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 04-17-2015, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,480 posts, read 4,220,336 times
Reputation: 9786

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
With all the attention given to this problem, it might be helpful to remember that today's government deficit and debt have nothing to do with Social Security. The funding for SS is solid for the next 20 years, at least. Meanwhile, the general budget is hemorrhaging red ink, right now, every day, in huge amounts. Perhaps our "leaders" should get this under control before messing with SS.
Agree and disagree with this one.
Perhaps we ought to fix Social Security ahead of time rather than waiting until the last minute, when the problems will be worse!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:18 AM
 
29,775 posts, read 34,860,277 times
Reputation: 11687
Lot of the analysis of the Christie plan leaves it wanting in transparency and perhaps asmokescreen (typical Christie) means testing is getting the attention and hoopla and does little to save money. Most of the savings comes from raising the retirement age which isn't new, ground breaking or popular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:36 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,172 posts, read 2,082,324 times
Reputation: 2599
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I reject #2 (egregiously progressive), #3, #4, and #5 (egregiously regressive),
So you would be left with #1 + #7 as the only choices left to close the gap.

What I don't like about that is it's all tax adjustments with no benefits adjustments.



Here's the original list for continuity:

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,480 posts, read 4,220,336 times
Reputation: 9786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Lot of the analysis of the Christie plan leaves it wanting in transparency and perhaps asmokescreen (typical Christie) means testing is getting the attention and hoopla and does little to save money. Most of the savings comes from raising the retirement age which isn't new, ground breaking or popular.
Smokescreen????

How about all of the other clowns that are running that won't tackle the issue at all?

Now that is smokescreen X 10
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:04 AM
 
5,822 posts, read 13,313,859 times
Reputation: 9290
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMike7 View Post
That seems like a legit reason right there.


Anyone forced to pay into a system from day #1 of their working career should be able to collect it's returns no matter how successful they are later in life.
We pay for the Administration, Congressman, and Senators salary and pensions and get nothing in return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:30 AM
 
11,758 posts, read 5,545,768 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
You can't tell those that paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars into social security and saved their asses off like the govt encouraged them to do and then tell them, "too bad," you get zero when they were factoring it in all along.
If you think of it like insurance against abject poverty in retirement, it might make more sense per Christie.

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:45 AM
 
29,775 posts, read 34,860,277 times
Reputation: 11687
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Smokescreen????

How about all of the other clowns that are running that won't tackle the issue at all?

Now that is smokescreen X 10
No that is not addressing.

smoke screen
noun
: something that you do or say to hide something or to take attention away from something
: a cloud of thick smoke that is used to hide ships, soldiers, etc.
Full Definition
1 :a screen of smoke to hinder enemy observation of a military force, area, or activity
2 :something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead
Examples

First Use: 1915
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:53 AM
 
154 posts, read 400,987 times
Reputation: 301
Even though they say seniors are living much longer after retirement it does NOT mean that they can continue working until the age of 70. Perhaps, if you have a basic, sit down job that is not stressful you can do that. But the body slows down and how many people do you really know that are still able to work full time until the age of 70? Sure, there are some, but not many. How do I know this? Well, it's anecdotal of course but I work with senior based population all day and I can tell you there are almost none that are working until that age. They simply can't keep up the pace, nor should we be asking them to. They have put their time in, let them have some respite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:54 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,172 posts, read 2,082,324 times
Reputation: 2599
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
If you think of it like insurance against abject poverty in retirement, it might make more sense per Christie.

Mick
But that's not the way the program was ever implemented. That's like saying "If you think of it as something that it never was it might make more sense per Christie."

Sure, I know it's been referred to from time to time as an insurance program, but eligibility for benefits has always been based on age and your earnings/contribution history, so making it an insurance program represents a fundamental change to the nature of the program.

Should that happen, and particularly if it happens immediately as Christie's proposal does, it's only natural to expect that people who have paid taxes supporting the system for long periods only to arrive at retirement and find out it's fundamentally changed will be very upset.

This is why I think any significant changes need to be phased in over time, and people already retired and very close to retirement should be protected from significant changes.

Dave
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,505,330 times
Reputation: 15950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
You can't tell those that paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars into social security and saved their asses off like the govt encouraged them to do and then tell them, "too bad," you get zero when they were factoring it in all along.
It's mostly the "blue-collar" culture, particularly the lesser-educated and more simplistic among them, who can't seem to shake the belief that their contributuions were paid into an individual fund for thir exclusive use; ironically, many of these same individuals believe that we can "soak the rich" -- that there is a huge pile of money stashed some where that the politicians can produce for some supposed "greater common good".

That is the Great Contradiction which is a growing threat to the entire Social Security system; most of us who live in smaller communities, who have developed other sources of income, or who don't expect to completely retire from economic life at a certain age, are somewhat better-equipped to deal with it. But I have no idea what's going to happen to the phony "disability" addicts, the lawsuit-happy, or the general collection of barstool bozos. And frankly, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for them.
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