Trump Proposes No Tax on SSA Benefits for Seniors

The horror


ok i will spell out the difference since maga needs training wheels to think logically

Biden was making a push for EV as part of his agenda. Presidents promote their agenda, they sell it ,get it?

trump is specifically selling tesla brand because his co president car company stock got reamed in the ass along with other stocks yesterday because of trumps horrendous decisions. Trump is pedaling tesla's on white house lawn including telling you how much of a bargain for 299 he will get your ass in a tesla seat..

Get it now?


get a load of the grubby little hands of the huckster president in this pic. lol

1741741570638.png
 
Last edited:
ok i will spell out the difference since maga needs training wheels to think logically

Biden was making a push for EV as part of his agenda. Presidents promote their agenda, they sell it ,get it?

trump is specifically selling tesla brand because his co president car company stock got reamed in the ass along with other stocks yesterday because of trumps horrendous decisions. Trump is pedaling tesla's on white house lawn including telling you how much of a bargain for 299 he will get your ass in a tesla seat..

Get it now?


get a load of the grubby little hands of the huckster president in this pic. lol

View attachment 17480

Poor fella. Cope harder. Don't forget to take your TDS pills tonight.
 
FICA is a payroll TAX, NOT A CONTRIBUTION. You have no rights to that money after it is paid.


Social Security is an entitlement program, but entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right (unless you have post 1960 legal rulings saying otherwise).

Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right

 
We all know what you have implied. You can lose me on the feigning innocents. We'll end it here agreeing to disagree.

Its not an implication. It is the reality if high income earners choose to opt-out.

Its not a retirement account. You are not entitled to make a positive return on your contributions.

Low income earners take more than they put in.

High income earners pay more than they take out.

That is how social welfare systems work.

If the ones supporting the system opt-out. The ones who truly need it will suffer greatly.

That is the reality of an opt-out system. If you desire that. OK.

But dont blame me for stating the reality of the humanitarian impact of what you wish for.
 
Its not an implication.

Right. No implication at all with this statement:

Let them eat cake. You got yours, most important thing, right?

I get it, you are morally superior. Bravo. I will not apologize for wanting to receive a Social Security check when I reach that age. Nor will I apologize for saying I wish some of the funds could be invested separately. I'm ok with restrictions on that. The status quo is broken. Something has to be done.

I tell you what, you can get it started by never requesting to receive your Social Security check. Make sure and come back here and show us proof that you aren't taking it. And if you really want to help this country's financial situation:

[EXTERNAL LINK] - Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt — TreasuryDirect

or

[EXTERNAL LINK] - Pay.gov - Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt.
 
Back
Top