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 04-14-2015, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,220,203 times
Reputation: 6866

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Then would mutual fund or bank deposit withdrawals count as income? I understand your point the unanswered question is at what point would Roth money count and would it count twice? Once on conversion and once on withdrawal?
Good question. Perhaps prohibit conversions?

Christie is going for the younger generation. Smart move, considering the other Republican candidates have the white elderly vote locked up. (Of course that could change with a female candidate.)

I have to admit Christie gave a killer speech.

Text of Governor Christie's New Hampshire speech - News - NorthJersey.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,534,315 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I am curious about your reasoning here. What is it about the year 2010 which constitutes this alleged tipping point? Are you referring to the eventual projected shortfall resulting in the payout of 75% of promised benefits at some future point?

Of course the largest single factor in determining whether we receive more or less than we paid in is our longevity. So I assume you are talking about average longevity?

I am skeptical about what you stated, but await your explanation with an open mind.
It was the workers that triggered it. The first generation of workers that paid into FICA their entire working lives. Those turning 65 in 2010 paid in more than they were likely to get back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
7,629 posts, read 14,384,060 times
Reputation: 18709
If you have paid into it, you should be able to draw from it.

I WOULD agree to eliminating the ceiling for social security taxes for those that make more, but they deserve what they paid in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It was the workers that triggered it. The first generation of workers that paid into FICA their entire working lives. Those turning 65 in 2010 paid in more than they were likely to get back.
O.K., I get your basic point. However, here is a snippet from the history of Social Security from the SSA website:

"A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940."

So let us suppose a worker turned 18 and went to work for the first time in January, 1937. That worker would be part of the first group which paid SS (FICA) taxes on their wages for their entire working lives. That worker would have turned 65 in 1984, not 2010.

But even given the basic premise that older people (i.e., older than 65 in 1984) paid FICA taxes only during a portion of their working lives, I don't think it is axiomatic that "younger" people (who did pay those taxes since day one of their employment) will not receive, on average, all of the taxes back. It depends on how the numbers crunch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,251 posts, read 8,543,297 times
Reputation: 35677
Sorry - Chris Christie is a blowhard....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:39 PM
 
Location: WA
5,396 posts, read 21,404,537 times
Reputation: 5903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paka View Post
If you have paid into it, you should be able to draw from it.

I WOULD agree to eliminating the ceiling for social security taxes for those that make more, but they deserve what they paid in.
They actually deserve compounded interest as well as contributions. This was the most regressive tax imposed and was always justified by old age benefits.

They can change the rules but this was not a voluntary program for most of us so any change should not dishonestly steal benefits from citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,515,215 times
Reputation: 15950
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Sorry - Chris Christie is a blowhard....
Christie simply "sees the writing on the wall", just as David Stockman does, and advocates in his recent book "The Great Deformation"

The blind prejudice displayed in the previous post merely serves as proof that many of the so-called "progressives" at this site have been so completely brainwashed that they are unwilling to consider any point or alternative not raised, sanctioned and approved of by the Politically Correct elite they have been taught to worship.

As for the implications of a "means test", one obvious defense for the more forward-thinking would be to start a business -- or possibly develop a rental property or two. The "start-up" losses would delay the effect of a means test, and I don't know too many people who would feel that upset if the effort were successful -- means test or not.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-14-2015 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,515,215 times
Reputation: 15950
One other unsettling point.

When Social Security was "reformed" back in the 1980's, it was claimed that only the wealthy would see their Social Security benefits subject to taxation. In those times, "wealthy" was defined as an income of $25K for a single taxpayer, and $32K for a couple; to the best of my knowledge that ceiling has not been raised since; the simple workings of inflation has made many more of us "wealthy", in the eyes of Big Brother and the Tax-Grabbers.

A similar depressing phenomenon was noted among young professionals starting out back in the 1970's, when most of their first raises were immediately heavily confiscated by the IRS via the process of "bracket creep". This problem was nut seriously remedied until the early tax reforms of the Reagan presidency took effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,879 posts, read 2,384,245 times
Reputation: 5340
I've been hearing this in various forms since 2010 ( date sound familiar?)..and the only reason congress wants ( by that I mean GOP/Tea party types) is complaining because SS is running out of money..Well..Hey Goper's. running out of $$ is because GW raided the piggy bank to pay for wars he initiated...Iraq is the one war that unfortunately will cost American folk Tax bucks for many mnay decades!! You start something...best have an exit plan..but left to cleanups..THINGS always don't go as planned...Vacuum creates ALL those bad sorts to take advantage..But this goes beyond the OP topic..But it does explain a whole heck of a lot too!!

SS collected by Government is suppose to be held "In Trust" for your future retirement...Once any congress ( prior to 2008) allows expenditures to dip into funds held by Government..( much like they did with the US Mail) ..then wow..Al of a sudden..Fed's better start finding pay for If want to setup anything....SMH..


Have the problem is..Entitlement's water's edge ends at programs for taxpayers..BUT has been expanding since Corporate and Lobbyists seem to buy votes to benefit them.. I truly wish to remind people..Corporate may buy votes in Congress..BUT YOU all vote for representatives....If you vote strictly for partyline..then just maybe sometimes the outcomes does NOT benefit you individual.....I've become so aware..that Party seems more important than one's Life..and given multi-stages of life..needs vary...

It's truly time to look at just what your priority is and make sure yo got what you voted for... IF you want to vote pure out of Hatred towards Libs/Liberatarians or a particular POTUS...Just maybe consider your family including grand babies..AS Cutting all ties to support systems which per history CAN HIT anybody at anytime..Health..Accident..Family issues..Insurance doesn't cover much of anything..and God forbid Mother Nature Hits you...

Safety Net's has been demonized..and Yet now.. a program over 75 years old is being sold by Christie as a necessity...yet Government Coffer's sat on or Stole to do things without permissions..But no fear..Gov. Christie will make sure youlss feel not such a bad pinch...SMH

Sorry I got so wordy here..BUT after 5 years of bashing/demonizing of Safety Net programs..I get really pi$$'d because half of those Congressmen have benefited from them..AKA PAUL RYAN!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,534,315 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
O.K., I get your basic point. However, here is a snippet from the history of Social Security from the SSA website:

"A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940."

So let us suppose a worker turned 18 and went to work for the first time in January, 1937. That worker would be part of the first group which paid SS (FICA) taxes on their wages for their entire working lives. That worker would have turned 65 in 1984, not 2010.

But even given the basic premise that older people (i.e., older than 65 in 1984) paid FICA taxes only during a portion of their working lives, I don't think it is axiomatic that "younger" people (who did pay those taxes since day one of their employment) will not receive, on average, all of the taxes back. It depends on how the numbers crunch.
You have to look at how much FICA was taken out as well.


FICA & SECA Tax Rates
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