Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Five years. That's how long until Medicare officially can't pay all of its bills, according to the latest report on the program's fiscal health.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

@#2 ... let's try to add dental and vision ...

Why not?

Are you saying that healthcare for Americans should not be done?

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-01 12:10 PM | Reply

Yup. Insurance industry stooge.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-01 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Especially since so many people are turning into lazy parasites and not paying into it.

Thanks Dems for creating a lazy generation(s).

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Maybe conservatives should rethink this anti-abortion stance.

I mean...free abortions at legitimate centers..
no questions asked ....any age ... no parents involved...

#4 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 04:27 PM | Reply

No limit on number of weeks...give Dems exactly what they're asking for.

#5 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 04:31 PM | Reply

"no parents involved..."

Parents are often the ones who get their daughters pregnant.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-01 04:32 PM | Reply

The fact conservatives aren't thinking like that should tell you something how there's more to this than politics.

#7 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 04:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not many abortions in the Medicare age population, BillJohnson.

LOL

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-01 04:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3

Agree especially in the 60+ age group. With 25% of the population over 60 and 25% under 18 we only have 2-1 pay in.

A 4% death rate over 60 could improve those numbers quite a bit.

#9 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-09-01 04:44 PM | Reply

While the American people diligently paid into the Social Security Trust Fund, Congress systematically took the money and spent it on just about every government program out there. Republicans like to blame the Democrats and point out that Social Security money was spent on Obamacare. That's true, it was. And the Democrats, blame the Republicans, saying that Social Security money was spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's also true, it was. Money from our Social Security Trust Fund has helped justify tax cuts and spending plans.

To the tune of over $2,850,000,000,000 ($2.85 Trillion)

Source

This is about congress raiding the trust fund. That's the real reason why.

#10 | Posted by BBQ at 2021-09-01 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Link is to a libertarian bs Outlet.

Assuming they're not lying the solution is simple raise estate taxes on the .1% wealthiest people in America.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2021-09-01 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#6 ... Especially since so many people are turning into lazy parasites and not paying into it.

Thanks Dems for creating a lazy generation(s). ...

Isn't it the Republicans who have always objected at paying into Social Security, and who wanted to privatize it so the banks could profit off of it?

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-01 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Anyone truly wanting to reduce abortions should support the methods already proven: frank and accurate sex education, and easy access to birth control.

Anyone saying they want to reduce abortions while fighting against proven means, are about controlling women and little else.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 05:00 PM | Reply

Thanks Dems for creating a lazy generation(s).

#6 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Thanks for corporate slave rwingers helping the GOP to create so many poor people.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-01 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Thanks Dems for creating a lazy generation(s)."

You're misunderstanding the equation.

Medicare tax is paid as a percentage of wages, or as a percentage of net profit for the self employed.

In the macro-macro, when wages don't keep up with inflation, and a higher and higher percentage of income is made NOT subject to Medicare taxes, the system strains more and more. Couple that with medical inflation almost always outpacing overall inflation, and the program eventually runs out of money, unless major structural changes are made.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- wages don't keep up with inflation

When they do, you have countries with the self-declared happiest people in the world in northern Europe. Who often pay less than here in property taxes, which offsets higher income taxes. Plus, corporations actually pay taxes, and are, somewhat counterintuitively, often less regulated than here.

The GOP is intent to keep us economically in the much lesser happy nation category. I mean, where are all the disgruntled voters going to come from if you don't make them yourself?

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-01 06:46 PM | Reply

Especially since so many people are turning into lazy parasites and not paying into it.
Thanks Dems for creating a lazy generation(s).

#6 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Bill, YOU were supposed to pay into it enough to cover your needs.

My generation isn't supposed to be paying your bills because you are a lazy, entitled, spoiled Boomer.

We can only hope the boomers like Bill die off as soon as possible so the younger generations no longer have to pay their enormous Medicare bills. But I'll settle for letting it go bankrupt and tossing Bill out of his retirement home to die in the street. God knows his kids won't want him living with them.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-09-01 08:42 PM | Reply

"My generation isn't supposed to be paying your bills because you are a lazy, entitled, spoiled Boomer."

If you are talking about social security, actually you are supposed to. It's the law, just as the boomers paid for their parents' social security,

If you are talking about something else, no, you are not obligated, so what is the fuss?

#18 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 08:47 PM | Reply

"We can only hope the boomers like Bill die off as soon as possible ..."

So I presume when you are old enough to get your social security you will be refusing it so that people don't have to pay for you as you are now paying for others?

#19 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 08:49 PM | Reply

#21

Then the boomers should have had more kids. Gen X is the smallest generation, Boomers the largest how does that math work?

#20 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-09-01 08:51 PM | Reply

#23 - I don't know. I'd say ask the people who wrote the law, but they've been long dead. Maybe you should ask your congressman why congress isn't doing anything to fix it. If he's not, don't vote for him.

I do know this. I paid into the SS system my entire working life. If I live to be 85, I'll get back about 1/4 what I paid into it. So this boomer makes no apologies. I think the government owes me one for such a ------ rate of return.

#21 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 08:56 PM | Reply

^
Ummm

It's insurance, dummy

How is it you don't know how social security works, boomer?

#22 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 09:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's disgusting the whiny little pissants who screech BOOOMER! would begrudge me getting back 25% of the money I unwillingly gave the US government, and actually stoop so low as to wish people would die because of it.

What's wrong with people?

#23 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:08 PM | Reply

-Are you saying that healthcare for Americans should not be done?

I'm saying you can't sell that right now....maybe never.

It's as some of you have no idea how laws are passed, business decisions are made....you know...how the world actually works.

There is ZERO probability you can get dental and vision added to medicare especially with this problem.

neither party will fight for it right now.

Do you seriously not understand that?

Braindead clearly doesn't get it...he just spews "insurance stooge" which must be french for "someone who is 50 IQ points smarter than Brain dead".

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-Then the boomers should have had more kids. Gen X is the smallest generation, Boomers the largest how does that math work?

When the largest generation gives birth to the smallest, this is what you get.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:10 PM | Reply

Syc,

"We can only hope the boomers like Bill die off as soon as possible"

You'll be my age someday if you live long enough.

#26 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 09:13 PM | Reply

We have trillionaires in America. Tax them more.

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2021-09-01 09:15 PM | Reply

#30 - that's not going to happen. That would take new laws. The billionaires own the people who make the laws, aka the legislative branch aka congress.

#28 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:17 PM | Reply

"Getting back 25%"

How much do you get back from your car insurance when you had no accidents?

Seriously. How come jakester doesn't know what social security is?

#29 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 09:19 PM | Reply

-Maybe you should ask your congressman why congress isn't doing anything to fix it.

SS is known as the 3rd rail in politics. Touch it and you die and that's the way it's been for a long long time.

No matter who you are....if you try to introduce a solution to SS, you get killed politically.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:21 PM | Reply

Jake,

These hypocrites begrudge a system like social security where people pay in and collect in old age but sing the praises of just taking money from people who work and give it to people who don't do a damn thing but hold out their hand and whin for more.

#31 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 09:27 PM | Reply

Eb,

I read once "don't scare the old people".

#32 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-09-01 09:33 PM | Reply

#34 - there does seem to be a certain disconnect, for sure.

#33 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:34 PM | Reply

= to people who don't do a damn thing but hold out their hand and whin for more.

See 17 and 19.

Your GOP is all about the one percent... so you are part of the problem. The vast majority will work for a living wage in a more fair economy. Blaming the poor is just another rwing lie.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2021-09-01 09:35 PM | Reply

I found this....an article from almost 25 years ago. There's a chart where they were predicting where we'd be today.

www.stlouisfed.org

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:35 PM | Reply

I just want to know why someone would view social security, the old age, survivors and disabilities insurance program, as an investment?

Can someone explain why jakester, a "boomer" doesn't know what social security is

#36 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 09:35 PM | Reply

-If I live to be 85, I'll get back about 1/4 what I paid into it.

I don't see that math.

If you live till 85 then you'll draw it for almost 20 years.

If you've paid a lot in then you'll get more than 25%.....more like 100%...which is still a bad deal considering I'm ignoring the return you would have had on the money.

Are you self-employed?

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:39 PM | Reply

Social security reform is so difficult politically primarily due to the ignorance of the public regarding social security.

Including the current recipients of the program.

It's so easy to scare the ---- out of people with accusations like "he's going to starve grannie" and "make you all work til your 80" and my favorite.."he's going to push grannie over a cliff in her wheelchair".

It's all so predictable and not even original.

I will have paid the max into the system by the time I start drawing. I'll will have paid the same as Jeff Bezos.

Every year my SS taxes go up. It sucks.

But......what I personally love the most about it.....it's ensured that my mom (deceased now), nor my mother in law, nor any of my siblings or in-laws will end up living with me because of SS.

maybe the best tax money I'll ever spend.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:52 PM | Reply

#40 - I should have qualified that includes the matching funds from my employer. Also, I typoed. I meant 75 years, the app average life span for an American male. Also, I assumed the app max of 42,500/mo. I know that goes up with COLA. And I can't retire until I'm 66 years, 4 months I believe.

No, I am not self-employed, but I work for a good company and make good wages.

#39 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:52 PM | Reply

42

you mean $4,250/mo?

Is the the max amount you can get now?

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 09:54 PM | Reply

Another type. the shift key didn't take. 42,000 should be $2,500 of course.

#41 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:55 PM | Reply

I know people say, "But what about Medicare?" I won't draw that because I get VA health care.

#42 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 09:56 PM | Reply

I just checked for max I can get since it's been years since I figure that. Apparently the max for retiring at 66.33 years is now #3,113. So I may be getting more than 25%, but then again, I'm paying in more. And you can get an absolute max of $3,895/mo, but you have to wait until you are 70 to file.

#43 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 10:04 PM | Reply

Actually the max monthly benefit is more like $3,800 a month today. But you have to pay in the max for 35 years to qualify for that.

We will continue to increase the income cap at the pace we have been. Currently at $142,500 I think now. It wasn't that long ago it capped at under $100K.

That means someone making $150K sees their SS taxes go up every year.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 10:05 PM | Reply

#47 - but to get that max you have to wait until you are 70 to file, correct? I got my info from this page.

www.investopedia.com

#45 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-01 10:09 PM | Reply

"That means someone making $150K sees their SS taxes go up every year."

Yeah they "go up" to the same rate people who earn less are paying.

How unfair.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-01 10:09 PM | Reply

"When the largest generation gives birth to the smallest, this is what you get."

Returning workers less than 2% annually, when a wide basket of investables can average 6%-9% over time, gives anyone with half a brain and half a spine the chance to get the equation in balance. Instead, we get tax giveaways to the world's richest.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By the time SS is relevant to me for anything beyond taxation, max payout retirement age will probably be 80-85 lol, hopefully I'll be able to live to 105+

#48 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-01 10:30 PM | Reply

what I personally love the most about it.....it's ensured that my mom (deceased now), nor my mother in law, nor any of my siblings or in-laws will end up living with me because of SS.

maybe the best tax money I'll ever spend.

#41 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That is a great point lol. Going to run with that one in the future.

#49 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-01 10:34 PM | Reply

I call shenanigans on jakesters entire bout of diarrhea mouth on this thread

It's entirely BS.

#50 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 10:49 PM | Reply

The VA itself strongly recommends that veterans with VA health care also enroll in Medicare Parts A and B as soon as they become eligible (unless they have group insurance from a current employer).

www.aarp.org

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-01 10:56 PM | Reply

"Social security reform is so difficult politically primarily due to the ignorance of the public regarding social security."

The only hindrance is not raising the cap.
And the only people hindering are Republicans.

Another fix would be to introduce a means test.
Again, Republicans won't stand for it.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-01 10:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why is ebely playing along with jakesters BS as if it's legitimate? It's almost as if he is trying to make it legitimate

Oh, that's right, it's eberly. There is a ideological agenda that needs servicing

#53 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 10:58 PM | Reply

"I should have qualified that includes the matching funds from my employer."

Which means the poster gets back (at least) 1/2 rather than the claimed 1/4, so he was only off by 100%...for starters.

"Also, I typoed. I meant 75 years..."

Which is why the poster's claim about 85 didn't pass the smell test. So another error.

"Also, I assumed the app max of $2,500/mo."

Here's one of the pieces of bad math usually employed: folks take whatever they've contributed this year, and multiply it by the number of work years, by this year's rate. Several years have had cut rates, most folks didn't make today's income say, 25-35 years ago, and anyone retiring now had about a half-dozen qualifying years at lower rates.

Bottom line: however the poster got to his claim, please remember: GIGO.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 11:11 PM | Reply

56

Trolling savage. Begging for my attention

What ideological agenda did I agree with on this thread?

Other than I SUPPORT social security?

You are one ------ up desperate degenerate.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-01 11:16 PM | Reply

Much to do about nothing if there's an actual threat to medicare's financial stability Congress will pass legislation raising taxes and there will be hell to pay if they try to raise it on the middle or lower class.

#56 | Posted by Tor at 2021-09-01 11:22 PM | Reply

I'm not trolling

I would like you to address why you aren't calling out obvious BS but instead playing along as if it's legit?

#57 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 11:22 PM | Reply

It's obvious jakesters and billjohnson don't know the first thing about social security, (the agency) or the program it administers. You know it's insurance and it's only real payout is in the event of catastrophe. The fact you can live healthy enough and long enough to see a return is a bonus if not needed, or saves you from starvation in the event you do.
But you humor this BS
It's this exact disingenuous bull that makes you such a target

Just say'in

#58 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-01 11:38 PM | Reply

" it's insurance and it's only real payout is in the event of catastrophe."

You're joking, right?

It's a combination of insurance and retirement savings. It's main "payout"--and it's very real--is the promised monthly annuity to retirees.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 11:48 PM | Reply

"By the time SS is relevant to me for anything beyond taxation, max payout retirement age will probably be 80-85 "

You've got it backward.

They might keep increasing the eligibility age (and should), but they'll NEVER cut folks off, even at 100.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-01 11:51 PM | Reply

#63. We will see reduced benefits but won't see no benefits at all. I am planning on 75% of what is promised.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-02 12:54 AM | Reply

SS is known as the 3rd rail in politics. Touch it and you die and that's the way it's been for a long long time.

No matter who you are....if you try to introduce a solution to SS, you get killed politically.

#33 | Posted by eberly

Raise the income limit for taxing social security and include those who earn primarily from capital gains.

Our tax system is skewed way too heavily in favor of the top 10%, who own 90% of U.S. assets.

#62 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-09-02 05:25 AM | Reply

We will see reduced benefits but won't see no benefits at all. I am planning on 75% of what is promised.
#64 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Reduced benefits is tough to square with ever growing inflation (despite whatever the fed's official measures say over the last few decades). "Granny is homeless!" Lol

#63 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-02 07:01 AM | Reply

Also "granny is hungry and eating cat food!"

#64 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-09-02 07:02 AM | Reply

61

Disingenuous bull.

What exactly am I supposed to call out? Every ounce of ignorance sputtered on this place on every subject?

Just come to grips with reality that you are a piece of ---- ------- degenerate.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-02 08:15 AM | Reply

-Raise the income limit for taxing social security and include those who earn primarily from capital gains.

Raise the income more than we already are currently? Do you understand of course that we are raising the amount of income subject to Social Security tax virtually every year right now?

We increase it every year.

And how do you structure the system to collect from capital gains? Currently it's an income tax on earned income. How in earth do you incorporate capital gains into that?

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-02 08:28 AM | Reply

I've been waiting for someone to point out that this thread is about Medicare, not Social Security.

Medicare , which has NO cap on the income subject to the taxation.

One solution to Medicare is simply raise the tax rate

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-02 08:30 AM | Reply

-I'm not trolling

It's quite clear to everyone here you're doing nothing but trolling

When you address me, address the subject matter, not another posters ignorance

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-02 08:33 AM | Reply

"Raise the income more than we already are currently?"

Yes. What else could I mean?

"Do you understand of course that we are raising the amount of income subject to Social Security tax virtually every year right now?"

I do.

Do you understand that since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households?

The effect on SSI is the income Americans earn which is subject to SSI capture keeps going down. In the 80s it was ~80%, now it's around 60%. Meanwhile, more and more people are going to collect SSI, as the Baby Boomers age into eligibility.

I'd start with doubling the cap and see how those numbers work out. I'd be surprised if eliminating the cap entirely wouldn't be enough to guarantee surpluses forever, which to be fair is probably too much.

So, move the cap to the other end; make it an exemption. Don't tax the first 25k of earnings or something.

Make it a true progressive tax.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 09:24 AM | Reply

"Our tax system is skewed way too heavily in favor of the top 10%, who own 90% of U.S. assets."

Our tax system is skewed way too heavily against the the top 10%, who pay 71% of federal income taxes.

But the answer is quite simple. Pretty much every other country on the planet has figured it out.

It's called a value added tax, and it's how most western countries pay for their expansive social safety nets.

The tendency for one to expect high income earners to pay for everything is a uniquely USan phenomenon. One of the more pronounced aspects of "American Exceptionalism."

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 01:13 PM | Reply

"who pay 71% of federal income taxes"

1. The vast majority of workers (~70%) pay more in payroll taxes in their lifetime than income taxes, including all couples making $150,000 or less a year.
2. Payroll tax overcollections were cited as one of the reasons Bush and Cheney reset America's fiscal sights.
3. The way folks are "taken off" the income tax rolls has changed radically. Roughly a half-dozen Republican-led initiatives put child-rearing incentives, either new or formerly paid directly, and integrated them into the 1040. These include the Earned Income Credit (formerly "Welfare"), The American Opportunity Credit, and The Child Tax Credit and all its offshoots. Just regarding the latter...each of these steps lowered the existing percentage of folks who "pay income taxes":

Creation of the CTC
Raising the credit from $400 to $500
Doubling it to $1000
Doubling it again to $2000
Creating the ACTC
Making a greater amount refundable
Raising the income cap to qualify
Raising the credit to $3000, or $3600 for a child 5 and under

All but the last one can be traced to Republicans.

Put it all together, and the goal becomes clear: stuff it all into the 1040, and then crow that less and less people are "paying taxes".

Bonus: if you defund the IRS at the same time you overburden them, they'll have no resources to go after your owners!!!

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 01:45 PM | Reply

"Do you understand of course that we are raising the amount of income subject to Social Security tax virtually every year right now?"

The Republicans believe you're a sheep worth sacrificing. They didn't care when you got jackhammered by SALT in a red state, and they think you paying a higher percentage of your income in federal taxes than Sheldon Adelson is a great price to pay...for them.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 01:49 PM | Reply

"Our tax system is skewed way too heavily against the the top 10%,"

You're either employing Republican Math, or you simply don't understand the equation.

The top 10% in my office are provided a menu of advantages come tax time.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 01:53 PM | Reply

I do know this. I paid into the SS system my entire working life. If I live to be 85, I'll get back about 1/4 what I paid into it. So this boomer makes no apologies. I think the government owes me one for such a ------ rate of return.

#24 | POSTED BY JAKESTER AT 2021-09-01 08:56 PM | FLAG: Do not forget that your employers had to march your FICA 'contributions'.

FYI: FICA is comprised of the following taxes: 6.2 percent Social Security tax; 1.45 percent Medicare tax (the "regular" Medicare tax); and. Since 2013, a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax when the employee earns over $200,000.

ps: Ever notice that the govt never mentions all those who contributed for decades, but died before ever receiving any of benefits they, and their employers paid for.

#74 | Posted by MSgt at 2021-09-02 02:05 PM | Reply

"1. The vast majority of workers (~70%) pay more in payroll taxes in their lifetime than income taxes, including all couples making $150,000 or less a year."

Of course.

Until you break into the top 50% of income earners, you don't even contribute to the federal coffers. You're only covering your own eventual costs.

But that's neither here nor there.

A VAT solves all these problems. Which is why they've been adopted by most of the world.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:37 PM | Reply

"You're either employing Republican Math, or you simply don't understand the equation. The top 10% in my office are provided a menu of advantages come tax time."

It's not really an equation. The top 10% pay 71% of the taxes needed to sustain continuing operations. 50% or so do nothing to contribute to that effort.

I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make? That the top 10% should pay more? Maybe pay the entitlement taxes for the bottom 50% in addition to their "fair share" of the cost of continuing government operations?

Shield the least productive members of society from any sense of social responsibility? By shifting the burden on to those who are already responsible for so much?

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:41 PM | Reply

"The top 10% in my office are provided a menu of advantages come tax time."

Really?

how many are eventually afforded the same tax benefits as those in the bottom 50% of income earners? Namely, only being obligated to cover payroll taxes?

Since they're paying 71% of the federal income tax burden, I'm guessing not many.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:43 PM | Reply

"how many are eventually afforded the same tax benefits as those in the bottom 50% of income earners?"

Benefits like paying a higher SSI tax rate?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 02:45 PM | Reply

And how can you possibly provide tax advantages to those who don't pay taxes?

You can't cut taxes for those who don't pay taxes.

And if you're arguing in favor of cutting payroll taxes...cool. Overseas military are exempt from paying federal income taxes...with the exception of entitlement taxes. No one gets out of paying those.

I think it would be nice for those who are deployed overseas to be exempted from paying all federal taxes, including payroll. The argument thus far has been that those taxes directly contribute to future entitlements, so they need to be paid. But I think many a Service Member wouldn't chafe at seeing that connective tissue clipped.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:46 PM | Reply

"Our tax system is skewed way too heavily against the the top 10%"

LOL. That's right around the cutoff point where you stop paying into SSI. Coincidence?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 02:48 PM | Reply

"Benefits like paying a higher SSI tax rate?"

My understanding is that, like the VAT, payroll taxes are fair taxes. You pay the same rate regardless of how rich or poor you are.

Amahwrong?

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:48 PM | Reply

"Namely, only being obligated to cover payroll taxes?"

Sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes are always zero, when you use Republican Tax Calculator.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 02:52 PM | Reply

"payroll taxes are fair taxes"

Ooh, "fair" taxes!

Which econ class do they define "fair" taxes in?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 02:53 PM | Reply

"LOL. That's right around the cutoff point where you stop paying into SSI. Coincidence?"

The top 10% don't pay in to SSI?

I didn't know that.

Please, elaborate.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 02:58 PM | Reply

"Sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes are always zero, when you use Republican Tax Calculator."

They're not zero...they're just inconsistent. They differ from state to state.

Germany is not like that. There are taxes that are specific to each state, but they are very low

Perhaps you would advocate something like a Value Added Tax at the national level in the US?

Maybe?

20%-ish?

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:00 PM | Reply

"The top 10% don't pay in to SSI?"

Some on over 99% of their income.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:01 PM | Reply

"You pay the same rate regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Amahwrong?"

^
You're missing the self-employment tax.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:02 PM | Reply

The top 10% don't pay in to SSI?
I didn't know that.
Please, elaborate.

LMFAO.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:03 PM | Reply

Ooh, "fair" taxes!

en.wikipedia.org

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:03 PM | Reply

"Some on over 99% of their income."

That's awesome.

I need to learn that trick.

I've found ways to get out of paying federal income taxes...but I've never managed to avoid entitlement taxes.

They don't seem keen to let me skip out on that one.

#90 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:04 PM | Reply

"You're only covering your own eventual costs."

No, you're usually covering MORE than your own eventual costs. And since payroll credits are deferred, but income tax credits are current, you've got to account for the lost gainful use of the money in the interim.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:05 PM | Reply

That being said, employees basically pay the bulk of the employer's portion, in the form of lower pay:
taxfoundation.org

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:06 PM | Reply

"You're missing the self-employment tax."

Am I?

OK.

Explain it to me?

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:06 PM | Reply

Raise the income more than we already are currently? Do you understand of course that we are raising the amount of income subject to Social Security tax virtually every year right now?

We increase it every year.

EBERLY

Not enough. And the wealthiest Americans have numerous ways to avoid paying income taxes altogether.

#94 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-09-02 03:07 PM | Reply

Ooh, "fair" taxes!
en.wikipedia.org
FairTax was a single rate tax proposal in 2005, 2008 and 2009 in the United States that includes complete dismantling of the Internal Revenue Service.

Oh, so it's political grandstanding.

The economic term for what you described in #84 is "Flat Tax."

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:07 PM | Reply

"I've found ways to get out of paying federal income taxes...but I've never managed to avoid entitlement taxes."

Try rental income, investment income, or capital gains, for starters.

Meanwhile...Peter Thiel has $5 Billion in his tax-free Roth IRA.
www.marketwatch.com

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:09 PM | Reply

"That being said, employees basically pay the bulk of the employer's portion, in the form of lower pay"

Lower pay?

Did you read the article?

wages are a function of supply and demand. I don't think you're incorrect, but the rate at which a worker pays an increasingly disparate amount in taxes is directly relative to how much they earn.

Low income workers bear the lowest burden, since they're really only on the hook for payroll taxes.

The more successful you are, the more progressive tax policies expect you to pay.

Kinda like the Kulaks in Russia.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:11 PM | Reply

#97 - not FICA. There are no loopholes to avoid paying or decreasing FICA taxes. However, there is a cap of (I think) about $140,000. Removing that cap or significantly raising it would generate much more revenue.

#98 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 03:14 PM | Reply

"Try rental income, investment income, or capital gains, for starters."

Dude, I have money for you if you can get me out of paying for Social Security and Medicare.

Those are two taxes I've not found a way to avoid.

And I have rental income, investment income, and CG.

My assumption is that, making in the ~$170k-ish range without a lot of private investment, it wouldn't really be worth it for me to hire a financial manager.

Should I?

Should I hire you?

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:16 PM | Reply

"Did you read the article?"

Here, allow me to provide an explanation, using economic terms.

These terms may be unfamiliar to you, MadBomber, since your MBA is in Finance, not Economics:

Who Really Pays Payroll Taxes?
Perhaps one of the best-kept secrets of payroll taxes is that employees effectively pay almost the entire payroll tax, instead of splitting the burden with their employers.

This is because tax incidence is not determined by law, but by markets. In fact, the person who is required to pay a tax to the federal government is often different than the person who bears the tax burden. Usually, the marketplace decides how the tax burden is divided between buyers and sellers, based on which party is more sensitive to changes in prices (economists call this "relative price elasticities").

It turns out that the supply of labor " that is, workers' willingness to work " is much less sensitive to taxes than the demand for labor " or employers' willingness to hire. This is because workers who need a job are not as responsive to changes in wages, but businesses are able to "shop around" for the best workers or shift production to different locations. The graph below roughly illustrates how the labor market distributes the payroll tax burden. The fact that the labor supply line is steeper than the labor demand line is a way of showing that workers are less sensitive to changes in wages than employers.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:18 PM | Reply

"#97 - not FICA. There are no loopholes to avoid paying or decreasing FICA taxes."

Danforth just said there are loopholes. And he is an accountant.

I wasn't aware of them...but I wait breathlessly to hear about them.

I feel like I might be keeping a lot more of my income.

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:19 PM | Reply

"Dude, I have money for you if you can get me out of paying for Social Security and Medicare."

Ivermectin can help with that. For best results, supplement with hydroxychloroquine.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:19 PM | Reply

"My understanding is that, like the VAT, payroll taxes are fair taxes. You pay the same rate regardless of how rich or poor you are. Amahwrong?"

Yes. Payroll taxes are super-regressive*.

As income tax rates progress, so does the effective federal rate, which peaks at the SS cap. That's why Eberly pays a higher percentage of his income in federal taxes than anyone on the DR. Higher than Adelson, higher than Buffett, higher than Bezos.

*Flat would be 10% for everyone; flat taxes are Regressive. Progressive would be 10%, then 12%, then 22%, etc. Super-Regressive is a flat tax that ends, or severely tapers off, as income rises.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:19 PM | Reply

"These terms may be unfamiliar to you, MadBomber, since your MBA is in Finance, not Economics:"

Is your MBA in either one of these?

How about your undergrad?

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:21 PM | Reply

"And I have rental income, investment income, and CG."

And you're paying full SS and Medicare on them all?!? You're joking, right?

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:22 PM | Reply

#106

And what about the Value Added Taxes employed by most of our European cousins?

Isn't a VAT a flat tax?

I'll answer for you, champ. Yes. It is.

#106 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:23 PM | Reply

"The more successful you are, the more progressive tax policies expect you to pay."

Yes, that's what a progressive tax means.

The only progressive tax in US tax regime is the income tax. Since rich greedy -------- think that's unfair, and money is speech, we get to hear them whine about it constantly.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:24 PM | Reply

That's the difference between people in the Us and people in Europe.

Even the progressives in Europe support a stakeholder economy.

American progressives are pretty much tethered to a post-Marxian construct where those who are most able (willing) should provide for the whole of society.

#108 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-02 03:25 PM | Reply

"That being said, employees basically pay the bulk of the employer's portion, in the form of lower pay"

Don't kid yourself. Employees ALWAYS pay the employer's portion, in the form of lower pay.

Don't believe me? Guess what happens when your employer doesn't pay, and can't be found? That's right: the legally liable one is the guy in your mirror.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:25 PM | Reply

"Danforth just said there are loopholes. And he is an accountant."

No, I'm not. Tax and Financial Advisor.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:26 PM | Reply

"Is your MBA in either one of these?
How about your undergrad?"

I don't have a MBA, so no. But I did take an Econ class, where they talked about the kind of graphs that are in the article. And explained things like "The fact that the labor supply line is steeper than the labor demand line is a way of showing that workers are less sensitive to changes in wages than employers."

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:26 PM | Reply

Wealth taxes are fair taxes.
Income taxes discourage value add, but promote investment if combined with SALT like deductions against property taxes.
Expenditure taxes are regressive.
Entitlement taxes are enforced savings, which are a justifiable income tax.

The feds should add a .5% property tax but allow most of it to be deducted from income (not entitlement) taxes, like SALT.
That would lower house prices for young people and allow the middle class to build wealth, while preventing income tax cheats from gaining the benefits of living here without contributing.

I legally avoid income taxes for years while building my businesses. I will never understand why employees agreed to pay all the bills of government to provide so many services for me. Thanks chumps.

#112 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-02 03:35 PM | Reply

"but I've never managed to avoid entitlement taxes."

I paid into social security for only 4 years while I was in the marines.

I have not paid any SS since. I guess that makes me smarter than you!
Lol

I have paid into Medicare. Don't think there is any way around that. But that was only $10-20 a month.

I would tell you how but it probably requires a time machine. So when you get one and can go back in time let me know and I will tell you how I did it.

#113 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-02 03:38 PM | Reply

"Should I (hire a financial advisor)?

I'd suggest going to a local fee-for-service (hourly) provider. Make sure you're "on track" for your goals. It also helps going with the spouse; I often require it for first-timers, because it's important to all be on the same page. After than, you can decide whether or not to go back for periodic advice, do it yourself, or hire a professional advisor. Personally, I HATE FEES. Plus, I enjoy doing a lot of the investing myself, and I've had some very good luck over the years. Of course, the central tenet is I've been an aggressive (i.e., monthly) saver since I was in my 20s, and easily convinced the bride to also be one, so we've had a twice-a-month savings plan for decades.

Meanwhile, regarding you: why don't you have some meaty investments? Replicating a $170K lifestyle is forking expensive. I try to warn folks it takes $130K of money in the bank to pay yourself a hundred bucks a week! I'd hope, at the least, you're both maxing out in whatever 401k type stuff you can.

And if you're paying full payroll taxes on your investment income, you need to change preparers.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:38 PM | Reply

"Danforth just said there are loopholes. And he is an accountant.

I wasn't aware of them...but I wait breathlessly to hear about them."

I would like to hear that as well. I know there is a cap of about $140,000 after which you don't pay, but under that, almost everyone pays. Religious groups are exemption as are people whose income is under the standard deduction.

"Who Is Exempt?

Members of certain religious groups may be exempt from Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must waive their rights to benefits, including hospital insurance benefits. They must also be a member of a religious sect that provides food, shelter, and medical care for its members, and is conscientiously opposed to receiving private death and retirement benefits.2"

www.investopedia.com

In a nutshell, if you pay income tax, you pay FICA and cannot loophole it down. Don't use Danforth as an accountant.

#115 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 03:38 PM | Reply

I will never understand why employees agreed to pay all the bills of government to provide so many services for me. Thanks chumps.
#115 | POSTED BY BORED

Well, here's what happened:

During WWII the USA was going broke. In no small part because back then, all Americans, not just independent contractors, had to make quarterly income tax payments. There's a WWII cartoon with Donald Duck, talking about how if you don't pay your taxes every quarter, you're helping the Nazis. Long story short, Uncle Sam wanted his money, and he wanted it Now! Just like those J.P. Wentworth ads. So, FDR came up with a clever plan:

FDR made the businesses an offer they couldn't refuse: He gave them a whole year of not having to pay corporate taxes, in return for having their payroll departments start withholding income taxes from worker's paychecks, and sending it right away to Uncle Sam. Workers got second prize, which was, they now only have to file their income taxes once a year. I believe the year was 1943.

The business knew a good deal when they saw it, so they took it. The workers... they weren't consulted.

For decades, you could in fact have zero withholdings from your payroll, which did give you the chance to earn something with that money until taxes are due at the end of the year. I did that once by mistake, and ended up with a tax bill I couldn't afford on April 15. These days I'm not sure if that's even still an option to have zero withholdings on your W-2.

Anyway, that's how we arrived at a place where payroll taxes are withheld by our employer, and we only have to file annually instead of quarterly.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 03:49 PM | Reply

"In a nutshell, if you pay income tax, you pay FICA and cannot loophole it down"

I had to pay into FICA but not social security. And I never agreed to anything. Except that I preferred my own retirement to SS. So I didn't give it up when I was "offered" social security. It was the government's decision that I could not "double dip" when I retired so I didn't have to pay SS n addition to my CSRS retirement plan. (Crap I gave it away!)

But they don't offer retirement pensions like CSRS any more. Government employees get to invest in the stock market(the thrift fund) instead. In other words they get to gamble with their retirement in the stock market casino.

And when the time comes to retire you just have to pray that the economy doesn't decide to take a dump at the same time. (The stock market collapse just before you retire would be the worst timing possible).

#117 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-02 03:57 PM | Reply

"Danforth just said there are loopholes."

I never said that. I said certain members of the 10% don't pay Social Security taxes on over 99% of their income. Reread as many times as it takes to understand.

"In a nutshell, if you pay income tax, you pay FICA and cannot loophole it down. Don't use Danforth as an accountant."

Total manure. Payroll taxes are based on EARNED INCOME, like wages or self-employed profits.

Someone could have a million bucks in Wal-Mart dividends, and they'd pay income taxes, NOTHING in Social security, a tiny percentage for investment Medicare tax, AND THAT'S IT.

Goatman is a ------- idiot.

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In addition:

A lot of, say, teachers are in closed-loop systems, where they neither pay into SS, nor get credits on the other end.

Boxes 3 (SS Wages) and 4 (SS Tax W/H) are blank on their W-2.

Important to note: In EVERY case I've ever seen (~35 yrs), the teacher's plan is much better.

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 04:01 PM | Reply

#102 rental income is subject to FICA if the rental is a business.

#120 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" rental income is subject to FICA if the rental is a business."

And for it to be a "business" (in other words to be able to write off losses against ordinary income), the person has to treat it like it's the equivalent of a full-time job.

That's a very high bar during an audit.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 04:22 PM | Reply

"in other words to be able to write off losses against ordinary income"

CORRECTION:
in other words, to be able to write off losses against SELF-EMPLOYMENT income

My apologies. That's the crux of the issue.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 06:04 PM | Reply

^And by "crux of the issue" I mean SE taxes account for more than half the federal taxes for someone profiting, say, $50K.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 06:07 PM | Reply

#67

If granny is eating the food I feed my cats she's not doing that badly.

#55

A means test is a terrible idea for political reasons, even if it's a great idea for SS solvency reasons. People have been trying to kill SS for years, if you introduce a means test it suddenly becomes another welfare program instead of a retirement guarantee. Add on that rich old people are one of the most reliable voting blocks and if suddenly they aren't getting SS they will gladly vote for a politician who says they are getting rid of it. Now even if they don't "need" it they are getting it and don't want it to stop.

#124 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-09-02 06:12 PM | Reply

Libertaricl0wn dribble... move to Mexico where real capitalists live... or India.

Every capitalist experiment the cl0wns do leads us to collapse and government bailout... just as amphetamine Ayn Rand ultimately went on welfare... and her former skanky boy drifted from wannabe mogul of "objectivism" to fuzzy self-help guru of the "prosperity movement".

#125 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-09-02 06:16 PM | Reply

By the way, could somebody please cut and paste number 121? Goatman has me plonked, and somebody needs to tell that stupid ------ to stop passing out bad information.

TIA.

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 07:37 PM | Reply

^
According to some, it's not their job to correct the ignorant or blatantly wrong. Especially when that ignorance supports the ideological ends

Cause you know, "honest discussion" and all that

#127 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-03 10:23 AM | Reply

DANF

Goatman is a retired teacher whose current lifestyle was made possible because of good teacher unions negotiating retirement contracts. The way he blathers on, you'd think he did all on his own making the world bend to his will with his brilliance.

He didn't.

He's just been another slug working for the man and voting for frat boys.

Don't waste the bandwidth poking at him... makes the whole blog stink.

mic drop

#128 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-09-03 11:31 AM | Reply

Odd how we keep seeing "social security is almost gone" year after year, decade after decade.

Happy Anniversary!

#129 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2021-09-03 12:58 PM | Reply

#132 - it's that lock box.

#130 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-03 01:10 PM | Reply

"The top 10% pay 71% of the taxes needed to sustain continuing operations."

Income taxes bring in 2.5 Trillion of the $7.2 Trillion of revenue. That amounts to less than 25% of revenue attributable to the 10% through income taxes. (Math: (2.5 / 7.2) * .71)

Even if you remove payroll taxes, your "71% of operations" claim is waaaaay off.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-03 01:33 PM | Reply

I almost pointed that out Danforth but figured, what's the point?

The Republican Tax Calculator only works for income taxes.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-03 01:36 PM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

That is definitely incorrect. I don't know what your lifetime income has been. But there IS a cap on the amount of SS you've paid. If you collect SS for 20 years, no matter that income, you will still receive more than you've paid. Get a professional to help you figure it out according to your numbers.

Also, SS was never meant to be a retirement account. It was meant to be insurance against destitution.

#133 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-09-03 02:58 PM | Reply

" The top 10% pay 71% of the taxes needed to sustain continuing operations."

And here's yet another omission from the actual equation:

"taxes needed to sustain continuing operations" are expenditures, not revenues.

Basically, his denominator is off by the size of the annual debt. Or in this case ... literally.

#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-03 02:59 PM | Reply

#135 - I was basing my claim on the annual earning statement I get from SS, so I'm pretty sure the numbers are right. I also understand there's a cap. I mentioned it a couple of times upthread in fact. I think the cap is ~$140k/yr.

I realize SS isn't supposed to be a retirement account. My wife and I have planned well for ourselves. I only made that comment in response to the derogatory statement about boomers negative impact on American society.

#135 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-03 03:07 PM | Reply

"Also, SS was never meant to be a retirement account. It was meant to be insurance against destitution."

Please stop saying that. While it was initially created to relieve immediate destitution, it's always been meant to be a retirement account ... the key is it shouldn't be the ONLY retirement account.

It's commonly referred to as one of the "legs of the stool" of retirement, which also includes pensions, savings ... and as many other legs as you can have. But it's an important part of retirement planning, always has been, and always will be, as long as the program is in existence.

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-03 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the article hours ago, it is just an attempt to produce fear in people. Medicare is not going away. Sure we may have to adjust the funding a bit but it won't affect most people's pay checks considerable. "Reason" and it supporters have been opposed to Medicare since its inception but it is still there just like Social Security and now even Obamacare. Getting out of Afghanistan was a good move and will free up trillions of dollars pissed away on unnecessary wars. Don't worry, we'll fix Medicare, the right is always trying to scare us into thinking we have to cut back benefits etc. They are liars. They have always been liars. They will always be liars.

#137 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-03 03:49 PM | Reply

""Also, SS was never meant to be a retirement account. It was meant to be insurance against destitution.""

Actually you are full oif crap. It was intended to be a retirement for workers so they could retire with dignity. It enabled families to allow their retired parents to keep their homes and live decent lives. If FDR were alive today he'd hit you in the head with his cane because you are a liar and sort of a stupid liar at that.

#138 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-03 03:51 PM | Reply

Also, is it any surprise that a thread based on a "Reason" article would turn into an attack on SS? Realize one thing, we pay for SS completely, it takes nothingn from tax revenues and there is a trust fund of several trillion dollars already saved up to pay for our Boomer retirements because of the doubling of the SS deductions on our pay check back when Ronald Reagan was Presidenth. If you don't believe in SS then take it up with Reagan Republicans. Never thought I'd say this but the Republican Party has deserted the principles of Reagan and gone full Nazi. Ronald Reagan would not support today's Republican Party and I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan.

#139 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-03 03:56 PM | Reply

""Also, SS was never meant to be a retirement account. It was meant to be insurance against destitution."

I presently live on my SS and nothing else. I had a 401K but had to spend it on medical expenses for my daughter. Pensions? I never had any job that I could gain a pension. Don't worry, I planned ahead and reduced my expenses so I can live on what I get from SS. I am like millions of other Americans who did the best we could, raising families and then even having to care for them after they were raised. I get sort of angry when I hear someone try to tell me that SS isn't a retirement account. F you is what I tell them and when you try to take away what we paid for all of our lives, never taking a dime from general revenue, then you will have a serious fight on your hands.

#140 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-03 04:01 PM | Reply

"I had a 401K but had to spend it on medical expenses for my daughter."

Best health care system in the world!

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-03 04:27 PM | Reply

Also, is it any surprise that a thread based on a "Reason" article would turn into an attack on SS?

No, no it really isn't.

That rag is written by wealth apologists, masquerading and political commentary.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-03 04:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort