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)
 
Old 12-04-2018, 11:46 AM
 
9,742 posts, read 7,580,914 times
Reputation: 23856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
I'm all for changes to the program to prolong solvency, but wonder is a graduated marriage benefit really something worth addressing? In other words, of the millions on social security how many are lonely idiots who get mail order brides then promptly drop dead with a decade? You want fixes that catch a little bit from a lot of people, not going after the occasional guy with the Filipino wife who is 30 years younger.
You must not understand how spousal work. Any current or former spouse can get about 50% of the wage earner' s benefits whether they paid into the system or not. They just had to be married for at least 10 years. All the SAHMs and divorced exes would get benefits.

The wage earner gets paid their full ss and the spouse/ex gets paid an additional anount.

This goes way beyond mail order brides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2018, 11:52 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
73,998 posts, read 65,665,508 times
Reputation: 70512
It's easy to fix, there's just no political will to do it. Currently, there's a cut-off at a certain income level, as to how much one pays. That threshold could be removed, so that, for example, Bill Gates pays SS on his entire income, instead of only a small part of it.

Another option would be to discontinue the policy that says SS is an entitlement. Do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca, etc. need a SS check every month? Of course not.And they know it. In fact, Iacocca was part of a movement within the Republican Party that wanted to raise taxes for people like himself, instead of lowering taxes. They want to support this country, and the infrastructure and education systems that made this country great, and enabled their businesses to thrive. If the 1%-ers graduating into SS age never receive a check, a lot of them wouldn't notice or care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 11:53 AM
 
Location: la la land
28,084 posts, read 11,868,864 times
Reputation: 19850
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Looking for solutions to keep SS solvent.

If we consider the normal lifespan of an American

First 20 years are with parental support
Next 45 years are spent working
Last 20 years are retirement years

Idea #1:
Those that are working are supporting everyone. Why not allow for SS benefits to be paid out irrespective of whether or not someone continues to work at age 65, or 69? Even if someone is making $100,000 in income at 65, that's still a contribution of $6200 from them and $6200 from their employer going into the program for direct SS payments, and the income tax generated will likely, in total, net to a surplus to the government.

Plus, many companies create a lot of value per employee far beyond the cost of the employee. A higher workforce percentage is good for a country.

Finally, people who are active tend to live longer and remain healthier. Sure that means they collect longer, but the longer they produce, the more realistic the program becomes.
You can draw SS and continue working, lots of people do it, but a portion of your SS will be taxed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 12:58 PM
 
452 posts, read 210,812 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
It's easy to fix, there's just no political will to do it. Currently, there's a cut-off at a certain income level, as to how much one pays. That threshold could be removed, so that, for example, Bill Gates pays SS on his entire income, instead of only a small part of it.

Another option would be to discontinue the policy that says SS is an entitlement. Do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca, etc. need a SS check every month? Of course not.And they know it. In fact, Iacocca was part of a movement within the Republican Party that wanted to raise taxes for people like himself, instead of lowering taxes. They want to support this country, and the infrastructure and education systems that made this country great, and enabled their businesses to thrive. If the 1%-ers graduating into SS age never receive a check, a lot of them wouldn't notice or care.
There is a threshold (cap) because there is also a cap on the benefits. As discussed on CD many times, higher income earners receive a lower return on SS contributions to begin with versus lower wage earners (see formula):

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018...benefit-f.aspx

Just because someone has more money, is it fair that they pay more? Where does it end? Should they pay higher utility rates? Should they pay more at the grocery store? Should there be different lines at McDonalds based on someone’s earnings or net worth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 01:44 PM
 
11,967 posts, read 6,196,998 times
Reputation: 21989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
It's easy to fix, there's just no political will to do it. Currently, there's a cut-off at a certain income level, as to how much one pays. That threshold could be removed, so that, for example, Bill Gates pays SS on his entire income, instead of only a small part of it.

Another option would be to discontinue the policy that says SS is an entitlement. Do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca, etc. need a SS check every month? Of course not.And they know it. In fact, Iacocca was part of a movement within the Republican Party that wanted to raise taxes for people like himself, instead of lowering taxes. They want to support this country, and the infrastructure and education systems that made this country great, and enabled their businesses to thrive. If the 1%-ers graduating into SS age never receive a check, a lot of them wouldn't notice or care.

Bill Gates doesn't have much of any W-2 and 1099 self employment income where he'd have to pay Social Security taxes. If you're going to Robin Hood rich people to fund Social Security, you have to tax unearned income. Medicare already started doing some of that. Politically, to make that happen, the Senate needs to change power and a different President.




The reality is none of this matters very much. The Social Security Trust Fund is only 14% of the national debt. If you look at the whole US government finance debacle, Social Security is pretty far down the list of messes that need to be cleaned up. The 2018 Federal budget deficit is $780 billion. The whole Social Security trust fund balance is $2.89 trillion. Three and a half years of gigantic deficits borrows as much as the whole trust fund balance. The huge thud when the economy goes into recession is looking likely to make the Great Recession in 2009 look pretty mild.

Last edited by toosie; 12-11-2018 at 05:23 AM.. Reason: Deleted “Trumpian”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,999 posts, read 1,317,457 times
Reputation: 5420
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
What about single people who never marry? Why should we give special benefits to the life choice of marriage?

This is just an old provision based on outdated sexism and expectations that women are dependent on men.
Marriage has mattered for a long time in taxes. Overall, families tend to be more stable and generate more tax income that single people. There's a higher likelihood of reproduction, home purchase and reliability. In old age, one partner is likely to take care of the other whereas single people will need a private caretaker.

Whether or not one agrees is debatable, but the tax arena has long established a difference in taxation based upon marriage. If we take a fake couple, Fred and Ellen, and Fred stayed at home with the kids and grandkids while Ellen worked, and then Ellen dies before Frank at age 80, do we want Fred to go back to work then?

The government likes marriage. It likes it enough that a whole mail order bride industry has sprung up where old men can get young wives, they die and the "widow" suddenly has support payments for her children. That's where I think things should get cut.

Alternatively, I know one gold digger who sought out military men with terminal diseases. She finally got one and was married for not even a year before he passed. That's where I things could be cut.

How about two older people that marry very late in life. One has full SS and the other doesn't. They are married for a year and the other passes on. That's where things could be cut.

I know many couples that decided it would be better to have their families fairly close together and one person forgoes career advancement in order to take care of the family. It's not just women, and now we have same sex couples. So it's not sexist. Not anymore.

Most of us realize that after leaving the workplace, there are fewer opportunities to get back into the game later, and most are going to do so with a healthy discount. Perhaps the standard should be for married couples that file jointly for 5+ or 10+ years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,999 posts, read 1,317,457 times
Reputation: 5420
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You can draw SS and continue working, lots of people do it, but a portion of your SS will be taxed.
Yes, I stated it incorrectly. For a person making $50K, 85% of their SS will be taxed back to the government. I'm thinking it would be better to just make it normal ordinary income. The benefit of having someone that can still perform and has opportunity to, still actually performing outweighs the silly "cheating" mentality of someone who's "rich" getting their social security check.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 02:14 PM
 
66,294 posts, read 67,496,775 times
Reputation: 44422
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Marriage has mattered for a long time in taxes. Overall, families tend to be more stable and generate more tax income that single people. There's a higher likelihood of reproduction, home purchase and reliability. In old age, one partner is likely to take care of the other whereas single people will need a private caretaker.

Whether or not one agrees is debatable, but the tax arena has long established a difference in taxation based upon marriage. If we take a fake couple, Fred and Ellen, and Fred stayed at home with the kids and grandkids while Ellen worked, and then Ellen dies before Frank at age 80, do we want Fred to go back to work then?

The government likes marriage. It likes it enough that a whole mail order bride industry has sprung up where old men can get young wives, they die and the "widow" suddenly has support payments for her children. That's where I think things should get cut.

Alternatively, I know one gold digger who sought out military men with terminal diseases. She finally got one and was married for not even a year before he passed. That's where I things could be cut.

How about two older people that marry very late in life. One has full SS and the other doesn't. They are married for a year and the other passes on. That's where things could be cut.

I know many couples that decided it would be better to have their families fairly close together and one person forgoes career advancement in order to take care of the family. It's not just women, and now we have same sex couples. So it's not sexist. Not anymore.

Most of us realize that after leaving the workplace, there are fewer opportunities to get back into the game later, and most are going to do so with a healthy discount. Perhaps the standard should be for married couples that file jointly for 5+ or 10+ years.
by the same token if the gov't loved married people so much they would not penalize them like they do .

you can be in the 15% tax bracket , your wife in the 15% bracket but when married you are now in the 25% marginal bracket .

the people least likely to be able to afford extra taxes get hit the hardest with the marriage penalty ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
1,831 posts, read 897,486 times
Reputation: 4199
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Looking for solutions to keep SS solvent.
Ahh, the age-old question of every Ponzi scheme everywhere, how to keep it going for just a little bit longer so I get mine and someone else takes the shaft...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2018, 02:35 PM
 
652 posts, read 396,908 times
Reputation: 2098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
It's easy to fix, there's just no political will to do it. Currently, there's a cut-off at a certain income level, as to how much one pays. That threshold could be removed, so that, for example, Bill Gates pays SS on his entire income, instead of only a small part of it.

Another option would be to discontinue the policy that says SS is an entitlement. Do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Lee Iacocca, etc. need a SS check every month? Of course not.And they know it. In fact, Iacocca was part of a movement within the Republican Party that wanted to raise taxes for people like himself, instead of lowering taxes. They want to support this country, and the infrastructure and education systems that made this country great, and enabled their businesses to thrive. If the 1%-ers graduating into SS age never receive a check, a lot of them wouldn't notice or care.
There's nothing stopping the 1% from voluntarily contributing more. Or is it supporting something that has no chance of passing to make one appear more altruistic than in reality?

Also, since SS benefits are also capped, cutting the 1% out of the equation isn't going to make much of a difference. Frankly, if people want more they have to pony up too and stop this "everyone who makes more than me should pay more taxes" mentality.
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

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