Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The golden era of huge PROFITS for them - based on little if any real improvement in the drugs they're pumping out to actually extend lives or improve the quality of life.
We get drugs that cost $200k a year to take and extend life for 3 months beyond the last drug they pushed on us! Drugs that are repackaged so they get around generics and cost thousands but are essentially the EXACT SAME DRUG.
Progress is slowing...we're getting less and less for the R&D dollar and paying more and more out of pocket for it due to crappy insurance plans.
Is there a point in your post regarding social security?
About 90 percent of the Social Security asset balance was incurred since the mid 90's. The system was essentially pay-as-you-go until 1980. The balance ran down in the early 90s.
Taxes were increased in the 80s and 90s.
Changes were made to the inflation indexing both times to slow the growth of benefits.
Wages subject to the tax were increased as well.
SS program is more comparable to foreign pension programs than IRAs, 401ks, etc. The latter lack disability insurance, survivors insurance, and a lifetime guaranteed annuity. The other programs as well as the opt-out Social Security programs the states run have much higher tax rates, around 18 to 20 percent.
Using the mean when looking at the top-5% is really stupid. It distorts the reality that 4% of that group make less than the mean since the top 0.1% have such enormous income. 95th percentile household income is less than $200K and that demographic is very much skewed towards the top half-dozen high cost of living regions of the country. $200K is probably 1%er income in Mississippi. It will barely buy a starter home in the Bay Area where a $700K house is what a blue collar couple would own most places.
Anyone that is 62 or older cannot collect Social Security if they still have more than $200,000 in an IRA, 401k, other retirement account, bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds, etc -
Once they have less than $200,000, then they begin qualifying for what is defined by law as 'benefit payments' from the Social Security Administration.
Instant Social Security fund solvency for the long term.
Either that or have the federal government keeping printing more money out of thin air and see how that works out.
There should be no means testing for Social Security.
What you are proposing, above, only rewards people who have wasted their income over the years.
SSDI needs to be overhauled, though, that's for sure. I know several "friends of friends" who have been collecting money for years by cheating.
There should be no means testing for Social Security.
Social Security is means tested.
Quote:
Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits.
No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:
file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is
between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is
between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits
more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
are married and file a separate tax return, you probably will pay taxes on your benefits.
It assumes zero payroll growth, which is a pretty reasonable projection. Jobs are being eliminated right and left, with declining income levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Some BLS data -- jobs are being created month by month by month since the recession.
But you're still short workers to fund Social Security.
Two flaws in the actuarial assumptions are that the US will have 5% GDP growth annually --- it hasn't, and that the Employment to Population Ratio is high enough to generate funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
That money has already been borrowed. Cashing in the T-bills and issuing new ones will not increase the national debt.
True. It's merely an accounting gimmick where money is shifted from the intra-government side of the balance sheet to the public debt side of the balance sheet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Respectfully, I disagree. Insurance should never be progressive, and FICA is most definitely insurance.
We all have automobile insurance, for example; imagine having a fender-bender and placing a claim only to discover the insurance company says, "You're a high income person, so we're going to reduce the amount we pay on your claim."
That's differently twisted. The insurance company is not going to pay $30,000 for $3,000 in damages.
Long forgotten is that SS funds are required to be invested in Trasury securities. If they had been invested in a stock index funds over the last 50 years the system would be drowning in assets.
That was one proposal when SS was established, but there was substantial opposition to implementing a communist retirement program. Having the government own the means of production has always been anathema in the USA.
It's too bad you didn't post the inflation adjusted figures. That shows that both the number of jobs and the payroll being essentially flat, while population is increasing. The only group that has increased its income at all is the top quintile. The bottom 50% has actually lost ground, and has a lower income now than they did 30 years ago.
There should be no means testing for Social Security.
.
Fine. Have the government keep giving something that is defined by law as a federal 'benefit' to people over 65 that have a net worth over $1 million so they can hoard their SS benefit money and leave it to their adult children. It is the ultimate in transfer payments.
Fine. Have the government keep giving something that is defined by law as a federal 'benefit' to people over 65 that have a net worth over $1 million so they can hoard their SS benefit money and leave it to their adult children. It is the ultimate in transfer payments.
If everyone pays the fica tax but they saved their money while you spent your money, why should you get greater benefit?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
