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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2017, 07:46 AM
 
9,200 posts, read 9,280,929 times
Reputation: 28823

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
That is true. The amount increases incrementally each year. A decade back it was in the $90k range. Once you've reached that limit, you'll see the money which would have gone to SS back in your paycheck. Every year we have a couple of weeks of this. I take the money and put it into retirement savings as we have no pension.

Also worth noting was the Obama Tax Holiday reduced the employee portion of their SS payroll tax from 6.2 to 4.2%. The limit then was $110K I still don't understand the rationale behind cutting back on SS tax which is intended to fund a program many rely upon.
That's because your viewing what happened in a one-dimensional way.

Back than, we had bigger fish to fry. The economy was not recovering and economic stimulus was needed.
The income tax system is structured so that the bottom half of the country essentially pays no federal income tax. The only tax that could be cut that would put more purchasing power in the hands of the people with lower incomes was the social security tax. It helped stimulate the economy at least to a point where it wasn't moving backwards.

In short, retirement wasn't the only consideration at that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,130,549 times
Reputation: 7397
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
Yes, exactly.

The ones who make GOOD money, who can afford to SAVE a good portion of their income, and invest it well for retirement, are ALWAYS the FIRST ONES to complain about Social Security!!!!

I think if you have a salary of six figures or over for even HALF of those 35 of working years, there should be NO Social Security for them, PERIOD, even if they have paid in.

If they are the lucky ones to have an income exceeding the ceiling for paying into social security, they should GET NONE.

It ALWAYS amazes me the loudest ones to complain are the ones who need to complain the LEAST.

Sheesh.

There are those of us living in expensive parts of the country earning what you claim is good money. Our state and property taxes are sky high, our utilities among the highest in the country. Some of us don't have jobs with pensions, so we have to save what we can for retirement. We have to pay for our own health insurance.

Please don't judge people based solely on a number.

That cop around the block from me earning 6 figures, receiving health insurance from the county and a pension upon retirement will sure as heck take his SS when eligible.

Do you want to tell him he shouldn't have a right to what he has earned?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2017, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,833 posts, read 29,130,549 times
Reputation: 7397
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
That's because your viewing what happened in a one-dimensional way.

Back than, we had bigger fish to fry. The economy was not recovering and economic stimulus was needed.
The income tax system is structured so that the bottom half of the country essentially pays no federal income tax. The only tax that could be cut that would put more purchasing power in the hands of the people with lower incomes was the social security tax. It helped stimulate the economy at least to a point where it wasn't moving backwards.

In short, retirement wasn't the only consideration at that time.
I understood the premise, but for many 2% was not much. At the max taxable salary it was $42 per week. How many people took their windfall and made economy stimulting purchases? How many used it to pay off debt or to help stay afloat? How many other costs increased at that time, in effect negating that temporary extra cash? One thing I do recall was people complaining when the tax holiday ended. They'd grown dependent upon the money for their daily budgets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2017, 08:53 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,167 posts, read 1,267,777 times
Reputation: 4465
It was max just over $2000 a year difference from the year before for high earners. Not chicken feed (well, I really don't know what it cost to feed chickens for a year..). The point is that at least at that amount, it was significant. There is no way. Outside of increasing wages, that the lower half has much effect on stimulating the economy since all their income basically goes to essentials.

@galaxyhi: so the people that pay in the most should get the least or zero? It is already means tested for both income for earning it, and taxes paid back on SS upon retirement if income is over a whopping $42k. Ok, Comrade, nice socialist thinking there. Because everyone that makes a low wage works so much harder than and contributes more dollars to funding SS and the government in the first place, than the higher tax paying wage earners. Now, if you want to compare percentage of taxes paid to gross income, and tax extra to meet a minimum for $1MM dollar plus earners thats different story. Getting out of paying taxes on loopholes, like many elected officials, is plain wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2017, 10:50 AM
 
2,443 posts, read 2,073,760 times
Reputation: 5690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
It was max just over $2000 a year difference from the year before for high earners. Not chicken feed (well, I really don't know what it cost to feed chickens for a year..). The point is that at least at that amount, it was significant. There is no way. Outside of increasing wages, that the lower half has much effect on stimulating the economy since all their income basically goes to essentials.

@galaxyhi: so the people that pay in the most should get the least or zero? It is already means tested for both income for earning it, and taxes paid back on SS upon retirement if income is over a whopping $42k. Ok, Comrade, nice socialist thinking there. Because everyone that makes a low wage works so much harder than and contributes more dollars to funding SS and the government in the first place, than the higher tax paying wage earners. Now, if you want to compare percentage of taxes paid to gross income, and tax extra to meet a minimum for $1MM dollar plus earners thats different story. Getting out of paying taxes on loopholes, like many elected officials, is plain wrong.
Chickens are unionizing and demanding better food so the cost to feed chickens is skyrocketing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2017, 03:31 PM
 
9,200 posts, read 9,280,929 times
Reputation: 28823
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
I understood the premise, but for many 2% was not much. At the max taxable salary it was $42 per week. How many people took their windfall and made economy stimulting purchases? How many used it to pay off debt or to help stay afloat? How many other costs increased at that time, in effect negating that temporary extra cash? One thing I do recall was people complaining when the tax holiday ended. They'd grown dependent upon the money for their daily budgets.
Lower income people are more likely to spend whatever money they have than higher income people are. Most of their money goes for food, clothing, housing, gasoline, etc. This spending pumps money back into the economy quickly. It also is usually spent locally and it often has the effect of helping to keep local businesses afloat. In that sense, the community benefits as well as the person who has his taxes cut.

This tax holiday was always intended to be temporary. That's one issue I have with people. There should be no expectation that some government benefits will be permanent, whether they be actual cash or a reduction in taxes. Anyone who cried about losing that temporary tax reduction doesn't deserve the time of day. It was a temporary expedient and nothing more.

It was about that time that some noticeable improvement did take place in the economy. It was one of many measures taken to encourage economic growth. Its hard to say how much difference any one measure made. However, all measures taken together did bring about a slow economic recovery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2017, 03:43 PM
 
4,315 posts, read 2,526,154 times
Reputation: 7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
just break disability off from social security and survivor benefits . Merge it with welfare which is what it really is . Fix the tons of abuse and fraud in both disability and welfare and problem solved , everything is well funded and lots of jobs created for fraud investigators .
bingo !
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