She went out of her way to pick a profession that doesn’t fit with the second clause of her sentence.
Code monkeys with equity should get the shot taxed out of them too. Skilled laborers who use their sole proprietorship contracting company to absorb personal expenses should get taxed to death. Nurse anesthetists should be paying a massive tax on their hundreds of thousands of dollars of income.
It was a weird shot at a group of people who are largely populated by workers making less than six figures.
What point are you even trying to make? That she shouldn’t have become a lawyer or a politician if she believes people making millions should pay a fair portion into social security?
Her statement doesn’t exclude other career fields making seven figures or more than the social security cap. She picked one example of someone who might make that much. And some lawyers do make millions. If a lawyer makes less than six figures, then her statement doesn’t apply to them because they’re already paying into social security.
You’re picking apart what she’s saying and turning it into disingenuous interpretations by adding layers of meaning that she never implied. It’s uncharitable and in bad faith.
It wasn’t a shot at “lawyers, all of them, and no one else.” It was a shot at “people making millions in income who don’t pay their fair share into social security.”
And if you couldn’t figure that out from the context provided, then you need to work on your media literacy.
If, as you say, the median income of lawyers in $150k, then it’s safe to assume more than half are making over 6 figures. According to this link I found in a quick search, about 10% of lawyers make less than 100k. Can that be said of the other professions you mentioned?
This ignores the fact she is advocating getting rid of the cap for everyone, not just lawyers.
Median attorney income in the US is $150k, Liz.
The cutoff for having to pay social security for 2026 is $184500. That’s not that much more than the average.
She didn’t say “if you’re a median attorney”, she said “if you’re a lawyer raking in millions,” and she was correct.
She went out of her way to pick a profession that doesn’t fit with the second clause of her sentence.
Code monkeys with equity should get the shot taxed out of them too. Skilled laborers who use their sole proprietorship contracting company to absorb personal expenses should get taxed to death. Nurse anesthetists should be paying a massive tax on their hundreds of thousands of dollars of income.
It was a weird shot at a group of people who are largely populated by workers making less than six figures.
What point are you even trying to make? That she shouldn’t have become a lawyer or a politician if she believes people making millions should pay a fair portion into social security?
Her statement doesn’t exclude other career fields making seven figures or more than the social security cap. She picked one example of someone who might make that much. And some lawyers do make millions. If a lawyer makes less than six figures, then her statement doesn’t apply to them because they’re already paying into social security.
You’re picking apart what she’s saying and turning it into disingenuous interpretations by adding layers of meaning that she never implied. It’s uncharitable and in bad faith.
It wasn’t a shot at “lawyers, all of them, and no one else.” It was a shot at “people making millions in income who don’t pay their fair share into social security.”
And if you couldn’t figure that out from the context provided, then you need to work on your media literacy.
wow
that’s a lot of text. Did you use an LLM to write it or are you just unreasonably upset?
Tagged as “illiterate but confident”.
No. Are you so incapable of reading/writing in paragraphs that you believe no one else can do so without using an LLM?
If, as you say, the median income of lawyers in $150k, then it’s safe to assume more than half are making over 6 figures. According to this link I found in a quick search, about 10% of lawyers make less than 100k. Can that be said of the other professions you mentioned?
This ignores the fact she is advocating getting rid of the cap for everyone, not just lawyers.