Sen. Mitt Romney suggests he'd back cutting retirement benefits for younger Americans
Source: Business Insider
Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah suggested that he'd favor cutting retirement benefits for younger Americans in a bid to stabilize safety net programs.
"If we're ever going to get a handle on our debt, we're gonna have to find a way to either increase revenue, which I don't favor, or find a way to adjust our long-term benefits not for current retirees," he said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, seemingly ruling out any tax hikes
Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-retirement-benefits-for-younger-americans-2022-3
I guess Fraudster Rick Scott has someone else in his corner to willingly help decimate the two working safety nets for senior Americans. But I guess we already knew this about 47% Mitt.
Autumn
(46,520 posts)NCjack
(10,297 posts)and within a few years, reduce them to Millionaire$.
brush
(57,945 posts)makes litte sense here.
Talk about failing to read the room.
Autumn
(46,520 posts)Anyone looking for any of those are on a fools errand.
Maine Abu El Banat
(3,479 posts)Says he doesn't want to increase revenue?
Marthe48
(19,203 posts)I don't think romney is a businessman. I think he spots vulnerable businesses he can take apart for his own gain, and damn everyone who put time, effort or money into the business on his chopping block.
guy who is a multi millionaire
Response to Rebl2 (Reply #3)
jfz9580m This message was self-deleted by its author.
Historic NY
(37,975 posts)track. Telling a younger person they have to contribute but won't get much in the end, isn't an incentive to work on the table.
cstanleytech
(27,129 posts)However corporations can lower their taxes if they meet certain criteria.
#1 Corporate headquarters located inside the US = 5% lower taxes.
#2 Linking their taxes to the number of employees they have worldwide to the number of employees they have inside the US. The larger the workforce and the larger the % that are here inside the US they get get a lower tax rate with the lowest being 40%.
#3 If they reach the 40% that then kicks in potential access to the last tax break which is linked to the number of employees they have here inside the US as well as the number of them that earn more than 300% over the federal poverty level which is to be set by the General Accounting Office every year with zero ability under law for the House or President to interfere with.
If say a corporation with 6000 people worldwide has 80% of them here inside the US the corporation can get a progressively lower tax rate with the lowest being 0% but they would have to pay all of those 80% more than 300% over the federal poverty level.
paleotn
(19,376 posts)notinkansas
(1,111 posts)inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Eliminate it altogether.
NCjack
(10,297 posts)yaesu
(8,308 posts)to give to the rich
Midnight Writer
(23,074 posts)Whatever happened to that fairy tale?
yonder
(10,006 posts)paleotn
(19,376 posts)The most aptly named economic hypothesis in history. I like to call it the ass curve because that's were Laffer pulled it out of...his ass.
NHvet
(255 posts)"KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY SS AND MEDICARE!! I PAID FOR THEM AND EARNED THEM!!"
DENVERPOPS
(10,071 posts)at Safeway a decade ago..............
The negotiations with these striking workers including that they would leave the existing workers wages the same, but it required the existing workers to agree that all future hires could be at a much lower rate of pay..........
AND THE EXISTING WORKERS SIGNED THAT LOWER RATE OF PAY CONTRACT FOR ALL NEW HIRES....................
MarcA
(2,195 posts)DENVERPOPS
(10,071 posts)Got mine, screw you...........
Of course the only reason the guys at the higher rate, got that higher rate, was because the workers before him refused to sell out him and the other new hires.......
And then, of course, there are the companies where workers don't have to join the union, but get to enjoy the wages and fringe that the Union workers fought for and won.......Is that fucked, or what.........
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)To many who are willing to do that. Some appear on this very site on a regular basis.
Solly Mack
(93,069 posts)Diamond_Dog
(35,002 posts)ask your parents for it
Doesnt everyone have a trust fund set up for their future by Mummy and Father?
Yeesh this guy is clueless about life in the real world!
blue sky at night
(3,306 posts)Making young people hate them even more than yesterday...
MarcA
(2,195 posts)Keep the masses uneducated, poor, in debt and for the women, pregnant.
Of course, the Oligarchs are the truly useless eaters and breathers.
Support a democratic state and government and organize with your friends
and families.
twodogsbarking
(12,230 posts)Thanks Mitt.
RainCaster
(11,602 posts)GOTV people- these people need to be retired.
twodogsbarking
(12,230 posts)I've been practicing hard and I am as stupid as I can get, maybe.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Raise taxes on the rich.
turbinetree
(25,374 posts)the same jerk that sent jobs overseas so the middle class would not have any money coming in and then blaming them for whining while he was swimming at his 5 level home in California .....but he can sit in that Washington office and take taxpayers checks from the people that he wants to fuck over......they usually call that a psychopath.......
TheRealNorth
(9,629 posts)Let's cut now. What, you don't want to lose the support of the Baby Boomers and Gen X'rs that will soon to be retiring?
Well then, fuck you. We have known for 20 years this was coming. You didn't want to increase SSI revenues by either taxing a higher percentage or increasing the income cap that SSI is taxed. So instead, you and the fucking Republicans want to screw young people even more.
TheRealNorth
(9,629 posts)Have they recalculated social security to take into account the number of elderly that Covid took out?
turbinetree
(25,374 posts)and that BS moniker.....
keithbvadu2
(40,327 posts)'I got mine. Screw you.'
TheRealNorth
(9,629 posts)mahina
(18,989 posts)At least lift the cap if not remove it completely. That would take a huge step towards solving the problems and it wouldnt further alienate young people
Coventina
(28,004 posts)DUer Coventina of Arizona suggested that she'd favor preparing some guillotines for possible service.
"The Billionaires of this country have been shown time and again that they are not paying their fair share into this country. We're gonna have to find a way to encourage these parasites to do the right thing, and asking nicely doesn't seem to be working. I'm wondering why it's only called 'class warfare' when the poor fight back?" she said upon reading the latest attempt from the Billionaire Romney to point the finger of blame at hardworking, actual tax-paying citizens.
Some things never change.
Efilroft Sul
(3,765 posts)Raise the cap, you greasy-haired dolt.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)And CUT SPENDING.
LiberalFighter
(53,503 posts)He needs to keep his scummy hands off our Social Security.
IronLionZion
(47,045 posts)telling them to sacrifice themselves for their grandkids or whatever for the economy. Now they screw the grandkids.
The pro-life party might have fewer voters this election year and they want to lose young people. Super idea
GB_RN
(3,186 posts)To the debt. SS is funded through a completely separate tax mechanism, as is Medicare. RMoney is lying through his teeth! Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.🤬
UGADawg
(501 posts)401k's are "fake retirements"
I told my brother in law that he should get no comfort from his 401K. It is only "gravy".
The threat of a union got me a defined benefit pension plan. THE THREAT!
Romney is a thief!
Curtis
(349 posts)Cut it in half easily and we still spend way more than any other nation. This couple with taxing the wealthy as they should be taxed would erase the deficit over night and begin on paying down our debt. There is no reason to go after the middle and lower classes
Although thanks to Putin the DOD is set for another decade of increased budgets.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,713 posts)When CEOs and other executives weren't making THOUSANDS of times the average worker, Social Security worked fine as long as 90% of wages were taxed. Because of the shrinking middle class and more and more $$$ going to people making over $400K, only about 84 % of wages are subject to SS taxes, and it's getting worse.
Personally, I like the donut hole idea that some have proposed. Make first cap $150K, then leave an untaxed window up to $500K. Then the wages over $500K would be subject to Social Security taxes. That untaxed window could be adjusted as needed, to hit the magic 90% mark. Hell, they might even be able to raise benefits more than the ridiculous COLAs they have now. SS would be solvent in perpetuity.
What idiots, including Romney, forget is that Social Security payments go straight back into the economy. Lowering payments HURTS the economy overall, and that's bad for everyone!
LudwigPastorius
(10,962 posts)Like the way Elizabeth had Mary Queen of Scots' height "adjusted"?
Even a once-in-a-blue-moon-right Republican is still a d-bag Republican.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(116,017 posts)And strap him to the roof of a moving vehicle.
Journeyman
(15,155 posts)and below. How tragic would that be? That people ten years from collecting SS be told their share in it will be reduced since they have "time to make alternate investments to make up for the loss"?
DavidDvorkin
(19,917 posts)And voting the straight Democratic ticket. I like to dream.
Hotler
(12,334 posts)Response to NHvet (Original post)
PatrickforB This message was self-deleted by its author.
McKim
(2,412 posts)No thanks, Mitt, our young people have already been screwed over economically enough!!! Expensive college, unemployment, cheap wages, high debt for college and then the pandemic!!!!!
Martin68
(24,654 posts)Grins
(7,921 posts)Of course you dont. Youd rather borrow and let the people too young to vote for you get hammered.
We DONT have a tax problem. We have a revenue problem.
Republicans have made taxes, progressive taxes, a dirty word.
lastlib
(24,962 posts)Your financial future is secure, and you don't give a flying f*ck about anyone lower on the economic ladder. And you sure as h*** don't want anybody cutting into your pie to help someone else whose future isn't so secure. GFY, Mittens. With a pitchfork.
2naSalit
(93,121 posts)It wouldn't even be a concept if you and your ilk actually fucking paid YOUR fair share of taxes.
Social programs are what taxes are for, idiot.
Fuck you, pay some fucking taxes.
Emile
(30,355 posts)machoneman
(4,126 posts)...unlimited (ergo, in the millions) SS would NEVER run out of money.
Heck, even a Forbes economist says lets do it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2021/12/31/raise-the-social-security-capnow-the-rich-pay-through-new-year-days-brunch/?sh=6d139427ea95
Moebym
(1,033 posts)They've threatened to stop paying into SS to get back at the "boomers" who've ruined their lives.
Well, if they want to get back at the "boomers", all they have to do is either not vote at all or vote for the GOP. Once in power, the GOP will lay waste to SS...and damn near everything else we've accomplished.
But hey, they got back at the boomers.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Did boomers accomplish? I know what their parents, "the greatest generation" did but not finding much on accomplishments other than reaping the benefits bestowed by their parents and then destroying the same for their children.
IbogaProject
(3,712 posts)For all retired Senator Retirement benefits.