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.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,118,692 times
Reputation: 8104
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyonpa
Then Give my and my employer's all the money I gave it back, with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj
Nonsense. If you don't drive on a particular US highway, you don't get a "refund" on the federal taxes that went to pay for repairs and maintenance to that highway.
SS is a TAX. It's not an IRA fund. My dad wasn't nearly wealthy but he had a very good pension - he didn't need the piddling SS check he got each month.
Rich people need to stop whinging about paying taxes. If that's one less cruise per year for you, tough noogies.
If you lose your money, you will pass the means test - and then you will be eligible for benefits.
If you DON'T lose your money, and the means test defines you as ineligible for benefits - thank your lucky stars that you are so well off!
What Sojj said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider
It's hard to tell from your comment whether you know that Social Security retirement benefits are already means-tested in two significant ways:
1. The formulas which determine our benefit amounts are weighted heavily towards returning a greater percentage of low income wages as opposed to high income wages. This is not a negligible difference.
2. There is no federal income tax on Social Security benefits for the poor. If one's income is all, or mostly from SS, there is no federal taxation. But if one has a substantial amount of other income, then up to 85% of SS benefits are subject to federal taxation. That is not negligible either, depending on one's tax bracket.
If people advocate means testing beyond that which already exists, they should refer to it as further (or additional) means-testing.
Thanks for the information. Yes, we should call it "additional means testing".
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,118,692 times
Reputation: 8104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva
What are you defining as rich? A Person that made just enough to pay the max into SS, (which was like $25k/yr in 1980, and adjusted up for inflation today) paid in the same amount & gets the SAME EXACT BENEFIT as someone that makes a million a year. And pays tax on 85% of it. I will get the max, worked a lot of overtime to get it, do not consider myself rich, and not getting my expected $36k/yr at FRA IS A VERY VERY significant amount. Not piddling by any stretch of the imagination.
If it's a significant amount to you, then you're not rich and it's not piddling. What I mean by "rich" is someone who can live very, very comfortably without even noticing that he's getting a SS check, perhaps because his accountant takes care of it.
All this hoo ha floating about the internet on a "cut to benefits" is far too hyperbolic and won't affect most of us who are collecting now, or about to collect in the next few years.
Yes, if SS runs out of money, we may see a 25% reduction in benefits in about 15-20 years, or so. And, that may be a means-tested cut.
Otherwise, based on what I've heard the GOP talk about is means test SS benefits. In other words, certain very rich would never collect; others with a relatively high retirement income would not receive benefits to the extent retirement income and SS exceed $80,000, or some defined ceiling, for an individual. Sorta like the WEP rules for certain SS recipients, now.
I'm not worrying about it - nor should anyone of modest to average means and income. Granny won't be thrown off the cliff if her only income is SS.
I don't know about anyone else, but for me, a single person, $80k (or some number adjusted for inflation by the time Congress finally has the guts to do anything), is a perfectly adequate income.
15 to 20 years doesn't sound that far away for many here I bet. Its been now long since the Breaux commission and nothing. Its like Greece default;t likely it will just eventually occur by say a bank run. Started like most crisis never really seen or should that be deliberately ignored. I remember my father describing what he saw as young man on the bank runs which of course government says it has solved; just like recession long ago.
Tell you what, I browsed around looking for some info on this and didn't find anything right away.
If I missed your sourcing the impact earlier forgive me but how about if you (or anyone else) links me to something legitimate that shows just how much impact removing the wage cap would be?
What I'm hearing is that one party is estimating that it would solve 1/12 of the "problem" while you are stating something closer to 1.
Perhaps you are talking about different aspects of the *problem*.
You mean, other than what I have already provided? Do you consider it not a legitimate source? The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget?
The 2014 SS report showed that SS (OASI) had a surplus of $64 billion at the end of the year 2013.
SSDI is the one bleeding money and ended up with a -$32 billion deficit.
Politicians talk a lot, but I think that, in the end, if there is any kind of so-called reduction and Social Security, it was phased in over the long-term, it will not affect current recipients. That's just my guess though.
Scroll down to Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2012 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
You're looking at 3 distinct income brackets from columns 6, 7 and 8:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000
(8) $250,000 or more
You need the total number of returns filed:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = 14,123,441
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = 1,654,070
(8) $250,000 or more = 3,032,742
...and you need the total income reported:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = $1,610,920,079,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = $297,831,541,000
(8) $250,000 or more = $1,281,411,930,000
We'll start with Column (8).
There are 3 Million (3,032,742) people who earned more than $250,000 annually totaling $1.28 TRILLION ($1,281,411,930,000)
Add in the employers share and that will pay for 2 months total.
That's it.
If someone can explain how $130 Billion will cover a $750 Billion annual short-fall, go right ahead.
Of course, this is all for naught, since you won't actually collect $130 Billion annually, but you might see small businesses get slammed and a slight recession.
Since I have the SOI out, there are 101,682,050 taxpayers who earn less than $100,000.
Their total earnings were $3,266,839,640,000.
If we increase the FICA pay roll tax to 9.4% then we'd collect in theory $104,538,868,480, plus in theory the same amount from employers annually.
The $130 Billion from eliminating the cap, plus the $210 Billion from an increased FICA payroll tax rate still won't cover the $750 Billion annual deficits for Social Security.
Timing is everything.
Clinton could have stepped increased the FICA payroll tax from 6.2% to 7.5% and you wouldn't be in a mess.
Bush could have raised the FICA payroll tax to 8%, and while that would have been very painful, the program would be solvent.
If Obama does not increase the FICA payroll tax to 9.4% by December 2016, you'll need an even higher rate to cover the short-falls.
Any number of policy analysts are suggesting doubling the rate to 12.4% the longer you wait to address the issues, the more likely that will be the case.
Make no mistake about it, that money is coming out of your economy, one way or another, so you'd all best get used to the idea and start pushing for action, before it's too late.
Taxing...
Mircea
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.