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.
And this economy is designed to discard those people. We as a country desperately need to vote in politicians who will deliver us the Basic Income.
We as a country have education opportunities so you can get yourself a good income. Trade schools are a great way. Of course, it means you might have to actually work.
Yeah, it's a depressing thought. A lot of people never even reach $50,000 in salary, much less "average" it over a 35-year period. If I don't somehow double my salary soon, I'll be one of them.
The median wage in 2019 was $19.33, that translates into about $40K yearly income, the median household income was $75,500 in 2019 according to HUD data, $50K is very doable for many. Earlier wages are adjusted to make them equivalent to today when calculated, making $16K in 1985 would be equivalent to $50K today under SS index factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHunter2018
And this economy is designed to discard those people. We as a country desperately need to vote in politicians who will deliver us the Basic Income.
This economy is designed to pay workers with jobs, not guarantee an income - very cynical viewpoint to say discard. Politicians are out for power, they promise what they can't provide to get people like you to vote for them. Basic income is paying people to not work, how is that a good idea. Also basic income won't get you more SS.
Sort of click bait, but this article/video is a bit informative in at least trying to explain how SS benefits are calculated. CNBC also makes it clear that SS was never nor can it be sole income in retirement. Something far too many people believe and it comes back to bite them in behind later on.
The article is wrong, but then it is CNBC so that is not even remotely surprising.
No one on Earth has ever gotten Social Security based on an annual $50,000 salary/wage.
Even if it happened that someone actually did earn $50,000/year for 35 years, Social Security does not use $50,000 to calculate your benefits.
Social Security indexes wages to the National Average Wage Index, which it publishes in late November or early December every year.
That $20,000 you made in 1984?
What $20,000?
Social Security doesn't use that. Indexing your 1984 wage to 2017 that $20,000 morphs into $60,375 and $60,375 is what Social Security uses to calculate your benefits, not the $20,000.
If someone really did earn $50,000/year for 35 years, only the very last year they earned $50,000 would actually be $50,000.
If you earned $50,000 in 1984, then assuming your first year of eligibility was 2017, Social Security would calculate it as $150,937.50 and not as $50,000.
If your first year of eligibility was 2018, then that $50,000 morphs into $161,591.49 and that is what Social Security will use, not the $50,000.
It's not useless. It's very helpful. There are millions of American who haven't even begun investigating how SS works and what they will earn. If this article gets folks thinking and investigating, then it has served its purpose. It's an article, not a full out SS earnings calculator.
It's not useless. It's very helpful. There are millions of American who haven't even begun investigating how SS works and what they will earn. If this article gets folks thinking and investigating, then it has served its purpose. It's an article, not a full out SS earnings calculator.
It is misleading because no one maintains 50k nor any constant rate of pay for ss purpose .....it is nonsense to even put anything in that context ....wages are indexed to inflation ..
You have two moving targets , our own salary glide path and the inflation indexing that goes on...
The article just confused many who read it...many times these click bait articles only serve to pass off wrong or misleading information
The trick is to make at least $100k for your last 10-15 years, to keep the 30 year average up, then when SS pays you $3,000/month move to a much less expensive area. Better yet, have a spouse making good money and between you have $5-6k month SS, added to your pensions and other investments. My mother-in-law never made much money doing secretarial work then retail when older, and her only income was SS at $700/month.
Politicians do not provide a basic income, taxes do. Taxes come from a business providing jobs and profits to be taxes.
One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that the entity that bears the statutory burden of a tax has nothing to do with where the burden of that tax ultimately falls. "Statutory burden" means the entity that, by law/regulation, must fill out a tax form & send it with money off to the IRS and to various state and local taxing authorities.
EVERY statutory burden of a tax on a business -- a bricks & mortar business or an online business -- is allocated as follows:
X% is borne by customers in the form of prices higher than they otherwise would be
Y% is borne by employees in the form of total compensation (and hours worked) lower than they otherwise would be
Z% is borne by business owners (shareholders) in the form of profits lower than they otherwise would be
...where X+Y+Z=1.0 (that is, X%+Y%+Z%=100.0%)
That's it.
Sooo... corporations merely collect & forward tax revenue to the IRS. The burden of that statutory tax is always allocated to a combination of customers, employees, and business owners (shareholders).
That is, 100% of corporate income tax obligations are paid by PEOPLE. Actual, real, breathing, tangible, living people. Regular people saving for their retirement. Parents saving for their kid's college. Widows and orphans. Rich people, poor people, high income people, low income people -- and everyone in-between.
Zero Percent of any corporate income tax obligation falls on the shoulder of a "corporation." Zero. Percent.
The corporation is owned by shareholders, who will see lower after tax profits on their investment if corporate taxes go up.
The question you have no answered is do you think this is a good idea, the basic income, and if so what will be its impacts? I know you must stay busy writing text books and do not have time to be bothered by a very basic real question so you shift the topic.
The claim that a politician can pass a bill and magically good happens is as false as you can keep your Policy and Dr PERIOD as one President promised
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.
