Empty G. I like it! Thanks, Kick.

You're welcome. Use it liberally and everywhere.

Whenever I hear someone say her initials, that's the sound they make... and it describes the deluded airhead perfectly.

In your world, there are two types of people - lesser productive low earners and more productive high earners.
And, more importantly to your worldview, never the twain shall meet.

In the reality-based space, however, that is not how our interdependent world works, not at the local level nor on the global scale.

I'm certain that the people who are calling for removal of the cap are not even considering the possibility of having benefit amounts go up from current levels. That's the whole idea, collect more from higher earners, but use it to pay higher benefits of the low earners.

As for the 'Republican cult of economic failure' I love so much because it is accurate ... it's a phrase coined by David Fiderer in the context of the Bush II tax cuts to demonstrate what a failure those tax cuts and overall fiscal policy of the Bush II administration, in particular and previous Republican administrations in general, actually were.

Today, the phrase is even more apt for current Republican tax and fiscal policies.

Republican cult of economic failure

Yeah, I'm sure. My high-school English teacher neighbor told me once that she helps her students grasp the 'Who/Whom'thing by telling them when in doubt to substitute 'He/Him'in the phrase, and then it becomes clear, because the two combinations work on the same principle.

"Subsidization" is simply the process of transferring income from the more productive to the less productive. Your poet buddy appears to miss the point that a smaller percentage of a larger total can easily be larger than the higher percentage of a much lower amount.

High earners pay a smaller percentage, but a larger total, and they receive benefits that are less than in proportion to what they contribute, thereby 'subsidizing' the lower earners.

And I don't even know what the "Cult ot economic failure" is, or whatit means.

Wait a second! You're not a proponent/advocate of the Republican cult of economic failure, are you!?

Are you sure about that whom/who thing in the context I put it?

And, how would you define subsidizing?

It is indeed true that "the wealthiest pay the lowest percentage of their earnings."

But it's not true that "everybody is subsidizing everybody else". Perhaps you don't understand the concept/meaning of 'subsidization'?

Now, did I get that grammar right or not? :)

Bottom line on the SS question is that high earners are subsidizing low earnerd within the program, but you believe they are not subsidizing them enough, right?

that's the same massive distortion your set has been selling for the last eighty years. if 100% of my income is taxed and 1% of your income is taxed, i'm paying 100 times the tax rate you are. If you pay twice as much money as me then my tax rate is only fifty times as much as yours. if there's going to be a cap on income taxes, then there should be a corresponding cap on income. you don't get to eat your cake and have it too.

JL

As I understand, all employees pay the very same rate of SS tax on the amount of their income that IS taxed, but not all of high earners income is taxed.

However, what actually is skewed is the amount of benefits. High earners do get higher benefits, but not in proportion to what they paid in.

So in reality, THAT is what is "JUST NOT FAIR", right???

Something else Dems need to do whenever talking about the federal budget and all things economic and that is, wait for it, mention the Republican cult of economic failure, ad Bidenitum.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see that coming.

Which, by the way, is a cult that far predates you know who.

Give us a hint. ;)

This year's production is going to be fraught with a lot of danger, since Kevin McCarthy's speakership hangs by a very thin thread.

That very thin thread is wrapped around Empty G's finger, whose other hand is wrapped around you know who... a.k.a. the "short-fingered vulgarian."

House Republicans are full of newfound deficit hawkery, and they've already threatened to use the debt ceiling as leverage to get what they want.

What do you think they want? Whatever it is, it's not what the vast majority of the people want or they'd obviously be doing it.

Their main problem, however, is that they have no real idea what it is that they want.

Precisely because they don't pay attention to the vast majority of Americans, including/especially those they are elected to represent. You see the problem?

They want, in a generalized sense, to slash government spending.

If they actually wanted to do that, they really botched that royally in 2017-2018. :)

I've been waiting for somebody to talk about scrapping the cap on social security. I first learned about the idea here when Chris wrote about it a long while back.

But, it seems to get as much traction as my favourite phrase in comment #1 above for some unfathomable reason ...