Interesting and timely information, but to nitpick "The deer’s digestive tract can also create potassium <..> meaning they don’t need to worry about getting such nutrients from the wild" - I guarantee you they cannot create potassium, which is an element, but maybe could make it more bioavailable?
November 18, 2025 at 12:35 AM
Interesting and timely information, but to nitpick "The deer’s digestive tract can also create potassium <..> meaning they don’t need to worry about getting such nutrients from the wild" - I guarantee you they cannot create potassium, which is an element, but maybe could make it more bioavailable?
SS annuity is a priced progressively (compared to what free market would charge for similar annuity, which would be pay-out proportional to pay-in). If you want an even more progressive system, I beg you to create it in a way that fat-cat CEO, inheritence-stock holders, etc also pay.
September 22, 2025 at 2:29 AM
SS annuity is a priced progressively (compared to what free market would charge for similar annuity, which would be pay-out proportional to pay-in). If you want an even more progressive system, I beg you to create it in a way that fat-cat CEO, inheritence-stock holders, etc also pay.
www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/be...
You Primary Insurance Amount (PIA, i.e. payout) vs your Average Indexed Month Earnings (AIME, i.e pay-in) is progressive. Determined by the "bend-points" for how each incremental $ of contribution/tax increases your payout. High contributers get less payout per $ payed-in
You Primary Insurance Amount (PIA, i.e. payout) vs your Average Indexed Month Earnings (AIME, i.e pay-in) is progressive. Determined by the "bend-points" for how each incremental $ of contribution/tax increases your payout. High contributers get less payout per $ payed-in
www.ssa.gov
September 22, 2025 at 2:24 AM
www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/be...
You Primary Insurance Amount (PIA, i.e. payout) vs your Average Indexed Month Earnings (AIME, i.e pay-in) is progressive. Determined by the "bend-points" for how each incremental $ of contribution/tax increases your payout. High contributers get less payout per $ payed-in
You Primary Insurance Amount (PIA, i.e. payout) vs your Average Indexed Month Earnings (AIME, i.e pay-in) is progressive. Determined by the "bend-points" for how each incremental $ of contribution/tax increases your payout. High contributers get less payout per $ payed-in
We buy into the SS, but for someone with lower lifetime contibutions, the payout formula gives a bigger ratio of total payout to contributions, which is progressive. You want it to be like UBI, we all pay % of our income for same fixed-benefit, but if so please fund it with a tax CEO's also pay.
September 22, 2025 at 12:34 AM
We buy into the SS, but for someone with lower lifetime contibutions, the payout formula gives a bigger ratio of total payout to contributions, which is progressive. You want it to be like UBI, we all pay % of our income for same fixed-benefit, but if so please fund it with a tax CEO's also pay.
If you want to just take 6% or 12% of every dollar earned and redistribute it evenly, that's UBI or something, but SS was enacted as a pubic pension fund with progressive bottom rungs. And if you want to take 6% or 12% of every $ for this welfare, maybe use a tax the CEO would also pay into
September 21, 2025 at 12:26 AM
If you want to just take 6% or 12% of every dollar earned and redistribute it evenly, that's UBI or something, but SS was enacted as a pubic pension fund with progressive bottom rungs. And if you want to take 6% or 12% of every $ for this welfare, maybe use a tax the CEO would also pay into
You might not need it, but the OP seemed to think it was an argument in favor and he was wrong. To your point, the tax is not regressive - the benefit calculation is limited as well, and the minimum lifetime contribution to receive benefit is progressive. You just think it's not progressive enough
September 21, 2025 at 12:15 AM
You might not need it, but the OP seemed to think it was an argument in favor and he was wrong. To your point, the tax is not regressive - the benefit calculation is limited as well, and the minimum lifetime contribution to receive benefit is progressive. You just think it's not progressive enough
If you want to go after dentists and surgeons (plenty of whom are at least using structures to deduct their social security payments as a business expense), or even salaried people we might more agree are "under-taxed" then say so - the OP was using the fat-cat $20M CEO as a stalking horse.
September 20, 2025 at 6:52 PM
If you want to go after dentists and surgeons (plenty of whom are at least using structures to deduct their social security payments as a business expense), or even salaried people we might more agree are "under-taxed" then say so - the OP was using the fat-cat $20M CEO as a stalking horse.
Salary is already one of the most efficiently taxed incomes, and is the one that CEO would most carefully avoid when structuring their compensation. Raising the cap could be among the least efficient ways to stop their tax dodging and fund SS at their expense?
September 19, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Salary is already one of the most efficiently taxed incomes, and is the one that CEO would most carefully avoid when structuring their compensation. Raising the cap could be among the least efficient ways to stop their tax dodging and fund SS at their expense?
SS is already one of our most progressive taxes and also only captures wages. Corporations and actually-rich people have made sure taxes on wages make up an ever larger % of total tax collections, while they make huge loopholes for their income - why lean into that further with more taxes on wages?
June 18, 2025 at 6:37 PM
SS is already one of our most progressive taxes and also only captures wages. Corporations and actually-rich people have made sure taxes on wages make up an ever larger % of total tax collections, while they make huge loopholes for their income - why lean into that further with more taxes on wages?
No mention of Oregon ballot measure 110?
June 12, 2025 at 3:44 AM
No mention of Oregon ballot measure 110?
Yes, but the original author's intended simile was that only an idiot would hire that captain after the events on the Titanic, that is, after the captain died.
May 7, 2025 at 7:59 AM
Yes, but the original author's intended simile was that only an idiot would hire that captain after the events on the Titanic, that is, after the captain died.
It's also a stupid sentence because the reason to not hire the captain of the Titanic is that the ship sank, but by that time the captain was dead anyway.
May 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM
It's also a stupid sentence because the reason to not hire the captain of the Titanic is that the ship sank, but by that time the captain was dead anyway.