Fair enough! Happy to admit my total ignorance of US employment law. Doubt I know much more about the UK equivalent either to be honest. It just seemed to be open to abuse but if there are such strict national rules around hours etc then perhaps not. If someone worked overtime in the UK I assume it would be entirely up to the employer (if not in the contract already) what rate of overtime they paid.
To be fair to Trump and the Republicans, what happens when we run out of wind and sunlight? You’re going to feel pretty stupid having that solar-powered windmill in your backyard and you’re going to regret not having drilled or dug for coal. /s
Especially when the wind dies down and your TV goes dead while you’re enthralled — and who wouldn’t be? — watching reruns of The Apprentice.
Well, we can see Republican after Republican getting arrested for child sex crimes of one type or another, and they advocate for the exact opposite of everything Jesus taught, so it’s not just snark.
25%? Peanuts! Make it 50%!
Just like that.
yes, 25% was last time, then 90 days pause, and now 50%. Most comments I have heard in the Danish Radio, have been “It’s trump, he will say anything.”, “It’s just his way to bargain.”, “In a week he will give us a new chance.”.
Well, that didn’t take long. Less than 24 hours after Trump went after Harvard’s international students, a judge puts the slap-down on him. The judge ruled it showed “clear retaliation”. Which apparently is illegal, sadly for trump.
The House Bill contains some language unfavorable to folk who “retire early.” Won’t apply to me, so I’m not aware of the specifics.
And, consistent with the admin’s desired “act tough/law and order” image, they give (IMO unwarranted) gifts to employees in “police” type positions.
I’ve not yet seen word of the proposal I was most concerned about, elimination of the COLA on pensions.
On the one hand, whatever shit they do this year can (potentially) be changed the next time we get sane majorities. On the other, it sucks to have your financial future, and your expectations throughout a 40 year career, treated like a political football.
But I’ll be fine whatever they propose comes to pass. A lot of folk have it a lot worse than I.
Social Security income will continue to be taxed, if you have enough other income. The folks who depend on SS to live will continue to pay little or no tax on those funds.
Which is a good thing. Removing all taxes on SS would add greatly to the deficit. (Which, I know, is not a consideration for anybody in Washington.)
I’m the exceptional individual who thinks SS retirement bens should be HEAVILY taxed - effectively needs based. IMO, if you attain a certain level of wealth, YOU’VE WON! You’ve profited under the system and ought to be congratulated that you do not need SS bens. Enjoy the comfortable lifestyle your wealth enables.
But when I suggested that around here previously, I felt I coulda gotten more support if I had proposed (insert whatever disgusting, amoral, reprehensible activity you can imagine.)
Not necessarily in itself, but there are procedures for doing this kind of thing to a university, which weren’t followed, and there’s clearly no justification on any actual security grounds, i.e. if they want to retaliate, they still need to jump through a few hoops and they did not even pretend to go through them.
From Heather Cox Richardson:
Economist Robert Reich points out that Americans making between about $17,000 and $51,000 will lose about $700 a year. On average, Americans with incomes of less than $17,000 will lose more than $1,000 a year. But if you are among the top 0.1% of earners, you’re in luck: you’ll gain nearly $390,000 a year.
What is wrong with me that I cannot imagine how ANYONE would not be aghast at this?
However horrible we think our government is, I suspect it is truly worse than we imagine - simply because the efforts are so vast that none of us can be aware of all of the horror.
I don’t necessarily disagree, although I’m not sure HEAVILY taxed is the right way to go. I’m okay with paying my nominal tax rate on 100% of my SS funds, and I’m by no means close to rich. But I need my SS bens; indeed, I used those numbers to calculate when I could retire.
Welcome to the second fucking Gilded Age:
Yeah - I’m talking about folk well above you and me - with assets of $10s of millions.
Is Robert Reich saying that only the top 0.1% of earners make more than $51,000 a year, or is there a lot missing from this analysis?
I think it requires a pretty poor reading to presume that is what he is saying.
I really don’t think SS should be taxed at ALL. But if they must have a sliding scale where the rich folks get taxed a great deal. And then somehow take that and reinvest it in SS (which will never happen, too many pockets to line.)
My wife and I should be ok. But some SS would be nice. So far, Trumps ridiculous policies and tariffs have cost me 50k at least.
Eliminating taxes on Social Security income didn’t make the cut in the final* “Big Beautiful 
Bill.” Instead — if I read aright — there’s an additional $4K deduction for individuals with an Adjusted Gross Income below $75K ($150K for married filing jointly). Which, to give the devils their due, seems a tad more fair than eliminating the tax altogether.
* Subject to amendment in the Senate; and from what I’ve read, there will be a metric shitload (perhaps literally) of that.
That’s what (assumedly) happens now…taxes paid on SS go back into the SS Trust Fund and the Medicare Insurance Trust Fund.