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.
Just to make the math easy let's assume the cut off is $120,000 instead of the $117,000 or whatever it is now. Ok?
Total earned income for 2013 $6,704,657,596,370.41
Total earned income for 2013 for those earning < $120,000 $4,782,722,047,443.63
Total earned income for 2013 for those earning > $120,000 $1,921,935,548,926.78
Lifting the cap would result in at least $119,160,004,033.46 in additional taxes from employees earning > $120k and an additional $238,320,008,066.92 (that's $238 billion and change) in combined additional taxes from both the employee and employer. This move would result in more than a 40% increase in taxes collected and would solve all of social securities solvency problems.
More than enough money to cover any shortfalls and only affects 719,798 out of a total of 148,392,492 taxpayers. Less than 1/2 of 1% and isn't it time people like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Barbara Boxer start paying their fair share? Why do I feel I am about to get audited?
I would also like to see the minimums go up a bit to help lower income American seniors while at the same time capping the upper limits right where they are. Right now the maximum full retirement benefit is $2,642 and I would keep it right there. This is enough, if you get the maximum you did pretty well through life and you need to keep in mind the spousal benefit is 50% of what the higher earning spouse receives so if Bob is entitled to $2,642 Sue would be entitled to $1,321 for a total of $3,963 tax free dollars every month if they don't have a lot of other income. A large number of American families don't have $3,963 after paying all taxes every month so I think it is sufficient. If someone wants more they can always work a bit longer putting off benefits.
But this is where desertdetroiter and I disagree, social security should only apply to earned income.
As an American I don't want to see anyone who has worked their entire life be forced to live in poverty at the end. It's just plain wrong to do so and while I am not for everyone living in luxury there has to be a floor; a safety net and that is exactly what social security is.
Mind you all I am as far right as desertdetroiter is left.
I am both saddened, and entertained by comments about it being theft, and "it only solves 2 weeks of payments!" And Really? those making over 117K are our MVP?
#1 no its not theft, its the price you pay for living in a humane and reasonable society. If you are making enough to be affected by this you do have the ability to go elsewhere. Don't want to? You actually like this place? Well there you go.
#2 So what? Its a move in the right direction, why are you complaining? And that assumes I accept the math.
#3 You know who the MVP in the economy is? The middle class.
A bill to 'Strengthen' Social Security removes the upper limit to how much a person contributes into his policy.
Currently SS contributions are limited to only income less than $118k. This also limits how much your monthly benefit would ever be.
Now by removing that limit, all income gets taxed [including unearned income]. So the wealthy will get much larger monthly SS benefits when they reach age.
How does this 'Strengthen' SS ?
It gives the government more present day dollars with which to fool around.
I am both saddened, and entertained by comments about it being theft, and "it only solves 2 weeks of payments!" And Really? those making over 117K are our MVP?
#1 no its not theft, its the price you pay for living in a humane and reasonable society. If you are making enough to be affected by this you do have the ability to go elsewhere. Don't want to? You actually like this place? Well there you go.
#2 So what? Its a move in the right direction, why are you complaining? And that assumes I accept the math.
#3 You know who the MVP in the economy is? The middle class.
"it only solves 2 weeks of payments!"? Some bonehead actually wrote this?
It's a safety net, a floor. The purpose of a safety net is to insure we don't have a 74 year old widowed grandma forced to live under an underpass in God awful conditions.
Personally I would like to see the minimum floor raised a bit and I am speaking as someone who in two years my wife and I will collect over $4,000/month in benefits. I would like to see a minimum $1,500 for any single person or widow and $2,000 for any couple. $2,000 isn't much but it is tax free and living in somewhat comfortable conditions is doable in a number of areas of the country. Maybe not New York City or San Francisco but in many areas it is doable.
As far as the top benefit leave it where it is because, contrary to what many think, it is enough to live on.
Another thing to remember is wealth ins fleeting and contrary to what some might think there is less wealth transferred from generation to generation than you might think. Just because you are wealthy today is no assurance you will be wealthy tomorrow or next year. Sometimes bad things happen to good people and if you don't think so ask some of the people who were burned by Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Madoff when social security is all that is left for many of them.
I am both saddened, and entertained by comments about it being theft, and "it only solves 2 weeks of payments!" And Really? those making over 117K are our MVP?
#1 no its not theft, its the price you pay for living in a humane and reasonable society. If you are making enough to be affected by this you do have the ability to go elsewhere. Don't want to? You actually like this place? Well there you go.
A "humane and reasonable society" by the definition of leftists who have no problem stealing from those who produce and giving that money to those who don't, thereby increasing their power base with bought votes. When you take from one and give to another on the basis of the power of the government it is theft, pure and simple and all your leftist twisting, turning, hand wringing and moaning about the under privileged doesn't alter that fact by one nanometer.
"it only solves 2 weeks of payments!"? Some bonehead actually wrote this?
Se Mirceas post Earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer0101
A "humane and reasonable society" by the definition of leftists who have no problem stealing from those who produce and giving that money to those who don't, thereby increasing their power base with bought votes. When you take from one and give to another on the basis of the power of the government it is theft, pure and simple and all your leftist twisting, turning, hand wringing and moaning about the under privileged doesn't alter that fact by one nanometer.
Actually as defined by many of the involved people. You can try and label them as "leftests" if that makes you feel better, but they represent the majority of the society you live in, and many of them (including me) are the people who would also be impacted by the burden of it. And your "rightest" "taxation is theft!" moaning about it won't alter the fact that its the price we pay for having a reasonable place to live by one nanometer.
And no its not theft. You can keep crying about how your taxes are theft, but its nonsense, and the vast majority recognize it as nonsense. Its a nice way of saying "I want everyone else to pay for the society, while I shouldn't have to pay, and get that society for free since if they take from me they are stealing".
I would be OK with this if it is kept off-budget: that is, the proposed "new" money is not diverted to the general fund or to anyone _except_ the old-age insured (or at a minimum, that the uncapping is locked to the feds keeping the current budget baseline more or less in place -- the sequestration budget). Any significant budget increase or change would automatically result in the reinstatement of the social security wage tax cap.
I am worried that in ten years, with a different congressional makeup, all of this new income from uncapped social security contributions will be considered too tempting to accrue only to future SSOAI beneficiaries, whose recipients are sometimes vilified online as the parasitic old, and some vast new welfare scheme will bleed the money away to the newest victim du jour.
So no diversion to social security disability, no diversion to supplemental security income, no diversion to unemployment benefits, etc.
A "humane and reasonable society" by the definition of leftists who have no problem stealing from those who produce and giving that money to those who don't, thereby increasing their power base with bought votes. When you take from one and give to another on the basis of the power of the government it is theft, pure and simple and all your leftist twisting, turning, hand wringing and moaning about the under privileged doesn't alter that fact by one nanometer.
As a hard right winger I agree with everything you say about taking money from those that earn it to give to those that don't. Nothing infuriates me more than to see some fat guy sucking on a bong complaining how the rich have more then he does and how unfair life is.
But that said what about the people who can't earn due to physical handicap and can't work? I've been to foreign countries, both second and third world, and I don't want to live in a country like that.
Social security is far from socialism. It's not socialism it's insurance and to get something out you should pay something in.
I reached 66 last year and had the option to start taking social security but I decided to put it off so I could have more later.
If I had taken my benefit last year it would have been $2,250/month but if I wait just three more years it will be slightly over $3,000/month. Is it welfare? Am I getting something for nothing?
Let's look at some real hard numbers. Here is my first 15 years remember inflation (the cruelest tax of all) has been a factor in my lifetime.
Column A is year
Column B is the average bank passbook savings around interest rate which I found at the url on the spreadsheet.
Column C is my annual earnings. Some is skewed like 1968 and 1969 when I was in the army and in Vietnam we weren't taxed on our pay so i actually did earn more than shown. I think I was paid $333.month but the lower amount is on my SS statement.
Column D was the combined social security taxes % rate paid by both the employer and employee.
Column E was the combined medicare taxes % paid by both the employer and employee.
Coilum F was the total amount of SS taxes paid, Column G was the total amount of medicare taxes paid while Column H is the combined total.
Column J was the interest I would have earned had the amounts collected been put into a simple bank savings passbook.
Column K was the accumulated amount of principle and interest I would have had in my passbook over my lifetime.
Of course this is the first 15 years and for a lot of that time I worked for pretty low wages as a flight instructor but even so if you factor inflation the $5,850 I earned in 1975 it would be equivalent to $25,162 today or about $12.50/hr. I guess I wasn't paid as poorly as I thought at the time after all.
Then in the late 70's I changed careers and continued to earn more every year. In 1980 I was 32 years old and earned $19,900 which factored for inflation would be equivalent to $55,885 today. You have to look at everything through the prism of inflation especially the wonderful years of Jimmy Carter.
Like everything through life I had good years and bad. Some years were really good and others not so good but all in all it was a good ride.
But the interesting thing is over 50 years had the money placed with social security been put into a simple passbook savings around in my name I would have $681,841.00 in my account. Even at 2% interest that total would earn $1,133.40 every month for the rest of my life without touching principal starting at the first of this year!
Where is it some come across thinking we are going to take out more then we put in?
At a 2% return rate, simple bank savings account again, I could withdraw $3,500.00/month until I am 86 and that is starting last year. $3,500.00 is a whole lot better than the $2,250/month I would get now.
Actuaries put me living to age 76 and i would have to draw at a rate of $6,500/month to come out even at age 76 so we will see how I come out.
So seeing as how I most likely won't draw what I've put in do I view social security as a loser for me?
Not at all. What people forget is it just isn't old age insurance it is disability as well. What happens to your family if you get killed cleaning gutters around your house or are injured so badly you can never work again? Personally I don't want to see you thrown in the streets.... that just isn't right and luckily for us social security is there with payments to help your family through hard times.
So if I am being socialist go ahead and call me Karl Marx.
I expected some nonsense after that, but instead got factually based data. The one quibble many make is they prefer the interest payout on it to be higher. about 6-7% is the number often used. Plus the other side is that you pay half....and your employer matches it. So depending on the math you can make it go either way.
Quote:
Not at all. What people forget is it just isn't old age insurance it is disability as well. What happens to your family if you get killed cleaning gutters around your house or are injured so badly you can never work again? Personally I don't want to see you thrown in the streets.... that just isn't right and luckily for us social security is there with payments to help your family through hard times.
So if I am being socialist go ahead and call me Karl Marx.
Hey Karl!
All kidding aside, this. So much this. If I trip and break my neck tomorrow....I'm ok....well not OK, but at least I am not homeless and destitute. Its not social security investment, its social security insurance.
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.
