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.
Conservative think tanks and the Republican party have a strategy to convince the American people that Social Security is close to bankruptcy. They have also mounted a campaign to raise the retirement age. In a time where the average American over fifty five would find it nearly impossible to find a job with the same value, raising the SS eligibility age seems counter intuitive. As it is, those who are older and laid off are using savings that would otherwise be used at a later age.
Another solution that you will never hear from the Republicans is to remove the cap on those earnings that are subject to SS tax. Why is this the case? Social security currently withholds 6.2% of your salary with a corporate match. They can't stand this idea and the billionaires won't let them speak of it even if they had the will to.
The Republicans have been talking about "trickle down economics" for thirty years. Removing the cap would be trickle down economics at its best and it would save Social Security. Perhaps if this was adopted it would really look like trickle down wealth instead of table scraps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshGL
Sooo.. if Social Security going bankrupt is a right wing myth.. why does it need to be saved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Because in 2033 they really will have to cut benefits.
I was going to ask the same question as JoshGL.
I really don`t have a problem with raising taxes associated with employment provided we protect the American job market.
We can`t have free trade with third world nations, legal and illegal non-American workers and the prospect of amnesty while anyone and his or her brother can sell their product here.
I could go along with your idea provided we scrap NAFTA and the 2000 China Trade Act, deport all the illegals, end Hi-B visas and reduce legal immigration to a trickle.
Then, and only then, we would have something to talk about.
SS is underfunded...when your annual payout are more than your annual intake...then there is a problem
the program WAS DESIGNED to kick in at 62 when the AVERAGE LIFE SPAN was 60
raising the full amount age to 70 or 72 would not be a big deal for the individuals (as we can still get partial at 62) but it would be a huge savings
the average life expectancy for ALL americans (not gender specific) is 79.2, with females crossing the 80 mark and males being at 78.6
the average life expectancy when SS came into effect was less than 60
to KEEP UP with its original intent they should raise the age of FULL qualification to about 80.....again you can start collecting at 62 still
to do that, you would have to change the entire law and system
for example(using a birth of 6/15/1950) and a retirement date of 12/2017 (age 67)
a person currently earning 20k...will get 929 monthly
a person currently earning 50k....will get 1539 monthly
a person currently earning 75k......will get 2049 monthly
a person currently earning the max at 118.... will get 2573 monthly
Quick Calculator
as you can see the payment goes up with your earnings....raising the cap would BY LAW raise the payout
btw a person making 20k ...1666 monthly...will end up with a nearly 2/3 pension of ss...getting 929 monthly
its just like the liberals who keep up the mantra of 'remove/raise the cap'...its a short term bandiad.. but would be more costly in the longterm as the rich would collect more.... ie John Kerry who just turned 67, will collect the max amount of ss, starting now for the rest of his life..even though he is super rich... raising the cap will raise his monthly PAYOUT, too.............
........shhh liberals wont tell you that
================
there is an easy fix if you want to keep SS, but lets first look at history and facts
SS was NEVER meant to be an individuals retirement fund or pension..it was a SUPPLEMENTAL SOCIAL INSURANCE to be used IN CONJUNCTION with ones retirement/pension
when SS was implemented life expectancy was less than 61 years old, and was set the age at 65 (A FOUR (4) YEAR DIFFERENCE........TODAY: the life expectancy is about 80, yet SS is WAY BEHIND THAT
SS originally (the 1935 law) only paid to the PRIMARY worker...not the spouse..and certainly not disability
it was MANDATED that ONLY 1% (for each ; the individual and the business)...not the current 6.?%
so the fix:
1. make it optional...allowing the rich(or anyone who would want to opt out) to opt out, would also be a huge savings...........and/or
2. give the INDIVIDUAL control of how to invest HIS MONEY....and
3. raise the eligibility to 83 (4+/- years more than the life expectancy)
4. disqualify any person who has never PAID INTO IT..might sound harsh, but giving a "credit" for a person who worked overseas (ie emigrent) is just wrong
the facts are it was never designed to be the ONLY retirement program for people..
and the FACTS are that when it was designed it was only set s FEW (3-4 years) years above the LE...well the LE has increase SIGNIFICANTLY (about 30%...ie 61 plus 29% is 78)..then the eligibility age for full (which was 65) should have also gone up about 29%....65 plus 29% is 83
raising it would actually fall into the realm of 'no changes' since we would be keeping the same percentage
JMHO
One thing you overlook if you force Seniors to have to work until they are nearly 80 are you willing to accept the proposition that most new college graduates must wait until they are 40 or older before they can have a permanent job where they can earn more than a poverty level wage? I would find it hilarious for a 40 something who has a resume chock full of McJobs, internships and plenty of gaps in the nearly 20 years he or her was last been in an institution of higher learning and since many employers check a persons credit history the said job candidate has no credit history having failed to make any major purchases or paid off anything . Just hand that puppy to an HR person or executive. Hopefully they will politely show them to the door and not drop the resume in the waste can before the job seeker has left the office. These are FACTS too buddy.
I am a libertarian and I would opt out of Social Security if it were an option. I could better invest my money and I truly don't expect it to be there if or when I eventually need it.
Relocate and seek conversion to the Amish faith.
Be prepared to work harder and longer than most people do.
History
1935 SS available to only the primary worker in the family. At the time, SS included unemployment comp, aid to states for various health and welfare programs and aid to dependent children.
1939 Survivor spouse and family benefit added
1956 Disability benefit added ( most of the baby boom had not even been born)
1972 COLA added
Age 65 was chosen for full retirement benefits because a majority of state and railroad pension plans used age 65.
Life expectancy at birth was less than 65 in 1935. Yet most could expect to live well beyond age 65 once they survived childhood.
The first beneficiary of monthly SS payments lived to 100. SS was her only income.
This is why liberals absolutely make my skin crawl. I am far from a billionaire, in fact, barely meet the threshold above SS withholding, and 32yo. Your proposal is simply taking from one person to give to others. If you think the state of SS is sustainable, 1) you don't have the simplest grasp on statistics, and 2) why would you remove the cap if republicans are only trying to scare people? I am sure by the time I am eligible for SS, they will have thresholds where people who earned above a certain $ aren't eligible for SS. So I should pay 7% of my lifetime earnings to other people's retirement accounts? That thought is truly insane. But I'm sure you are for making 30 million illiterate, uneducated illegals whose underground wages have not contributed to SS citizens, and share my money with them as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Conservative think tanks and the Republican party have a strategy to convince the American people that Social Security is close to bankruptcy. They have also mounted a campaign to raise the retirement age. In a time where the average American over fifty five would find it nearly impossible to find a job with the same value, raising the SS eligibility age seems counter intuitive. As it is, those who are older and laid off are using savings that would otherwise be used at a later age.
Another solution that you will never hear from the Republicans is to remove the cap on those earnings that are subject to SS tax. Why is this the case? Social security currently withholds 6.2% of your salary with a corporate match. They can't stand this idea and the billionaires won't let them speak of it even if they had the will to.
The Republicans have been talking about "trickle down economics" for thirty years. Removing the cap would be trickle down economics at its best and it would save Social Security. Perhaps if this was adopted it would really look like trickle down wealth instead of table scraps.
This is why liberals absolutely make my skin crawl. I am far from a billionaire, in fact, barely meet the threshold above SS withholding, and 32yo. Your proposal is simply taking from one person to give to others. If you think the state of SS is sustainable, 1) you don't have the simplest grasp on statistics, and 2) why would you remove the cap if republicans are only trying to scare people? I am sure by the time I am eligible for SS, they will have thresholds where people who earned above a certain $ aren't eligible for SS. So I should pay 7% of my lifetime earnings to other people's retirement accounts? That thought is truly insane. But I'm sure you are for making 30 million illiterate, uneducated illegals whose underground wages have not contributed to SS citizens, and share my money with them as well.
Bernie Sanders has an interesting proposal that I can live with. He proposes suspending SS taxation for SS between 118,500 (the current ceiling) and 250K. I can live with that.
According to the press SS disability has about a year before it goes into crisis. According to the General Accounting office SS will only be able to afford 75% benefit payments starting in 2029.
As a probable corporate decision maker you can make one of the Republican plans to raise the SS eligibility age to 70 more palatable by denouncing age discrimination. This would eliminate one of my reasons for opposing the age change.
I am approximately thirty years older than you. In this up or out culture of ours there many land mines in your future if you work for someone else some land mines if you don't. I'm sorry that we disagree and I hope that you don't need Social Security someday.
I really don`t have a problem with raising taxes associated with employment provided we protect the American job market.
We can`t have free trade with third world nations, legal and illegal non-American workers and the prospect of amnesty while anyone and his or her brother can sell their product here.
I could go along with your idea provided we scrap NAFTA and the 2000 China Trade Act, deport all the illegals, end Hi-B visas and reduce legal immigration to a trickle.
Then, and only then, we would have something to talk about.
The near term crisis is in SS disability. According to the GAO there will be a 25% cut in benefits as early as 2029 because of the 2008 recession.
I agree with point 2. Bernie Sanders proposed a gap in SS taxation between 118,500 and 250K.
As an American born worker, I was a victim of point 3 and 4. I agree.
I note your absence of objectivity in defending Mercea's emotional defense of what he believes. I fear that we have to demote you to Arithmetic Guy.
You can call me whatever you like if you continue to educate yourself on the topic at hand......and as you do don't keep trying to fit what you learn to your preconceptions.
You can call me whatever you like if you continue to educate yourself on the topic at hand......and as you do don't keep trying to fit what you learn to your preconceptions.
I've looked through your responses in this thread and while you are always critical you rarely contribute anything of value. Your responses are also unrelated what the poster is communicating.
Perhaps contributing a well thought out rebuttal of what you are criticizing is beyond your capabilities. This often happens when information comes from FOX news. Misinformation with no depth.
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.
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.
Arithmetic Guy
