Social Security fund will be drained by 2037

[blackangst1]

One small problem with that. You really think that when government can't borrow any more, it's going to ignore all those fat 401K accounts, Roth accounts, etc? Chance not. Just as my buying and paying off one modest house means I get to help pay for others' McMansions, your fully funded retirement account means you get to fund the retirements of those who saved nothing.

And the day that happens is the day my long term investments go offshore

 

[Icepick]

A failed government run program?

Government run programs are always doomed to fail when the GOP is in charge. The main reason being that GOP leaders (such as George W Bush) will appoint people to government leadership positions who hate government. Since they hate government their methods will end up breaking it.

 

[Icepick]

Let's go back to talking about how the program is an unsustainable failure.

The program as implemented today. It can be fixed. The first thing to do is tax the rich. With the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlling well over 1/3 of America's wealth there is more than enough out there to go around. I don't see how anyone in their right minds could oppose taxing the rich unless they are insanely wealthy themselves.

 

[blackangst1]

The program as implemented today. It can be fixed. The first thing to do is tax the rich. With the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlling well over 1/3 of America's wealth there is more than enough out there to go around. I don't see how anyone in their right minds could oppose taxing the rich unless they are insanely wealthy themselves.

WTF does an income tax have to do with SS?

Fail.

 

[Slew Foot]

I don't like the idea of SS retirement going up to 70. When you start getting up in the late 60s those can be the precious few years you have left before you lose full mobility the marbles in your head.

When SS was implemented, the avg US lifespan was 66, most Americans were never intended to collect on SS. Now the avg lifespan in mid 70s, and the program is sunk.

 

[mjrpes3]

When SS was implemented, the avg US lifespan was 66, most Americans were never intended to collect on SS. Now the avg lifespan in mid 70s, and the program is sunk.

As many other posters have mentioned, SS isn't sunk. It only has to be tweaked slightly to be solvent in the long term. Medicare is a MUCH bigger issue... given that its costs have grown exponentially. By the way, did you know that liabilities for prescription drugs far outweigh SS liabilities? You should be focusing your attention on that.

Corporations are sitting on piles of cash they don't know what to do with and not since the 1920's have the rich held as much proportional wealth... money ain't the problem.

 

[Slew Foot]

As many other posters have mentioned, SS isn't sunk. It only has to be tweaked slightly to be solvent in the long term. Medicare is a MUCH bigger issue... given that its costs have grown exponentially. By the way, did you know that liabilities for prescription drugs far outweigh SS liabilities? You should be focusing your attention on that.

Corporations are sitting on piles of cash they don't know what to do with and not since the 1920's have the rich held as much proportional wealth... money ain't the problem.

Money is always the problem, you cant just take money from more sources because your spending is out of control.


The middle East has tons of money sitting in the ground, lets just go take it.
Africa has tons of diamonds in the ground, lets go take that too.
China and India have been buying up some gold, lets go get that as well.

 

[mjrpes3]

Tax receipts from the rich have decreased over the last three decades and they control the vast amount of wealth in the country, so you can easily make the argument that SS is in the position it is because we have taken money from less sources.

 

[Phokus]

WTF does an income tax have to do with SS?

Fail.

FICA taxes need to be overhauled and turned into a progressive tax rather than regressive tax that it currently is. Also, unearned income needs to have some sort of FICA tax attached to it. The rich hardly pay any FICA tax in proportion to their income because of these 2 facts. In 2007, the top 400 americans paid an effective tax rate of 16%, because most of their income was in capital gains. There, now you've fixed SS.

 

[Scotteq]

Tax receipts from the rich have decreased over the last three decades and they control the vast amount of wealth in the country, so you can easily make the argument that SS is in the position it is because we have taken money from less sources.

The fundamental problem with Social Security is that it's essentially a gigantic Government Managed Ponzi scheme. As long as enough of the population is paying into it to cover Retirees, it's fine. As soon as population growth levels off/declines with respect to the number of people retiring... it's in Trouble. Add to the issue the fact that lawmakers have taken SS funds against "IOU's", and you have a real mess.

 

[blackangst1]

Tax receipts from the rich have decreased over the last three decades and they control the vast amount of wealth in the country, so you can easily make the argument that SS is in the position it is because we have taken money from less sources.

Really? Because according to this link and the subsequent links therein, youre wrong.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

Dont like the numbers? Tell the IRS theyre wrong I guess.

 

[blackangst1]

FICA taxes need to be overhauled and turned into a progressive tax rather than regressive tax that it currently is. Also, unearned income needs to have some sort of FICA tax attached to it. The rich hardly pay any FICA tax in proportion to their income because of these 2 facts. In 2007, the top 400 americans paid an effective tax rate of 16%, because most of their income was in capital gains. There, now you've fixed SS.

OK, but what does that have to do with the comment I commented on?

 

[Phokus]

OK, but what does that have to do with the comment I commented on?

I was giving you a specific example. The poster was right that we have to tax the rich but he was being very general. You, however, assumed he was talking about straight up incoming taxes.

 

[Darwin333]

The program as implemented today. It can be fixed. The first thing to do is tax the rich. With the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlling well over 1/3 of America's wealth there is more than enough out there to go around. I don't see how anyone in their right minds could oppose taxing the rich unless they are insanely wealthy themselves.

We don't tax wealth. We tax income. Raising the riches income tax will generate roughly $80B in additional revenue a year. Raise the cap gains rate and you will get a bit more but they aren't even remotely close to being able to realistically cover even a fraction of our current deficit.

Sorry, it ain't that easy bud.

 

[Darwin333]

FICA taxes need to be overhauled and turned into a progressive tax rather than regressive tax that it currently is. Also, unearned income needs to have some sort of FICA tax attached to it. The rich hardly pay any FICA tax in proportion to their income because of these 2 facts. In 2007, the top 400 americans paid an effective tax rate of 16%, because most of their income was in capital gains. There, now you've fixed SS.

You haven't even fixed a small fraction of the deficit much less "fixed SS". Once you fix our spending/revenue problem then you can move on to fix SS and then we get to have some real fun and fix Medicare/Medicaid (the really really big problem).

 

[Shallok]

Really? Because according to this link and the subsequent links therein, youre wrong.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

Dont like the numbers? Tell the IRS theyre wrong I guess.

That link doesn't actually address receipts from the rich, only their share of the tax burden. So you have proved that the tax burden has increased. Why has the tax burden increased? Simply because AGI for the top 10% has increased at a greater rate.

Tax receipts in relation to AGI have decreased for the rich. From 1987 to 2008 the percentage of AGI earned by the top 1% has increased 1.62. The percentage of income taxes paid has increased 1.53. Once the numbers for 2009 are available that spread will have likely increased.

Regardless, income tax receipts are unrelated to SS. SS needs some tweaks, but its not a looming crisis or disaster. I do find it depressing that those who advocate raising the retirement age tend to be individuals who do not have strenuous jobs.

 

[blackangst1]

That link doesn't actually address receipts from the rich, only their share of the tax burden. So you have proved that the tax burden has increased. Why has the tax burden increased? Simply because AGI for the top 10% has increased at a greater rate.

Tax receipts in relation to AGI have decreased for the rich. From 1987 to 2008 the percentage of AGI earned by the top 1% has increased 1.62. The percentage of income taxes paid has increased 1.53. Once the numbers for 2009 are available that spread will have likely increased.

Regardless, income tax receipts are unrelated to SS. SS needs some tweaks, but its not a looming crisis or disaster. I do find it depressing that those who advocate raising the retirement age tend to be individuals who do not have strenuous jobs.

Link?

edit: I found this link from 1992 to 2005...I certainly dont see taxes collected "plummeting" from the rich
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/03/30/top-400-taxpayers-income-and-taxes-paid-1992-2005/




And if you look at historical data for taxes collected here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=175888,00.html combined with the data that the top 1%'s share of taxes paid has been climbing, Im not seeing how the statement that taxes collected from the top 1% have been...."plummeting" is anything but bullshit.

 

[Shallok]

Link?

edit: I found this link from 1992 to 2005...I certainly dont see taxes collected "plummeting" from the rich

Who said plummeting? The only reference I saw to plummeting was made by you. Tax receipts from the rich have decreased in relation to their share of AGI. This is fact. Decreased is not plummeting. I suppose its easier to challenge the claim that the receipts are plummeting, but I certainly never made the claim, but, hey, you have your fun.

Here is your link, data also available from the IRS, but you should like this one. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Your graph supports my statement. Quite clearly, the rich's income is increasing at a greater rate than their taxes paid. Without looking at incomes, stating that the rich are paying more in taxes is meaningless. Yes, the rich are paying more in taxes in dollars. However, that is solely due to the astronomical increase in incomes which are increasing at a greater rate than their taxes. For the bottom 50% their taxes paid have decreased. Unfortunately, so has their incomes.