top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 91 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Usually it works the other way around, where people don't start paying a tax until their salary reaches a certain level. Somehow they've inverted this to favor the rich? Why aren't people rioting?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Because people have finite time. Most of it goes to work, some of it goes to sleep, the remaining time gets spent on not looking like a hoarding caveman (or if you have kids, kids). So if you get an hour of actual free time in your day you probably have it pretty good. Now, do you want to spend that hour on politics or do you want to chill from your day?

    Keeping up with politics is a luxury most people don't have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago

    Right, democratic agency requires not only rights, but the ability to actualize those rights. Just like elections are meaningless if you don't have the freedom to engage with and debate political questions, so are those freedoms meaningless if you don't have the time, energy or capacity to reduce those freedoms to practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 33 points 3 weeks ago

    Sure, and also social security is the opposite of need based as well. So those people who paid tax on a tiny fraction of their income also see the largest checks after retirement age when they need zero percent of the money. Meanwhile, people who worked their whole lives and paid social security tax on 100% of their earnings don't get enough back from social security to be able to continue to live.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yes. The tax should be progressive where the first $x are not taxed, and the rate ramps up as income increases.

    It's ass-backwards like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    While someone making millions should be taxed at 100% for SS like most of us, think about how much would be in the fund if capital gains were taxed that way as well.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Enough to lower the social security age from 67 years to 6-7 weeks gestational age. Remove the cap, include cap gains, and UBI becomes a thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Well, no.

    The thing is, if everyone's retired and nobody's working, there's no productivity, meaning there's either no money, or money is meaningless

    It could certainly be reduced by a pretty good number of years though. Enough that you start your retirement when your body and your mind is still "all there", you get to enjoy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Millions of people work for free every day, we call them volunteers. Many of our institutions including hospitals, parks, schools, sports leagues, museums, food banks, community theaters and zoos depend on volunteer staffing to run their programs.

    When I hear someone say no one will work if they aren't paid, I hear projection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    OK but a decent minority of people would complain, no?.. "If someone had to spend over a decade of their life in college and grad school to be a doctor or something, and Joe just started driving a forklift out of high school, should they both be working for free?"

    As in volunteer work is typically general labor, while many things require very deep, specialized knowledge obtained thru years of schooling. Doctors, engineers, economists, etc. Im sure some people would still pursue those things out of sheer love. But I imagine for some people the potential of earning more is that extra motivation that pushes them down that path.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    The "volunteer" comment was rebutting the idea that there would be no productivity in a society where money is irrelevant. UBI is not a replacement of compensation for work.

    Presently, the first ~$16,000 you earn through labor are not gainful. That income provides your basic subsistence. You pretty much have to spend that much just to keep yourself alive in our economy. The remainder of your income is consider "gainful".

    UBI doesn't replace compensation for labor. UBI provides that subsistence income. UBI means that every dollar you earn through your own labor is gainful. Your subsistence needs for the week are met before you leave for work on Monday.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Doctors Without Borders, legal aid society, Plenty of credentialed professionals volunteer their services as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    That's why I said "typically". You didn't address the issue. 0.1% of doctors volunteer for doctors without borders. People will take issue with one person needing 12 years of schooling or having to work in awful conditions, that will be making the same as someone driving a forklift around a warehouse all day. Saving someone's life as an ER surgeon is not the same as being a delivery driver. How will you address the discrepancy?

    Do you not see the issue people will have with that kind of societal system?? Or are you just ignoring it on purpose because there is no good answer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago*

    Nobody should work for free, that's exploitation. UBI should provide basic assistance, and then people should be free to do what they want with their free time. Many, like myself, would pursue artistic goals, but many would still want to work and earn more money, and that's okay, too. Even artists may want to sell their work.

    The point is that nobody HAS to work for money, but they can if they want to. That's real freedom.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    The thing is, if everyone’s retired and nobody’s working,

    Where do you get the idea that nobody is working with UBI?

    UBI isn't supposed to be your entire, or even your primary source of income. The most basic concept of UBI is supposed to be enough for a roof over your head, rice and beans in your belly, and that's about it. It's supposed to cover the absolute essentials, not your entire lifestyle. It is supposed to remove the desperation of subsistence.

    When a man is drowning, he'll do anything to survive. When his lungs start filling with water, he'll drown his wife and kids just for one more breath of air. When a worker is desperate, they will take any work on any exploitative terms that are offered, just to put a meal in their belly. That desperation drags down wages and conditions for everyone. The fundamental purpose of UBI is to ensure that even the most desperate among us aren't forced into exploitation, and in doing so, drag everyone down with them.

    There is no shortage of labor. We have a massive excess of labor. We have so much labor available that even though everybody currently needs to work, wages are so low that nobody has any money to spend on anything but essentials. The economy is stagnating because everybody is working, but nobody is buying anything.

    UBI is a long-term solution to this untenable situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The people making more than 184k do not want to be a part of our society, it seems.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The faces around her are so expressive. I wish i had the energy to give them thought bubbles

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Framing social security this way is dangerously misleading. Yes, the amount you put in is capped, but the amount that you get to take out when you are old is also capped. I fully believe that taxes need to be progressive, but social security is not a tax, it’s a retirement fund.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax.

    It is a tax. That is a fact. That sentence is literally from the social security website https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/how-is-social-security-financed.html as of August 15th 2026.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Umm... No? The monthly amount you receive is based on your earnings, yes. However (And please correct me if I'm wrong) the benefit continues until the death of you and any qualified person (spouse, ex spouse, minor children, disabled children, disabled parent) who survives you. You and/or they could be collecting that benefit on your 150th birthday.

    Alternatively, if you die before retiring, without qualified survivors, social security pays nothing to you or your estate.

    It's not a "fund". That is a pension, or a retirement insurance program. The taxes that pay for it are premium payments.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    Imagine, for a moment, what a tiny, insignificant fraction of Elon Musk's income must go to Social Security. And yet the cunt goes on JRE to say it should be abolished.

    Billionaires shouldn't be respected as human beings.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    Per Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget scrapping the cap would postpone the trust running out to either 2054 or 2058 depending on whether or not those who pay the now higher taxes would also receive correspondingly higher benefits or if the benefits remain capped. So an extra 20 or 24 years since presently the trust is slated to run out in 2034. When the trust runs out, benefits are going to be cut to match the money coming in which would mean about ~20% reduction to benefits.

    Good start and punts the issue off for another generation, but it doesn’t quite save social security all the way.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    So? Your ruling oligarchs don't care and they tell most peons how to vote. Now get back to slaving away.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›