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.
how many FT employees (not the owner or their relatives) earn the minimum? After 1 year? How many earn < $15/hr for FT? After 1 year?
You tell me. If it's not that many, then it shouldn't be a problem to bring the minimum up to catch up with inflation over the years that it has stalled.
This wasn't in response to the OP as a complete fix to SS, but it can certainly contribute.
Make payouts a sliding scale. If you continue to have income over today]s equivalent of $74,000 you get half the payout. At 150,000 you get one quarter, at 200k nothing. Then as you go down in your yearly income during retirement, you get more. People with nothing but SS get 150%
People who are making the equivalent of 200K a year really do not care about getting the comparative pittance from SS and do not need it. Adjust the scale as necessary to keep SS afloat, and prevent the people with nothing for retirement except SS from starving. It would not be terrible hard to make a fair scale.
Then add any politician who takes any money from SS, including borrowing it, goes directly to prison for five years. No exceptions.
Make payouts a sliding scale. If you continue to have income over today]s equivalent of $74,000 you get half the payout. At 150,000 you get one quarter, at 200k nothing. Then as you go down in your yearly income during retirement, you get more. People with nothing but SS get 150%
People who are making the equivalent of 200K a year really do not care about getting the comparative pittance from SS and do not need it. Adjust the scale as necessary to keep SS afloat, and prevent the people with nothing for retirement except SS from starving. It would not be terrible hard to make a fair scale.
Then add any politician who takes any money from SS, including borrowing it, goes directly to prison for five years. No exceptions.
It makes more sense to raise payroll taxes and gradually raise the age to begin benefits.
Frankly, I wonder why healthy people are allowed to claim benefits at age 62.
It makes more sense to raise payroll taxes and gradually raise the age to begin benefits.
Frankly, I wonder why healthy people are allowed to claim benefits at age 62.
It makes way more sense that they will actually do the same things they have done in the past to fix it going forward.
The problem with raising the FRA age and early age 62 is that actually the younger generations are not as healthy (already at earlier ages) and the whole issue of people that work in very physical jobs (and their bodies are trashed (construction workers, master of all trades and those other workmen such as iron workers (other than police and fire who have pensions). Not everyone is suited to going into some kind of management in their field when they become physically unable.
I'm not saying they won't raise the ages (I'm sure they will). But, in reality it will end up just being a cut and people will have to find a way to finance the gap between 67 and 72 (or whatever they raise it to) because not everyone will be able to work those years (and will people are let go starting 55-60 in corporate america anyways). It gets harder to be employable (so, how are they going to fix that?)?
In the long run it may be better to raise the tax more than raising the age.
fewer and fewer people are going out to eat now when breakfast at a dinner is 40 dollars plus for 2.
On the local Nextdoor in Las Vegas, retirees in their late 60s and 70s are whining about the high cost of going out to breakfast. I'd go so far as to say some of the retirees in that age bracket feel entitled to go out to breakfast for a reasonable price, and are resentful of restaurants now charging that $40+ for two for breakfast.
Yes, resentful. Their attitude on Nextdoor is sort of "I worked hard all my life to retire, and this is the thanks I get - breakfast costs $40+ for two people. There ought to be a law against that. Seniors ought to get special pricing so we can go out to eat every day so we don't have to prepare food at home." I shake my head at that attitude.
In certain geographic places, the price is discouraging a casual meal - but in other geographic places, not so much. But there has been a substitution effect: whereas before a retired couple might go out to eat to a restaurant where the bill would come to $100 plus tip - and now it is $150 plus tip - that couple still goes out to eat but substitutes a less expensive casual restaurant.
The substitution effect has been reported by Visa & Mastercard as they analyze retail sales: cardholders who Visa & MC know to be quite affluent have substituted down to shop at Walmart.
An interview I heard from a CEO for a large casual restaurant chain, he said they have plenty of customers. And now they have plenty of would-be employees. The CEO said the labor market has changed in the last few months - it has gone from "nobody wants to work" to having ample job applicants.
Last edited by moguldreamer; 03-06-2023 at 10:46 AM..
Make payouts a sliding scale. If you continue to have income over today]s equivalent of $74,000 you get half the payout. At 150,000 you get one quarter, at 200k nothing. Then as you go down in your yearly income during retirement, you get more. People with nothing but SS get 150%
People who are making the equivalent of 200K a year really do not care about getting the comparative pittance from SS and do not need it. Adjust the scale as necessary to keep SS afloat, and prevent the people with nothing for retirement except SS from starving. It would not be terrible hard to make a fair scale.
Many people probably feel it's okay to phase out benefits at some level higher than their own income. I'll bet there are plenty who feel it's okay to eliminate SS benefits for anyone with $60k in other income. They've never earned $60k/year in their whole life and can't see why anyone should need more.
Also, there are ways to get around the income thresholds, at least for a while. If SS benefits were phased out based on income we'd see a huge shift into Roth accounts, and some older people would just start piling up money in their bank account or hoarding physical cash in their home (not a good idea, of course).
Many people probably feel it's okay to phase out benefits at some level higher than their own income.
I agree.
For about the past 15 years, my IRS 1040 income has been low 7 digits. I'm fine with phasing out SS benefits to anyone who earns mid-7 digits and higher.
For about the past 15 years, my IRS 1040 income has been low 7 digits. I'm fine with phasing out SS benefits to anyone who earns mid-7 digits and higher.
(I haven't claimed SS yet).
I'd take low 7 digits. I'd even take mid 6 digits. But, I don't really have the energy for all that (not now).
On the local Nextdoor in Las Vegas, retirees in their late 60s and 70s are whining about the high cost of going out to breakfast. I'd go so far as to say some of the retirees in that age bracket feel entitled to go out to breakfast for a reasonable price, and are resentful of restaurants now charging that $40+ for two for breakfast.
Yes, resentful. Their attitude on Nextdoor is sort of "I worked hard all my life to retire, and this is the thanks I get - breakfast costs $40+ for two people. There ought to be a law against that. Seniors ought to get special pricing so we can go out to eat every day so we don't have to prepare food at home." I shake my head at that attitude.
In certain geographic places, the price is discouraging a casual meal - but in other geographic places, not so much. But there has been a substitution effect: whereas before a retired couple might go out to eat to a restaurant where the bill would come to $100 plus tip - and now it is $150 plus tip - that couple still goes out to eat but substitutes a less expensive casual restaurant.
The substitution effect has been reported by Visa & Mastercard as they analyze retail sales: cardholders who Visa & MC know to be quite affluent have substituted down to shop at Walmart.
An interview I heard from a CEO for a large casual restaurant chain, he said they have plenty of customers. And now they have plenty of would-be employees. The CEO said the labor market has changed in the last few months - it has gone from "nobody wants to work" to having ample job applicants.
IHOP is much cheaper and under rated IMO.
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.
