For those that support Warren - what's your take on her updated Social Security Tax?

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by bad debt

So I recently did some reading on Warren’s campaign website to see how insane she actually is. And what I found on her Social Security proposal is completely asinine.
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/social-security
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cies/40146709/

Currently for Social Security employees pay 6.2% (which is matched by employers) on gross earnings up to $132,000 and 0% on those above $132,000 on the front end while paying into the system.

My understanding of Warrens plan that she wants to do the following: 1) to remove the cap on those earning above $132,000 and increase the contribution percentage to 7.4%; and 2) for individuals making over $250,000 individually or $400,000 jointly would owe 14.8% to the system (which would also be matched by employers). Talk about killing wage growth. That would do it immediately.

Now Warren argues that this would make the system more “progressive” similar to income tax rates being higher for those earning more. However, that’s a complete load of crap because 1) there is a minimum amount that anyone who earns the qualifying amount for social security gets; 2) there is a cap on the total social security pay out no matter how much someone pays in to the system; 3) in retirement if your income is too high your social security distribution starts getting means tested and you get a smaller payout; 4) above certain incomes in retirement your social security income gets taxed as ordinary income.
So can someone please explain to me how this is not just some populist money grab by the socialists to squeeze people in high COL areas with good jobs. I literally detest Trump and honestly think he should be impeached, however, this type of leftist policy from the Democrats is absolutely infuriating and with a gun to my head I would vote for Trump over Warren if it came down to it.

I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally.

the first one is a big mistake.... removing the cap, will cause bigger payouts, and kill SS even quicker


see this is where the liberals lose it..


they post about a Band-Aid on a sunken chest wound... ending the cap on SS will not solve anything..it will make the payouts even higher


by uncapping the payroll tax, you also uncap the payout, by lifting the cap, will cause it to go under sooner


SS payout is based on your contributions


https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/index.html

I entered 1966 as a date, with 2028 (62) as retirement... 50k earnings get you 1100, while 127k (current cap) earnings get you 1900

I entered 1966 as a date, with 2033 (67) as retirement... 50k earnings get you 1660, while 127k (current cap) earnings get you 2798

getting rid of the cap(contribution cap) also negates the payout cap(by law all the way from FDR)...will cause SS to go under even faster

they don't realize they CAN'T, the system was set up that the cap is for both ends

they don't realize that currently the guy who makes exactly 127k pays 6+% (plus the employers 6+%) into SS, and the guy who makes 1 million pays exactly the same 6+% of 127K....and at retirement the millionaire AND the 127k guy will get exactly the same (the max payout)................if they take the cap out......the guy who make a million will get a BIGGER payout at retirement, because he would have CONTRIBUTED 6+% of a million, not 127k


I don't understand the idiots who say "take the cap off"....guess what..the payroll deduction cap is CONNECTED to the PAYOUT cap...you take one the other comes with it....removing the cap will increase the payout to a rich guy..making ss even LESS SOLVENT

people supporting raising/eliminating the cap are about giving the benefit to the rich, not the poor






=========================================






just raise the age...just like when the re-adjusted it in 1983

In 1983, the last time there was federal action to address Social Security’s financial problems, it included gradually increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67–emphasis on g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y.

The first increase didn’t kick in until 20 years later, in 2003 when the full retirement age jumped from 65 to 65 and two months. It’s been rising slowly since then, and won’t get to 67 until 2027.


do it again raising it 70/75 taking effect for those that would retire in 2055ish


the program WAS DESIGNED to kick in at 62 when the AVERAGE LIFE SPAN was 60

raising the full amount age to 70 or 72 would not be a big deal for the individuals (as we can still get partial at 62) but it would be a huge savings

the average life expectancy for ALL americans (not gender specific) is 79.2, with females crossing the 80 mark and males being at 78.6

the average life expectancy when SS came into effect was less than 60

to KEEP UP with its original intent they should raise the age of FULL qualification to about 80.....again you can start collecting at 62 still



something has to be done...

raise the age to 70-74 (for those just entering the workforce ..ie. people born after 1995-99)..makes the most sense

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by donsabi

"I am curious for those of you that support her plan. 1) Why do you support it? and 2) what is your current and/or projected earnings? I mean if you're dirt poor, I get why you support it. In your mind it's just a way to fleece the rich and get a free handout. However, if you're making about $130K, I'm much more interested in your perspective as that's actually affecting you personally." bad debt, OP


It is clear that the OP has issues with the American working class who in 2016 had an average income of just over $31,000. The real question here should be why is there a cap at all on SS earnings?

We might think that our tax system is fair, right? Well, Warren Buffet has a different take on the subject. Buffet stated that he believed that our tax system was unfair. He made his case by saying that on his earnings of billions annually he paid a tax rate of 13% while his secretary paid a tax rate 35% on her $75,000 annual salary.

The reality is that it is the wealthy who are fleecing the American working class.

buffett surely lied

it has been proven time after time that buffett lied


his secretary makes 60k (his words)..therefore she is in the 15% bracket..and would pay less than 12%....as I will show she pays less than 5%
.
.
.
buffett pays an effective 17%...meanwhile buffett paid over 8 million in taxes

he said his secretary pays 30% in federal taxes...he lies

buffets states he gets taxed at 17% (his earned income is only 100k, the rest is investment (capital gains taxed at 15%(recently raised to 20%))) and that is less than his secretary...fact that is a LIE

there is no disputing that fact
.
.
.
.
FACT: making 60k (which is what buffet himself says she makes) puts her in the 15% bracket..and that's based on her ENTIRE 60k being taxed..and we ALL KNOW that is never the case...even single you have the personal exemption, and the standard deduction

FACTS:
we're talking about a married secretary. with a not working spouse. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have 2 older kids (still claimed ) . They probably place at least $4,000 in an 401k (the average is about 7%) and itemize $15,000 in deductions(about 3k over the standard deduction). .....Here the tax picture changes dramatically. ....Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal(to include payroll(ss)), of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.
.
.
.
IF she is single/renter (which she is not) this would be the number:
60k gross:
That would give her taxable income of $50,250 ($60,000 less 1 exemption @ $3,400 and a standard deduction of $5,360) and a federal income tax liability of $8,986.25 – $4,386.25 + 25% of the excess over $31,850. So, the secretary’s effective Federal income tax rate is only 15% ($8,986.25 / $60,000). Hmmmm.
.
.
.
so FACT is that she would only be rated at 15% for INCOME...if you want to throw in payroll, (which is not income tax) it still only brings her up to 22%...certainly not the 30% that buffett lied about
.
.
.
.
FACTS:
buffett is a salaried worker for his companies...his salary 100k
his secretary earned 60k

he paid multi-millions..his secretary paid less than 3k......
.
.
.
buffett want the rates (for ALL) to be higher,, because it wont effect him, but it will hurt his competition....those are facts

buffett LIED, and the left fell for it

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

the first one is a big mistake.... removing the cap, will cause bigger payouts, and kill SS even quicker


see this is where the liberals lose it..


they post about a Band-Aid on a sunken chest wound... ending the cap on SS will not solve anything..it will make the payouts even higher


by uncapping the payroll tax, you also uncap the payout, by lifting the cap, will cause it to go under sooner


SS payout is based on your contributions


https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/index.html

I entered 1966 as a date, with 2028 (62) as retirement... 50k earnings get you 1100, while 127k (current cap) earnings get you 1900

I entered 1966 as a date, with 2033 (67) as retirement... 50k earnings get you 1660, while 127k (current cap) earnings get you 2798

getting rid of the cap(contribution cap) also negates the payout cap(by law all the way from FDR)...will cause SS to go under even faster

they don't realize they CAN'T, the system was set up that the cap is for both ends

they don't realize that currently the guy who makes exactly 127k pays 6+% (plus the employers 6+%) into SS, and the guy who makes 1 million pays exactly the same 6+% of 127K....and at retirement the millionaire AND the 127k guy will get exactly the same (the max payout)................if they take the cap out......the guy who make a million will get a BIGGER payout at retirement, because he would have CONTRIBUTED 6+% of a million, not 127k


I don't understand the idiots who say "take the cap off"....guess what..the payroll deduction cap is CONNECTED to the PAYOUT cap...you take one the other comes with it....removing the cap will increase the payout to a rich guy..making ss even LESS SOLVENT

people supporting raising/eliminating the cap are about giving the benefit to the rich, not the poor






=========================================






just raise the age...just like when the re-adjusted it in 1983

In 1983, the last time there was federal action to address Social Security’s financial problems, it included gradually increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67–emphasis on g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y.

The first increase didn’t kick in until 20 years later, in 2003 when the full retirement age jumped from 65 to 65 and two months. It’s been rising slowly since then, and won’t get to 67 until 2027.


do it again raising it 70/75 taking effect for those that would retire in 2055ish


the program WAS DESIGNED to kick in at 62 when the AVERAGE LIFE SPAN was 60

raising the full amount age to 70 or 72 would not be a big deal for the individuals (as we can still get partial at 62) but it would be a huge savings

the average life expectancy for ALL americans (not gender specific) is 79.2, with females crossing the 80 mark and males being at 78.6

the average life expectancy when SS came into effect was less than 60

to KEEP UP with its original intent they should raise the age of FULL qualification to about 80.....again you can start collecting at 62 still



something has to be done...

raise the age to 70-74 (for those just entering the workforce ..ie. people born after 1995-99)..makes the most sense

It is very. very unlikely that ss will ever be eliminated, as it is highly popular.


Look for modifications in the future (later age or higher payments) to sustain it. It is inevitable.