• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Social Security

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Svnla said:
Even the SS administration said if nothing is done, current payout for retirees and benefit receivers can not continue. Sooner than later.
Click to expand...
True, but all that the Johnson plan accomplishes is carving that shortfall in stone. The SSA says, "We will owe you $100 but will only be able to pay you $75." That would be a default. What the Johnson plan says is, "We used to owe you $100 but we just changed our minds and decided to only owe you $75 instead, so here's $75." No default and SS is "saved".
 
Well they could just raise the retirement age to 80 . . . . That would solve a lot of problems but people will be dead before they retire. A lot is determined by genetics.

A people are paying SS taxes.
B they expect that tax money back.
C I have 2 retirement accounts other than SS.
D I have not paid any SS to the government for about 20 years because I work in education and because of that, I will not get much in SS when I retire.
I think SS is a ponzie scheme.
 
Even the SS administration said if nothing is done, current payout for retirees and benefit receivers can not continue. Sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Our government is run by a lot of idiots that have a gold standard mindset. Even worse, The Donald is bringing in the Swamp. The government deficit spends all the time by putting 1's and 0's in a computer. We don't have to dig for rare metals anymore. There is no risk of running out of dollars. The only issue is that a productive workforce is needed or else more dollars just means higher prices i.e. it's a resource issue, not a money issue. Their solution is "saving the public funds" by cutting back on expenditures today, which does nothing but hold back the economy and cause output to decline and unemployment to rise. It goes without saying this does nothing to achieve higher productivity in future generations.
 
I'm torn between wanting to fight for this vs just letting Trump voters get what they voted for and watch their full benefits slip away.

None of this cutting benefits, but only fit the next gen. The current benefit recipients have lived through decades of deficit spending, so no reason they shouldn't share the pain.

In the end though, many will get hurt by this and should not happen.

The masses are not living longer heathier lives. The life expectancy figures are more nuanced.

Falling infant morality and high priced healthcare for the more wealthy push the figure up, but the experience for the working class is mostly unchanged. These are the most likely to have little savings and fewer programs available to help rather than the poor.
 
Maxima1 said:
Not true at all. Our government is run by a lot of idiots that have a gold standard mindset. Even worse, The Donald is bringing in the Swamp. The government deficit spends all the time by putting 1's and 0's in a computer. We don't have to dig for rare metals anymore. There is no risk of running out of dollars. The only issue is that a productive workforce is needed or else more dollars just means higher prices i.e. it's a resource issue, not a money issue. Their solution is "saving the public funds" by cutting back on expenditures today, which does nothing but hold back the economy and cause output to decline and unemployment to rise. It goes without saying this does nothing to achieve higher productivity in future generations.
Click to expand...

I'm baffled by how many people don't seem to get this. Cutting spending on social security today does literally zero to improve our ability to pay for social security in the future. Saving like that works for individuals because individuals truly can save other people's productivity for a future day. This is not true for an entire country. (Or not true to a remotely sufficient extent to matter in this case)
 
fskimospy said:
I'm baffled by how many people don't seem to get this. Cutting spending on social security today does literally zero to improve our ability to pay for social security in the future. Saving like that works for individuals because individuals truly can save other people's productivity for a future day. This is not true for an entire country. (Or not true to a remotely sufficient extent to matter in this case)
Click to expand...

They don't understand how the monetary system works, or anything else for that matter, but the alt-right recruiters and such tell them they're the smart ones because of that. Education is for leftist pussies, lol.
 
agent00f said:
They don't understand how the monetary system works, or anything else for that matter, but the alt-right recruiters and such tell them they're the smart ones because of that. Education is for leftist pussies, lol.
Click to expand...

I've lost track of how many times people on here have said obviously false things while haughtily declaring that others don't understand basic economics.
 
Svnla said:
Even the SS administration said if nothing is done, current payout for retirees and benefit receivers can not continue. Sooner than later.

Don't let me start with the unfunded liability problems with Federal, State, County, and City levels. In the TRILLION and TRILLION USD. Yike.
Click to expand...

Thus, in order to meet increased Social Security costs, substantial change will be needed. The intermediate projections of the 2009 Trustees Report indicate that if we wait to take action until the combined OASDI trust fund becomes exhausted in 2037, benefit reductions of around 25 percent or payroll tax increases of around one-third (a 4 percent increase in addition to the current 12.4 percent rate) will be required. Past legislative changes for Social Security suggest that the next reform is likely to include a combination of benefit reductions and payroll tax increases.
Click to expand...

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
 
So basically instead of having SS paid for by regressive payroll taxes, we'll get rid of it, meaning that seniors whose private investments don't work out will go on need based SSI, which is paid for by progressive income taxes. So it's a net shift from regressive to progressive taxation, and from personal contributions to a need-based welfare state. Why are we as progressives fighting this? Inertia? Let GOP do their thing now, once it blows up in their face, remake it into what we want.
 
senseamp said:
So basically instead of having SS paid for by regressive payroll taxes, we'll get rid of it, meaning that seniors whose private investments don't work out will go on need based SSI, which is paid for by progressive income taxes. So it's a net shift from regressive to progressive taxation, and from personal contributions to a need-based welfare state. Why are we as progressives fighting this? Inertia? Let GOP do their thing now, once it blows up in their face, remake it into what we want.
Click to expand...
The problem with this approach is the delay. If the proposal was to screw over current voter/recipients I would be more inclined to take the "screw um" approach. But when a large number of voters will get a pass on the policies advocated by the politicians they elect it's bit more complicated. This is the same reason why I support a strict, no exemptions for nothing balanced budget amendment. People would put a lot more thinking into their votes if circuses hurt right here, right now.
 
The problem with the cap on earnings is in the way it is implemented. Currently it stops for everybody when it reaches a certain level (currently at $118,500) .. Now this number is great for the average worker. But it also applies to all the CEOs and bigwigs pulling in hundreds of thousands a year in salary. So they should make a cap start at where it is and end at say $200K or so. Then all the people making huge salaries will be forced to pay more into the system, which will help get things back on course.
 
senseamp said:
So basically instead of having SS paid for by regressive payroll taxes, we'll get rid of it, meaning that seniors whose private investments don't work out will go on need based SSI, which is paid for by progressive income taxes. So it's a net shift from regressive to progressive taxation, and from personal contributions to a need-based welfare state. Why are we as progressives fighting this? Inertia? Let GOP do their thing now, once it blows up in their face, remake it into what we want.
Click to expand...

Real or not, the perceived obligations of SS are greater than those of welfare. Nearly everybody feels a vested interest & will therefore resist any efforts to disavow that. The same can't be said for welfare.

As I pointed out earlier, SS is just one part of successful retirement for working people. Savings, investments & achieving low overhead are the other parts.What you suggest doesn't allow for it to be a part of a greater whole.
 
Jhhnn said:
Real or not, the perceived obligations of SS are greater than those of welfare. Nearly everybody feels a vested interest & will therefore resist any efforts to disavow that. The same can't be said for welfare. As I pointed out earlier, SS is just one part of successful retirement for working people. Savings, investments & achieving low overhead are the other parts.What you suggest doesn't allow for it to be a part of a greater whole.
Click to expand...
The way you make everyone have a vested interest in a welfare program is to make everyone eligible for it. So instead of means-tested, make it universal basic income.
People feel a vested interest in Medicare, and that's a non-means-tested welfare program with universal eligibility, not based on how much you contribute.
For example, every senior gets $1000 per month, the rest is up to you to save and invest for.
 
.
WHAMPOM said:
Remove collection cap and all is fixed. Can that get any simpler?
Click to expand...

Have the affluent pay the same % of their paychecks as the plebes? Horrifying, ain't it?

As you say, I'm confident that SS would be able to put money into the general fund above and beyond what recipients get for the foreseeable future. We could probably create higher payouts above current maximum for people who put in more.


Only greed at the top prevents us from making SS work forever. It prevents us from doing a lot of things.
 
First off, SS wasn't designed with a "Trust Fund". It was essentially pay as you go.

Second, SS was given a "Trust Fund" in the 80's by St. Ronald of Reagan and Democrats who hate white people, because of the upcoming BabyBoomerArmageddon™.

That "Trust Fund" wasn't supposed to hold a balance for perpetuity.

So, the whole "SS is gonna go bankrupt" in 35 years isn't really accurate, as in, the "Trust Fund" is just extra money to cover the baby boomers.

Not to mention that SS has been 25 years from bankruptcy for the past 35 years...and will almost assuredly be 25 years from bankruptcy 5 years from now. And then another 5 years from then, etc, ad nauseam.

tl;dr: SS isn't an actual problem and the "Trust Fund" could be made permanent by simply removing the FICA cap. Period. End of story.

But, for the people who see that SS Trust Fund as an amazing opportunity to make themselves rich, they're going to go ahead and continue scaring people who don't know a god damn thing about SS into thinking it won't be there for them, so that people will stop caring about SS so that those people can then snatch up that money for themselves to make themselves rich.
 
Taking 6.2% of someone's income, no matter how much they make, while also limiting the benefits they can receive plus threatening to remove those benefits altogether once a high earner retires (means testing, benefit reductions based on amount in personal retirement accounts) is theft. Pure and simple.

Social Security as a principal is a good idea for society. I'm proud we live in a country where we can pool our resources and provide safety nets. I've had to use those safety nets myself and I'm glad they were there.

However, simply taking more and more and more money from people via taxes and benefits reductions to continually bloat Social Security for everyone else is not the answer.

Think about it: 6.2% of a person's entire income FOR LIFE being taken away, distributed to everyone else, and then, no matter how much you pay in, you're awarded, assuming you live to the ever increasing full retirement age, with $2,600 per month in 2016 dollars.

The cap on SS taxes for personal income should remain. The 6.2% our employers pay or self employed people pay is already uncapped.
 
Tax the rich in equal proportion, by measure of detriment to their life style, as the poor, and there'll be a surplus of money for all the public services we could need.
 
child of wonder said:
Taking 6.2% of someone's income, no matter how much they make, while also limiting the benefits they can receive plus threatening to remove those benefits altogether once a high earner retires (means testing, benefit reductions based on amount in personal retirement accounts) is theft. Pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Nobody in this thread has suggested means testing for SS. I do not support it.

Social Security as a principal is a good idea for society. I'm proud we live in a country where we can pool our resources and provide safety nets. I've had to use those safety nets myself and I'm glad they were there.

However, simply taking more and more and more money from people via taxes and benefits reductions to continually bloat Social Security for everyone else is not the answer.
Click to expand...

Bloat is bullshit

Think about it: 6.2% of a person's entire income FOR LIFE being taken away, distributed to everyone else, and then, no matter how much you pay in, you're awarded, assuming you live to the ever increasing full retirement age, with $2,600 per month in 2016 dollars.

The cap on SS taxes for personal income should remain. The 6.2% our employers pay or self employed people pay is already uncapped.
Click to expand...

That part about employers paying in 6.2% on earnings above the cap is incorrect. Higher payouts for high earners is entirely doable, as well.

Income share has shifted to the top, putting a greater share of income above the 90th percentile cap thus starving SS of funds. See table 5-

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update | Tax Foundation

Only 32% of national income was above the cap in 1980. Today it's 46%. SS needs that 14% difference or more if it is to survive.
 
Why didn't Hillary Clinton run on this? One successful tactic is to tar the GOP candidate with GOP congressional extremism.
 
desura said:
Why didn't Hillary Clinton run on this? One successful tactic is to tar the GOP candidate with GOP congressional extremism.
Click to expand...

She did run on the principle of preserving SS-

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

Trump's transition team doesn't look promising-

Tom Leppert, the Trump transition team’s point person on Social Security, has in the past advocated for privatizing and cutting the popular retirement program. Leppert offered detailed policy positions that included raising the Social Security retirement age and partially privatizing the program when he ran for U.S. Senate in Texas 2012
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...y-transition-team_us_5834738ae4b030997bc1606f

He was reassuring on the campaign trail but his choices belie that completely.
 
And thanks to Muslim terrorism, the deficit is probably ten trillion dollars higher than it should be. Ultimately, 9-11 is going to lead to social security cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top