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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2018, 08:01 AM
 
65,697 posts, read 67,058,130 times
Reputation: 43985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
1. End all spousal benefits including for spouses who never worked or divorced spouses. If you want SS, then work and pay into it.
2. End minor child benefits for old folks who can't manage their old age family planning.
kind of my feeling today.. the system does not have the luxury of paying out to those who made certain life style choices as far as not working or having kids .

singles have kids and no spousal records to draw from so it is unfair to them to only reward those married .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2018, 09:56 AM
 
16,795 posts, read 17,932,629 times
Reputation: 24140
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan View Post
Signifantly reduce the maximum benefit. There are married couples getting more from SS (over $60,000 a year) than I ever earned in a year of working. They had the income to afford on their own their continued lavish liestyle, it is not what SS was designed to pay for.
Who cares what income they have in retirement. . They paid in the SS system they should get whatever is due to them when retired regardless of their current income.
When I retire I’ll mske more from investments but I’ll still collect SS. I paid into it for 45/50 years. Why shouldnt I get it because I have other sources of income ? I paid into it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan View Post
OK, following your lead -- what should the maximum benefit be? A million a year? Ten million? Is that who the SS system was intended to protect the interests of?


I lived most of my life where my entire neighborhood consisted of workers who couldn't dream of earnings such lavish wages. Which is $30 an hour.

SS was not set up for retirees to enjoy the median wages of workers added onto to their private pension, savings, investments and inheritances, which are abundant for anyone who earned the wages that enabled upper bracket SS benefits. It was set up to escape poverty for those who did not have the wherewithal to earn and invest that "median wage" you think everyone is entitled to.

Maybe my SS is too much. I've live off it since retirement, without touching my savings. It wasn't created for people like me. But the people it was created for are at risk of losing it, because country clubbers are grabbing a share equal to five people who need it.

It wasn’t created for “people like you.” Or to escape poverty. It was created to provide a means of income when a working person retires regardless of income after retirement.
So what are you saying? A person should pay onto the SS system while working but if they were smart/lucky and when they retire if they happen to make a lot of money from investments they shouldn’t be able to collect SS? Because they make enough. Is that what you’re saying?
Or should those people be allowed to opt out of SS program to do their own investing? Trust me I can make my SS money I’m contributing work a lot better fir me now and later in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 09:58 AM
 
65,697 posts, read 67,058,130 times
Reputation: 43985
social security is the best annuity product . if i pay a lifetime for an annuity i want my money if i live
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:14 AM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
4,810 posts, read 7,641,843 times
Reputation: 6469
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
No individual is receiving $60K/year from Social Security in any event. The highest possible benefit is just under $2800/month, so $33,600/year. The average benefit this year for all recipients is $1400/month. So misstating the benefit amount is just one problem with this thread.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...nt-benefit.asp
The original post in this thread that mentioned 60K was for a couple, not an individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:40 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,405 posts, read 39,689,269 times
Reputation: 40991
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
The original post in this thread that mentioned 60K was for a couple, not an individual.
Yes, I went back and reread. But, even so, so what if a couple is receiving, combined, $60K in Social Security? All that means is that they paid in at close to the highest rate/amount for 35 years. You know, part of the deal.

That likely meant that they made good career choices, which some people do and some don't. I might be considered one who, all things considered, did not. Yet I don't envy those who did although I do wish I'd made different choices. Actually I had doubts about my career throughout it but just got too comfortable and cautious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:51 AM
 
65,697 posts, read 67,058,130 times
Reputation: 43985
we get 42k a year but my wife had a very weak earnings record . i filed at 65 , she filed at 62
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:59 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,405 posts, read 39,689,269 times
Reputation: 40991
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
we get 42k a year but my wife had a very weak earnings record . i filed at 65 , she filed at 62
That's about where we'll be at when Mrs. NBP retires in a few years, although she's going at FRA due to pension reasons and not because of Social Security. I went at 62.

Our earnings records were similar as we both did the same thing for, ultimately, the same employer, although she will have fewer years than I did. Hence the above mentioned pension reasons.

And before anyone jumps on me about the pension, be aware that I paid into it from every single paycheck for 31 years. The amount was raised from 5% to 7% the last several years with the increase going to the state's General Fund and not the pension system. It was called, unofficially, the Teacher Tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 01:36 PM
 
9,328 posts, read 3,880,641 times
Reputation: 13763
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
It was called, unofficially, the Teacher Tax.
Was not the type of teacher pension where you didn't pay into SS? Or did you meet the SS minimums from a different job as well?

It wouldn't be a bad way to career plan as a teacher, find a system without SS so the payout is a higher. Then work during breaks for 10 years to meet the SS requirement as well. It would be a low SS but because it scales, it would still add income on top of the pension
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 01:46 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,405 posts, read 39,689,269 times
Reputation: 40991
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
Was not the type of teacher pension where you didn't pay into SS? Or did you meet the SS minimums from a different job as well?

It wouldn't be a bad way to career plan as a teacher, find a system without SS so the payout is a higher. Then work during breaks for 10 years to meet the SS requirement as well. It would be a low SS but because it scales, it would still add income on top of the pension
No, Maryland has the pension system as well as Social Security. Very few entities have the no SS system any longer, I think only about 15 states now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,272 posts, read 13,419,341 times
Reputation: 14173
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 obviously don't understand Social Security.

Neither the Social Security Act of 1935 nor the 1939 Amendments bar people from working and receiving benefits.

My mother has 76 years and is still working 40-50 hours per week and will continue to do so until she's 80. My father retired at 70 years and worked part-time at Home Depot for another 5 years, because he liked it.

There are people who work and collect OASI for any number of reasons, including because they need the additional money and because they enjoy working or want something to do other than vegetate.

If your combined income, which is your adjusted gross income, plus interest, plus half of your Social Security benefits exceeds $25,000 for a single person or $32,000 for a married couple, then 50% of your Social Security benefits are taxable.

If your combined income exceeds $32,000 for a single person or $44,000 for a married couple, then 85% of your Social Security benefits are taxable.

The tax on Social Security benefits is returned directly to Social Security and reallocated as benefits to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
1. Social Security economics is so fearsomely complex that it's nearly impossible to comprehend on a Joe Q. Checkbook level. It is complicated in part because the government likes it that way; they'd just as soon we stay out of the discussion because even without the smoke and mirrors, it is a truly complicated arrangement.
Moderator cut: personal attackthere is nothing complicated about Social Security.

FICA payroll taxes are deposited by employers into escrow accounts established by the Social Security Administration. Each month, Social Security pays benefits out of those accounts. If there is a surplus, and there typically hasn't been one for the last 10 years, those funds are transferred to the General Fund and a special treasury security issued in their place. If there is a deficit, then special treasury securities are converted into cash for distribution.

That's just how easy it is.

There's nothing complicated about the program itself, either. Anyone can calculate their own benefits using pencil and paper, a calculator or spread-sheet.

As long as you have 10 credits, you qualify for OASI.

Your annual wages are indexed to the 2nd year prior to the year of filing. You need only to divide the index year by the 35 highest years of wages, then multiply your wages by the remainder to adjust them for all forms of Inflation and increases in wages and Standard of Living.

Your total wages are divided by 420 regardless of the number of years you worked to obtain the average monthly wage.

You get 90% of the first $926, plus 32% of the next $927 to $5,583, then 15% of the remainder up to the maximum.

It's not quantum physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
How to "fix" social Security?
Perhaps a "fix" would be to require Congress to pay back all the money they "borrowed" (stole) from The Social security Trust Fund. Of course, that would require proof that "they" actually stole the money.
good luck.
Congress never borrowed or stole any money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
1. End all spousal benefits including for spouses who never worked or divorced spouses.
The express purpose of Social Security was to provide for women who worked unpaid in the home. Note that they only get 50% of their spouse's benefits.

Also, note that the 35 State social security plans that were nationalized when FDR pulled a Castro also provided benefits to women who worked unpaid in the home.

The assumption that every single person should work is both absurd and an economic impossibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
No, Maryland has the pension system as well as Social Security. Very few entities have the no SS system any longer, I think only about 15 states now.
That's because the pension plans were unsustainable.

Last edited by toosie; 12-03-2018 at 05:03 AM..
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