U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 12-11-2010, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,049,375 times
Reputation: 4269

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhound View Post
Guess what happens when privatized Social Security gets looted so that another stock broker can have a vacation home in the Florida Keys?
The Government will have to step back in and "rescue" all those poor saps who got taken to the cleaners.
And do NOT think for one moment, that the it won't happen!?

You betcha.....Steve
Youbetcha.....Steve, I don't think you know why the fund is broke now. You must really believe that the lockbox full of Congressional IOUs can become money someday. They owe us nearly $4 trillion. Where can they get it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2010, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,049,375 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Who said Social Security was going bankrupt? Clearly some individuals here dont recognize the difference between the federal government, which is clearly broke, and Social Security, holding tens of trillions in investments in that very same broken federal government.
It seems to me that if that government is broke the SS system must be broke with them since they can't pay any of that money to the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,166,152 times
Reputation: 8204
Congress has been raiding the trust fund for generations. If we remove the cap from the wage tax Social security is fine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,049,375 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Congress has been raiding the trust fund for generations. If we remove the cap from the wage tax Social security is fine
Since Congress calls whatever is left over each year surplus and spends it as part of the General Fund, how can we ever keep up with more and more people retiring every year. The corrupt Congress from about 20 years from the establishment of SS to today has been the reason we don't have enough money. Just taking the fingers of the Congress out of the fund and leaving the money there could settle the problem. Raising the tax, in any manner, won't do the trick but taking their hands out of the fund will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Oxygen Ln. AZ
9,321 posts, read 16,145,885 times
Reputation: 5685
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing antigovernment crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Hands Off Social Security | The Nation
Can you tell me why Pelosi and Obama were screaming that SS was indeed going bankrupt during the elections?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 04:34 PM
 
23,768 posts, read 16,039,968 times
Reputation: 8752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew View Post
Can you tell me why Pelosi and Obama were screaming that SS was indeed going bankrupt during the elections?
Pelosi is not wrong because it was borrowed against. Senator Sanders in the OP explains how to fix it.

The senator outlined a better plan for saving Social Security-and the US economy.

"If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800," said Sanders. "With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800."

Sanders is right. And President Obama needs to recognize that fact.

The Fight Over Social Security's Future Is On
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,323,976 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing antigovernment crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Hands Off Social Security | The Nation
This I disagree with. If they raise the cap on social security taxes, then we'd need to increase the payout to compensate, otherwise it is social welfare.

What would keep social security solvent would be to remove it from the general fund, and again put it into its own trust fund safe from government spending.

But that would bankrupt the country PDQ, so that'll never happen either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 04:56 PM
 
Location: 77441
3,161 posts, read 3,714,394 times
Reputation: 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
...Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount....
aint it great !
Im usually maxed out with SS and my 401k maxed out sometime In may-june. I love the extra $$ for the rest of the year


oh, your class envy is showing again
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 05:07 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,388 posts, read 8,103,327 times
Reputation: 4070
Default Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt.

I've been hearing since the 1960s that social security is on its last legs and wouldn't exist within X number of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2010, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,470 posts, read 2,020,585 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing antigovernment crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Hands Off Social Security | The Nation
The amount of earnings subject to social security tax has gradually increased anually since 1970. Prior to that the increases were of course smaller but, also came less often. The link below shows the amount subect to the tax for the years 1951-2009. At one point in the early 60's, the amount stayed the same for 7 years.

Your Retirement Benefit: How It Is Figured (2010)

For a worker retiring at age 66 in 2010, the maximum benefit amount is $2,346. This figure is based on that worker having paid social security tax on the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

The author of the article states, ''In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong''.

It's not wrong because the benefit when you retire is calculated based on the 35 years that you made the highest annual income out of your entire earnings history. A multimillionaire that has been a millionaire for at least the last 35 years and will be starting to collect a monthly social security check, will only be receiving the same amount as a worker that is also retiring this year and earned an annual income that was equal to the maximum amount subject to social security tax for the last 35 years. They both paid the maximum amount towards social security and they'll both be receiving the maximum benefit allowed.

If there were no limit on a person's annual earnings that are subject to social security tax, then it would only be fair if there were no limit on the maximum benefit they can receive. It doesn't need to be directly proportional to the amount paid in, just as it is now but, with no limit. Anything else would also be wrong.

As it is, the amount we're taxed for Medicare has no limit and yet the Medicare we receive is the same for everyone that is entitled to it, regardless of how much they paid into it. Also something to keep in mind, chances are a multimillionaire will have employees who's social security and Medicare contributions they'll have to match as well as their own just like other employers.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
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