this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
98 points (99.0% liked)

politics

30463 readers
2476 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE Act, comes on the heels of the latest Social Security Board of Trustees’ annual report, which found that Social Security’s retirement trust fund is projected to face a funding shortfall in 2032, a year earlier than last year’s projections.

Even with it being clear for years that Social Security was running out of money, Congress has been loath to act. Making changes to the program — and potentially cutting benefits — has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare’s troubling math to the next generation.

It’s not a bill with any real proposals or solutions. It’s just a bill saying Congress should establish an “independent, bipartisan advisory committee” that would make recommendations to Congress to look into utterly predictable social security shortfalls, which will go the way it always goes (most recently, back in 2024), where Democrats suggest raising the payroll tax cap, Republicans suggest raising the retirement age, lobbyists ruin everything, and social security still faces budget shortfalls in 6 years.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Isn't the solution obvious? You need more money, so increase the tax revenue. The easiest way is to end the limit on social security taxable income. Right now it's like $200,000. Any money above that isn't taxed by social security. So it's a totally regressive tax. Make it a flat tax, with all income taxed equally, or make it a progressive tax, with larger income taxed more.

Second most obvious solution: make dividends, capital gains, and unrealized capital gains taxable by social security.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 40 points 5 days ago (2 children)

250% tax on private jet fuel oughta cover it.

[–] StrawberryPigtails@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Hell, a death tax on assets over $10 million would probably cover it.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

As much as I love the idea, I'm sure their accountants would find a way around it. That's largely what trust funds are for today.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

There's no good reason for trust funds that benefit particular named individuals to exist at all.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

The real pros set up foundations. I don't know if much has changed since the publication of The Rich and the Super-Rich, other than the fact that we now have many more centi-millionaires, billionaires, centi-billionaires, and briefly one trillionaire.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Taking a chunk of the military's budget ought to do it...

They're literally pissing away the solution we need on a needless war with Iran

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago

literally pissing

I think that's not accurate. They're doing it with bombs.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Stop wasting all your money on ~~avocado toast~~ fucking bombing countries and covering rich assholes

[–] lilacintheshade@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That measure would have strong bipartisan opposition.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago

Ugh, I hate how correct this is.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago

Lift the cap. No cuts. Tax billionaires until there are no longer billionaires.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

1.1 trillion for bombs

$0 for something we’ve been planning our wholes lives around depending on

Yeah totally our fault, stupid taxpayer suckers

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

My favorite part of this is that people literally do blame a portion of the taxpayers when they blather on about how it is a Ponzi scheme and complaining about "boomers" collecting on a lifetime of work, etc...

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

I have a solution. Well several actually…

  • Stop spending trillions on unnecessary wars and military budgets.
  • Raise the stupidly low social security cap (currently $184k … so like actually fucking make the rich pay for shit)
[–] stretch2m@infosec.pub 4 points 3 days ago

Well the important thing is that we keep giving money to Israel and spending trillions to bomb the shit out of Arab countries. At least we have our priorities straight. Maybe those pensioner's should stop having so much avocado toast.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I bet there are congressional staffers whose only job is to come up with clever, marketable acronyms for bills

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 days ago

These days it's probably an AI :/

[–] Pistachio@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Lots are saying to take from the DoD, but y'all're missin the point! More funding to an unchecked DoD means more citizens that see the DoD as a way to have a stable life, more servicembers means more people that can't sue the government when they get put in harms way for living in condemned living quarters, are made to man the burn pits, or get used to test new bio weapons; then we can enshittify the VA and cause mental anguish to these "suckers and losers" so they'll sing karaoke into Kurt's last microphone.

Dead veterans don't need benefits.

So you see, its all 4D chess to get less people even on social security to boost social security's ability to be funneled into the stonks! So more wars it is!