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 04-16-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Washington State
206 posts, read 182,119 times
Reputation: 277

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
I'm not a Social Security actuary nor have all the numbers needed. It's just a no-brainer that it would save money. Better than not giving back at least the principal plus interest for those that contributed, rather than a big fat ZERO for some.

It may well be certain that the proposal would save some money. The question is whether it would save enough to meaningfully improve the soundness of the system.

I say it wouldn't. As I recall Christie's would begin to phase out benefits at 80K and cut them off at 200K. Only about 3% of households make 200K in the prime of their careers. I'd have to assume that it's well under 1% once in retirement.

For most of the income levels in between 80K and 200K, there is a related observation. These are upper middle class incomes in one's prime earning years. If we pick the middle of the range - $140K - for discussion purposes, I'd say that less than 1% have earnings at this level during retirement. If benefits are reduced by 50% for people earning $140K, the savings to the system would be minimal.

As with many primary-season proposals, this one seems to lack detail, and to not be accompanied by any numbers as to how it would "save the system."

Aside from anything else, Christie could not get this through by himself. A few hundred congress people would hear from their constituents, rather loudly, if they were contemplating passing a bill like this. I can't wait to see how the crowds in Florida will react to this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2015, 01:56 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,062,610 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
I'd start with gradually increasing the age. I have no problem with that. But to not give people the money they put in plus some interest at the very least is just robbery.

Raising the age is highly regressive, and redistributes from those who die early to those who die late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 02:00 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,062,610 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
Why? It's an insurance program set up to ensure that you and your family don't end up poverty stricken.

If you pay for term life insurance and don't die during the term of the policy, are you entitled to get your money back?

If you pay for health insurance and don't get sick, should you get all your money back?

People should be allowed to choose for themselves. Someone who comes from a family where the men die by 60 should not be required to pay for someone else's retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 02:10 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,561,711 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Raising the age is highly regressive, and redistributes from those who die early to those who die late.
Life is regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:27 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post
NO ONE should be required to pay into a retirement system from which they can be denied all of their benefits, whether that denial is made via means-testing, IQ testing or genetic testing.
OK, then how about this. No one "pays into the retirement system" at all. There is no retirement system, only a big bucket of entitlements. Everyone pays income tax and cap gains tax. Part of that entitlement bucket goes to elders who have retired. But wait, isn't that last bit what we already have? And we merely split the taxation into an income tax component and a social security component (which is only applied to people working). We make the thing feel good by making it look like the social security function is a separate bucket (e.g. by having the separate draw) but in reality, there is no lock box, no separate bucket. Why continue the charade? Call it what it is, an entitlement for seniors who have worked. And once everyone is through that knot hole, then maybe we don't need to pretend things are separate by having separate tax draws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:30 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macgregorsailor51 View Post
You are correct the Problem is that Fox News and others, have refered to SS as an entitlement for so long and so loud that many believe what they say.. (do any of you see a history here?? ) Unless you did the cash only thing you paid SS al your life.. if you did the cash only thing and now have no savings and no SS Too Bad.. One of the issues that does arise is the number of those who paid in minimally and for a short duration are collecting life time benefits and many say/report the numbers could be as high as 50% are fraudulent claims for SSDI..
But in practical fact, it is an entitlement. Do you honestly believe there is some sort of special magic pony account that all the social security paycheck deductions is kept in? You really believe that? It's not a retirement account. It is not a lock box. It is just a euphemism for elder welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:34 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,561,711 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
OK, then how about this. No one "pays into the retirement system" at all. There is no retirement system, only a big bucket of entitlements. Everyone pays income tax and cap gains tax. Part of that entitlement bucket goes to elders who have retired. But wait, isn't that last bit what we already have? And we merely split the taxation into an income tax component and a social security component (which is only applied to people working). We make the thing feel good by making it look like the social security function is a separate bucket (e.g. by having the separate draw) but in reality, there is no lock box, no separate bucket. Why continue the charade? Call it what it is, an entitlement for seniors who have worked. And once everyone is through that knot hole, then maybe we don't need to pretend things are separate by having separate tax draws.
I think I like Forbes' idea. Folks have a choice between the flat tax and the way it is now! I digress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:35 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
Why? It's an insurance program set up to ensure that you and your family don't end up poverty stricken.

If you pay for term life insurance and don't die during the term of the policy, are you entitled to get your money back?

If you pay for health insurance and don't get sick, should you get all your money back?
But in practical fact it is not really structured like insurance, at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:40 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager39 View Post
It may well be certain that the proposal would save some money. The question is whether it would save enough to meaningfully improve the soundness of the system.

I say it wouldn't. As I recall Christie's would begin to phase out benefits at 80K and cut them off at 200K. Only about 3% of households make 200K in the prime of their careers. I'd have to assume that it's well under 1% once in retirement.

For most of the income levels in between 80K and 200K, there is a related observation. These are upper middle class incomes in one's prime earning years. If we pick the middle of the range - $140K - for discussion purposes, I'd say that less than 1% have earnings at this level during retirement. If benefits are reduced by 50% for people earning $140K, the savings to the system would be minimal.

As with many primary-season proposals, this one seems to lack detail, and to not be accompanied by any numbers as to how it would "save the system."

Aside from anything else, Christie could not get this through by himself. A few hundred congress people would hear from their constituents, rather loudly, if they were contemplating passing a bill like this. I can't wait to see how the crowds in Florida will react to this.
Begin the phase out at $250K for an individual, $500K for a couple. Logarithmic. Never goes down to zero (asymoptotic to 25%).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 03:42 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
People should be allowed to choose for themselves. Someone who comes from a family where the men die by 60 should not be required to pay for someone else's retirement.
End all SSI paycheck draws. Make the payouts just another entitlement. Fund from the same place all other entitlements are funded.
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