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.
We can eliminate most of the problems of social security by eliminating the caps on taxable income and payments to anyone with an income over the 60th percentile. Then set the rates so income matched payments as was set in the original legislation.
How's about demanding that Congress put back all that "surplus" money they have been BORROWING for decades ?
Why is taxing always the answer ? Taxing won't get you any more money when you have a Congress that is spending it quicker than they can take it in ?
Casper, the problem I see with your proposal is the oler employee generally makes more, therefore pays more in to SS. The younger employee makes less, therefore paying less into SS.
That means SS is taking in less and paying out more.
Memphis, SS has a penalty if you make somewhere over $15k a year.
So, if you keep working and are paying into SS and colecting SS your check is cut in half if you make over $15k something.
Cool, learn something new everyday. Still you're drawing some social security while working, and thus clogging the job market.
If I remember correctly the reason it was changed in the first place was so that older Americans wouldn't have to choose between losing their job and insurance just to get social security. That was many years ago though.
I remember a little about it because my Grandfather partially retired from the family business in order to draw full social security. Then about two years later the law was changed, so he went back to working full time. He didn't retire completely until he was 71.
How's about demanding that Congress put back all that "surplus" money they have been BORROWING for decades ?
Why is taxing always the answer ? Taxing won't get you any more money when you have a Congress that is spending it quicker than they can take it in ?
I agree with you. Most "solutions" to SS involve making people pay more, giving them less or no SS even though they have paid in or making them wait longer. But, if all the "borrowed" money were put back in would we still have a problem? Lets start of by putting SS's finances back to where they should be and then we can see if further action needs to be taken.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
AND MY FAVORITE:
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
The problem with that is that you can now work past retirement age, draw social security, and keep your full time job.
Social security retirement age should be based on the life expectancy of the group who is retiring. My age group is expected to live about 5 years longer than my parents, so I should be expected to retire 5 years later.
As far as older people leaving jobs, as has been shown in another thread, the healthcare law will allow older Americans who are only working to quit their jobs because they will no longer be denied insurance due to preexisting conditions. The CBO estimates about 800,000 people by the year 2021 will leave their jobs because the only reason they were holding onto them was the insurance factor.
Actually the article brought up that point, problem is only those with nice easy jobs are living longer, those with harder jobs not so much.
Casper
I thought this wasn't supposed to happen until 2014?
If people aren't employed then no FICA goes to DC.
If people are underemployed then less FICA goes to DC.
True unemployment is hoovering near 18%. (unemployment payout rate is over 17% even though the unemployment rate is 9%).
The employment force in the US has dropped to 63%.
The boomers start retiring in droves this year..the first of them turn 65.
Those 62-65 are taking early reduced payments due to economic problems.
The CBO (or whoever did the figuring for 2014) need to go back to the drawing board and use some realistic numbers.
Please remember Social Security is an INSURANCE system not a government retirement program. If your retirement income remains high enough and you bank has not collapsed (bank failures costing most people to lose their pension savings was the reason for SS in the first place) you should not receive any payments at all. By expecting everyone that bought this insurance to receive a payment is like expecting your car insurance company to refund all your payments if you do not have any accidents. Insurance does not work that way.
The congress has abused the system, principally under Republican influence, by using the SS Trust Fund contributions to keep payments artificially high, thus creating a tax that was unfairly regressive and reduced the tax burden of people faced with the higher end of the progressive Income Tax to the cost of the lower wage workers. There should never have been any cap on taxable income to be used for the protection of pension income for the poor that lost everything in a financial collapse. Without a cap the financiers that created the bust would still have to provide the pension income they would otherwise have stolen.
The system could be assured of continuing success if we return to a pass through where income equals output and all income from all sources is taxed and the payments are capped at a total income of less than the 75th percentile. In effect this is taking money from the people that will not be damaged by the loss and transferring it to the people that will use it to support a frugal living. I believe this is better than the reverse.
Please remember Social Security is an INSURANCE system not a government retirement program. If your retirement income remains high enough and you bank has not collapsed (bank failures costing most people to lose their pension savings was the reason for SS in the first place) you should not receive any payments at all. By expecting everyone that bought this insurance to receive a payment is like expecting your car insurance company to refund all your payments if you do not have any accidents. Insurance does not work that way.
That is not how SS works though. Maybe how you envision it..we give away money out of our paychecks for the heck of it and never expect to get it back ???
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.
