Porktown
With those at the very top paying less and less as a percentage, while making more and more, why is it always called socialism by many media outlets and politicians when anyone suggests they pay more? You know, like they did when America was great in the 50s & 60s? 

You've made some very good points in the above post, Pork. I only highlighted part of it. I'll come out and tell ya that I am basically a conservative republican, but I do have a couple of Libertarian beliefs. Here's a bit of food for thought.
The law is that workers pay 6.2% of EARNED wages, (emphasis on EARNED),and the employer pays in the same 6.2% in your name and SSN. (Imagine if that was also going into your 401K along with your own contributions and the company match, if any. SSI yields about 01.5% on your investment). The problem is that SSI contributions DO NOT get charged against wages earned for every wage earner; in 2022 it stopped at $147,000, and in 2023 it will be $150,000. So why do those fortunate enough to make 200 grand, or 20 million a year get a free ride after the max contribution. They will get a max monthly check that is 3 times the average recipient. What would it do for SSI if a CEO making 5 mil per year, plus 20 mil in bonuses, (I consider a bonus as a wage too)? And an employer, (corporation) that can pay money like that in wages should also be able to contribute the same 6.2% on those monster figures because obviously, they can afford it.
Your thoughts?

Another funny thing about this situation is that Trump got away with stiffing people on business deals and not paying them for years. And the one time he actually pays somebody he gets indicted.

EMitch
 
 I went out at 66, (full rate), but worked until I was almost 71. The 70 retirement age would still be for full benefits, and early would be 66 but you lose 30%. We've been told for a long time that people live much longer nowadays, and you can actually see how many in their 70s still get around and still work. So what's better: retiring at 70 and gettin' that monthly check, or doing nothing about SS and getting nothing? We've been hearing for years that SSI is in trouble, and pols keep kicking the can down the road. The can needs to go in the garbage and the pols need to get something done, no matter how painful. Otherwise, it's only good 'til 2034.

I'm not concerned about "retiring" per say, I'm concerned that I get my money back as soon as I can.  Unlike some others I pay my fair share as I'm sure you did.  I think the idea of raising the age should be last on a long list of options, many of which Pork outlined in his post.  Why should I want to wait to get MY money back when there's a myriad of options to keep it solvent? 
 

That's the problem. If there's a myriad of ways to keep SSI solvent, do the pols not know that they exist, do they ignore them, or does either side refuse to give an inch to the other? My vote is the latter.

EMitch
The law is that workers pay 6.2% of EARNED wages, (emphasis on EARNED),and the employer pays in the same 6.2% in your name and SSN. (Imagine if that was also going into your 401K along with your own contributions and the company match, if any. SSI yields about 01.5% on your investment). The problem is that SSI contributions DO NOT get charged against wages earned for every wage earner; in 2022 it stopped at $147,000, and in 2023 it will be $150,000. So why do those fortunate enough to make 200 grand, or 20 million a year get a free ride after the max contribution. They will get a max monthly check that is 3 times the average recipient. What would it do for SSI if a CEO making 5 mil per year, plus 20 mil in bonuses, (I consider a bonus as a wage too)? And an employer, (corporation) that can pay money like that in wages should also be able to contribute the same 6.2% on those monster figures because obviously, they can afford it.
Your thoughts?

100% EMitch! Don’t forget that many of those CEOs get stock options instead of pay. $250M worth of stock, without a dime of tax until they decide to sell it. They get company cars, company housing, company yachts, all are provided by their company that they don’t really need an income to cover the expenses. You, I and others here rely on our taxed income to pay for our much less expensive cars, houses and boats. Having many $Ms in investments, you can get extremely low loans to purchase things too, that you never really have to take that money out of investments. And when you do, it is taxed at 15%, rather than 30%+, like most incomes are. Our economy is completely rigged for those that were born into wealth and the lucky few that break into it. Don’t get me wrong, when the market is rolling, those of us that have saved every crumb benefit a little from that 15%. For SSI, it is kind of a smack in the face that raising that $150K threshold to $1M or so is off the table. But raising the age is always floated around. Shows who really runs the system. Amazing that so many will defend it too that aren’t even close to the $150 limit.

Just came here to say the “pudding fingers” bit is legit hilarious.

https://www.independent.c...-pudding-b2320333.html

Rats fight to the death 
 
Be nice if Biden didn't run again. Pretty sure he's going to announce soon. ZZZZZzzzzz

I also missed the boat on Bud Light and why people aren't drinking it anymore. What exactly happened? I just saw a video of kid rock shooting some cans. 

Bud Light got cancelled because they attempted to treat trans people like human beings.

Yeah I get the general jist of it - but is there a specific instance that started it?