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.
However, if fairness is disregarded by raising the wage cap without also raising the benefits cap, then you hand the enemies of Soc. Sec. a beautiful argument on a platter: Soc. Sec. is welfare. That argument is already made, mostly unfairly, but if you make it real you just advance the destruction of the whole program.
Other taxes that I pay go to Welfare, and I have no say about it. Why not another one?
Fairness be damned - eliminate the wage cap and don't eliminate the benefit cap. Nothing has ever been fair about government and taxes anyway.
The reason there is a wage cap on Social Security payroll taxes is because there is a benefit cap too. Therefore, the rich are not getting any break. In fact, the rich are already subsidizing the poor in terms of Soc. Sec. retirement benefits because the formula which computes the benefits favors low wage earners over high wage earners. That is, low wage earners receive a significantly higher percentage of their wages back as benefits compared to high wage earners.
Now one can still make a case for increasing or eliminating the wage cap (which is currently $106,800, not $100,000 as you wrote) by arguing that the solvency of the system is more important than the fairness of it. (If you eliminate the benefits cap too there would be a relatively small overall gain to the system). However, if fairness is disregarded by raising the wage cap without also raising the benefits cap, then you hand the enemies of Soc. Sec. a beautiful argument on a platter: Soc. Sec. is welfare. That argument is already made, mostly unfairly, but if you make it real you just advance the destruction of the whole program.
Then let those people worry about removing the benefit cap. They have been stealing from us since it began
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,329 posts, read 8,678,918 times
Reputation: 6392
Well, I would benefit from removing the benefit cap, I don't really see S.S. as welfare because I have paid a small fortune into it, ( $349.83 for S.S. and another $81.81 for Medicare in the last 2 weeks) and I certainley want to recieve some benefits from it. Without some sort of catch net for the older generation we certainly would see alot of them on real welfare, I know very few people who are planning on retirement while young......
The Fortune 100 Company I work for, is reducing benefits for retires this year....
eliminating defined benefit is a good thing. if a person worth $$$$$$ let s/he have it while s/he working , not promises with the future money to burden the future workers.
same true for government workers pay them for they worth while working, don't promises to pay them in the future.
i seen on TV city worker will get $$$,$$$ at retirement for life, who will pay for that, many families have to move out because of high tax and government service fees, new families can not afford to move in. eventual it will turn to ghost town.
I don't think eliminating the defined benefit plans are a good thing at all. Eliminating them is just one more nail in the coffin of the middle class worker. Companies can afford them - aren't many of the big companies posting pretty good profits these days. They've already sent enough jobs overseas so there's plenty of money to fund these plans.
I'm in a defined benefit plan and thank God everyday for it. That combined with my 401Ks and Social Security and I should be OK - at least I hope so.
I guess it is ok to let the overseas workers to continue funding the plan. It would not be middle class worker in the US if jobs are some where else, may be The plan can benefits the few management level then raising retirement age to 70 is a good thing(more money) for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73
I don't think eliminating the defined benefit plans are a good thing at all. Eliminating them is just one more nail in the coffin of the middle class worker. Companies can afford them - aren't many of the big companies posting pretty good profits these days. They've already sent enough jobs overseas so there's plenty of money to fund these plans.
I'm in a defined benefit plan and thank God everyday for it. That combined with my 401Ks and Social Security and I should be OK - at least I hope so.
I don't think eliminating the defined benefit plans are a good thing at all. Eliminating them is just one more nail in the coffin of the middle class worker. Companies can afford them - aren't many of the big companies posting pretty good profits these days. They've already sent enough jobs overseas so there's plenty of money to fund these plans.
I'm in a defined benefit plan and thank God everyday for it. That combined with my 401Ks and Social Security and I should be OK - at least I hope so.
Defined benefit plans and health benefits are major reasons why GM and Chrysler needed to be bailed out.
Defined benefit plans and health benefits are major reasons why GM and Chrysler needed to be bailed out.
That may be true to an extent, but don't forget that overblown management salaries and benefits for the top executives took their toll also.
I just don't think this race to the bottom with constant cost cutting will yield long-term, sustainable benefits. We will never be able to compete with China or India unless we are willing to live like them. I don't think this should be our goal. I'll bet China doesn't have defined benefit pension plans. Hell, they probably don't even have 401Ks! I don't want that to be a model for the USA.
Other taxes that I pay go to Welfare, and I have no say about it. Why not another one? Fairness be damned - eliminate the wage cap and don't eliminate the benefit cap. Nothing has ever been fair about government and taxes anyway. In my opinion
I'm trying to figure out what you mean. Are you saying that you earn more than $106,800 per year, but that you are so committed to the solvency of Social Security that since "Other taxes that I pay go to Welfare,....Why not another one?" Or are you saying that in this case you would be on the receiving end of the welfare, so "Fairness be damned" for those who would be paying for you? Please clarify.
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.
Unclear pronoun references
