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.
I'm not sure what disability insurance you are talking about here. When I got disabled, I first had short-term disability insurance at 100% of my income for the first 6 months and then transitioned to long-term disability insurance which I am on now and is 60% of my income and will continue until I reach retirement age, at which point I will go on regular Social Security. I'm not sure what this 50% of income for 2 years insurance is that you're referring to.
Your disability insurance benefits can vary. His were obviously different from yours. I had one company provide something very similar to his, my current one provides the identical one to yours from the sounds of it.
I find your understanding of English to be horribly below the 2nd Grade Level.
Title 42 United States Code Section 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
(a) Old-age insurancebenefitsEvery individual who— (1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414(a) of this title), (2) has attained age 62, and (3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416(l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
Which part of "insurance" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
But we must ask how much of a difference would it really make?
Why?
I already have at least 6 posts showing the math and proving it makes no difference.
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.
Your math and your conclusions are all wrong.
I'll show you how to do this, so you don't muck it up and embarrass yourself in the future.
1] The income groups you want to tax:
$100,000 under $200,000
$200,000 under $250,000
$250,000 or more
2] The total number of tax payers from each Income Group you want to tax:
14,769,632 = $100,000 under $200,000
1,825,182 = $200,000 under $250,000
3,178,308 = $250,000 or more
3] The Earned Income from those groups you want to tax:
$100,000 under $200,000: $1,682,888,677,000
$200,000 under $250,000: $326,572,012,000
$250,000 or more: $1,273,505,111,000
is $3,718,539,433 per week or $3.7 Billion per week extra/additional revenues
is $16,113,670,879 per month or $16 Billion per month extra/additional revenues
8] At present levels:
Total monthly payout $72 Billion for February 2015
-12,025,000,000 short fall for February 2015
-$12 Billion
+$16 Billion
----------- +$4 Billion gain
8] At 2023 levels:
Total projected annual payout = $1.267 TRILLION
Total projected monthly payout = $105 Billion
Total projected annual income = $1.046 TRILLION
Total projected monthly income = $87 Billion
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./
Well you still can't find any one of 17 government websites to prove your claims on Wealth Inequality, so that doesn't say much.
Let's do a quick IQ check to separate the smart from the dumb.
You can choose between a job in White Plains, New Jersey for $100,000 or the exact same job in Cincinnati, Ohio for $58,000.
Which job pays more?
An IT job in Tupelo, Mississippi for $50,000 or the same job in Norwalk, Connecticut for $81,000.
Which job pays more?
Spoiler
Cincinnati, Ohio for $58,000.
Tupelo, Mississippi for $50,000
See?
So......how many of you are really that dumb?
There are 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US. Your government says so. I just proved it.
Get over it people.
The FICA payroll tax is a Flat Tax and I just showed how manifestly unfair a Flat Tax really is.
Get over it people.
If you people think everyone who earns $120,000 is part of the über-elite wealthy class, then you had best start educating yourselves, because it ain't so.
I'm not sure what disability insurance you are talking about here. When I got disabled, I first had short-term disability insurance at 100% of my income for the first 6 months and then transitioned to long-term disability insurance which I am on now and is 60% of my income and will continue until I reach retirement age, at which point I will go on regular Social Security. I'm not sure what this 50% of income for 2 years insurance is that you're referring to.
I was talking about private disability insurance which is something you should have in addition to socail security.
The Insurance Information Institute in New York estimated in 2009 that 43 percent of 40-year-olds will have an incident causing long-term disability -- defined as lasting 90 days or more -- by the time they turn 65
"it only solves 2 weeks of payments!"? Some bonehead actually wrote this?
I've calculated this out before, and you were all hot and heavy on it.
You even repped me for it.
As I have stated 50 Million freaking times until I want to puke on people, you have no choice but to raise the FICA payroll tax.
You can dance around like a fairy looking for all the Magic-Bulletâ„¢ solutions trying to avoid raising the FICA tax rate, but at the end of the day, the rate will be raised.
Make no mistake about it: that money is coming out of your eoconomy no matter what you do or don't do.....that's what "Unfunded Liability" means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
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.
So, you're really a closet Liberal into the Entitlement Mentality.
Grandma can rent a room in an old folks' home, just like her grandma did,...and the Sun will still rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
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.
So if I am being socialist go ahead and call me Karl Marx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I expected some nonsense after that, but instead got factually based data.
That is classic Göbbels-style propaganda and disinformation, which you would naturally embrace.
Labor Cost = Wage Cost + Payroll Costs + Benefit Costs
You can never receive more than the Labor Cost.
Your faux spreadsheet calculations are for Combined taxes.
You can never exceed the Labor Cost.
Suppose you got $25 weekly in FICA payroll taxes. You think you're going to keep those FICA payroll taxes plus the $25 your employer pays.
Wrong.
When you increase your Wage Cost, then you increase the Payroll Tax Cost, which subsequently increases the Labor Cost.
You can never exceed the Labor Cost.
Yes, it is true that your employer is paying less for FICA taxes, but your employer is paying more for SUTA, FUTA, worker's compensation and other payroll taxes, plus paying more in Benefit Costs.
That's 6th Grade Math.
You can never exceed the Labor Cost.
Also, you would pay more in local, county, State and federal income taxes.
That must be subtracted, since you cannot get 2% interest on taxes you paid to the various governments.
Despite vehement claims by some the taxes needed to operate a decent and civilized society are not theft but a form of dues to be in the club. Those that do not like to pay their dues are free to leave but can never come back or do business in this country.
Your benefits have never --- meaning at no time ever -- been based upon your contributions.
Your benefits are solely and exclusively determined by the average monthly income over a period of 35 years.
No, wrong, there is no relationship between your benefits and the amount you pay into the system.
#1
Suppose someone had life-time earnings of $168,044 ---- divide that by 35........
$168,044 / 35 = $4,801 ....Now we take $4,801 and divide by 12 to get $400.10 rounded down to $400. The Formula (for Social Security --- not the film starting Marlon Brando and George C. Scott) is this...
1] You get 90% of the 1st Bend Point up to $767......the average monthly income was $400 so 90% of $400 is $360
2] You get 32% of the amount greater than the 1st Bend Point of $767, but less than the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so....
$0 * 32% = $0
Add that to your 1st Bend Point: $360 + $0 = $360
3] You get 15% in excess of the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so...
$0 * 15% = $0
Add that to the 1st and 2nd Bend Points.....$360 + $0 = $360
And so there's your monthly Social Security benefit: $360/month.....party on.
#2
Suppose someone worked for 20 years. You still divide by 35 because you are averaging the highest 35 years including the years they don't work, regardless of the reason they do not work (excepting those on Social Security Disability). So we divide by 35 and come up with $1,000.
1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30
2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.
$1,000 - $767 = $233 * 32% = $74.56 + $717.30 = $792 per month as a benefit.
Note that someone who has never earned more than minimum wage, and worked 40 hours per week for 35 years will receive $763/month at present.
#3
Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $4,000 per month.....
1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30
2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.
The maximum monthly benefit is $2,513. Just eye-balling it, you might possibly make an argument that people earning more than $85,000 per year are subsidizing low rent people.
As everyone can plainly see...the amount of FICA payroll taxes you paid is not even taken into consideration...
Unearned Income is not currently taxed.
Removing the limit on Earned Income does not automatically include Unearned Income.
It doesn't.
In theory, the additional tax revenues collected would cover 2 weeks of payments.
That would be great if the year was exactly 2 weeks long, but you have the other 50 weeks to pay out.
Where's the source article?
Does this apply to employers?
Raising the cap will harm your economy slightly, costing a few Million jobs.
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.
Not saying Social Security is socialism and I don't have a problem with the insurance aspects. What I do have a problem with is that people that make more are going to be required to pay more in and get nothing or very little in return. This is a scheme to turn Social Security into means tested welfare. It is already means tested and I somewhat resent the fact that my return on what I pay in ( I max out every year) is less than those who pay in much less, however, this is going to make it much, much worse. It is also not how Social Security was originally sold. The camel definitely has his nose in the tent and he intends to move in completely as soon as possible. What is being proposed is simple wealth redistribution nothing more, nothing less.
As you can see, neither has a provision that taxes unearned income.
And neither will pass as written.
Look at the Senate bill.
Quote
Sec 7.Tax on investment gain
(a)In general
Subsection (a) of section 1411 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 3.8 percent each place it appears and inserting 10 percent.
Unquote
It appears that they want to increase the tax on investment gain by 6.2%.
Oh look, Mircea plays mental math to try and convince everyone that collecting more social security insurance covers ZERO weeks. How does he do it!
Ohh...I see. he takes the income from doing so today, extrapolates it out to some future time without allowing for inflation or for income growth-BUT using the inflation adjusted future social security numbers, and declares it a win.
All the while accusing me of Goebbels style propaganda, and burying everything i a wall of text.
This is hilarious. And sad. Seriously. Mircea you tlk often about understanding economics, but I am not seeing it in replies like this. You are just making up nonsense.
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.
