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.
So what was supposed to be a useful supplement and designed as FDR said to keep Americans from starving being with out shelter and not having to wear rags has become all they have got.
If SS is all someone has for retirement, that was their choice. They chose to live at their income level rather than to save something for retirement. Ever heard of the grasshopper and the ant?
If this is a big concern why didn't Obama and the democrats in congress fix it in Dear Leaders first two years in office? It, the idea of raising the cap, never came up.
2014 isn't out yet but let's see what would happen if we raised the cap for the 2013 wages, shall we? This way we will see if raising the cap settles the problem.
Using a combined tax rate of 7.65% we would collect an additional $147,177,505,615.39.
For what it is worth we currently collect $358,695,234,446.95. Of course to these numbers we would have to add the employers contribution which basically doubles the tax.
Would just a tad less than $300 billion, when we have a budget of nearly $4 trillion or over 13 times the $300 billion extra, solve the problem?
Or would politicians simply spend the money somewhere else, perhaps in Puppetry Studies at the University of Connecticut for example?
And finally, I would appreciate it if others would go over my numbers... as my wife tells me I make mistakes anytime I am dealing with more than $3.
My eyes are too tired to do math at this time of night.
The last time the SS rate was increased was in 1988. The last president who had the wood to do it was Reagan who did what Greenspan told him to do. Those who followed kicked the can.
Obama was elected in November, 2008 and took office in 2009. All things considered, that was not the time to increase the tax rate. Instead he temporarily reduced the rate which I think was foolish. When the temporary holiday was over, the haters called it a tax increase.
I believe surpluses within the trust fund have to be invested in Treasury Bonds.
Don't dare touch Socialist Insecurity. That is how the LEFT won the revolution in the 1930s.
No one who believes they are "entitled" under FICA will ever support any candidate who dares to eliminate it.
It does not matter than Socialism costs the nation 56% of the Federal Budget.
"Wealth redistribution" is great.
So are the numerous rules and regulations tied to it - including ACA - the tax that keeps on attacking.
God Bless FDR and all those collectivists who eradicated capitalism and private property ownership.
Alot of wealthy Republicans receive in excess of $35,000 a year from Social Security after they are 65 years old.
That's almost 3/4 of a million dollars if they live to be 85. Plus the hundreds of thousands via Medicare. Republicans do in fact like some forms of socialism ; )
Conservative think tanks and the Republican party have a strategy to convince the American people that Social Security is close to bankruptcy. They have also mounted a campaign to raise the retirement age. In a time where the average American over fifty five would find it nearly impossible to find a job with the same value, raising the SS eligibility age seems counter intuitive. As it is, those who are older and laid off are using savings that would otherwise be used at a later age.
Another solution that you will never hear from the Republicans is to remove the cap on those earnings that are subject to SS tax. Why is this the case? Social security currently withholds 6.2% of your salary with a corporate match. They can't stand this idea and the billionaires won't let them speak of it even if they had the will to.
The Republicans have been talking about "trickle down economics" for thirty years. Removing the cap would be trickle down economics at its best and it would save Social Security. Perhaps if this was adopted it would really look like trickle down wealth instead of table scraps.
The lock box on social security that even Gore talked about starting again has been raided of all funds for many decades now.
The reason there is an issue is the SS works like a pyramid scheme when it is empty and needs the larger working population to pay for the smaller retired one. Well as we grow older that pyramid is going upside down and we have lots of retired folks with few to pay the retirement. That is why reducing the payment and increasing the age will probably happen. That and the fact the money was robbed.
Regarding who puts what into taxes. the wealthy pay most all of the taxes as it is. SS was only to be taking part of your income up to a point then stop because the SS payout stops at some point and it doesn't get bigger to accommodate a bigger pay in.
Why not rob the most highly taxed wealthy people in the world even more through SS you ask?
Maybe because that would be unethical, would make more doers leave the country and would not be fair.
I guess you also don't know that when the wealthy die nearly half their stuff often goes to government instead of their families due to the death tax. You can only squeeze that golden goose so hard before the golden eggs become diarrhea.
Don't dare touch Socialist Insecurity. That is how the LEFT won the revolution in the 1930s.
No one who believes they are "entitled" under FICA will ever support any candidate who dares to eliminate it.
It does not matter than Socialism costs the nation 56% of the Federal Budget.
"Wealth redistribution" is great.
So are the numerous rules and regulations tied to it - including ACA - the tax that keeps on attacking.
God Bless FDR and all those collectivists who eradicated capitalism and private property ownership.
[sarcasm flag off]
Dear Governor Romney thanks for the input.
"Wealth redistribution" as you call it is trickle down. Unfortunately the very rich are so tight fisted that trickle down has to be legislated.
If SS is all someone has for retirement, that was their choice. They chose to live at their income level rather than to save something for retirement. Ever heard of the grasshopper and the ant?
With the millions of layoffs in the past fifteen years people are lucky to be able to save anything. What do you think that the millions of foreclosures in the past seven years mean anyway.
I don't mean to insult you but I really think that those few people who have secure jobs live in a glass bubble.
Alot of wealthy Republicans receive in excess of $35,000 a year from Social Security after they are 65 years old.
That's almost 3/4 of a million dollars if they live to be 85. Plus the hundreds of thousands via Medicare. Republicans do in fact like some forms of socialism ; )
"A lot"? Not hardly.
The maximum full retirement age (66) social security benefit today is $2,663 which is $31,956 so don't go saying "a lot" because it's not.
If you retire at age 70 in 2015, your maximum benefit would be $3,501 for $42,012 which is the absolute maximum benefit.
I am getting ready to collect soon and while I'm 67 I'm trying to hold off collecting until age 70 at which time I will receive a little more than $3,000/month.
Unfortunately most people start collecting before their full retirement age which severely drops their benefit amount.
But you can see very, very few people collect more than the maximum $2,663 because 1)most people start drawing before full retirement age and 2)most people don't earn the maximum over their lifetime. I doubt more than 1% receive over your claimed $35,000 so so much for most.
I paid for my social security and I paid a lot. A couple years back I did a spread **** where I put all my earnings, tax rate and taxes paid, along with taxes paid by my employer to which I was self employed for half of my life, and figured it only I had the money put in a standard bank down the street passbook savings account, one that paid the average interest of the day, I would have over $800,000 in my account now. This I did three years ago and today it is probably closer to $850,000 but we'll count it at $800,000.
Imagine if it had been placed in an average performing mutual fund.
To "break even" I will have to collect for 258 months or 21 years to age 91. You wanna try telling me I'm getting something I didn't pay into?
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.
Glass Bubbles
