Social Security

[Jhhnn]

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.

I suppose so if the person doesn't exceed the 118,500 cap in a calendar year. As I pointed out earlier the max contribution averaged out over a year is $141.

I merely wish I were fortunate enough to have paid the max at least once in my life.

 

[Ackmed]

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?

Should people only has SS alone when they try to retire? Should people already be accustomed to living a certain life style when they try to retire?

According to the article I linked, a possible situation could be such as this; Person A puts in $100 a week, retires and gets back $75. Person B puts in $25 a week, gets back about $50. You're ok with this? Yes that is how I want it, obviously. As it is now seems pretty unfair. Getting far less than I put in, while someone else gets far more than they put in. We're not going to agree on this, and I am not going to keep saying how I feel. And its not going to change, in fact, it will probably get worse for me.

Also, fortune is often times worked for not given. I am sorry you never earned enough to put in the max, that doesn't mean you're entitled to peoples money who did.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

$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.

I just started paying again this paycheck 1/6, after not paying since the end of August

 

[fskimospy]

Should people only has SS alone when they try to retire? Should people already be accustomed to living a certain life style when they try to retire?

According to the article I linked, a possible situation could be such as this; Person A puts in $100 a week, retires and gets back $75. Person B puts in $25 a week, gets back about $50. You're ok with this? Yes that is how I want it, obviously. As it is now seems pretty unfair. Getting far less than I put in, while someone else gets far more than they put in. We're not going to agree on this, and I am not going to keep saying how I feel. And its not going to change, in fact, it will probably get worse for me.

Also, fortune is often times worked for not given. I am sorry you never earned enough to put in the max, that doesn't mean you're entitled to peoples money who did.

So you're also against progressive taxation then?

If you really think that people have higher incomes because they work more/better/whatever then do you think that basically all improvements to society have come from the top 1% in the past 20 years? Median income is basically unchanged while incomes for the top 1% are vastly higher. If you DON'T think that's the case then aren't some of those high earners being unjustly enriched? If so, how do we compensate?

 

[First]

You guys fundamentally don't understand how insurance, federal social insurance or otherwise, works. It is literally predicated on the idea that someone gets more for their premiums while others get less, which if you think about it for a second is entirely rational given people have different needs, whether it's health insurance or the SS trust. It would be odd, frankly, if a millionaire and a borderline impoverished person retired and got exactly what they put in, or got back whatever percentage you deem is fair simply because you believe in regressive tax systems. You're essentially fighting a very old (lost) battle regarding the rich paying more into the system as a % of their income than the poor, as our progressive tax system has been doing quite well for a century.

 

[JSt0rm]

I suppose so if the person doesn't exceed the 118,500 cap in a calendar year. As I pointed out earlier the max contribution averaged out over a year is $141.

I merely wish I were fortunate enough to have paid the max at least once in my life.

Serious question. Why am I paying so much for ss then? Like they just crunch the numbers and im way over 141 a week.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So you're also against progressive taxation then?

If you really think that people have higher incomes because they work more/better/whatever then do you think that basically all improvements to society have come from the top 1% in the past 20 years? Median income is basically unchanged while incomes for the top 1% are vastly higher. If you DON'T think that's the case then aren't some of those high earners being unjustly enriched? If so, how do we compensate?

I'm not particularly against SS being a progressive system so this is a little tangential, but with a few caveats (inheritance, lottery winners, nepotism/corruption, etc) I'd more or less agree with the bolded, especially today. The best inventors, scientists, businessmen are the ones that drive society forward, and they put forth the products that people want to buy. There are more self-made billionaires now than ever before thanks to the ease of getting your name out on the market in the computer era. As robotics advance and labor becomes even less valuable, we'll see a period where the majority of the country takes more than they contribute. Already the costs of public education and healthcare alone pretty much cancel out any benefit the bottom rungs contribute.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not particularly against SS being a progressive system so this is a little tangential, but with a few caveats (inheritance, lottery winners, nepotism/corruption, etc) I'd more or less agree with the bolded, especially today. The best inventors, scientists, businessmen are the ones that drive society forward, and they put forth the products that people want to buy. There are more self-made billionaires now than ever before thanks to the ease of getting your name out on the market in the computer era.

Do you have any empirical basis for this?

I mean 'putting forth the products people want to buy' is very rarely the product of one man's genius, it is almost always an enormous collaborative effort of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people. If anything the 'great man' has become less influential in my mind considering in the past technological advancement really was often the product of one person's discovery. Now it's the result of huge teams.

As robotics advance and labor becomes even less valuable, we'll see a period where the majority of the country takes more than they contribute. Already the costs of public education and healthcare alone pretty much cancel out any benefit the bottom rungs contribute.

How are you defining bottom rungs?

 

[Jhhnn]

Should people only has SS alone when they try to retire? Should people already be accustomed to living a certain life style when they try to retire?

"Should" doesn't matter. Reality matters. We can take care of our own or we can be like India where the Rich just step over the destitute on the street.

Your plan wouldn't allow a lot of seniors to eke out a living- you know, honest & decent people who worked their whole lives & contributed to our magnificent society.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not particularly against SS being a progressive system so this is a little tangential, but with a few caveats (inheritance, lottery winners, nepotism/corruption, etc) I'd more or less agree with the bolded, especially today. The best inventors, scientists, businessmen are the ones that drive society forward, and they put forth the products that people want to buy. There are more self-made billionaires now than ever before thanks to the ease of getting your name out on the market in the computer era. As robotics advance and labor becomes even less valuable, we'll see a period where the majority of the country takes more than they contribute. Already the costs of public education and healthcare alone pretty much cancel out any benefit the bottom rungs contribute.

Contribute to what, exactly? Profits?

 

[Jhhnn]

Serious question. Why am I paying so much for ss then? Like they just crunch the numbers and im way over 141 a week.

Your total contributions for a calendar year should not exceed ~$7400. (6.2% of $118,500) Your employer deducts 6.2% of your income until you reach that amount at which point they should quit taking it out. If your annual income is below the cap you'll pay that 6.2% every check.

 

[JSt0rm]

right on. Im sure my accountant figures it out.

 

[Jhhnn]

right on. Im sure my accountant figures it out.

It's different if you're self employed. I don't know the particulars.

 

[Ackmed]

"Should" doesn't matter. Reality matters. We can take care of our own or we can be like India where the Rich just step over the destitute on the street.

Your plan wouldn't allow a lot of seniors to eke out a living- you know, honest & decent people who worked their whole lives & contributed to our magnificent society.

Should definitely matters. Slaves should have, and still should be freed. Reality was wrong. Nice try though?

We should take care of our own? Oh I agree, yet your side likes to give tax payers money away to illegalls so I guess you don't really believe that huh?

"My plan" is actually fair. People not trying to love outside their means seems fair. Getting back proportional to what you put in seems fair. You arguing that you should get other people's money is a little sad to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Should definitely matters. Slaves should have, and still should be freed. Reality was wrong. Nice try though?

We should take care of our own? Oh I agree, yet your side likes to give tax payers money away to illegalls so I guess you don't really believe that huh?

"My plan" is actually fair. People not trying to love outside their means seems fair. Getting back proportional to what you put in seems fair. You arguing that you should get other people's money is a little sad to me.

I'm arguing that a benefit intended to provide seniors with the means to eke out a living needs to actually accomplish that. What you propose won't accomplish that.

In a country as rich as our own it's the only moral thing to do.

Hell, many of my former coworkers will work 'til they die because they can't afford to do anything else. Decent & honest people who've worked their whole lives.

 

[Ackmed]

You can't save everyone. People should plan accordingly. They should also be able to live on it. People who earn more, will get less percentage wise back. Getting proportionate to what you put in is fair. My illustration of the $100 highlights this. I'm not proposing the same for income taxes, but SS is my own money, coming back to me. At a much lower percentage than someone who puts in much less. That's not right. I'm done going around and around about it. We're going to have to disagree. I can't do anything about it, and I have doubts it'll be the in 25 years anyways. Just pissing my money away more than likely.

FYI, you can be decent and honest working, and make more too. It's not only for lower earners. Both have bills relative to what they earn. Higher earners won't suddenly have lower bills/live style.

 

[piasabird]

I support Means Testing of SS. If you make too much money you should not receive SS. SS is not an investment plan.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of a person's retirement plan. It was meant to supplement ones nest egg. That's it. The issue is you have many Americans who don't have anything saved or they have too little. So, SS becomes their only means of income. I've seen this issue with certain family members. Add the fact that people are living much longer. 90 is a realistic age. I just had an uncle who passed away this summer. He was 93 years old. His wife is 89.

I will probably work till I'm 70. God willing. I don't buy that the old should retire so they can let the young work. There is plenty of work to go around. IMO, that's a scarity mindset. There are plenty of jobs and there are plenty of people who still produce at an advanced age. Trump is a great example. At 70, he hustles more than many of the 25 year olds today. He was flying to at least 3 events a day during the last 2 weeks of his campaign. You have to admit that is frekin impressive.

Something needs to be done with our social security. It's been mismanaged and abused for some time now.

There are four generations in the current workforce and that is expected to continue with the cost of living rising beyond what many planned for. I will be affected by these changes and am looking to create a 5th source of retirement income to help myself during those retirement years. People who are living off defined benefit plans are losing everyday against the cost of living increases and I have two of those plans in my retirement portfolio right now.

Social security is a ponzi scheme in that the pay as you go setup always means that the current generation of workers are paying for those who are drawing off it at any given moment.l If I'm paying into something I want for my earnings to benefit me alone which is the premise of working in the first place. I agree that too many people are being allowed to draw off the system who paid nothing into it and that should be changed. Too many able bodied people are getting benefits and that should change immediately. The same can be said with welfare, too many able bodied people that are capable of working but won't. There should be limits on how many children can be claimed for additional support as well and baby making machines should be cut off after 2 kids to stop the abuse.

People who's retirement income exceeds 100k shouldn't be allowed to draw from it anyway. My parents are always complaining about SS yet they vote republican. I don't get it? The very programs they depend on came from the Democrats but they can't stand them and can't explain why either. Bush took $10B from the SS fund and reallocated it but that's okay because he's R not D but they keep complaining about no COLA"s. My VA disability gets the same COLA adjustments as SS which are practically nonexistent and when they do come the amount is so ridiculously low that it doesn't provide any meaningful gain.

 

[child of wonder]

I support Means Testing of SS. If you make too much money you should not receive SS. SS is not an investment plan.

That would make it theft.

 

[Genx87]

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.

This is irrelevant given benefits are capped at the rate which they are taken. The issue is a loss of base to pay benefits and a longer lifespan.

 

[Genx87]

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.

So people would pay to the cap but also receive benefits to the cap? You understand the system pays based on what they pay in? If more people paid in at the cap. More people would receive benefits at the cap at some point. It may kick the can down to road since the system is essentially pay in pay out. But it would have to pay at some point. And the same issue would come back to haunt us.

 

[Genx87]

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.

What does supply side economics have to do with a payroll tax? In an ironic twist Bush at least attempted to address SS insolvency a decade ago. Nobody has touched it since.

 

[fskimospy]

So people would pay to the cap but also receive benefits to the cap? You understand the system pays based on what they pay in? If more people paid in at the cap. More people would receive benefits at the cap at some point. It may kick the can down to road since the system is essentially pay in pay out. But it would have to pay at some point. And the same issue would come back to haunt us.

Not true, as payouts do not scale linearly with pay-ins. Assuming the same formula holds as is present today by expanding the cap you would be increasing the total funds available to the system as compared to its liabilities.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/12-15-progressivity-ss.pdf

For people in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top fifth.

The benefits paid to retired workers, which account for about three-quarters of total benefits, are also progressive, but less progressive than Social Security benefits overall. The Social Security benefit formula is designed to provide beneficiaries who had lower lifetime earnings with monthly benefits that are higher, as a percentage of their lifetime average earnings, than those received by higher-earning beneficiaries. That progressivity in the benefit formula is only partly offset by the fact that higher-earning individuals tend to live longer and thus collect benefits longer.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is irrelevant given benefits are capped at the rate which they are taken. The issue is a loss of base to pay benefits and a longer lifespan.

I'm having trouble seeing that as more than word salad.

 

[fskimospy]

What does supply side economics have to do with a payroll tax? In an ironic twist Bush at least attempted to address SS insolvency a decade ago. Nobody has touched it since.

Not true either, Bush's attempt to privatize social security did nothing to change the long term funding issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socia...tes#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal

Although Bush described the Social Security system as "headed for bankruptcy", his proposal would not affect the projected shortfall in Social Security tax receipts. Partial privatization would mean that some workers would pay less into the system's general fund and receive less back from it. Administration officials said that the proposal would have a "net neutral effect" on the system's financial situation, and that Bush would discuss with Congress how to fill the projected shortfall.[118] The Congressional Budget Office had previously analyzed the commission's "Plan II" (the plan most similar to Bush's proposal) and had concluded that the individual accounts would have little or no overall effect on the system's solvency, and that virtually all the savings would come instead from changing the benefits formula.[119]