News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know News India Times (June 20, 2026 - June 26, 2026) June 26, 2026 4 Opinion S en. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) greeted the news that Elon Musk had become a trillionaire by - what else? - touting a plan to raise federal spend- ing and taxes. Musk “pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making $184,500,” anders tweeted. He said his bill would “end that absur- dity,” eliminate the program’s shortfall for 75 years and pay for an expansion of Social Security benefits. The shortfall certainly needs closing. Last week, the Social Security trustees estimated it at roughly $29 trillion over the next 75 years. And they are probably being op- timistic. They assume Americans will have more babies in the coming decades than either the Census Bureau or the Congressional Budget Office does, which would help Social Security’s finances. Sanders is also correct that Musk, whose net worth is $1.4 trillion and counting, pays no more in Social Secu- rity taxes than many of his engineers. But Sanders’s idea is terrible. It would be a much larger and more harmful tax increase than its supporters let on and would further warp the federal government’s already perverse spending priorities. If the Social Security tax cap that Sanders mentioned is an “absurdity,” it’s one common to government pension programs. In Britain, pension taxes fall substantially after the first $67,000 in income. In Canada, the rate drops at about $53,000 in U.S. dollars. Social Security has always included a cap because of its basic design. The program’s architects and their political descendants wanted to maintain some relation- ship between what people contribute to it and what they get. Historically, Democrats have believed so strongly in making the program seem like an “earned benefit” that they have opposed reining in benefit growth even for the richest Americans. The theory was that the public would support the program less if it were openly redistributive. The tax cap is there to keep benefits related to contri- butions. Musk won’t pay any more than someone making $184,500, but he also won’t get a bigger check than that person. Today’s left-wing proposals would alter this arrange- ment, and not in a small way. The top federal income tax rate is 37 percent. The Sanders plan - and many similar Democratic proposals, such as one from Sen. Ruben Gallego (Arizona) - would make the top rate 49.4 per- cent. The last time the United States raised tax rates that sharply was in 1932, when President Herbert Hoover mis- takenly believed it would help end the Great Depression. In NewYork City, with state and local taxes included, the top rate would be 64.1 percent. The Sanders plan would not, however, only raise the cap related to wages; the proposal would also increase the top rate for investment income. The maximum capital gains tax would go from 23.8 to 36.2 percent, mak- ing it higher than the rates in Britain, Canada and even Sweden. While the title of Gallego’s bill nods toward the need to preserve the link between contributions and payouts - it’s called the You Earned It, You Keep It Act - all of these proposals would weaken that link. But if it’s now okay to recognize the reality that Social Security redistributes money, why not reduce benefits for the well-off? Unlike higher taxes, cutting future benefit levels can spur people to work and save more, increasing the overall size of the economy. And there is plenty of spending on high earners to cut. Already the richest one-fifth of beneficiaries get 29 percent of the spending, and current law ensures that future retirees get bigger checks than today’s retirees do. That’s what is, well, absurd about these liberal propos- als. They would raise taxes by historically large amounts to finance goals that rank low on any rational list of pri- orities. Senior citizens in the U.S. report greater financial security than Americans of working age. Why raise taxes to give all of them an extra $2,400 per year, as Sanders would?Why raise taxes to keep benefits rising for the highest earners? That’s what protecting all seniors from “benefit cuts” practically means. If the Sanders bill became law, progressives would have won their biggest victory on taxes ever - and done nothing to fund a Green New Deal, or early-childhood education, or tuition-free college, or infrastructure improvements. They would not even have advanced the Sanders dream of Medicare-for-all. Or, for that mat- ter, done anything to address Medicare’s own projected shortfall. After raising taxes on the rich as high as plau- sible and arguably beyond, where do they think they would find the money for any of this? Taxing the rich and expanding Social Security are some of the more popular ideas progressives have to offer. If they were ever enacted, though, it would be bad for the country and even, in the long run, for progressives themselves. Ramesh Ponnuru, a contributing columnist for the Washington Post, is the editor of National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. - TheWashington Post By Ramesh Ponnuru This Absurd Social Security PlanWould Take Down ProgressivesWith It Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of the authors and Parikh Worldwide Media does not officially endorse, and is not responsible or liable for them. PHOTO:TheWashington Post TechWorkersWho Don’t Embrace AI Face Triple The Layoff Risk, Gallup Finds F or tech workers, artificial intel- ligence may be delivering a benefit that goes beyond efficiency: a lower risk of being laid off. New research from Gallup finds that tech workers who aren’t regular AI users are three times more likely to lose their jobs than their peers. Among US tech workers who use AI at least monthly, the predicted probability of being laid off is about 6%, compared with 18% for workers who use the technology less often. The estimates are based on a survey data in February involving more than 23,000 US workers, including 660 respon- dents who reported being unemployed after their jobs were eliminated. Gallup collected data on how often employed and displaced workers used AI - from daily to not at all - and then used a statistical model to estimate how factors such as AI- use frequency and industry were associ- ated with the likelihood of job loss. Outside the tech industry, infrequent AI users also face a higher layoff risk than their peers, Gallup said, though the gap is smaller. The link between AI use and job security held even after accounting for factors such as age, education and the sec- tor in which one works, according to the researchers, suggesting that employees who don’t use AI are “more vulnerable in the job market.” The findings also indicate that AI adop- tion is becoming a fault line inside com- panies, one that’s increasingly affecting individual careers. Employers are already screening candidates for a certain level of AI fluency, and the Gallup report suggests the technology may also be influenc- ing which workers companies choose to retain when they downsize. Meanwhile, executives continue to press employees to use AI, even as public perceptions of the technology have soured and concerns about job losses have intensified. Even so, only about 1% of laid-off work- ers attributed their job loss directly to AI. The most commonly cited reasons were more general, including organizational restructuring, cost-cutting and economic conditions. The data point may “under- state AI’s indirect influence” in compa- nies’ layoff decisions, the researchers said. “Those explanations may reflect AI’s influ- ence on internal decisions, even when workers weren’t told that AI influenced the outcome.” “That surprised me the most,” said Jim Harter, chief scientist for Gallup’s workplace management and wellbeing practices. “They didn’t just blame AI.” That leaves a disconnect between how workers and executives explain layoffs. AI was the top reason companies cited for job cuts last month, accounting for about 40% of such announcements, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. How AI factors into job cut delibera- tions remains an open question, Harter said. It’s possible that workers who use the technology more frequently are simply able to get more done than their peers. Or employers may be paying attention to how often workers use AI - for example, how many times they prompt a chatbot in a given week. “I don’t think that’s the right direc- tion,” Harter said. Tying performance evaluations to AI usage could encourage employees to overuse the tools in an effort to game the system. “The real bottom line is: Are they more productive?” Ramesh Pon- nuru, a contribut- ing columnist for the Washington Post, is the editor of National Review and a fellow at t - Bloomberg By Jo Constantz Photo:X@_constantjo