U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on Social Security COLA regarding true inflation and current payout not keepi
Social security payments should INCREASE substantially and regularly - to reflect true inflation and COLA amounts for Vets and seniors 47 74.60%
Social security payments should STAY THE SAME regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 6 9.52%
Social security payments should BE DECREASED regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 10 15.87%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2018, 08:16 AM
 
64,597 posts, read 66,129,695 times
Reputation: 43026

Advertisements

ssdi is crippling social security retirement . it drained itself since it became the new unemployment insurance and billions had to be reshuffled . fix the abuse and fraud and move it to welfare and ss will be fine .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2018, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Central IL
13,363 posts, read 7,128,759 times
Reputation: 31075
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
I voted for the cut. The people receiving benefits now did not pay the full rate. They paid something. They should get something, but it's been known forever that the plans will run out of money. The day of Reckoning cannot be postponed much longer. I get sick and tired about hearing any movement on this never involves people in or near retirement. Increases could be capped for awhile at the very least.

2017 Rates
Social Security - 6.2% on first $127,200
Medicare - 1.45% with no limit
Additional 0.9% over $200,000

Self Employment
15.3% on first $127,200
2.9% from $127,200 to $200,000
3.8% over $200,000
"didn't pay the full rate"? They "paid" the amount that was proscribed.

Rates for all kinds of things change all the time. Your property tax rate has probably gone up over time - should the services you get be less now because you paid less in 2000? If your house is on fire do you only get firefighters for an hour rather than whatever is needed to put the fire completely out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 08:36 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
2,371 posts, read 1,643,179 times
Reputation: 4657
The following thoughts come to mind:

1.) Many working people are in as bad or worse a predicament with stagnant wages; and

2.) Working people who are in their 40's to 50ish and younger are not going to get the full benefits that they supposedly are due on their SS estimate (which is a pretty far stretch as it stands). In fact they could be due for a very hefty cut; and

3.) The cost of living increase is not a far cry from the rate of inflation and in many cases someone not working receiving social security is doing much better than a working person currently contributing a substantial percentage of their pay to SS/Medicare (see #1); and

4.) While no one likes to see older people/veterans go without, the fact is in most areas the people in poverty aren't older people but children. Older people are often among the more affluent, which I don't fault, as they've typically earned it. But the facts don't necessarily support the way this is presented in terms of income distribution. Seniors choosing between medications and other living costs is often highlighted on political ads, but the problem with that isn't with social security not being high enough. The problem is a health care system and pharmaceutical industry that has less transparency and integrity than the used car industry, gouging people, including seniors and veterans, and political gridlock that can't seem to make any headway that doesn't end up causing lots of unintended consequences.; and

5.) Can we afford this, especially since we are unable to raise the cap on incomes taxed with SS, and continue spending so much taxpayer money meddling in other countries' problems?

6.) Social security shouldn't be the only form of income for people who collect it. It's meant as one form of safety net, not as a long-term middle-class income. The numbers simply don't and never have worked for that.

Last edited by Jowel; 07-14-2018 at 09:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 09:43 AM
 
8,288 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
I voted for the cut. The people receiving benefits now did not pay the full rate. They paid something. They should get something, but it's been known forever that the plans will run out of money. The day of Reckoning cannot be postponed much longer. I get sick and tired about hearing any movement on this never involves people in or near retirement. Increases could be capped for awhile at the very least.

2017 Rates
Social Security - 6.2% on first $127,200
Medicare - 1.45% with no limit
Additional 0.9% over $200,000

Self Employment
15.3% on first $127,200
2.9% from $127,200 to $200,000
3.8% over $200,000


Prior to 1991, Social Security and Medicare contributions were combined in a single tax.

Year FICA Self-Employment
1990 7.65% on first $51,300 15.3% on first $51,300
1989 7.51% on first $48,000 13.02% on first $48,000
1988 7.51% on first $45,000 13.02% on first $45,000
1987 7.15% on first $43,800 12.3% on first $43,800
1986 7.15% on first $42,000 12.3% on first $42,000
1985 7.05% on first $39,600 11.8% on first $39,600
1984 6.7% on first $37,800 11.3% on first $37,800
1983 6.7% on first $35,700 9.35% on first $35,700
1982 6.7% on first $32,400 9.35% on first $32,400
1981 6.65% on first $29,700 9.3% on first $29,700
1980 6.13% on first $25,900 8.1% on first $25,900
1979 6.13% on first $22,900 8.1% on first $22,900
1978 6.05% on first $17,700 8.1% on first $17,700
1977 5.85% on first $16,500 7.9% on first $16,500
1976 5.85% on first $15,300 7.9% on first $15,300
1975 5.85% on first $14,100 7.9% on first $14,100
1974 5.85% on first $13,200 7.9% on first $13,200
1973 5.85% on first $10,800 8% on first $10,800
1972 5.2% on first $9,000 7.5% on first $9,000
1971 5.2% on first $7,800 7.5% on first $7,800
1969-1970 4.8% on first $7,800 6.9% on first $7,800
1968 4.4% on first $7,800 6.4% on first $7,800
1967 4.4% on first $6,600 6.4% on first $6,600
1966 4.2% on first $6,600 6.15% on first $6,600
1963-1965 3.625% on first $4,800 5.4% on first $4,800
1962 3.125% on first $4,800 4.7% on first $4,800
1960-1961 3% on first $4,800 4.5% on first $4,800
1959 2.5% on first $4,800 3.75% on first $4,800
1957-1958 2.25% on first $4,200 3.375% on first $4,200
1955-1956 2% on first $4,200 3% on first $4,200
1954 2% on first $3,600 3% on first $3,600
1951-1953 1.5% on first $3,600 2.25% on first $3,600
Prior to 1951, self-employed persons were not taxed for, nor received benefits from, the Social Security program.

Year FICA
1950 1.5% on first $3,000
1937-1949 1% on first $3,000

As jetgraphics said, SS tax is just a tax. And future benefits will continue to be determined by our elected officials. Whether they decide on zero or $1M/month, there are NO guarantees. i.e. Politics.

Our national demographics are aging. And all this essentially also applies to Medicare, and those future unfunded liabilities.

So future seniors will be more in control politically. And if future seniors receive so much in benefits, that they crowd out younger folks' ability to buy stuff, rent housing, access HC and live, then there will be major disruption.

And this disruption will be based on future resources. Whether the younger folks will be able to buy enough goods, access rentals, access and obtain health related services and such will decide the degree of future disruption.

Note that all this is not directly related to any limitation based on USD's. Future fiat has no set limit. It will all be based on limited resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 10:31 AM
 
Location: NC
6,081 posts, read 7,030,845 times
Reputation: 12054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
..Seniors choosing between medications and other living costs is often highlighted on political ads, but the problem with that isn't with social security not being high enough. The problem is a health care system and pharmaceutical industry that has less transparency and integrity than the used car industry, gouging people, including seniors and veterans, and political gridlock that can't seem to make any headway that doesn't end up causing lots of unintended consequences..
Just to be fair, it is the stockholders who are responsible for the high profit requirement. Companies need stockholders, stockholders want their companies to make lots of money, and companies that make lots of money appeal to stockholders who pay even more money for their stock.

You and I feed that system by investing in stock or mutual funds, because you and I seek to be at least a little profitable to keep up with inflation. What we need is better regulation of drug prices (realizing that drug research is expensive).

Other than that, yes, our health care system could/should take note of successful systems in other countries. And today those unintended consequences of political arbitrariness are rampant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 10:36 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,111 posts, read 39,184,670 times
Reputation: 40536
I don't know. I got a bigger COLA this from Social Security (and an even larger one for my pension) than Mrs. NBP did from the school system, which was zero.

The School Board just voted down 4% over three years for teachers while approving raises of up to 36% for about 150 upper level administrators and 20% increases for lower level ones.

So, I got more of a raise from Social Security this year being retired than I would have by working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 11:36 AM
 
8,288 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel View Post
The problem is a health care system and pharmaceutical industry that has less transparency and integrity than the used car industry, gouging people, including seniors and veterans, and political gridlock that can't seem to make any headway that doesn't end up causing lots of unintended consequences.
HC definitely favors seniors and Vets.

Of course there are bad VA hospitals, but they are essentially free to the Vet, who can always go elsewhere on his or her own dime.

And Medicare for seniors is as good as it gets bang for buck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 11:40 AM
 
8,288 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I don't know. I got a bigger COLA this from Social Security (and an even larger one for my pension) than Mrs. NBP did from the school system, which was zero.

The School Board just voted down 4% over three years for teachers while approving raises of up to 36% for about 150 upper level administrators and 20% increases for lower level ones.

So, I got more of a raise from Social Security this year being retired than I would have by working.
And SS let NO ONE DOWN with the 2008 economic crash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,755 posts, read 1,211,909 times
Reputation: 5055
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ View Post
For Social Security the "day of reckoning" can indeed be postponed -- the fix is simple. Medicare and Medicaid are the programs that are busting the budgets, and major changes are needed ASAP.
I don't think that fix is going to be simple at all. Unless we actually put the money in a trust fund, pay out for the sick people first that need medical attention, and take whatever's left for the year and distribute that in the following year.

Started as a combined program, people put in their smaller % contributions into a combined program....this thing rides as a combined program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 02:08 PM
 
8,288 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
I don't think that fix is going to be simple at all. Unless we actually put the money in a trust fund, pay out for the sick people first that need medical attention, and take whatever's left for the year and distribute that in the following year.

Started as a combined program, people put in their smaller % contributions into a combined program....this thing rides as a combined program.
The money will be created along the way. I don't believe that in 10 and 100 years our seniors/people will do without their HC. The financing of future HC costs could be centrally subsidized to a greater extent.

It could be simple. And we need not go through a SS like rigamarole.

For instance as been proposed in the UK to fund infrastructure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...itative_Easing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top