home situation. I REALLY feel for people in those situations, having provided intervention several times in my life.

Trump Calls for End to Social Security Tax on Seniors

Guess what the main topic of conversation is at most of the senior centers? What will trump do to medicare/medicaid"

Trump Calls for End to Social Security Tax on Seniors

IT'S ABOUT TIME!

It's our money coming back to us.

We shouldn't be taxed on our own money.

Most seniors are hard strapped for money just to get by.

This would be helpful!!

originally posted by: norhoc4
You should absolutely be taxed on tips, it is income.

It's a gift. It probably doesn't go over the min. amount a gift needs to be in order to be taxed. And most people making tips don't get paid a hell of a lot and need the money just to get by.

I'm all for no tax on tips.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Exactly, so where is the money coming from to replace those axed taxes?

Cut the nonsense spending ... all the $$ on DEI programs in the fed, handing out money to students to pay for their loans, billions in overseas 'aid' ... etc etc

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump will circumvent it all just so his elitist ultra rich buddies don't have to pay taxes.

FFS ... we are talking about tax on tips and social security.
It has nothing to do with 'elitist utra rich buddies' of Trump.
Try to keep up.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

I suppose the money all came from NESARA/GESARA?

a reply to: chr0naut

No, the tax revenue was from Trump policies that had the economy grow faster and created more jobs than expected. Nice try but you were chirping about how Trumponomics doesn't seem to have any answers for where the money comes from if you cut revenue collection. Were you just making that up??

Did you hear about this on your local news?

New Zealand's new pandemic plan includes forced injections while being restrained by police.

it might be time to focus on your governments policies

No, I didn't hear about those things on the local news because they never happened.

You are treating Twitter/X as if it was verified news. It isn't, and it wasn't. People can mostly write up their opinions and fictions on social media without censure. It isn't a verified news organization where they get sued if they provably misrepresent the truth.

Also, the value behind currency comes from reserve resources and GDP production. If a country mints money beyond its reserve or production of value, it devalues the worth of the currency.

The immediate result of Trump's policies took some months to bite. Namely, the economy that Biden inherited was a direct result of what Trump did.

Imagine if someone who is low skilled and unemployed but gets given some credit cards with up to $10,000 credit limit. They can immediately go and fill their house with flat screen TV's and all sort of luxury items, even though there is no way they could service that debt from their current situation. They can appear superficially to be wealthy, but it's just a matter of time until the debt gets called in, and if they can't repay, and stuff can't be repossessed to cover the debt, there could even be a jail term.

That's a bit like things in the USA under the Trump administration. They were paying out more money than GDP or reserve could ever service.

Gross domestic product of the United States from 1990 to 2023

National debt per capita in the United States from 1990 to 2023

Public debt of the United States from 1990 to 2023

It is clear from Trump's use of NFT's, his history of shuffling ever increasing debt around between accounts, and his current policies on cryptocurrencies that he has no idea about where the value of money in an economy comes from.

Imagine if someone who is low skilled and unemployed but gets given some credit cards with up to $10,000 credit limit. They can immediately go and fill their house with flat screen TV's and all sort of luxury items, even though there is no way they could service that debt from their current situation

a reply to: chr0naut

That makes no sense at all.

I am glad you looked into that, it had me worried for you. I guess you mine as well continue to obsess ove US politics.
Happy trails.

originally posted by: lilzazz

Trump Calls for End to Social Security Tax on Seniors

Guess what the main topic of conversation is at most of the senior centers? What will trump do to medicare/medicaid"

The big talk is what Trump will do to enhance Medicare and Medicaid, and hope Democrats in Congress are in favor. 😃

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

You present unmeasurable human factors as "rights". Certainly I believe a person should be able to raise a family and pursue their life. How to legislate that? You see what I mean? The Bill of Rights codifies 'inalienable' rights to the people. Ideals that encourage equality in the eyes of the law.

If you don't legislate, or write-up law compliant with consideration to those rights, then the government, law enforcement and the judiciary are free to infringe them.

You want to legislate morality, apparently. I think those ideals are -- for the most part -- self-enforced. You want to imply that police in the U.S. have a 'right to torture'. They do not. Not since the U.S. was first formed, and certainly not now.

The police in the USA have the ability to force a false confession from someone, and that false confession stands as evidentiary in a court of law, even if disputed.

People who have little objective evidence against them in a court of law have been convicted on the basis of a confession that was most likely obtained with coercive practices such as lying about the alleged confessions of co-accused, or lying about evidence which the police don't have, or through sleep deprivation or other psychological pressure being brought to bear (excess heat or cold, limitation of food or water, physical abuses that don't leave a mark, or other threats such as placing them unsupervised in a cell with violent and dangerous offenders).

We know these things often happen because people have later been cleared of crimes that they have been convicted of, based upon new objective evidence (such as DNA evidence proving that they weren't the perpetrator). Such misuse of circumstantial evidence (such as what forced confessions are), is frequent.

If those rights, that you dispute, were actually codified and upheld, the false confessions would not have been coerced in the first place.

We cannot legislate the "right to lack of sleep deprivation" Chr0naut.

I think it would be quite simple to legislate. Other countries have no problem with it.

I get where you are coming from. There are beliefs which people endorse or otherwise believe in that are consistent with those within their same 'tribe'.

You got that wrong, these rights are universal human rights. It says so in the title.

If parents -- even through a lack of their fault -- cannot provide for their children, shouldn't those children be provided for? What do you think should happen? Children shouldn't be the lower limit of where the law becomes involved, but they often are. If children are in danger, they MUST be protected. Even if they are to be protected against their parents.

That sounds reasonable. Children's rights are covered in the UDHR as universal human rights. Children have got nothing in the US Bill of Rights, as they don't vote or usually interact with government.

It's an ugly world, man. There is far too much divide. There is far too much weaponizing of politics. We need to come together as people and help others and ourselves. I don't think those constants should be legislated. I think they come from a shift in cultural awareness.

U.S. Rights attempt to equalize people within the eyes of the law. Beyond that, families in peril have the ability to engage the police or social services to ease a violent home situation. I REALLY feel for people in those situations, having provided intervention several times in my life.

The US bill of Rights only places limits on the government. It does not place limits upon how one citizen may act against another.

Under US law, an unfounded accusation (say of child abuse) can be used to weaponize law enforcement against innocent families.

US Citizen rights are few. Even the rights they do have in statute are routinely infringed as there are caveats and special circumstances that are considered as stronger than the US Constitution, and that undermine its clauses.

If you dig enough at the base of a tower, it all eventually falls.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Imagine if someone who is low skilled and unemployed but gets given some credit cards with up to $10,000 credit limit. They can immediately go and fill their house with flat screen TV's and all sort of luxury items, even though there is no way they could service that debt from their current situation

a reply to: chr0naut

That makes no sense at all.

I am glad you looked into that, it had me worried for you. I guess you mine as well continue to obsess ove US politics.
Happy trails.

$7 grand for nothing, right here: 7 Unsecured Credit Cards With $1,000 Limits (2024)

The average credit card limit in the USA in Q3 2022 was $28,930: What Is An Average Credit Card Limit?

I don't think my hypothetical was unreasonable.

a reply to: chr0naut

Trump has to get congress to pass the dissolution of the FICA tax. And then he has to have a replacement for the funding. HE says the General fund is where it will coem from. In short you wont pay FICA but you will stillpay Income tax,unless you are retired already.

And Your listing of rights is once again not as comprehensive. SOme of our rights COMBINE quite a few of those you listed.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump has to get congress to pass the dissolution of the FICA tax. And then he has to have a replacement for the funding. HE says the General fund is where it will coem from. In short you wont pay FICA but you will stillpay Income tax,unless you are retired already.

Trump could call it "flibbledyibbit tax" and "flobldywobble tax", and it wouldn't make an iota of difference.

Regardless of what Trump calls it, if the tax being collected by the government is less, but if the handouts, tax breaks and other things the government pays-out for are the same or even more, then the government will just run out of money. Well, in fact it already has, that is what the National debt being more than the GDP means.

And no-one in their right mind would bail out such a government because they aren't managing their balance sheet, that government can't do things because they can't afford any of it, and can't ever possibly repay the loan/s.

And Your listing of rights is once again not as comprehensive. SOme of our rights COMBINE quite a few of those you listed.

Law is particularly specific. If there is a law about driving on one side of the road, it can't be applied to limits on effluent dumping. There has to ne separate statute for the two different scenarios.

Similarly, unless the Bill of Rights specifically defines how the government may be limited in response, then that limitation does not exist. Even if you squint your eyes and wish real hard.

Perhaps the greatest indication of the poor quality of legal opinion in the USA are the number of pundits that infer things that are just not stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights, and they act as though they are.