U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
 
Old 04-15-2015, 03:34 PM
 
30,253 posts, read 47,515,386 times
Reputation: 16178

Advertisements

actually, you know people would do it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2015, 04:24 PM
 
Location: South Florida
1,007 posts, read 872,639 times
Reputation: 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post
"Social Security" when taken out of your paycheck, is labelled FICA. FICA stands for Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act. It's a required insurance program into which everyone must pay.

This ill-conceived idea by Christie (who I could have considered voting for, up until today) of means-testing would be like paying your car insurance premiums, having a fender-bender and allowing the Insurance Company to look at your income and say, ya know what....you can afford to pay for those damages out of pocket.

As long as people pay their premiums (payroll withholding taxes) into Social Security, no politician should be allowed to deny them their benefits for any reason.
++ I'd rep you twice if I could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 05:16 PM
 
26,302 posts, read 12,918,431 times
Reputation: 12553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiona13 View Post
++ I'd rep you twice if I could.
I tagged him for ya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Cape Elizabeth
425 posts, read 390,130 times
Reputation: 745
Right from Christie's press release:

Social Security exists so America’s seniors, after a lifetime of hard work, don’t fall into poverty.

Governor Christie is proposing that Americans pay into this system throughout the course of their life knowing it will be there if they need it to support them, but if they are fortunate enough not to need it, they will have paid into a system that will continue to help Americans who need it most. This proposal will not impact current retirees, and will be phased-in gradually.

o Future retirees with income - outside of SS benefits - up to $80,000 a year will receive full regular benefits.

o Future retirees with income of $80,000 or more will receive benefits on a sliding scale, and
benefits phase out entirely for those that have $200,000 a year of other income.

o For couples, these thresholds would be higher.


What kind of philosophy is that? Pay in your entire working life, and then from the goodness of your heart give it up to those of us, "poor, less fortunate folk" who only have income below $80,000?

To me, it reeks of helping to spread the myth that "you too, one day, can be in the position to not need any help from anyone, including the program you paid into your whole life. because you have made it! You are RICH!

Those other folks, the one's who slave for their $30000- $79000 a year- let them have the SS - those poor losers.

This is sick. All I hope is that in the next few days, when the indictments on Bridgegate are rumored to be announced, Christie's name is at the top of the list!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Idaho
4,682 posts, read 4,519,097 times
Reputation: 9213
Christie is actually one of the few people who could get elected president. He's a 'RINO', just like our immediate past governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger. However, Christie will never win the nomination because of the fact that he is a RINO, and mainstream Republicans know that.

As much as I hate his specific initiative, I do have to applaud him for bringing the subject up for national discussion. The 'program' needs to be tweaked for long-term survivability, and the sooner, the less painful for all involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,747 posts, read 4,236,540 times
Reputation: 6867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Yeah, Christie might actually get elected president, so the Republicans will never nominate him. Instead they will nominate some delusional fringie who will pull about 40% of the vote.
Yup. Although I like a few of the items that Christie proposed, such as pushing employers to work with their disabled employees (accommodations anyone?), he has no chance of clinching the Republican primary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,747 posts, read 4,236,540 times
Reputation: 6867
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Means testing to such low levels of income serves the purpose of warning people that it makes no sense to save and invest and try to improve your position, because your worthless twin will end up getting benefits from the government that you got screwed out of--and he will live a better life from start to finish.

Reward laziness and punish thrift? There is a recipe for disaster.
Do you honestly believe that $80,000 - $200,000/year is a low level of income? For one person? As noted, less than 2% of the recipients have that level of income. You've left me wondering what the 2% would consider a moderate income. Do tell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 09:11 PM
 
397 posts, read 763,955 times
Reputation: 499
What SHOULD be done to help the Social Security System remain solvent is to remove the "cap" for wages subject to the FICA tax. For example, right now someone earning $60K per year pays a much higher percentage of his income to SS compared to someone earning $250K. In other words, the $60K earner pays 12.4% (6.2% for employee and employer) of the entire $60K while the $250K pays only 12.4% of the first $117K...more money in total but a smaller percentage of total earnings.
There is no salary cap on Medicare tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,605 posts, read 1,902,887 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by larsm View Post
What am I missing? The fact sheet suggests that the income means testing will affect all current and future SS recipients.

It is vague on the phase in of increased FRA age to 69 and 62 to 64 other than to benchmark year 2022.
The key to the 69 and 64, is it states in "2 month increments" per year. So the ages of 69 and 64 would be reached over an extended number of years. For instance, if one was 61 when it went into effect, instead of being eligible a 62, they would have to wait until 62 and 2 months of age to draw early retirement benefits. The closer one is to the present retirement age the less draconian the increase in age would be.

By my math, it would take 12 years for the ages to get to 69 and 64. So we're looking at people being 50 and under when the law is passed. Everyone over 50, would have less of an age increase, depending on how near they are to the present age of entitlement at 62.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 10:31 PM
 
2,298 posts, read 1,574,891 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemycat View Post
Right from Christie's press release:

Social Security exists so America’s seniors, after a lifetime of hard work, don’t fall into poverty.

Governor Christie is proposing that Americans pay into this system throughout the course of their life knowing it will be there if they need it to support them, but if they are fortunate enough not to need it, they will have paid into a system that will continue to help Americans who need it most. This proposal will not impact current retirees, and will be phased-in gradually.

o Future retirees with income - outside of SS benefits - up to $80,000 a year will receive full regular benefits.

o Future retirees with income of $80,000 or more will receive benefits on a sliding scale, and
benefits phase out entirely for those that have $200,000 a year of other income.

o For couples, these thresholds would be higher.


What kind of philosophy is that? Pay in your entire working life, and then from the goodness of your heart give it up to those of us, "poor, less fortunate folk" who only have income below $80,000?

To me, it reeks of helping to spread the myth that "you too, one day, can be in the position to not need any help from anyone, including the program you paid into your whole life. because you have made it! You are RICH!

Those other folks, the one's who slave for their $30000- $79000 a year- let them have the SS - those poor losers.

This is sick. All I hope is that in the next few days, when the indictments on Bridgegate are rumored to be announced, Christie's name is at the top of the list!
He will never get the nomination now Moderator cut: delete,..I was actually thinking of supporting the fattie...NO WAY IN HELL NOW AND I'll be actively campaigning against him!!!!

Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-17-2015 at 12:54 PM.. Reason: language filter
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 > Retirement
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