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 01-22-2018, 07:37 PM
 
25,986 posts, read 33,003,034 times
Reputation: 32213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Your Social Security Benefits are in jeopardy solely due to the fact that the FICA Payroll Tax has not been increased since 1990.

The largest period of time without an increase was 12 years. It has now been 27 years without an increase to off-set for population growth and benefit increases due to Cost-of-Living.

You might want to consider the fact that there aren't enough jobs to employ every adult 16 and older, and that children are necessary to contribute to the retirement benefits.

I'm an ultra-conservative, and I don't have any issues with the current Social Security Benefit scheme.
The tax is a percentage. I pay more, the more I make. As far as I am concerned, it certainly has increased as I have paid more in SS tax every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2018, 09:37 PM
 
11,134 posts, read 8,544,282 times
Reputation: 28109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Your Social Security Benefits are in jeopardy solely due to the fact that the FICA Payroll Tax has not been increased since 1990.

The largest period of time without an increase was 12 years. It has now been 27 years without an increase to off-set for population growth and benefit increases due to Cost-of-Living.

You might want to consider the fact that there aren't enough jobs to employ every adult 16 and older, and that children are necessary to contribute to the retirement benefits.

I'm an ultra-conservative, and I don't have any issues with the current Social Security Benefit scheme.
Oh, so I should pay even more to fund the SS of people who make a conscious decision to not work? The number of jobs has nothing to do with this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2018, 09:42 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,672 posts, read 8,580,903 times
Reputation: 19868
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Oh, so I should pay even more to fund the SS of people who make a conscious decision to not work? The number of jobs has nothing to do with this issue.
I'm with you. Politicians have generated a dependent class, and people are taking advantage of it.....
What, the guy didn't know he would be 66 and still have children at home? He couldn't do the math when he was 50?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 04:37 AM
 
Location: R.I.
979 posts, read 606,070 times
Reputation: 4242
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Oh, so I should pay even more to fund the SS of people who make a conscious decision to not work?
I am a not by choice because I wanted children childless. I was also widowed when I was 44. These two things have made me a rather odd ball in my neighborhood as I am surrounded on all sides by married neighbors, most had 3 children, and I and one other female neighbor worked all during the 25+ years we have all lived in our neighborhood and the rest of the females were SAHMs.

Now I can certainly understand my SAHM neighbors wanting to remain home with their children when their children were ages 0-5 and at home, but if you consider most of my neighbor SAHMs were 25 when they had their first child and 29 when they had their 3rd, when that 3rd child became a self sufficient driving part time working 16 year old they were age 45. If you look at it this way, my SAHM neighbors were in the mom workforce for 20 years and were able to retire at age 45 because none ever returned to the workforce. A single childless non married woman/man who say entered the non mom workforce at the same age of 25 they will be age 60 before they have a 35 year work history, and if they chose to retire and collect their earliest SS at 62 they have worked 17 years longer than the SAHM and their benefit at that time could be equal to or even less than 1/2 of that SAHMs spousal benefit.

With very few women these days having dependent young children still at home when they are approaching the conventional retirement age of 60+ unless their last name is Duggar and had their last child in their 40s. Possibly, maybe changing the laws where SAHMs would be given 1 credit for each year they were a SAHM for each of their children during the ages of 0-5, so with 3 children that would equal 15 credits. If these SAHMs choose to home school they should receive additional work credit because that is providing formal education as a teacher in the home over a number of years in addition to their nurture role as mom. And then to reach the 35 years of work credits those years can happen before they have children or after their children have entered school or even after their children have graduated and on their own. In the case of my neighbor SAHMs, most worked at least 5 years before they had children, so if they returned to work at 45 they still would only have to work to 60 to get their 35 credits which most singles these days are working beyond that age.

I think something like this would even out the playing field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 05:26 AM
 
11,134 posts, read 8,544,282 times
Reputation: 28109
Why should the SS law favor or give special treatment to people who chose marriage/children over working? If you want to get SS retirement benefits someday, then work and pay into the system. Otherwise, no spousal or minor child benefits for your personal choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 08:44 AM
 
66 posts, read 20,770 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Why should the SS law favor or give special treatment to people who chose marriage/children over working? If you want to get SS retirement benefits someday, then work and pay into the system. Otherwise, no spousal or minor child benefits for your personal choices.
Children, spouse and survivor benefits have been part of the program since 1939.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Northern panhandle WV
3,007 posts, read 2,172,300 times
Reputation: 6691
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Why should the SS law favor or give special treatment to people who chose marriage/children over working? If you want to get SS retirement benefits someday, then work and pay into the system. Otherwise, no spousal or minor child benefits for your personal choices.
Why should those who choose to work over raising a family to help support our society with well raised children, get preference over those that Do?

As stated these benefits have been a part of the SS system since 1939 and it was because of the contribution SAHM was valued and still should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 12:00 PM
 
1,168 posts, read 2,402,696 times
Reputation: 3485
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Why should the SS law favor or give special treatment to people who chose marriage/children over working? If you want to get SS retirement benefits someday, then work and pay into the system. Otherwise, no spousal or minor child benefits for your personal choices.
totally agree- spousal/ minor child payments are doubly draining the system because there is no employer contribution for them like there is for the worker. I think the employer pays in around 6% for the employee- NO ONE pays a contribution for the non working spouse / minor child- they just take out. If you want your spouse/child to get some benefit- then it should come out of their benefit- NOT the general pot.

I don't even want to think about all those years I had to get my little kids up- ready- and in their car seats at 6:30 AM to drop them off at daycare so I could get to work on time -then worry about a meeting running late that would make me late to pick them up- .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,916 posts, read 14,238,717 times
Reputation: 16096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom View Post
The tax is a percentage. I pay more, the more I make. As far as I am concerned, it certainly has increased as I have paid more in SS tax every year.
I don't even know how to retort to something as silly as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Oh, so I should pay even more to fund the SS of people who make a conscious decision to not work? The number of jobs has nothing to do with this issue.
They are working...they're raising children. And the number of jobs has everything to do with it, since an Employment-to-Population Ratio of 100% is impossible to achieve. Best case scenario is an Employment-to-Population Ratio of 67%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2018, 05:52 PM
 
1,669 posts, read 783,625 times
Reputation: 2841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Your Social Security Benefits are in jeopardy solely due to the fact that the FICA Payroll Tax has not been increased since 1990.

The largest period of time without an increase was 12 years. It has now been 27 years without an increase to off-set for population growth and benefit increases due to Cost-of-Living.

You might want to consider the fact that there aren't enough jobs to employ every adult 16 and older, and that children are necessary to contribute to the retirement benefits.

I'm an ultra-conservative, and I don't have any issues with the current Social Security Benefit scheme.
The maximum wages for FICA have gone up a bunch.In 2000, the maximum was $76,200, in 2017 it was $127,200, a difference of 51,000. That means in 2017, I paid $3,162 more in FICA than in 2000.
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
Similar Threads
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