Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2015, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa!
7,783 posts, read 6,063,358 times
Reputation: 7099

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvs View Post
But they will expect those servants who've paid in to get reduced benefits. Your argument is simple NIMBYism in my opinion.
If they raise the cap for just a couple years, those that have the higher incomes would get credit for those funds they put into the system, but it would be averaged along with the other years out of 35 to derive their eventual benefit. This would, in effect, reduce their benefit considerably over what it would be if there never was a cap for their whole life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2015, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa!
7,783 posts, read 6,063,358 times
Reputation: 7099
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
It isn't as simple as you make it sound: yes, take the cap off is needed, but raising the age for full benefits as well as the age for medicare is also needed. As for dieing before collecting, what is the average life expectacy compared to 1936? Do you have any idea? And you are overlooking, the spouse and in some cases more than one spouse can collect your SS if you do die.
They will only collect the greater amount of their own SS or their spouses, but not both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2015, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Alaska
7,449 posts, read 5,714,718 times
Reputation: 4832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Pay in to SS all of one's life only to be denied so that it can be diverted to those who have less.

The GOP leaders are the real socialists!
No chit, sounds like he's spent some time under Obummers desk doesn't it? Bet Christie's pants have holes in both knees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2015, 01:55 PM
 
20,524 posts, read 15,865,638 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock View Post
Unless you own your own company or are independently wealthy, there are very few employment opportunities for people in their late 60's. This may be fine for white collar workers, but I don't see many 60 year old ditch diggers.
Agreed and before people start saying how those older ditch diggers NEED to go back to school and so on; not many employers will touch an older person trained in a new field. Too; many ditch digger types simply ain't got what it takes to do much better, at least stuff that's legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2015, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,433,328 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
They will only collect the greater amount of their own SS or their spouses, but not both.
I think most of us are aware of this, but thanks for clarifying that in case some don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2015, 03:21 PM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,934,521 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not only DO the higher income earners pay the same payroll tax, but in fact, they pay the MAXIMUM amount. How do you not know that?
They dont. While the vast majority of ordinary Americans pay payroll tax on all of their income, that is not the case for the wealthiest. Because they earn far more money than the income cap on which social security tax is paid, they in effect pay a much lower rate on their income than ordinary Americans. Lifting the cap is something the vast majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans would like to see.

And I dont think it is right that seniors who have worked their whole life and are struggling to make ends meet should suffer in old age because the wealthiest and most powerful people in America refuses to pay the same rate as everyone else. They have seen their share of income skyrocket over the past decade while at the same time their effective tax rates are lower than ever. To ask them to pay their fair share when disabled veterans are struggling in old age is the right thing for America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2015, 03:30 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
They dont.
Yes, they do. They pay the highest amount of Social Security tax payable by law.

Quote:
And I dont think it is right that seniors who have worked their whole life and are struggling to make ends meet should suffer in old age because the wealthiest and most powerful people in America refuses to pay the same rate as everyone else.
Then pay benefits at the same rate, as well, instead of capping them.

And you are aware that SS benefits are progressive, right?
Quote:
The Social Security program redistributes income in five major ways:
  1. From richer workers to poorer workers through a progressive benefit formula that provides higher returns to the first dollars of worker earnings and lower returns to the last dollars;
  2. From shorter-lived groups (such as men and the less educated) to longer-lived groups (such as women and the better educated) through annuities whose lifetime value depends upon life expectancy;
  3. From singles to married couples (and from higher earners to lower earners within couples) through spousal and survivors' benefits, paid as a pure transfer without any additional contributions required;
  4. From the healthy to the disabled through disability benefits; and
  5. From later generations to earlier generations, since earlier generations paid in at lower tax rates than later generations, yet receive benefits related to their prior earnings (rather than, as in private insurance, their actual contributions).
How Progressive Is Social Security and Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2015, 12:01 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,388,296 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, they do. They pay the highest amount of Social Security tax payable by law.

Then pay benefits at the same rate, as well, instead of capping them.

And you are aware that SS benefits are progressive, right? [/list]How Progressive Is Social Security and Why?

If you took off your ideological goggles and put on a thinking cap...

The Social Security program redistributes income in five major ways:
  1. From richer workers to poorer workers through a progressive benefit formula that provides higher returns to the first dollars of worker earnings and lower returns to the last dollars;
  2. From shorter-lived groups (such as men and the less educated) to longer-lived groups (such as women and the better educated) through annuities whose lifetime value depends upon life expectancy;
  3. From singles to married couples (and from higher earners to lower earners within couples) through spousal and survivors' benefits, paid as a pure transfer without any additional contributions required;
...you would recognize that the so-called progressivity you claim is largely negated therein, because poorer workers disproportionately are in the shorter-lived group and also in the singles group. Some conservatives, for example, have noted that black men, due to shorter lifespans, get a particularly bad deal from the program. The disability component does add some progressivity to the program but I don't know whether the recent explosion in disability claims is concentrated among poorer workers or is more evenly spread among income groups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2015, 12:13 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,388,296 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer0101 View Post
People have become millionaire working at low wage jobs. Of course it required discipline, frugality and perseverance. If you choose not to do those things, it is entirely your fault.

Not really, those people are outliers who had additional income, help from family, or some other advantage not generally available to low-wage workers. It is my understanding that the millionaire janitor (from a couple years ago) also co-owned an automotive repair garage, which contributed handily to his bottom line. Owning a home at an early age - some inherit, some get great insider deals from family, some find great deals by digging - facilitate early wealth-building, which can be a springboard to great fortunes.

I've never heard of anyone getting rich while working for minimum wage and paying half their net to rent a room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2015, 12:25 AM
 
5,717 posts, read 3,136,217 times
Reputation: 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I've never heard of anyone getting rich while working for minimum wage and paying half their net to rent a room.
Ever heard of anyone getting rich by constantly complaining on city-data about how they can never get ahead because the entire world is conspiring to hold them down?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top