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.
Gotta love the boomer cons. The rest of America will keep these people alive and living for the next 20 years of their lives as they screw the rest of us by voting for the very same people who are trying to do away with SS and Medicare.
When you say boomers, you are talking about old people, let's be real. Aren't those the folks keeping a roof over the head of their kids and grandkids right now?
The boomers have had power their whole lives. Their parents did all sorts of stuff for them (national parks, Medicare, Medicaid, federal highway systems), then they voted to lower their own taxes and expand services from Reagan onward, and now we have a huge deficit and they are fixing to move from the productive generators of government revenue to a huge expenditure, resource sink for decades to come.
How is it that we can pay for this through cutting taxes? The major commitments for eldercare come from the federal government. Country, state, and private or charity spending does not come close. We are forced with either throwing them under the bus at the end of their lives, or raising taxes in a proactive way to honor our commitments. Now we find ourselves in recession right when we should be paying forward for this huge slow-motion trainwreck.
Please don't provide sound bites, fingerpointing, or platitudes. They won't cut it. This is a huge issue that can only addressed with a sensible combination of lowered entitlement distributions and efforts to raise revenue in many different ways. However, I don't think the boomers are going to roll over. They are older, and they vote, and there is a lot of them. They will get what they can. The issue is whether there will be anything left for the rest of society.
How we react in the next 5 years, I fear, will affect the lives of millions in next 20-30 years or more. What should we do?
Is it possible that you have not done your math?
In your lifetime, you may pay $140,000 to $200,000 into the system. Now, check Social Security's own website. QUOTE: "The average retiree only collects for eighteen months." UNQUOTE
Now, if a retiree is collecting a monthly check for $2,000 (which may be a high estimate), and only collecting for eighteen months, that accounts for $36,000 in benefits. Out of what that retiree paid in, it accounts for only about 18% to 25% of what that single retiree paid in. That leaves between $104,000- and $164,000 that goes.... SOMEWHERE... You're going to complain because someone may get 25% of what he/she paid in when the time comes?
How about you hand me $10,000 today, and in 30 years, I'll give you back $2,500. It's about the same thing. Instead of trying to find a way to swindle Americans, that have done their work, out of what little they get, how about looking into what kind of "ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS" there are, and how to cut back on them. That's where the largest slice of the pie goes. What kind of salaries are the execs collecting out of all the money the American Workers, across the whole country, pay into the system?
You, and we all, would be far, far better off, to automatically deduct each amount from our weekly pay and put it into a savings account. When you retire, try to spend all that in just eighteen months.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Two issues: SS should be means tested. If a senior's income is over a certain amount, no SS benefits.
The question this brings up in my mind is at what age they are tested? While some folks have a gradual rising income and logically they would hit peak salary at retirement it doesn't always work that way. Our salary has more peaks and valley's than the Rockies.... It's an interesting concept but one that could be "gamed" quite easily I'd think. And, if we're to believe the current administration's current mantra of fair, fair, fair, (rolls eyes), those who would get no benefit because of a certain income are also those who probably contributed the most during their working years. Probably having maxed out their contributions most times. What is fair about that? The end of the boomers (those born after 1960) are already being penalized by having to take retirement later now as it is the way I read my statement.
You, and we all, would be far, far better off, to automatically deduct each amount from our weekly pay and put it into a savings account.
nah, what you don't get, is that social security isn't a "savings plan" for the middle class, so it makes no sense to compare it to one.
Social Security is sort of like "redistributive insurance." Or you could describe it as retirement welfare for the "working, lower middle class." If you make in the $80k - $100k bracket, (just one example), a lot of your money is going to the $20k-$30k bracket.
Anyone mention that the finances of Social Security can be fixed by applying the tax to all salary and bonus income and limiting the payout to under the 75th percentile. Social security is not a pension. it is financial insurance for people that never made very much or whose savings and investments were wiped out by a financial crisis. The recent losses in investment accounts and home values have wiped out many of the boomers plans for retirement. Some of the massive shift in wealth to the executive classes has to be recovered to provide a living for the workers they stole the money from. My proposal accomplishes this very efficiently.
...if we're to believe the current administration's current mantra of fair, fair, fair, (rolls eyes), those who would get no benefit because of a certain income are also those who probably contributed the most during their working years. Probably having maxed out their contributions most times. What is fair about that?
My spouse and I have maxed out SS and FICA contributions for decades and, believe me, don't rejoice we will likely never personally benefit from our payments. However, for the good of the country sacrifices need to be made and must start with us. Boomers have benefited greatly from this country. The question isn't "What is fair?", but, "What is the right thing to do?".
Raise taxes. And lift the SS payroll tax cap on the wealthy. Get rid of it completely. None of this pay SS tax on the first 106k...or whatever it is. Crush the Pentagon by at least half.
That's how you do it.
Raise the cap to 250 k or so. That'll fix it if the stealing stops.
I have read estimates that it takes 2.5 mill to "retire" today. I have worked since I was 15 and am now 67. I am just now over 1 mil in lifetime earnings so how could I have "accumulated" 2.5 mil? Yet young people accuse us of making bad decisions and being at fault for our dependence on SS income.
Anyone mention that the finances of Social Security can be fixed by applying the tax to all salary and bonus income and limiting the payout to under the 75th percentile. Social security is not a pension. it is financial insurance for people that never made very much or whose savings and investments were wiped out by a financial crisis. The recent losses in investment accounts and home values have wiped out many of the boomers plans for retirement. Some of the massive shift in wealth to the executive classes has to be recovered to provide a living for the workers they stole the money from. My proposal accomplishes this very efficiently.
But how is this true when SS pays out several times less than average market investments over any given 20 year period, even including the financial crash? Historically speaking, the stock market is better insurance than social security! With all due respect, did you do the math before posting this?
And as a final point, why would the wealthy keep their money in the US if they suddenly had to pay massively higher taxes? Your plan would do nothing but decrease net tax revenue to this country while encouraging a system that has a negative return, when accounting for opportunity cost...How is anything about that 'efficient'?
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.
If you hate your children, that's for another thread
