No social security check anymore (unemployment, Durbin, downturn, leader)
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.
Means-testing. Many don't like it. It only kicks in if you have significant income aside from your SS benefits. But we have quite a few things that are subject to means-testing within the tax structure. Deductability of IRA contributions, child-care credits, personal exemptions, itemized deductions. You probably have to oppose all of them if you want to oppose any of them...
"Significant income"? Try fiftenn/twenty grand. Man, you are shameless.
And no one "probably" has to oppose anything. We're not talking income tax. We're talking Social Security, remember?
Sheesh.
Actually, I think we are glossing over a philosophical problem here, an inconsistency if you will.
On one hand we officially let folks know they need to work harder at becoming more self sufficient over the long term, be able to better financially care for themselves. Should they even become somewhat successful at this, we then penalize them through a higher taxation of their SS benefits, thereby indirectly discouraging the behavior we supposedly are trying to encourage.
Makes no sense to me at all, especially at the low supplemental income threshold set for taxation to commence.
Actually, I think we are glossing over a philosophical problem here, an inconsistency if you will.
On one hand we officially let folks know they need to work harder at becoming more self sufficient over the long term, be able to better financially care for themselves. Should they even become somewhat successful at this, we then penalize them through a higher taxation of their SS benefits, thereby indirectly discouraging the behavior we supposedly are trying to encourage.
Makes no sense to me at all, especially at the low supplemental income threshold set for taxation to commence.
Let's vote right now! Either that or have another Boston Tea Party.
Why do wealthy people need social security anyway? I think its absurd that someone that is worth millions collects on social security(even though they have contributed to social security over the years). They must laugh at this check when it comes in from Uncle Sam. The social security system is a safety net for the poor and middle class folks. If the stock market collapses
what happens to this money if its invested in stocks? Thats not the defination of a safety net. The younger generation must invest more of their money in long range mutual funds, 401ks, etc. These saving vehicles weren't available to current social security recipients, so please have a heart!
The younger folks shouldn't be so eager to do away with social security, just think you may need this money one day yourself(that is if the government doesn't squander all of its money in a stupid war like we are doing now)!
Why do wealthy people need social security anyway? I think its absurd that someone that is worth millions collects on social security(even though they have contributed to social security over the years). They must laugh at this check when it comes in from Uncle Sam. The social security system is a safety net for the poor and middle class folks. If the stock market collapses
what happens to this money if its invested in stocks? Thats not the defination of a safety net. The younger generation must invest more of their money in long range mutual funds, 401ks, etc. These saving vehicles weren't available to current social security recipients, so please have a heart!
The younger folks shouldn't be so eager to do away with social security, just think you may need this money one day yourself(that is if the government doesn't squander all of its money in a stupid war like we are doing now)!
I think I agree with you, but you keep vibrating around. Stand still and let me see if you're a promising youngster or one of saganista's evil minions.
Why do wealthy people need social security anyway? I think its absurd that someone that is worth millions collects on social security(even though they have contributed to social security over the years).
It's more a matter of the universality factor at the moment. Everyone pays, everyone benefits. If you need to capture more from the rich in terms of SS support, there are (in my view) better ways of doing it than simply zapping their benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roanoker 4
If the stock market collapses what happens to this money if its invested in stocks? Thats not the definition of a safety net.
There seems to be a consensus among some that this never happens. They see the stock market as an uninterupted gravy train, and view those who do not as being unsophisticated.
Last edited by saganista; 10-03-2007 at 08:53 PM..
Reason: stark-to-stock...though I liked stark too!
It's more a matter of the universality factor at the moment. Everyone pays, everyone benefits. If you need to capture more from the rich in terms of SS support, there are (in my view) better ways of doing it than simply zapping their benefits.
There seems to be a consensus among some that this never happens. They see the stark market as an uninterupted gravy train, and view those who do not as being unsophisticated.
Why do wealthy people need social security anyway? I think its absurd that someone that is worth millions collects on social security(even though they have contributed to social security over the years). They must laugh at this check when it comes in from Uncle Sam. The social security system is a safety net for the poor and middle class folks. If the stock market collapses
what happens to this money if its invested in stocks? Thats not the defination of a safety net. The younger generation must invest more of their money in long range mutual funds, 401ks, etc. These saving vehicles weren't available to current social security recipients, so please have a heart!
The younger folks shouldn't be so eager to do away with social security, just think you may need this money one day yourself(that is if the government doesn't squander all of its money in a stupid war like we are doing now)!
Where I split with you is the fairness, issue. In my view, you are punishing rich folks for being successful. How are you able to determine they don't want or need the money? Perhaps they use it philanthropically.
I would be more in favor of elevating the cap than eliminating the benefit. You need to still provide incentives for success, and I see your proposal as counterproductive to this objective.
That presupposes that funds collected by Uncle Sam are deposited into a special bank account dedicated to Social Security. That is a falsehood as the fund are spent immediatly on all the things, both necessary and absurd, that government squanders money. "Trust funds" and "reserves" exist only as debits and credits on a government spreadsheet.
Substantial portions of those funds are used to pay current Social Security benefits. Almost all of the remainder is invested in US Treasury securities -- just like a very substantial portion of the President's personal wealth according to his financial disclosure statements. It seems he too realizes that these are the safest, most secure investment vehicles in the history of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
No, people who look soberly at the situation make these claims. Think Tanks are not lobbyists for Big Money (what is Big Money anyway?). Economists such as Robert Samuelson and the late Milton Friedman are or were not lobbyists.
Well, I wouldn't question their sobriety -- at least not until after lunch -- but places like AEI, the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, and so forth, are indeed lobbyists for Big Money (the major banking, financial, and brokerage houses) and other major conservative patrons and causes, and many, though not necessarily all, of their analyses are conducted outside the bounds of strict neutrality that practitioners of the analytic arts are supposed to observe.
Samuelson is a journalist who often writes about economic and related matters. He generally understands the data, but his take on the data is as open to question as anyone else's. He's editorializing most of the time. Friedman was an interesting guy, and a fine economist, but let loose in a policy field, not so good. He and the whole school that he for a time headed have been good at winning Nobel Prizes and not a lot else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
CBO and SSA? Two government entities. Is this the same government that cannot figure out Iraq, cannot rebuild New Orleans, cannot balance a budget to save their life, cannot protect a border, cannot deliver the mail, and spends $100 for a hammer? No chance that two groups of useless bureacrats would not tell a bunch of others exactly what they wanted to hear? Nah, government never, ever lies.
Well, let's review your list here. How many of these are essentially matters of economic forecasting and analysis? Well, one...Social Security. And how many fall into some completely different discipline entirely. Well...all the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
I am not imagining anything. If Social Security were like the TVA, that rare, once in a lifetime government program that actually worked well, I would be all for it. The fact of the matter is it did work for a time, but now conditions have changed. These changes are real and must be addressed. It is far from an impossible situation and can indeed be remedied with a series of reforms. Except for the fact that denial has led to politicians playing games with it.
Nobody is playing any games. The operations of SSA and the SSTF are established and governed by statute, and all of them are transparent.
The world is indeed changing and SS is indeed facing problems and challenges, as it always has. The current ones are relatively small and relatively far away. It's good that in general at least, you recognize this. Many don't. What may seem like denial by politicians has lately been simply the rejection of unwise, unfounded, and inappropriate proposals. Many would prefer now simply to wait until a more honest player takes a seat at the table.
"Significant income"? Try fiftenn/twenty grand. Man, you are shameless.
Hmmm. Suppose you take a married couple filing a joint return with a combined SS retirement benefit of $14K per year, and combined other income of, oh heck, let's give them $25K per year. What portion of their SS benefits will be taxable would you say? How about a similar couple with a more hefty $34K SS benefit that does a little more fishing, and so earns just $15K of other income? That puts them above the median household income. How are things looking for them? What's the taxable portion of their SS benefits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
And no one "probably" has to oppose anything. We're not talking income tax. We're talking Social Security, remember? Sheesh.
Actually, we were talking means-testing.
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.