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.
Let's recall the AMT tax. Remember that ..a tax on the "wealthy".
Today that tax kicks in at $52K for an individual. Do you consider that "wealthy" ?
I can easily see the same happening with SS.
The nation is declining. There will be more a the bottom than the top and the ones in the middle will have to sacrifice.
$80K today may turn into $40K tomorrow.
Thank you. If people want to present a solid argument opposing Christie's proposal, they should avoid shooting themselves in the foot when they cry that an income shared by less than 2% of retirees is "low income".
FWIW, I don't agree that high earners will not save enough to avoid losing their SS as evidenced by those who would rather earn a higher income and pay taxes than choose to make less and pay less taxes. The end game is and always has been net income and net worth.
Suppost that the max SS benefit were 36k at FRA. To phase-out this over a 120k bracket (80 to 200k) in a linear manner, the taxpayer would lose thirty cents of SS benefit for every dollar earned over 80k. Add this to the straight income tax bracket of 33% (single), and add-on state income tax of 7%, and you have a marginal tax rate of 70%. Add on whatever he proposes to do to Medicare, and the marginal rate approaches 100%. So . . . got any money? That's nice, just hand it over. Thanks!
At first I was wondering, "What the heck?" Give more, more, more, etc. Then the last half of the article esplains how he proposed paying for it.
Some of what he proposes I can support, others not so much. Coming up with a better COL determination is something that must be done. Create a new index for those who are retired and reflect how they spend whatever money they have. I also agree with raising the limit where contributions stop. That one seems like a 'no-brainer', and I wonder why it hasn't been done yet.
What I don't think I can agree with is "Asking more of the wealthy". No way I could I be consider 'wealthy'. Some people are just lucky, financially savvy, are 'born with a silver spoon in their mouths', or recognize opportunities that most of us don't. To me, it is morally wrong to expect, and force them, to redistribute their wealth to those of us not so lucky in life. Life is unfair. That's just the way it is, always has been, and always will be.
Then I want it all back with interest. I will sue if I don't get it back.
That's a lot of money.
Seriously, that one-cheeburger-short-of-a-heart-attack loser may suggest that in a speech but if he ran on that platform he'd get fewer votes than Mr. Ed.
Good luck even finding a lawyer who will agree to file your suit, because it will be a suit without legal merit. And no, I have no sympathy for either Gov. Christie or his proposal.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-17-2015 at 12:57 PM..
Suppost that the max SS benefit were 36k at FRA. To phase-out this over a 120k bracket (80 to 200k) in a linear manner, the taxpayer would lose thirty cents of SS benefit for every dollar earned over 80k. Add this to the straight income tax bracket of 33% (single), and add-on state income tax of 7%, and you have a marginal tax rate of 70%. Add on whatever he proposes to do to Medicare, and the marginal rate approaches 100%. So . . . got any money? That's nice, just hand it over. Thanks!
Don't look at me. Even if I were in the top 2%, I don't have a horse in this race. This is a Republican issue and I've never voted for a Republican at the Federal election. It is highly doubtful I would begin now. (Other readers: Please note that I did NOT say I've never voted for a Republican.)
But here's what I don't like about Christie's proposal. Not only is he proposing to raise the full retirement age to 69, he's also proposing to raise the early retirement age to 64. When I consider that the men who work for slave wages have a very low life expectancy (the very people for whom FDR envisioned needing retirement insurance) I'm wondering who would be subsidizing whom if Christie's plan was adopted.
Don't look at me. Even if I were in the top 2%, I don't have a horse in this race. This is a Republican issue and I've never voted for a Republican at the Federal election. It is highly doubtful I would begin now. (Other readers: Please note that I did NOT say I've never voted for a Republican.)
But here's what I don't like about Christie's proposal. Not only is he proposing to raise the full retirement age to 69, he's also proposing to raise the early retirement age to 64. When I consider that the men who work for slave wages have a very low life expectancy (the very people for whom FDR envisioned needing retirement insurance) I'm wondering who would be subsidizing whom if Christie's plan was adopted.
You make a very good point about life expectancy.
This is a complex issue. I am disturbed that CC would put forth a proposal as simple-minded as the one he has. Seems to me that the man is not only a bully and a lout, he is just plain dumb. Other than that, I suppose that he is a fine guy
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 04-16-2015 at 10:26 AM..
Privatize it and make it mandatory for all wage earners.
Oh, wait. That's already been suggested and didn't go anywhere.
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.
