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.
I didn't say Social Security was fair, I said that it was PERCEIVED as fair. The program was sold to the public as explicitly NOT being a welfare program. Had it been pitched as a welfare program, it would never have been passed. And as you point out, the more the public perceives it be one, the less support it receives from that public. Welfare has never been popular with voters.
Had it been pitched as a welfare program, it would never have been passed. And as you point out, the more the public perceives it be one, the less support it receives from that public. Welfare has never been popular with voters.
It has nothing to do with welfare.
It's unpopular *now* because age demographics have caused it to cease being a good deal. The average person could do better if they put that money into a savings account instead of SS taxes.
It's unpopular *now* because age demographics have caused it to cease being a good deal. The average person could do better if they put that money into a savings account instead of SS taxes.
On average SS is about a 2-2.5% return on invested moneys. Of course savings accounts are significantly less now. And IMO that savings account would be tapped into for life's little pleasures by the average person.
On average SS is about a 2-2.5% return on invested moneys. Of course savings accounts are significantly less now. And IMO that savings account would be tapped into for life's little pleasures by the average person.
No. The Social Security program is progressive. "Return" is 100% dependent on your income level. Inflation-adjusted, if you were high income and maxed out your Social Security contribution for 35+ years, the combination of employee and employer contributions is a negative return unless you live well into your 90's. I'll have around 40 years of maxed contributions by the time I retire plus other years where I came close to maxing it. I'd have to live to 100 to break even.
If you plodded along earning an inflation-adjusted $30K every year for 35 years, I'm subsidizing you and Social Security is a great deal. The whole point of Social Security is to prevent elderly poverty. The program is very effective at doing that. It keeps the bottom half of retirees out of poverty. If you're a 5%er, it's not going to fund your retirement. At best if you defer collecting until age 70, it will replace about 25% of a 5%ers income.
No. The Social Security program is progressive. "Return" is 100% dependent on your income level. Inflation-adjusted, if you were high income and maxed out your Social Security contribution for 35+ years, the combination of employee and employer contributions is a negative return unless you live well into your 90's. I'll have around 40 years of maxed contributions by the time I retire plus other years where I came close to maxing it. I'd have to live to 100 to break even.
If you plodded along earning an inflation-adjusted $30K every year for 35 years, I'm subsidizing you and Social Security is a great deal. The whole point of Social Security is to prevent elderly poverty. The program is very effective at doing that. It keeps the bottom half of retirees out of poverty. If you're a 5%er, it's not going to fund your retirement. At best if you defer collecting until age 70, it will replace about 25% of a 5%ers income.
2-2.5% is the average.
I've been a high earner for 35 years and don't need SS. But in a few years I will take what they give me, and don't mind anyone else getting their due or even dole. I like SS for retirement investment diversification. Note that not one beneficiary lost out in 2008.
It's unpopular *now* because age demographics have caused it to cease being a good deal. The average person could do better if they put that money into a savings account instead of SS taxes.
That's what I wish I could do. Take funds reserved for FICA/Medicare and put it into a private account.
If you plodded along earning an inflation-adjusted $30K every year for 35 years, I'm subsidizing you and Social Security is a great deal.
No, only those people who earn more than $86,000 are subsidizing anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
.... why do we need a special welfare program just for the elderly?)
It's income insurance for all Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
If the min wage was increased to $15 an hour nationwide, how much would that increase revenue for Social Security? I bet it'd be quite a bit.
Since Social Security is based on Earned Income, it would also increase the payouts off-setting any gains through FICA payroll taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
I fail to see why the payroll tax would need to be increased 33% at this very moment to balance out the program - why not increase it .2% at a time to keep up with increased pay-outs in the years ahead?
The last FICA payroll tax increase was in 1990.
The FICA payroll tax should have been incrementally increased during the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations, but all three failed to act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
The poll leaves out the best solution: remove the cap on the Social Security tax.
It's not a panacea as it only generates $130 Billion annually, assuming Employers are stuck with the increase as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
SS is a raw deal for most of the current working population.
Which part of Social Security is "income insurance" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
If this is indeed the case, why don't they treat it as such and only pay out benefits to those who actually need it?
Well, that is an option and one which I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
Got no other savings? Social Security is there for you. Got $125k a year in retirement income plus a couple million in the bank? Great! You don't need to fall back on this insurance policy, and those benefits will be reserved for the truly needy.
This is how it's going to go down folks - there is no other way.
I would put the cut-off at 300% of the federal poverty level.
$35,460 for a single person and $48,060 for two people.
“Removing the cap entirely, thereby imposing a flat tax of 12.4 percent on all earnings — essentially a $100 billion a year tax increase on the wealthy — would more than completely close the funding gap.”
More recently (September 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:
“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”
The calculations are wrong.
It's been debunked repeatedly.
I'll show you how to do the math, so you don't get suckered again.
SOI Tax Stats - SOI Bulletin: Spring 2015
Statistics of Income (SOI) Bulletin - Spring 2015 (entire publication in PDF)
Scroll down to Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2012 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
You're looking at 3 distinct income brackets from columns 6, 7 and 8:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000
(8) $250,000 or more
You need the total number of returns filed:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = 14,123,441
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = 1,654,070
(8) $250,000 or more = 3,032,742
...and you need the total income reported:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = $1,610,920,079,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = $297,831,541,000
(8) $250,000 or more = $1,281,411,930,000
We'll start with Column (8).
There are 3 Million (3,032,742) people who earned more than $250,000 annually totaling $1.28 TRILLION ($1,281,411,930,000)
Scroll down to Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2012 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
You're looking at 3 distinct income brackets from columns 6, 7 and 8:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000
(8) $250,000 or more
You need the total number of returns filed:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = 14,123,441
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = 1,654,070
(8) $250,000 or more = 3,032,742
...and you need the total income reported:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = $1,610,920,079,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = $297,831,541,000
(8) $250,000 or more = $1,281,411,930,000
We'll start with Column (8).
There are 3 Million (3,032,742) people who earned more than $250,000 annually totaling $1.28 TRILLION ($1,281,411,930,000)
Add in the employers share --- another $65,189,142,602--- and that will pay for another 3 weeks or 6 weeks total.
That's it.
You're throwing rocks Mircea!!
How the hell did you come up with that??
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.
