"...anyone invoking rising life expectancy as a reason to delay Social Security benefits is, in effect, saying that aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because bankers are living longer."
Who are the Marxist leeches? I bet there are republicans that fit your narrative above???It won’t be there because they’re too many Marxist leeches that take out more than they paid in.
With a projected $2 Trillion/year deficit, this is all just noise. I agree that a small tax increase would maybe solve one problem. The leak would just move to another spot.Of course. Same with regular income taxes.
But it’s a small tax increase to ensure an important program is funded.
Hasn't the retirement age been increased since SS was originally established?"...anyone invoking rising life expectancy as a reason to delay Social Security benefits is, in effect, saying that aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because bankers are living longer."
I don’t understand why we don’t just significantly raise the Social Security wage cap to help shore it up for the future.
But I’d also stop granting huge cost of living adjustments.
Yes, some people will definitely bitch about a welfare system that doesn't give them anything because they're not indigent. That's inescapable.But then the folks who don't meet the indigent cutoff will bitch about paying into a system from which they'll never get ANYTHING back.
Good point. Where does that leave those working part time or gig jobs? Are they properly paying self-employment FICA?Everyone will get back more than they paid in if they were in any sort of job that deducted FICA.
No but they get less SSI down the road, don’t they?Good point. Where does that leave those working part time or gig jobs? Are they properly paying self-employment FICA?
I’m fine with a cap, but I don’t see why all types of income are not subject to the tax. Why not lottery winnings? Capital gainsThe question basically comes down to:
Do we want to reduce benefits and/or raise the retirement age, which would essentially force service industry/blue collar workers to work until they die, or nearly so?
OR
Do we eliminate the cap and tax all income?
This should be an easy decision for a wealthy nation with any semblance of a collective moral compass.
It’s not an important program. It’s an Ponzi scheme.Of course. Same with regular income taxes.
But it’s a small tax increase to ensure an important program is funded.
My retirement money is not yours. If you want retirement money go out and get a job. Instead of trying to be a progressive activist.It cracks me up that people here want to trust Republicans with OUR retirement money. When you do you're thinking exactly the way the wealthy want you to think.
Yes, when originally established in 1937 the retirement age was 65.Hasn't the retirement age been increased since SS was originally established?
The law says that SS is only funded by the payroll taxes.With a projected $2 Trillion/year deficit, this is all just noise. I agree that a small tax increase would maybe solve one problem. The leak would just move to another spot.
The Trust fund is all noise anyway, SS outlays would be covered by federal tax revenue anyway.
The federal outlay/receipt process is just a political tool at this point, probably always has been
This doesn't happen.But I’d also stop granting huge cost of living adjustments.
Most states do tax lottery wins.I’m fine with a cap, but I don’t see why all types of income are not subject to the tax. Why not lottery winnings? Capital gains
But I’d also stop granting huge cost of living adjustments.
I retired at 68, took a year off and then got a part time job - and many fellow Boomers are doing just that. We were helped in finding jobs by a labor shortage these last few years, but the “back pocket money” earned allowed us to continue spending at almost our pre-retirement levels, which helps the economy as a whole.I think current life expectancy in the US is 77. Retirement is 65.
Do people really think that 12 years of retirement before you die, after working for roughly 50 years, is too long? So we should make people work longer and closer to death?
From cradle to grave, you shall be a wage-slave.
Having the option to chose to work is freedom. Being forced to work due to poverty is servitude.I retired at 68, took a year off and then got a part time job - and many fellow Boomers are doing just that. We were helped in finding jobs by a labor shortage these last few years, but the “back pocket money” earned allowed us to continue spending at almost our pre-retirement levels, which helps the economy as a whole.
That is not a bad thing.
We look at this very different than most countries. Again, we do it wrong over here...because greed from the power people.I think current life expectancy in the US is 77. Retirement is 65.
Do people really think that 12 years of retirement before you die, after working for roughly 50 years, is too long? So we should make people work longer and closer to death?
From cradle to grave, you shall be a wage-slave.
I don’t see it as “servitude” at all but I’ve always had a strong work ethic and I like having something to do.Having the option to chose to work is freedom. Being forced to work due to poverty is servitude.
No, You look at it differently.We look at this very different than most countries. Again, we do it wrong over here...because greed from the power people.
You don’t know me and I can only make assumptions about you based on prior posts. Suffice it to say, you and I see the world drastically different. And that’s not a bad thing or a shot at you. It’s a preface to my point…We look at this very different than most countries. Again, we do it wrong over here...because greed from the power people.
I don’t understand why we don’t just significantly raise the Social Security wage cap to help shore it up for the future.
But I’d also stop granting huge cost of living adjustments.
Me too. FIRE, baby!I'm retiring as early as possible and have been saving like crazy.
I'm the exact definition of delaying gratification.
For those born after 1975 Social Security can be expected to pay them back less than each dollar they paid in.
Krugman's solution is for us to pay in even more.
We should scrap the whole thing and establish a welfare system for the elderly indigent (instead of a welfare system for everyone that is elderly). It would be less expensive, and not kneecap the ability of most workers to save for their own futures.
When you raise the cap you're just basically redistributing income from the top to the bottom. People at the top paying into a benefit that they can never even come close to breaking even on. Raising the age is more equitable...
Maybe you misunderstood me because I agree completely with what you just typed. 100%You don’t know me and I can only make assumptions about you based on prior posts. Suffice it to say, you and I see the world drastically different. And that’s not a bad thing or a shot at you. It’s a preface to my point…
We are not put on this Earth to work our lives away for a dollar so that someone else can get rich. Our country has its priorities so out of whack it’s disgusting. Work, work, work and spend, spend, spend. Leave your family for 40+ hours a week, spend little quality time together, incur debt, finance a house and car for a lifetime, and now work until you die. What a life!
If someone WANTS that life, by all means, go get it. More power to you. But we have a society now where everyone has to work relentlessly just to survive and some reap more rewards than others. I’m not opposed to hard work getting good rewards. But I am opposed to destroying families, communities, and health by working non-stop just to try to live a modest lifestyle while the people who profit and live lavishly tell the rest of us to work harder.
Lifting the tax cap makes it solvent through 2046.I'm not sure raising the cap helps with the math. If you contribute more, you'll also receive more. Unless they cap the payouts to be more of a welfare thing.
Regarding Haley, my guess is that this is just a way to sound somewhat fiscally responsible. Social Security isn't going to materially change, it's too popular, especially as the GOP becomes more and more working class, less affluent and more populist.
Yeah, I know. I’m not arguing or talking about this thread. You and I see this issue the same. I was just commenting in general that you (from what I’ve observed over time from other posts) and I often have different views on things. But I think we probably agree on the same problems but differ on causes or solutions.Maybe you misunderstood me because I agree completely with what you just typed. 100%
No. People like you in America look at it much differently than people do in the rest of the world. nolesincebirth basically just summed it up.No, You look at it differently.
I’d like to hear about what you think is “greed from power people”. Who are they? Why are they greedy?
Got it. Yeah, it bothers me how often a teacher will retire in their 60s and be dead within a couple of years...not getting to enjoy years of retirement. I'm sure it happens in every profession and I hate it.Yeah, I know. I’m not arguing or talking about this thread. You and I see this issue the same. I was just commenting in general that you (from what I’ve observed over time from other posts) and I often have different views on things. But I think we probably agree on the same problems but differ on causes or solutions.
But on this, I’m completely in agreement. Working till death to survive is no way to live.
Lifting the tax cap makes it solvent through 2046.
Average SS payment. $1700. Average rent $1400. Average food cost $215.I don’t see it as “servitude” at all but I’ve always had a strong work ethic and I like having something to do.
Most Americans need to work to keep a roof over their head and food on their table, regardless of their age. I doubt many share your view on the “servitude” idea.
You can change jobs. You can “choose” to quit and starve or live on the streets. Or choose to be a burden to others who do work. Maybe that’s a form of freedom.
Most Americans need to work to keep a roof over their head and food on their table, regardless of their age
Both sides!!!🙄 SMH.
Who told you that? The 100% “reliable” sources you use?
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/...t Office projects,be subject to payroll taxes.Does that estimate also factor the increased payouts or is it just the math on increased contributions to cover the same estimated benefit payments under the current design?
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58630#:~:text=The Congressional Budget Office projects,be subject to payroll taxes.
Not sure what you're talking about with increased payouts. Social security has a max pay out no matter how much you made. Currently its 4,555 if you retire at 70. There is no amount over that no matter what you paid in Social security tax or earned.
The way I understood the system is that your benefits are proportional to your contributions. If you contribute less during your working years, you get less in your retirement years. If you contribute at the income cap, you receive the payout cap. It's equitable.
My thinking was that if you increase the income cap, you would also increase the payout cap, so that the system remains equitable, in terms of the link between benefits and contributions. As opposed to a system where the people who contribute more get proportionally less in benefits and subsidize those who contributed less.
Similar to the concept covered in the "Effects on the Budget" section in the link:
"Because Social Security benefits are tied to the amount of earnings on which taxes are paid, however, some of that increase in revenues would be offset by additional benefits paid to people with earnings above the maximum taxable amount under current law. On net, this alternative would reduce federal budget deficits by an estimated $670 billion over the 10-year period. If the maximum taxable amount was adjusted by a different amount, the change in revenues would not necessarily be proportional because earnings are not evenly distributed."