Social Security

[Mai72]

Actually, it was. The buying power of SS retirement benefits has been intentionally eroded since the 1970s.

Maybe so. But, IMO flexibility is key. Today, SS alone isn't enough. The government has been taking from the SS pie for the last 35 years. I live in NJ and we are having a very similar issue with the teacher pension. Since the mid 90s every governor has been taking from the teacher pension to pay for pet projects. Guess what. There is no money left over. We have educators who are getting ready to retire and there is no money. Add the fact that people are living much longer and you a recipe for disaster.

I'm just advocating another alternative. One that has worked very well for the rich. Let's look at Jewsish people. Why do so many of them do well financially? Yes, I know many are poor. There is some truth to my statement though. Why do they normally do well financially? Yea, they invest in education. So do many Americans, yet many are still broke. It comes down to financial literacy. It also starts at a young age. Many are taught to invest, save, the power of compound interest, buying real estate, etc. I was never taught any of these topics That's why I had issues with spending money. I was pissing much of it away. It was only thru developing my financial skills that I started to save and invest. Ignorance isn't bliss when it comes to finances.

 

[IronWing]

The government has been taking from the SS pie for the last 35 years.

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

 

[Mai72]

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

Thanks for the education on SS.

My dad has always said that there is going to be a war between the have and have nots. Maybe many of the people who voted for Trump are looking at him as their messiah. What happens when he's not able to deliver? What happens when people have had enough of their own government? That's the scary part of this. Are we headed towards another civil war?

 

[nickqt]

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

It's only class warfare when the poor fight back.

 

[Jhhnn]

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

Well said. And you ain't seen nuthin' yet. Trump & the Repubs will be putting us under the bus before it's over.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for the education on SS.

My dad has always said that there is going to be a war between the have and have nots. Maybe many of the people who voted for Trump are looking at him as their messiah. What happens when he's not able to deliver? What happens when people have had enough of their own government? That's the scary part of this. Are we headed towards another civil war?

We're headed for an epiphany like 1932 & we'll only get there the hard way. This election clinches it.

 

[Ackmed]

$189.63 for the last week of 2016 for SS alone. One damn week. Interested to see about when it goes up even more. Greater good and all that, yay.

 

[Jhhnn]

$189.63 for the last week of 2016 for SS alone. One damn week. Interested to see about when it goes up even more. Greater good and all that, yay.

The math for that doesn't work. $118500/52=$2278.86x.062=$141.69. It only works if you're including medicare & making well north of $130K/yr.

That easily puts you in the top 10% of earners. Whining about taxes is unbecoming on anybody, particularly those so fortunate.

 

[Genx87]

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

Eh benefits are capped at the highest taxed rate. It isn't like the rich don't pay into the system. They pay at the max rate. They also receive benefits at the max rate. SS is not losing revenues from wealth inequity. SS is losing revenues because like every ponzi scheme is requires an ever growing base to pull income. Instead the base is dwindling as baby boomers retire. There is also further strain put on the system due to longevity. SS would work if we had 1930s lifespans and a population bubble for the rest of eternity. It needs to be fixed. But the idea it rests soley on the rich not paying their fair share is effing silly.

 

[Sonikku]

Anyone else wonder why this wasn't a big campaign issue?

 

[Jhhnn]

Eh benefits are capped at the highest taxed rate. It isn't like the rich don't pay into the system. They pay at the max rate. They also receive benefits at the max rate. SS is not losing revenues from wealth inequity. SS is losing revenues because like every ponzi scheme is requires an ever growing base to pull income. Instead the base is dwindling as baby boomers retire. There is also further strain put on the system due to longevity. SS would work if we had 1930s lifespans and a population bubble for the rest of eternity. It needs to be fixed. But the idea it rests soley on the rich not paying their fair share is effing silly.

Please. You ignore the shift in income share from the lower 90% to the top 10%, the SS cutoff. See table 5-

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

Nearly 14% of national income moved out of range for SS taxes between 1980 & 2013, likely more because SS is based on raw income, not lower taxable income.

 

[IronWing]

Eh benefits are capped at the highest taxed rate. It isn't like the rich don't pay into the system. They pay at the max rate. They also receive benefits at the max rate. SS is not losing revenues from wealth inequity. SS is losing revenues because like every ponzi scheme is requires an ever growing base to pull income. Instead the base is dwindling as baby boomers retire. There is also further strain put on the system due to longevity. SS would work if we had 1930s lifespans and a population bubble for the rest of eternity. It needs to be fixed. But the idea it rests soley on the rich not paying their fair share is effing silly.

Growing income inequality is starving the SS system. If wages had kept pace with GDP growth there would be no issue. Instead, through the deliberate policies passed by Congress, income inequality has exploded and SS is running out of funds. SS reform and tax hikes for the little people in the 80s addressed the baby boomer and longevity issues. The issue that has not been addressed is the effect of income inequality on the SS tax base.

 

[Ackmed]

The math for that doesn't work. $118500/52=$2278.86x.062=$141.69. It only works if you're including medicare & making well north of $130K/yr.

That easily puts you in the top 10% of earners. Whining about taxes is unbecoming on anybody, particularly those so fortunate.

Then your math is wrong. Medicare was $43.18 on top of the $189.63 for SS.

We've gone over this before, I object to paying a significantly higher percentage of SS, while getting back a significantly lower percentage than someone who earns less. Everyone should get back proportional to what they put in. I don't understand why you're so eager to take away from people who make more, and give to those who earn less.

 

[IronWing]

I don't understand why you're so eager to take away from people who make more, and give to those who earn less.

You vote your values, I'll vote mine.

 

[bshole]

$189.63 for the last week of 2016 for SS alone. One damn week. Interested to see about when it goes up even more. Greater good and all that, yay.

Perhaps if you are lucky they will end SS/medicare by the time you retire so that your children won't be saddled with paying for the old. Then the old can starve to death in the streets like God meant them to. Is it mandatory that Christians lack empathy?

 

[Ackmed]

that's it boyz


Perhaps if you are lucky they will end SS/medicare by the time you retire so that your children won't be saddled with paying for the old. Then the old can starve to death in the streets like God meant them to. Is it mandatory that Christians lack empathy?

Show me one time I wished for SS/medicare to be ended? I haven't. Stop posting ignorance and lies.

 

[bshole]

Show me one time I wished for SS/medicare to be ended? I haven't. Stop posting ignorance and lies.

Then WHY are you bitching about the taxes you are paying for the old?

 

[zinfamous]

No it hasn't. SS is facing insolvency because the SS tax base has been eroded as income concentrates at the top and is extracted in forms (capital gains, for example) that are not subject to SS taxes. If the same percentage of GDP were subject to the SS tax today as was the case in the early 1970s, there would be no funding crisis. Growing income inequality and wage stagnation is the fundamental issue with the SS trust fund. Congress could choose to fix the problem at any time by expanding the tax base to recover forgone revenues. Instead, this Congress is proposing to cut benefits to people who pay into the SS system in order to maintain the tax advantages of people who don't. This is pure class warfare and the wealthy are kicking ass.

well, the best and most effective way to complain about SS insolvency is to create and nurture the means of insolvency over decades of supply-side "awesomenomics!" and Bushie tax cuts. it's a well-honed strategy when your politics actually has no politics: complain that everything is broken, get elected and break everything, refuse to fix it, and point to the things you broke as proof of how things are broken.

 

[fskimospy]

Then your math is wrong. Medicare was $43.18 on top of the $189.63 for SS.

We've gone over this before, I object to paying a significantly higher percentage of SS, while getting back a significantly lower percentage than someone who earns less. Everyone should get back proportional to what they put in. I don't understand why you're so eager to take away from people who make more, and give to those who earn less.

Are you self employed or something? I can't figure out how you would possibly be paying $189 a week for Social Security unless you're self employed or there's some sort of back payment going on. The maximum weekly payment you can make for social security as a regular employee is about $141.

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you self employed or something? I can't figure out how you would possibly be paying $189 a week for Social Security unless you're self employed or there's some sort of back payment going on. The maximum weekly payment you can make for social security as a regular employee is about $141.

my weekly taxes are:
fed 753.72
ss 213.72
med 49.98
ca income 284.36
ca sdi 31.02

I should be a republican.

 

[Cozarkian]

The math for that doesn't work. $118500/52=$2278.86x.062=$141.69. It only works if you're including medicare & making well north of $130K/yr.

That easily puts you in the top 10% of earners. Whining about taxes is unbecoming on anybody, particularly those so fortunate.

It also works if the poster earns an hourly wage and worked over time that week and/or received an end of year bonus resulting in a higher than normal wage for that week.

 

[Ackmed]

Then WHY are you bitching about the taxes you are paying for the old?

You are not keeping up. I have never said I did not want to pay taxes or help elderly. What I have said, is that paying a higher percentage than someone who earns less isn't great. Especially when getting back a far lower percentage for SS.

A one-earner couple retiring in 2020 with low wages—$22,500 in 2015 dollars—would have paid the equivalent of $129,000 in 2015 dollars in Social Security taxes. That couple can expect to receive lifetime benefits of $309,000 in 2015 dollars, more than twice what the worker paid in.

By contrast, a couple retiring in 2020 in which both spouses earn the same pay and who have always earned wages at the cap or higher ($118,500 in 2015 dollars) will have paid in some $1,358,000. But on average they’ll receive benefits worth $1,020,000, or about 75% of what they paid in.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-winners-losers-america-social-093000567.html

One person gets more than 2x than what they put in. One person gets about 75% of what they put in. I think people should get comparable to what they put it. You think lower earners should get far more than they put in, and taking away from higher earners?

Another large category of “losers,” say experts, is younger generations compared with older ones. In 2010, Social Security began paying out more in benefits than it is collecting in taxes. The decline in the number of workers per retiree from three to two as baby boomers retire is making this problem worse.

To stabilize the system, “taxes will have to go up or benefit growth will have to be trimmed,” said Stephen Entin, an economist and former Treasury official during the Reagan administration who is now with the Tax Foundation in Washington. “Either way, the return on the contributions for all workers will be depressed compared to current levels over time.”

Things don't look great.

Once again since some people can't grasp it the issue I have. I don't know how I can put this more simply? Getting back a significantly lower percentage of SS than someone else is wrong. People should get something proportionate to what they put in.

Are you self employed or something? I can't figure out how you would possibly be paying $189 a week for Social Security unless you're self employed or there's some sort of back payment going on. The maximum weekly payment you can make for social security as a regular employee is about $141.

No, I am an hourly worker for the federal government. I am in a union and we have a contract. Would have been more if my 401K wasn't taken out before taxes. There was no bonus, there was some overtime. Gross was a little over 3k for last weeks check. Some checks lower, some higher. Depends on hours worked obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I am an hourly worker for the federal government. I am in a union and we have a contract. Would have been more if my 401K wasn't taken out before taxes. There was no bonus, there was some overtime. Gross was a little over 3k for last weeks check. Some checks lower, some higher. Depends on hours worked obviously.

Hourly makes sense I guess. FYI 401(k) contributions are not exempt from FICA so they would not have been more.

 

[Ackmed]

Very well, I wrongly assumed since it was pre-tax it would be without that as well. Thanks for the correction. I am not all that knowledgeable about 401K's and such, I know I should do better at it.

 

[Jhhnn]

One person gets more than 2x than what they put in. One person gets about 75% of what they put in. I think people should get comparable to what they put it. You think lower earners should get far more than they put in, and taking away from higher earners?

Obviously. Structured the way you want it, people wouldn't be able to survive on SS alone, & that's all a lot of people ever get.

But FYGM anyway, right?