First tax increase of 2017 announced

[child of wonder]

Social Security tax income limit is going up 7.3% from $118,500 to $127,200. For anyone that earns the limit or above that's $539.40 more in taxes they'll pay in 2017.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2017.html

It's frustrating that this limit keeps going up and is constantly under threat to go away altogether while, at the same time, some in power say means testing will be required in the future to keep Social Security solvent.

In other words, if you earn a good deal and save beyond an arbitrary threshold in your retirement funds, you will be ineligible to receive Social Security benefits despite paying in hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime.

 

[Jaskalas]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

 

[Sinsear]

Sucks. But at least it stayed the same this year and last. So we got 2 years at 118.5.

 

[child of wonder]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

At what amount should someone not receive anything for the 6.2% in Social Security tax they've paid in over a lifetime? Would you also support the same principal for pensions? After all, if someone earns a high income working at GM plus saves a lot of their own money for retirement, shouldn't their pension be reduced or taken away to give to those less fortunate?

As for a limit, since the amount of benefits one can receive has a limit, it only makes sense that the amount you pay in taxes has a limit.

 

[Thump553]

I think you are complaining about a "tax increase" that was created in the Reagan era, as part of a package to balance SS books. If not Reagan, it was Bill Clinton era, you don't really give enough information to pin it down.

OTOH the cost of cars, gasoline, food, etc. are all the same right now or lower as they were in the 1980s or 1990s, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Social Security tax income limit is going up 7.3% from $118,500 to $127,200. For anyone that earns the limit or above that's $539.40 more in taxes they'll pay in 2017.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2017.html

It's frustrating that this limit keeps going up and is constantly under threat to go away altogether while, at the same time, some in power say means testing will be required in the future to keep Social Security solvent.

In other words, if you earn a good deal and save beyond an arbitrary threshold in your retirement funds, you will be ineligible to receive Social Security benefits despite paying in hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime.

I'm terribly sorry, but the vast majority of wage earners have tears in our eyes as big as horseturds for people who don't take the same % hit on SS as the rest of us.

Poor things! so abused! They'll go broke w/o that $539.40!

Forget means testing SS. That's just FUD spreading to discredit SS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The obvious solution is to take a pay cut to avoid that extra tax burden.

*I once heard a tea bagger say that but it wasn't about social security. He suggested people were outraged paying more taxes so they should request a pay cut to starve the beast.

 

[brycejones]

Posting in one of the dumbest threads about tax policy and SS in a long time.

 

[MovingTarget]

The cap on taxable income should not exist. When you high rollin' Rockefellers fall on hard times and lose your shirt like so many of us middle/working poor class did, you will be glad SS still exists. That is, if the pitchforks don't come for you before then. A strong social safety net, regardless of what you call it, is the price you must pay to avoid that fate. Time to pay up is overdue.

 

[Meghan54]

Social Security tax income limit is going up 7.3% from $118,500 to $127,200. For anyone that earns the limit or above that's $539.40 more in taxes they'll pay in 2017.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2017.html

It's frustrating that this limit keeps going up and is constantly under threat to go away altogether while, at the same time, some in power say means testing will be required in the future to keep Social Security solvent.

In other words, if you earn a good deal and save beyond an arbitrary threshold in your retirement funds, you will be ineligible to receive Social Security benefits despite paying in hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime.

You do understand that the income cap on SS taxes hasn't budged for a looong time, despite your claim to the contrary. Could you bother to show me how the cap "keeps going up"?

 

[cmcartman]

You do understand that the income cap on SS taxes hasn't budged for a looong time, despite your claim to the contrary. Could you bother to show me how the cap "keeps going up"?

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html
"When you have wages or self-employment income that is covered by Social Security, you pay Social Security taxes each year up to a maximum amount that is set by law. That amount has changed frequently over the years."

 

[IronWing]

The shelter from SS tax for high earners has been slightly reduced. Low income earners will continue to pay the full load.

 

[allisolm]

You do understand that the income cap on SS taxes hasn't budged for a looong time, despite your claim to the contrary. Could you bother to show me how the cap "keeps going up"?

That looong time ago when it last budged was way back in 2015, when it went from $117,000 to $118,500.

2011 $106,800
2012 $110,100
2013 $113,700
2014 $117,000
2015 $118,500
2016 $118,500

The cap has NEVER gone down. Some years it remained the same, but it definitely "keeps going up."

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html

 

[Sinsear]

You do understand that the income cap on SS taxes hasn't budged for a looong time, despite your claim to the contrary. Could you bother to show me how the cap "keeps going up"?

This year (2016) SS stops coming out of your paycheck after 118,500. Next year it won't stop being taken out till 127,200.

To be fair, in 2015 the cap was also 118,500. In 2014 it was 117,000.

The link in the OP provides all amounts for the past several years.

So unless "loong" time is 2 years, you're mistaken on this one.

 

[Jhhnn]

The SS cutoff is set at the 90th percentile of income, iirc. So when people make more money the cutoff point goes up.

 

[Jaskalas]

At what amount should someone not receive anything for the 6.2% in Social Security tax they've paid in over a lifetime?

For basic income, my own calculations would stop all benefits at $92,000 annual income. That's as an individual.

Would you also support the same principal for pensions?

Those are private accounts between employer and employee. Whereas I view social security as providing basic needs for the elderly.

As for a limit, since the amount of benefits one can receive has a limit, it only makes sense that the amount you pay in taxes has a limit.

Taxes do not exist to directly or exclusively benefit the individual they are taken from. If they were, we wouldn't need taxes.
The primary question is: Should social security exist? Once you've answered that it should, the math to support it is quite simple.
People with little to nothing need social security the most, while people making 6 figures do not.
Pardon if you do not feel rich at that income, but much of the nation would _kill_ to have that. The idea is to placate them so they do not.

 

[Sonikku]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

It's important to keep the % of income the rich have to pay into SS lower than the share of income middle class Americans pay for reasons.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's important to keep the % of income the rich have to pay into SS lower than the share of income middle class Americans pay for reasons.

I believe it stems from an archaic game Congress played to convince people to accept social security. Some notion that it has special rules separate from the general fund. As if it belongs to the people who pay into it. I'd replace it with basic income.

 

[Slew Foot]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

Bullshit, the government doesnt get to decide who needs what.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bullshit, the government doesnt get to decide who needs what.

So to be clear, you are opposed to social security?
The Government... decided... the elderly need that.

To be fair, I'd replace it with something far more broad and wide reaching.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The solution is to starve the old people. Best case, they are fully-expended waste products, assuming they once had extractable value to begin with (many never did). It makes no sense to feed and house our most useless members of society. Anyone that tells you a society is judged based on how it treats its least valuable is a dumb person.

 

[Sonikku]

The solution is to starve the old people. Best case, they are fully-expended waste products, assuming they once had extractable value to begin with (many never did). It makes no sense to feed and house our most useless members of society. Anyone that tells you a society is judged based on how it treats its least valuable is a dumb person.

Another heartwarming post from burger boy.

 

[child of wonder]

You do understand that the income cap on SS taxes hasn't budged for a looong time, despite your claim to the contrary. Could you bother to show me how the cap "keeps going up"?

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html

 

[child of wonder]

The cap on taxable income should not exist. When you high rollin' Rockefellers fall on hard times and lose your shirt like so many of us middle/working poor class did, you will be glad SS still exists. That is, if the pitchforks don't come for you before then. A strong social safety net, regardless of what you call it, is the price you must pay to avoid that fate. Time to pay up is overdue.

"High rolling Rockefellers?" How does earning $127,200 place one in that category? For most areas that's a comfortable income but not even in the realm of "rich."

And "the time to pay up is overdue?" If someone pays the maximum tax each year for Social Security (there is no cap on the employer's contribution) how have they not "paid up?"

 

[child of wonder]

For basic income, my own calculations would stop all benefits at $92,000 annual income. That's as an individual.

$92,000 when someone would no longer need Social Security benefits in retirement?

Those are private accounts between employer and employee. Whereas I view social security as providing basic needs for the elderly.

Isn't Social Security a private account between citizen and government? They track my income, base my benefits on the income or amount I've paid in taxes over the years, and offer a promise of the benefit being there when I get into my 60's or become disabled. Should I not live long, the amount I've paid in over the years will far outweigh the benefits I receive which subsidizes other participants in the pool. The only difference between a pension and Social Security is that should I not want to participate in pension I can leave that job. To participate in SS I'd have to either discard my SS# and suffer the life altering consequences of that or leave the country.

Taxes do not exist to directly or exclusively benefit the individual they are taken from. If they were, we wouldn't need taxes.
The primary question is: Should social security exist? Once you've answered that it should, the math to support it is quite simple.
People with little to nothing need social security the most, while people making 6 figures do not.
Pardon if you do not feel rich at that income, but much of the nation would _kill_ to have that. The idea is to placate them so they do not.

Social Security should exist, I agree. However, the model under which it was created decades ago no longer exists. People aren't having large families and dying in their early 60s. The life expectancy in 1937 was 62 and the average household was 4.1 people. Today it's 79.3 and 2.57. The model simply isn't sustainable and if the only answer is to drastically increase the amount high earners pay in by removing the income cap or reducing their benefits when they retire, we're fundamentally changing the program from a safety net for all Americans to rely on to a welfare system. Again, imagine a pension fund where you pay in 6% of your income but should you save too much on your own outside the pension, you're no longer eligible to receive it. It's creating a punitive scenario for those fortunate enough, lucky enough, or responsible enough to plan for their retirement which will cause some to not save as much as they could or should so they'll retain maximum benefits.