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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
What about the self-employed that have to pay twice the amount that others who are not self-employed have to pay? Being self-employed doesn't mean you're rich.
That is because you are paying both the "employer" share and the "employee" share. In exchange for dumping the cap, self employed people should be maxed at 9% as opposed to twice the employee rate. That is fair.
That is because you are paying both the "employer" share and the "employee" share. In exchange for dumping the cap, self employed people should be maxed at 9% as opposed to twice the employee rate. That is fair.
That isn't a bad idea, but could result in some significant funding shortfalls under the current structure.
There is no reason why there cannot be provisions for small business, but what about the people who are making 10's and 100's of millions a year? Do you not feel the ultra rich are getting a pass from a system that has given them more that any human deserves?
I didn't say small business, I said the self -employed but, that's a good point too....a small business owner with employees (just like any other employer), must match the the contribution their employees nake towards social security....raising the cap would hurt the owners and would ultimately lower wages. Where do you draw the line when you say "provisions". As for the ultra rich getting a pass, no....it's social security not a tax....it's suppose to be for retirement. The system didn't give them the income they make any more than it gave any one else....ultra rich or ultra poor. The ultra rich pay the maximum into it social security (in 2009, it's $13,243.20) and when they hit 65, they get no more than anyone else gets that paid the maximum....why should they have to pay more....as it is they're already paying much more into Medicare since it has no cap....1.45% or more likely 2.9%.
I understand your point but, the ultra rich already pay a lot more in taxes than the rest of us and just like us, they're only one person. They make get all kinds of tax breaks but, the bottom line is the amount they pay is a lot more than others pay.
There may have been a time when the $106,000 cap on Social Security made sense, but today it does not. That time would have been before Congress stole the money from the trust fund. That time would have been when wealth was more evenly distributed between the working class and the ruling class. That time would have been when the economy was in better shape than it is now. Capping the Social Security tax amounts to a tax break for the rich at a time when neither the program nor the country can afford it. Does it make sense to have to borrow money for benefits beginning in 2017 when the rich are not paying tax on their total income? It is time to end tax breaks for the wealthy and start doing what makes sense.
I don't think you know a whole lot about the program that the Congress established under FDR. For a number of years in the 60s I was usually paid up by the end of October because the cap was so low. It took about $6,000 to get paid up for the year back then. Of course, few people made that much in those days. The original plan called for jumps ever so many years and somehow inflation got ahead of the plans after WW II. Yep, the rises in the cap were called for in 1937. The thing that you don't see is that they didn't know where we would be now.
Now you cry about $106,000 being too low, but do you know that the employer has to put in a like amount? Seemingly you don't but you do want to stab those "rich" people without realizing that employers have to charge more for services or goods because they have to pay more.
Maybe you think that all the people that make more than your amount per year are self-employed and that just isn't true. At any rate you want to whack the hell out of those "rich" people by taking 15% of their earnings for SS and turn around and hit them for over 33% for income taxes with all the other taxes.
What will you want to do when you destroy that moneyed class? How do we base our socialist system on the backs of people who were "rich" after it is all taken from them.
I think you may be surprised to see that what you want to do would eventually take all their money from them. I think that you would find that if you take all of those evil rich away from their money they will be rich again if you allow them to operate in a capitalistic society and will be equal to all the other poor people in a socialist society.
I don't think you know a whole lot about the program that the Congress established under FDR. For a number of years in the 60s I was usually paid up by the end of October because the cap was so low. It took about $6,000 to get paid up for the year back then. Of course, few people made that much in those days. The original plan called for jumps ever so many years and somehow inflation got ahead of the plans after WW II. Yep, the rises in the cap were called for in 1937. The thing that you don't see is that they didn't know where we would be now.
Now you cry about $106,000 being too low, but do you know that the employer has to put in a like amount? Seemingly you don't but you do want to stab those "rich" people without realizing that employers have to charge more for services or goods because they have to pay more.
Maybe you think that all the people that make more than your amount per year are self-employed and that just isn't true. At any rate you want to whack the hell out of those "rich" people by taking 15% of their earnings for SS and turn around and hit them for over 33% for income taxes with all the other taxes.
What will you want to do when you destroy that moneyed class? How do we base our socialist system on the backs of people who were "rich" after it is all taken from them.
I think you may be surprised to see that what you want to do would eventually take all their money from them. I think that you would find that if you take all of those evil rich away from their money they will be rich again if you allow them to operate in a capitalistic society and will be equal to all the other poor people in a socialist society.
I don't quite remember the $6000 but that is probably about right cause we used to get so excited knowing the last couple of checks a year would have the few extra $$s on them. It was our Christmas fund. In 1965 hubby got a huge promotion and transfered to San Francisco from Los Angeles. His salary was raised to 740 per month. When he finally retired the max was about $70,000 I think. I was floored when our daughter told us what it is now..
I don't quite remember the $6000 but that is probably about right cause we used to get so excited knowing the last couple of checks a year would have the few extra $$s on them. It was our Christmas fund. In 1965 hubby got a huge promotion and transfered to San Francisco from Los Angeles. His salary was raised to 740 per month. When he finally retired the max was about $70,000 I think. I was floored when our daughter told us what it is now..
Nita
In 1965 it was $4800. It jumped to $6600 in 1966. The percentage was lower then - it was only 3.85% of wages compared to 6.2% today. Median household income was $7946 in 1966. Your husband was above average that year.
Care to explain that statement and add some facts to demonstrate your fantasy? That must be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
There have been far more ridiculous things posted in this very thread. Maybe you missed them. Two mistakes are typically made by people with the above idea in their heads: First, they consistently (and sometimes deliberately) underestimate the actual value of Social Security benefits, and second, they consistently (and sometimes deliberately) overestimate the investment results that a typical individual investor could actually expect to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Even if after taxes, I took the 15% that I contribute and my employer contributes to SS and put it in an online CD, then at a minimum...with no risk and with FDIC insurance up to 250K...I can get something around 2 to 3% in today's market. In better years, it might be 5 or 6%. If I put in an IRA, Roth IRA, or 401K, I can get better than that with compounding and the tax benefits. Now...if I die...that money is mine and goes to my heirs. I not only keep my return, but the principal is mine. With SS, none of the principal is mine. If I die before I turn 65 years old, I get nothing and my heirs might get a survivor benefit. There is no guarantee that I will receive any benefits or at what age I will receive any benefits. The goal post can be moved at any time. If the gov't decides to "means test" benefits, then I may get nothing just based on being responsible and saving for my own retirement.
Well, let's look at some numbers. Suppose we take an average sort of guy getting out of college in the mid-1960's or so. He goes off to join the Peace Corps for a few years right out of school but finally comes back to the states and starts work in the private sector in 1970 at a salary of $7200, which was nothing special either way for the time. He works hard, gets regular COL increases, attends the same church as his boss and works on several projects with him, he gets reasonably frequent promotions and moves up the ladder, but now as he reaches age 66, he's going to retire on the first of the year with a final salary of $121,000 so he can hang around with the Mrs. and play with the grandkids.
If he had consistently saved 15% of his salary over all of those 40 years of work and put the money into CD's at 2.5%, he would have a nest egg set aside at retirement of about $350K. If he keeps earning the same 2.5% on the balance, that would be enough to pay himself an annuity of $1875 per month for 20 years. Then the money would be gone. But 2.5% is maybe on the low side. Suppose we let him have that favorable 5% over the entire time period. Then he would be able to pay himself $3335 per month for 20 years. And then the money would be gone.
Under SS by contrast, he would have received a monthy check for $2060. His same-aged wife who had never worked would have been entitled to a check for half of that amount, bringing total family benefits to $3090 per month. Both checks would have been indexed for inflation and would not have run out until the recipient did. And if our hero had died the day before his retirement? Well, the Mrs. would have lost her check alright, but she would have taken over his.
Bottom line is you better save that 15% and get that 5% return without fail on either count if you want any kind of shot at beating out Social Security.
Well, let's look at some numbers. Suppose we take an average sort of guy getting out of college in the mid-1960's or so. He goes off to join the Peace Corps for a few years right out of school but finally comes back to the states and starts work in the private sector in 1970 at a salary of $7200, which was nothing special either way for the time. He works hard, gets regular COL increases, attends the same church as his boss and works on several projects with him, he gets reasonably frequent promotions and moves up the ladder, but now as he reaches age 66, he's going to retire on the first of the year with a final salary of $121,000 so he can hang around with the Mrs. and play with the grandkids.
If he had consistently saved 15% of his salary over all of those 40 years of work and put the money into CD's at 2.5%, he would have a nest egg set aside at retirement of about $350K. If he keeps earning the same 2.5% on the balance, that would be enough to pay himself an annuity of $1875 per month for 20 years. Then the money would be gone. But 2.5% is maybe on the low side. Suppose we let him have that favorable 5% over the entire time period. Then he would be able to pay himself $3335 per month for 20 years. And then the money would be gone.
Under SS by contrast, he would have received a monthy check for $2060. His same-aged wife who had never worked would have been entitled to a check for half of that amount, bringing total family benefits to $3090 per month. Both checks would have been indexed for inflation and would not have run out until the recipient did. And if our hero had died the day before his retirement? Well, the Mrs. would have lost her check alright, but she would have taken over his.
Bottom line is you better save that 15% and get that 5% return without fail on either count if you want any kind of shot at beating out Social Security.
I haven't seen your numbers, but it seems reasonable, at least mathematically. Next question: How much would their kids have inherited if they both died at 76 and 77, which is the life expectancy for a couple born in that timeframe, had they chosen to save in CD's versus Social Security? Ever done that math? My 12C says they would have had about $100,000 in CD's still sitting in the bank.
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.
