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.
SS isn't going anywhere. Taxes will go up. And that's gospel.
There's nothing currently on the table to increase taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
The only reason Soc Sec is under stress is because the Republicans refuse to do anything that involves a tax increase.
Democrats did nothing for the 2 years they were in control 2008-2010, so it's a bipartisan issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
All it takes is a modest increase in the Soc Sec payroll tax and raising the taxable cap of $118,500 to a higher number. Do that and Soc Sec is solvent for decades.
Actually, if you step-increased the FICA Payroll Tax 27% to 8.5% each for employer and employee over 4 years, and levied a 2% surcharge tax on income in excess of the cap for employees, you could both fund Social Security indefinitely and lower the full-retirement age back to 65 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you
I would want nothing more than to have the ability to opt out of SS. I would like to get a check with interest paid to me so I can invest as I see fit
If you're really the Financial Wizard you claim to be, you should be able to do fine with your current income, in spite of the FICA Payroll Tax.
A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent system that will eventually run out of new investors and collapse, while maintaining a deception to investors about it's stability and the source of their investment returns. It will always collapse because there is no actual investment and each layer of new investors needs to be twice as big to continue returns to the layer above it,...
Or each layer of investors must contribute more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
It's uneducated people who call SS anything of the sort as a Ponzi Scheme
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon
Anyone that talks about social security as a ponzi scheme only shows their ignorance.
It's the uneducated and ignorant who can discern the differences between the actual scheme and the characteristics of the scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
If SS did not act like a Ponzi scheme, its viability would be independent of how many new subscribers are entering the program. But it isn't. The annual reports from the SS Trustees is clear that SS is being affected by the drop in US birthrate. It depends on the tax revenue from those new entries to fund its payouts. That is the essence of a Ponzi scheme.
The hilarious thing about all this is social security can be 97% funded over the next 7 decades with two simple changes. Removing the income cap and investing it in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
Removing the wage cap while not removing the benefit cap would more than fund SS forever.
Actually, no.
Removing the wage cap will only result in a maximum theoretical increase of ~$170 Billion annually, which is not enough to off-set losses to the Trust Fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
The Heritage Foundation is a completely worthless source. They are nothing but a right-wing slop-shop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
The Heritage Foundation has no credibility when it comes to Social Security. They are funded by those who are well known to be hostile to Social Security.
Then you should be able to prove that mathematically.
...No matter how many times the facts are repeated, there remains a large, and completely delusional clientele who cannot understand that: ... (2) that the end of American dominance of a global economy means that wages in many industries will be depressed. ...
2nd Trick Op, within the past half century the USA has consistently been experiencing annual trade deficits of goods. Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s gross domestic production and their numbers of jobs.
Other nations are catching up and may now or in the future surpass USA’s per capita GDP and our number of jobs and their median wage.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita .
I do not intend to argue if USA’s economic eminence must or must not wane or terminate within our more foreseeable future; but regardless of our future economic rank among nations, it’s preferable for our future annual per capita GDP’s, numbers of jobs and their median wage’s purchasing power be greater rather than lesser.
I’m among the proponents for a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”. Its entire direct net expenditures are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods.
Its USA adoption would likely increase and never be a cause of decreasing USA’s gross domestic production per capita, our numbers of jobs, (which in turn somewhat promotes the purchasing power of our median wage.
Really! Ponzi schemes fail because they have no connection to a reliable income stream. Social Security is plugged directly into US payrolls, perhaps the largest and most reliable income stream in the world. And like most insurance plans, it pays current benefits out of current premiums and stashes any remainder away as reserves against future claims. As for policy holders, they of course expect to be paid if the events insured against happen to them. There is nothing odd or ignorant about that at all.
In another few years there isn't going to be any 'remainder to stash away' unless there are big tax increases. SS isn't quite a Ponzi scheme but it's a lot closer to one than most people would care to admit.
you can bet your bottom dollar ss will either be funded from general tax revenue to fill any short fall or disability will be split off and become part of welfare .
in the end ss is not going anywhere . disability is hurting it . many folks should not be getting those checks and that system is widely abused.fix the disability side and old age retirement will be fine with very little additional funding
2nd Trick Op, within the past half century the USA has consistently been experiencing annual trade deficits of goods. Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s gross domestic production and their numbers of jobs.
Other nations are catching up and may now or in the future surpass USA’s per capita GDP and our number of jobs and their median wage.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita .
It doesn't matter how often do you reply this nonsense, it doesn't come true.
1. It's absurd to think the U.S. could balance the trade deficit by replacing imports with domestic production.
2. Reducing imports would mean fewer added value in the U.S. Less wholesale, less retail, fewer jobs, lower GDP.
3. A trade deficit only reduces the GDP when you assume that the country would produce all the goods domestically. But this assumption is just absurd. The trade deficit is a boost for the U.S. GDP. Without the import surplus the U.S. would fall into a deep recession. Without the trade deficit GDP and living standard in the U.S. would be much lower. The same could be observed in Greece. The dramatic decline of imports plunged Greece into a deep recession.
GDP per capita, number of jobs or median wage are pretty pointless in this context. Someone who thinks that those numbers are accurate or valid is most likely not capable to understand economical coherences. BTW, compared to other rich countries, the number of jobs and the median wage (adjusted for benefits and domestic price level) is relatively low in the U.S.
Quote:
I do not intend to argue if USA’s economic eminence must or must not wane or terminate within our more foreseeable future; but regardless of our future economic rank among nations, it’s preferable for our future annual per capita GDP’s, numbers of jobs and their median wage’s purchasing power be greater rather than lesser.
Replacing imports by domestic manufacturing would mean that the U.S. needs tens of millions of additional skilled workers. Where should they came from? Mexico? American corporations surely don't want to invest billions into training the workforce. The U.S. has many strengths, manufacturing is not one of them. Replacing imports with backwardly domestic production? That's only good for lowering the standard of living.
It doesn't matter how often do you reply this nonsense, it doesn't come true.
1. It's absurd to think the U.S. could balance the trade deficit by replacing imports with domestic production.
2. Reducing imports would mean fewer added value in the U.S. Less wholesale, less retail, fewer jobs, lower GDP.
3. A trade deficit only reduces the GDP when you assume that the country would produce all the goods domestically. But this assumption is just absurd. The trade deficit is a boost for the U.S. GDP. Without the import surplus the U.S. would fall into a deep recession. Without the trade deficit GDP and living standard in the U.S. would be much lower. The same could be observed in Greece. The dramatic decline of imports plunged Greece into a deep recession.
GDP per capita, number of jobs or median wage are pretty pointless in this context. Someone who thinks that those numbers are accurate or valid is most likely not capable to understand economical coherences. BTW, compared to other rich countries, the number of jobs and the median wage (adjusted for benefits and domestic price level) is relatively low in the U.S.
Replacing imports by domestic manufacturing would mean that the U.S. needs tens of millions of additional skilled workers. Where should they came from? Mexico? American corporations surely don't want to invest billions into training the workforce. The U.S. has many strengths, manufacturing is not one of them. Replacing imports with backwardly domestic production? That's only good for lowering the standard of living.
Lukas1973, I’m among the proponents of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”. Your post is not applicable to what I advocate.
The Import Certificate proposal is not a proposal to eliminate USA’s global trade of goods. It would not because it could not prevent to importation of any items for which there’s effective USA purchasers’ demands.
You, as I do assume that this proposed policy would be of the greatest benefit to USA’s manufacturing industries; but the proposal itself does not choose and favor producers of any type of goods. The certificates are issued for face applicable to the assessed value (in U.S. dollars within USA ports) for global shipments, with no regard for what type of industry produced the products.
GDP per capita, number of jobs or median wage are why the USA should adopt this policy. Annual trade deficits of goods are ALWAYS net detrimental to their nation’s GDPs and numbers of jobs unless that nation enjoys full employment. I’m unaware of any nation fully employed when it experienced an annual trade deficit.
I don't think there's going to be a maltdown for a while.. I get tired of the doom and gloomers tell me the entire economy is "fake" .. if it's fake it wouldn't be going on for years and years in relative stability. I guess it's true that a retarted clock is still right twice a day. One of these years you'll be right for about 6-12 months, then things will improve and you'll have another 10 years of prosperity and be wrong again...
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.
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.
One of these years you'll be right for about 6-12 months, then things will improve and you'll have another 10 years of prosperity and be wrong again...
