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.
Doesn't matter. Increasingly they have bombs and guns, and the willingness to use them. *cough* China *cough*
Quote:
Oh, but they wouldn't be that greedy.
Damned right they would be. Fair is fair.
Quote:
But surely if the choice were between bankrupt SS or a modification of the system, even the most grasping Scrooge would see the writing on the wall and forego that third yacht.
Except the people you would be affecting with this change don't own even one yacht. Truly wealthy people don't receive much in the way of wages; their income comes in the form of rents, dividends, capital gains, etc., that are not taxed by Social Security.
You're not affecting the rich at all with this proposal, you're targeting the professional class. (Who will no doubt react by doing what the rich already do: demanding compensation that ISN'T in the form of a salary.)
Quote:
Push the system into bankruptcy and ANY kind of funding will be popular. Wildly so.
The system will be tweaked to avoid bankruptcy. But the tweaks aren't going to be just on the taxation side; they're going to hit the benefit side as well.
Again when you look at the thing in total high earners are already screwed by SS, make any more moves to go deeper with that and there will be a huge push back. If for nothing else it is counter productive. It tells persons that if they are careful all their lives and do the right thing for retirement they will suffer financially.
This. One of the reasons Social Security is widely supported is that it's perceived as generally fair: everyone who earns a wage has to pay in, but everyone who pays in eventually gets something back when they finally retire. (or earlier, if they are unlucky enough to become disabled). Change that perception, and the support for the program will rapidly fade. (As it should; if it's just going to be welfare rather than an entitlement program, why do we need a special welfare program just for the elderly?)
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.
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? If they raise it by a third now, they'll just blow the extra income on guns and bombs (and fat corporate subsidies) - it'd NOT be placed in a trust to pay off future retirees.
I voted "head in sand" - since that's really the most sensible option for now. It's working, benefits are being paid out - let's keep on doing what we have been doing until things get rather uncomfortable for the budget-masters in Washington (not that I have any sympathy for them...lol.)
Can tell you why there won't be any huge and fast increase in the payroll tax; the increasing numbers of self-employed Americans.
Unlike those employed by others those who are not pay the entire amount of payroll taxes (minus a small deduction/credit). Worse they have to make estimated payments quarterly.
The poll leaves out the best solution: remove the cap on the Social Security tax.
I should also point out that it's very easy for someone whose most strenuous labor consists of sitting at a desk to suggest that a worker who loads trucks, works in a factory, or stands up all day at work to keep doing that until they turn 70.
no where is retirement a right , it is a privilege for those who can do so . many times those in strenuous jobs have to shift gears and like it or not find something more suitable .
yeah not everyone can or wants to do that but it is far easier finding work at 62 then 82 if you are forced to go back to work because you lacked the resources early on but did it anyway .
This. One of the reasons Social Security is widely supported is that it's perceived as generally fair
It's never been "fair".
It was a political boondoggle. It's been widely supported because prior generations made out like bandits. They got a lot more in benefit than they paid in. We've finally gotten to the point where people retiring now will receive about the same in benefits as they put in (CPI corrected), and soon it will head in the other direction. That's why support is waning. People will get less in benefits than they paid in. Not a lot, but enough to make it a lame deal.
It makes perfect sense. In this case public sentiment is right on. SS is a raw deal for most of the current working population.
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.
