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, 03:58 PM
 
29,910 posts, read 34,976,474 times
Reputation: 11812

Advertisements

Ok, lets see a single person has a income of $70K from a pension or annuity and it is income as determined by the Christie proposal. They have 1 million in their tax sheltered retirement account. At age 70 1/2 RMD's will take them over the threshold. Lets crunch the numbers and we come up with take SS at age 62 and get the full SS for 9 1/2 years and recalculate the SS break even point under Christie America math. What did you say that wasn't the intended consequence? Government has a knack for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2015, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,701,554 times
Reputation: 27566
It's not reform at all. It's a bandaid really. The fund is going broke so start eliminating people from collecting their benefits. The broker the fund gets the wider the net of people who don't get.

If I were 20 and just starting out today hearing this then I'd be looking for a job with an alternate FICA plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 04:58 PM
 
29,910 posts, read 34,976,474 times
Reputation: 11812
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It's not reform at all. It's a bandaid really. The fund is going broke so start eliminating people from collecting their benefits. The broker the fund gets the wider the net of people who don't get.

If I were 20 and just starting out today hearing this then I'd be looking for a job with an alternate FICA plan.
That's another problem. Public employees with pensions who aren't in SS. Why work in a state with pensions and SS when you can get s larger pension elsewhere and not worry about SS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 04:59 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,178 posts, read 2,100,396 times
Reputation: 2626
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
For all of you people who are bashing Christie (and the worst ones who are calling him fat)....


WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY?


I'm waiting.
Here is a menu of choices, with the % of the funding gap they are estimated to close:

1. Raise the earnings cap on taxes to $215k (90% of all earners fall below this): Closes 36% of the gap

2. Remove the earnings cap altogether: Closes 86% of the gap

3. Starting in 2016, raise the FRA by 3 months each year until it reaches 68: Closes 18% of the gap

4. #3, but extend the FRA to 70: Closes 44% of the gap

5. Change the way COLA is calculated to use a chained COL: Closes 23% of the gap

6. Raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 6.45%: Closes 22% of the gap

7. Over a 20 year period raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2%: Closes 64% of the gap

I'll take #'s 1, 3, 5, and 6 to close 99% of the gap. That balances benefits adjustments (3 & 5) with tax adjustments (1 & 6). If you wanted to get that last % you could bump the tax rate up a little more in #6, or extend the FRA a little more, say to 68 and 3 months.

Some of these interact with each other to increase the benefit to the program, for example raising the tax rate and increasing the cap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:04 PM
 
6,460 posts, read 6,509,162 times
Reputation: 9802
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Yup and this is a conservatives idea. Makes privatization more plausible for a lot more people.
I don't think this will be a partisan issue. I think both parties are raring at the bit to get ahold of more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:05 PM
 
519 posts, read 433,155 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat View Post
Here is a menu of choices, with the % of the funding gap they are estimated to close:

1. Raise the earnings cap on taxes to $215k (90% of all earners fall below this): Closes 36% of the gap

2. Remove the earnings cap altogether: Closes 86% of the gap

3. Starting in 2016, raise the FRA by 3 months each year until it reaches 68: Closes 18% of the gap

4. #3, but extend the FRA to 70: Closes 44% of the gap

5. Change the way COLA is calculated to use a chained COL: Closes 23% of the gap

6. Raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 6.45%: Closes 22% of the gap

7. Over a 20 year period raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2%: Closes 64% of the gap

I'll take #'s 1, 3, 5, and 6 to close 99% of the gap. That balances benefits adjustments (3 & 5) with tax adjustments (1 & 6). If you wanted to get that last % you could bump the tax rate up a little more in #6, or extend the FRA a little more, say to 68 and 3 months.

Some of these interact with each other to increase the benefit to the program, for example raising the tax rate and increasing the cap.
Curious your source for this data, which is very helpful in thinking about the SS issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,701,554 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
That's another problem. Public employees with pensions who aren't in SS. Why work in a state with pensions and SS when you can get s larger pension elsewhere and not worry about SS.
Not really because there are limited jobs that have alternate FICA plans.

And many are not even aware of it that work in jobs with alternate FICA until they are close to retirement and realize if they worked FICA jobs vs non FICA jobs they are screwed tax-wise.

I made sure I had my "30 years of substantial earnings" before I ventured into the education world and started working non FICA jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:11 PM
 
2,298 posts, read 1,573,391 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Not really because there are limited jobs that have alternate FICA plans.

And many are not even aware of it that work in jobs with alternate FICA until they are close to retirement and realize if they worked FICA jobs vs non FICA jobs they are screwed tax-wise.

I made sure I had my "30 years of substantial earnings" before I ventured into the education world and started working non FICA jobs.

Um, no thanks. I'd rather work in my FICA job with a pension and retire many years earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,701,554 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
Um, no thanks. I'd rather work in my FICA job with a pension and retire many years earlier.
LOL..that's what I did. I tutor in schools a few days a week post retirement.
I wanted to make sure my SS benefits wouldn't get hit with WEP.

I will get my full SS benefits plus I'll get a little extra from the school gig if not a lump sum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 05:44 PM
 
29,910 posts, read 34,976,474 times
Reputation: 11812
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Not really because there are limited jobs that have alternate FICA plans.

And many are not even aware of it that work in jobs with alternate FICA until they are close to retirement and realize if they worked FICA jobs vs non FICA jobs they are screwed tax-wise.

I made sure I had my "30 years of substantial earnings" before I ventured into the education world and started working non FICA jobs.
Limited? I wouldn't consider this list of states that have employees including teachers who don't pay into SS limited.
NEA - Social Security Offsets: Frequently Asked Questions

States in Which Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia (certain local governments)
Illinois
Kentucky (certain local governments)
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Rhode Island (certain local governments)
Texas

Thats a lot of folks with pensions and no SS who would not be impacted and also who tend to have higher pensions because their governments had additional money for pension benefits. Imagine the teacher and public employee recruitment issues that could come up in the North East and South West! Heck forget about teachers what about skilled in demand state workers? Dang those states would look good compared to the private sector in some cases with high in demand workers.
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