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)
View Poll Results: What, if anything, should be done with the Social Security tax exemption limit?
Eliminate it; every wage earner should pay into the system on every dollar. 11 52.38%
Raise it; $97,000 is much too low, not enough people are contributing. 5 23.81%
Leave it alone. 5 23.81%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2007, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 35,209,153 times
Reputation: 4899

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
And numerous people will opt out.
As one who HAS opted out (along with millions of others), you are mistaken

I have far more than SS would have ever paid me AND (this is the best part), my family will actually benifit inasmuch as I can pass on to them the monies -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2007, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,813,363 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrantia View Post
By spousal benefits do you mean surviving spouse benefits? If so, that particular approach would be a disaster for many women, especially women who like myself are of the baby boom generation...... to eliminate spousal benefits would amount to pulling the financial rug out from an incredible number of widows in this country.
I NEVER advocated eliminating widow benefits in my alternatives. I mean spousal payments when the main recipient is still alive and receiving benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 08:01 AM
 
11,988 posts, read 17,502,602 times
Reputation: 6086
Quote:
And numerous people will opt out. Then it is time for retirement and they have nothing saved. Society takes care of them or they end up on the streets. People on the streets commit crime to get what they need in some cases. Do we really want our elderly in that situation?
Well gee, do you think maybe they should <gasp!> save something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 08:08 AM
 
238 posts, read 1,040,718 times
Reputation: 227
Most people start collecting SS at age 62. Bush and the economic elite are working behind the scenes to eliminate the ability to collect SS Benefits early.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 08:09 AM
 
8,632 posts, read 9,173,235 times
Reputation: 2403
pretty limited poll, you forgot the option of allowing people to opt out, partially or totally!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,813,363 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Apply the SS tax to all income from all sources and adjust the rate to pay for current costs. Eliminate the Social Security Trust fund because it only serves as a regressive income tax. Social Security payments should be means tested to total incomes below three times the mean income and should also be indexed to an inflation calculation including food, fuel and medical care.

Just because somebody lived too long to continue working does not mean they should starve. The system was set up to provide an income to people who lost their pension due to a failed business or their savings because of a failed bank. Besides the SS payments support businesses providing services to the elderly. Services like food, clothing, and shelter.
Seems like you want to hit the economically diligent with a "round trip whammy." Not only tax additional wage income, but also investment income, and then means test them out of their benefits. I assume you want to tax investment income at the "independent contractor" tax rate (about 13%).

Sounds like a process to doom the nation to me. Let's see now, set up investment accounts with non-current payouts, or buying and trading stocks under a foreign based account, and moving to a foreign nation for a year and cashing out. Seems like a potential incentive for other nations to set up tax havens to me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,492 posts, read 51,392,857 times
Reputation: 24613
Any of you folks note that SS was set up for people that DID save and had their savings and pensions wiped out (stolen) in the 1929 market/economic crash. SS is not a pension it is insurance. The base should include everyone so the payments are affordable. Opting out is not an option because that would destroy the insurance aspect of the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 35,209,153 times
Reputation: 4899
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Any of you folks note that SS was set up for people that DID save and had their savings and pensions wiped out (stolen) in the 1929 market/economic crash. SS is not a pension it is insurance. The base should include everyone so the payments are affordable. Opting out is not an option because that would destroy the insurance aspect of the system.
It was ORIGINALLY set up as a Pension - and marketed that way

Over the years it morphed to "insurance" / "safety net"

Well, I for one, don't need, nor want, government insurance - therefore, I don't pay the "premium"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 09:12 AM
 
10,543 posts, read 12,015,068 times
Reputation: 2798
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Please don't talk about privatizing. Do you really want our elderly and infirm on the streets, homeless?

Land of the poor, home of the homeless.

Sad comment on our society.
Isn't private investment where you would say all the evil rich got their money? Do they somehow go broke when they turn 65? It seems that for some arguments it's useful to say investing generates money, such as when you want to tax it, but when you want the government to remain in control of a different system, you argue that private investment leads to homelessness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,492 posts, read 51,392,857 times
Reputation: 24613
Rggr - It comes down to trust. I do not trust the government very much but I trust the private capitalist speculators a whole lot less. I want a system in place that will provide for me after the crash that destroys my savings and investments.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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