That would be a tax increase, which is what I predicted will happen (again).
Then what, more tax increases and/or benefit cuts…
Nikki Haley Is Coming for Your Retirement
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
That would be a tax increase, which is what I predicted will happen (again).
One should bitch about not getting anything back if they paid in, regardless of income. In case it has been a while since you looked at a map, this is America not North Korea. We are free to donate our money, our land or service to anyone we choose or we are free not to. It's not the government's job to take hard earned money from a producer and give it to someone else. We pay taxes for defense, roads, parks, police, etc. not to redistribute wealth.
The railroads are always hiring! Hire on and never pay into the debacle that’s Social Security again.
There is a maximum payout, there is also a maximum pay in (the income cap). So the benefits are proportional to your payroll taxable income regardless if you earned $1 more than the cap or $100 million more. I'm saying if you wanted to keep the same equitable system, if you increase the income cap, you would also increase the maximum payout.
If you wanted to increase the income cap, but keep the benefits cap the same, the program more closely resembles a welfare program where the higher earners subsidize the lower earners. To some people that may be a meaningful distinction. To others, it's meaningless.
What was it last year? 8.9% adjustment?
I think I read somewhere that if you knocked 0.5-1% off the COLA you’d eliminate most of the insolvency issue. Couple slightly lower yearly increases with an increased wage cap, problem solved.
But nobody has ever suggested eliminating the payout cap.
That's something you just made up and not really part of the discussion. And we have caps on a lot of things despite paying more. If you pay mroe in taxes the water doesn't come ot your house any hotter than the lowest tax payer.
Well boomers die off and it becomes solvent by itself again as many experts have noted. And eliminating the tax is not an tax increase. It's eliminating a cap.
Strike 2
Weird...because we do that for farmers and Wall Street. They love their socialism.
I haven't suggested eliminating the payout cap or made up anything about it. You're the one who has brought up eliminating the payout cap even though it's not really part of the discussion, good job.
I have only stated that if the program was to continue to be equitable in the same structure it is now, if you increase the income cap, you should increase (not eliminate) the payout cap.
Speaking of what is and what isn't part of the discussion, consider me out of it, I'll let you hyperventilate on your own.
Source?
I ask, because the 2023 Social Security Trustees report shows the funding gap steady through the end of the century, decades after we bury the last Boomer.
If you eliminate the cap, do you increase the taxes collected?
If yes, then that’s a tax increase.
Balk!
What are you disputing that Krugman laid out? Are you saying Haley isn't favoring raising the SS retirement age?
Or are you engaging in the usual Republican tactic of claiming it's unfair or dirty pool to accurately point out what Republians are proposing.
Again, SS can easily be shored up without any cuts or raises to the retirement age just by lifting the current income cap. Easy peasy, but Republicans (and not just Republicans) pretend that this isn't an option.
goldie gives her sugar baby some spending money. He spends it on tanning and body waxing. That's how the economy works, people!
But not fica and Medicare. Why not? I get pensions and 401k because those were already taxed but not other unearned income. The only way that 46% number would be true would be for a person in California or similar.
sad thing is - i would say that the majority of people dont save nearly as much as they should or that they could. i believe you prepare taxes - how many of your clients dont save at least 15%? i am with you - i am working my tail off now, savings like crazy and will retire before 60.
From each according to their ability, To each according to their need. This is the mindset of AnyHawk and Paris...
The $1700 average can be reflective of the fact that the earnings of women are statistically lower for the current group of recipients but that will change once we Baby Boomers are gone. More of us didn’t work at executive level jobs over the 30 year average and may not have entered the workforce until our children were a certain age, again a function of a different era.
Many of these women are not renting or they’re living with a family member like a spouse or other relative. Or if they were married for 10 years and they’re widowed or divorced they can claim their husbands SSI level, which is commonly a good bit higher.
Wow. This is exciting. How did you know?
He had his own money, no excess body hair, and great skin.
That's because it's tied into inflation. Last year saw crazy levels. This year it's not near as high. You can't just expect old people to live poorer and poorer by not giving them cost of living adjustments.
I agree with you on the payroll cap.
Just raise the income withholding cap, it’s easy and most Americans agree that’s the best solution in the long term. It’s been discussed ad nauseum for decades.
The fact that this has still not been implemented tells you everything you need to about your elected officials and who controls and pays them.
The fact that this has still not been implemented tells you everything you need to about your elected officials and who controls and pays them.
And my point is we don’t need to match inflation every year. When prices come back down, they never reduce the benefit. Give a COLA minus 0.5% and that would go a long way towards ensuring solvency long-term.
And who is a card carrying Republican….the Party of NO ideas…..tax cuts for the rich, of course….but ideas on balancing budgets, MediCare/Social Security reform, immigration, homelessness, welfare……not one phuquing solid, constructive idea…..not a one.
Cali doesn’t tax lottery money at all. Neither does Florida but 46% (roughly) is what a person gets if they choose the cash option.
Does your paycheck come down per the COL Index? But Grandma’s should?
The year before the adjustment was very small. It will also be very small this year. The 8.9% was an unusual increase but so was a gallon of gas and a pound of hamburger.
It depends on the year. No raises or bonuses is always a possibility.
Just thinking of ways to protect the program for the future.
Of course.
I was just objecting to your idea that people, regardless of age, have to work to have a roof and food. National averages say that isn't true. Obviously there are lots of exceptions and what not. But, it seems that if an elderly person is willing they do not have to work to meet basic necessities.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Yep, get out as early as possible and enjoy the years you have left. Some people think it’s because they retired, I just think they waited too long.
Our society does have some messed up priorities with this. I love what progress has brought us….but the Industrial Revolution also sent us down this road.
While that could fix the funding problem, does that fit the way we think about SS? Most of the time we expect more return from the things we pay into if we pay more - and in proportion to how much more we pay. But that's not how SS works. So if people are paying a lot more in but getting little or no more, that just seems unfair.
I also wonder what the rich folks would do to dodge the higher FICA cost. If you get "paid" in stocks or options, do you have to pay FICA? If you shift your official residence to Canada or Aruba do you have to pay FICA? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I bet the rich will find work-arounds and Congress won't plug them.
My mom died at 60. My sister is about to pass away at 56. You’re damn right I’m retiring as early as possible.
Oh. I see your point now. But that’s not a tax. It’s just cashing out an annuity.
And don't forget that half of SS beneficiaries get less than that.
I knew a lady in Florida whose SS benefit was a quarter below the then average, and she did not own her home. She managed but it was hard.
Of course not everyone is heavily or totally dependent on SS in their old age. But a while ago I read that over 30% of SS recipients are, in fact, dependent on SS for survival.
And that's the point, isn't it? People SHOULD be able to survive on SS if they have to.
Ziggy tells me that there are 59 million SS beneficiaries in the US. So, around 18 million mostly or totally dependent on SS for survival, and half of them (give or take) receiving less than that $1700 average.
Maybe you have never been in a store, but overall prices never go down. They may not got up as fast but they never go down. Don't believe me, please show me a year within the past 100 years when we had deflation? COLA should never go down unless we actually have deflation, and good luck with that.
So you dislike big government except when the programs help you personally? And don’t want to do anything to help future generations if it doesn’t benefit you directly? Got it.
I’m just throwing out ideas - what are your solutions?
Similar threads
