What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like the damn thing to earn some interest somehow for starters. Right now, it's just a transfer payment from young to old.

I don't like a cap increase. Are you also going to do a payout increase? Of course not. This just proves how mathematically unsound it is. It's a pyramid scheme and at the end, the noobies are going to get screwed, b/c it won't be there for them.

Forget this uppermost brackets stuff. It isn't a welfare system and it was never meant to be. It's a retirment system.

Additionally, why is SSDI (disability) dipping into SS? Becuase everyone who collected 99 weeks of unemployment decided the next best route was to go onto disability for (unprovable) aches and pains. The system is being abused and people need to be told to FO.

Finally, I want Obama to return the close to $1 Trillion he took from medicare to fund Obamacare. Enough of this robbing peter to pay paul for votes crap.

This. At what point are we going to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul? The tax the rich mantra is getting old.

It's not a retirement system. It's a retirement insurance system.

[Anonymous]

http://takebackyoursixpercent.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like the damn thing to earn some interest somehow for starters. Right now, it's just a transfer payment from young to old.

I don't like a cap increase. Are you also going to do a payout increase? Of course not. This just proves how mathematically unsound it is. It's a pyramid scheme and at the end, the noobies are going to get screwed, b/c it won't be there for them.

Forget this uppermost brackets stuff. It isn't a welfare system and it was never meant to be. It's a retirment system.

Additionally, why is SSDI (disability) dipping into SS? Becuase everyone who collected 99 weeks of unemployment decided the next best route was to go onto disability for (unprovable) aches and pains. The system is being abused and people need to be told to FO.

Finally, I want Obama to return the close to $1 Trillion he took from medicare to fund Obamacare. Enough of this robbing peter to pay paul for votes crap.

This. At what point are we going to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul? The tax the rich mantra is getting old.

This is all irrelevant to the question. It's essentially an old age poverty insurance system. Like any insurance system, it can work forever as long as the payout doesn't exceed the income. And all that required is a calculation based on sound actuarially sound principles. Although I am not in favor of raising the retirement age, if you don't want to raise taxes at all, then you could raise the retirement age to 80 and the system will work forever just as it did for the first 50 years of its existence. That's unlike a pyramid scheme, because in a pyramid scheme, there is no set of assumptions that will allow it to work forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Workers are paying for their own spouses and children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Can you explain to me how? A worker with income contributes to SS. When that person retires, he can draw on the SS that he contributed. And if he has a minor child, that child receives a SS benefit. And if he has a spouse that never worked, that person is also entitled to receive a SS benefit. 3 people can draw benefits from a single persons contribution. More if there was ever a divorce with a marriage lasting over 10 years.

[Anonymous]

"To make all of Social Security solvent for the next 75 years would require the equivalent of any of the following: immediately raising the Social Security payroll tax rate to 14.98% from 12.4% on the first $118,500 of wages; cutting benefits by 16%; or some combination of the two."

In other words, raise the percentage close to where it was just a few years ago.

Also, where in this article do they reference that it runs dry because what's owed to the trust fund, over 2.7 trillion, has run out in combination with the amounts being added in each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like the damn thing to earn some interest somehow for starters. Right now, it's just a transfer payment from young to old.

I don't like a cap increase. Are you also going to do a payout increase? Of course not. This just proves how mathematically unsound it is. It's a pyramid scheme and at the end, the noobies are going to get screwed, b/c it won't be there for them.

Forget this uppermost brackets stuff. It isn't a welfare system and it was never meant to be. It's a retirment system.

Additionally, why is SSDI (disability) dipping into SS? Becuase everyone who collected 99 weeks of unemployment decided the next best route was to go onto disability for (unprovable) aches and pains. The system is being abused and people need to be told to FO.

Finally, I want Obama to return the close to $1 Trillion he took from medicare to fund Obamacare. Enough of this robbing peter to pay paul for votes crap.

This. At what point are we going to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul? The tax the rich mantra is getting old.

It's not a retirement system. It's a retirement insurance system.

Let me cut to the bone quickly. What it is is part of your pay confiscated from your paycheck against your will. You have no say in FICA.
The establishment is abusing the workers for votes thru dependency and playing one group of people against another.

[Anonymous]

"That's unlike a pyramid scheme, because in a pyramid scheme, there is no set of assumptions that will allow it to work forever. "

Uhhh, yeah. Hello! It's thus the very definition of a pyramid scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Workers are paying for their own spouses and children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Can you explain to me how? A worker with income contributes to SS. When that person retires, he can draw on the SS that he contributed. And if he has a minor child, that child receives a SS benefit. And if he has a spouse that never worked, that person is also entitled to receive a SS benefit. 3 people can draw benefits from a single persons contribution. More if there was ever a divorce with a marriage lasting over 10 years.

A person receives a SS retirement benefit and their minor child does too? Never heard of that.

As for the spouse, she only receives a benefit if she is over 60 and the wage earner dies. Not at the same time based on the spouse's earnings but only if she has earned the required credits on her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Workers are paying for their own spouses and children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Can you explain to me how? A worker with income contributes to SS. When that person retires, he can draw on the SS that he contributed. And if he has a minor child, that child receives a SS benefit. And if he has a spouse that never worked, that person is also entitled to receive a SS benefit. 3 people can draw benefits from a single persons contribution. More if there was ever a divorce with a marriage lasting over 10 years.

A person receives a SS retirement benefit and their minor child does too? Never heard of that.

As for the spouse, she only receives a benefit if she is over 60 and the wage earner dies. Not at the same time based on the spouse's earnings but only if she has earned the required credits on her own.

I don't think so. See the link above. https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

Even if he or she has never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be able to get benefits if he or she is at least 62 years of age and you are receiving or eligible for retirement or disability benefits. He or she can also qualify for Medicare at age 65.

[Anonymous]

You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

There are benefits for children and spouses.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourchildren.html

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html

PP. Oops. Forgot about that.

Workers are paying for their own spouses and children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Can you explain to me how? A worker with income contributes to SS. When that person retires, he can draw on the SS that he contributed. And if he has a minor child, that child receives a SS benefit. And if he has a spouse that never worked, that person is also entitled to receive a SS benefit. 3 people can draw benefits from a single persons contribution. More if there was ever a divorce with a marriage lasting over 10 years.

It's all based on the assumptions. When social security was set up, it was assumed that men worked and women did not. One person's salary covered three people and the SS tax was set so that the one person's person would be able to pay for the worker, his wife and any minor children he might have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"To make all of Social Security solvent for the next 75 years would require the equivalent of any of the following: immediately raising the Social Security payroll tax rate to 14.98% from 12.4% on the first $118,500 of wages; cutting benefits by 16%; or some combination of the two."

In other words, raise the percentage close to where it was just a few years ago.

Also, where in this article do they reference that it runs dry because what's owed to the trust fund, over 2.7 trillion, has run out in combination with the amounts being added in each year.

Hold the phone. They CUT the percentage that earners pay in a few years ago? (Retirees forget these things.) if so, I doubt that was supposed to be permanent - sounds like something to put more money back in Americans pockets. So....yeah.....first thing would be to restore it. And the 2.5 percent is shared by employer and employee, so it's barely a 1% increase. Spread over 150 million workers it makes a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

It's not insolvent. When the trust fund runs out in 2034 or so, there will still be enough money to pay 75% of benefits forever. The trust fund was an add-on created by Ronald Reagan so he could kick the can down the road by raising taxes without cutting benefits while getting credit for being a fiscal conservative. But we should go back to what it was before, a pay-as-you-go system, just by balancing income and outflow. And I repeat if we DO NOTHING, there will be a 25% cut in benefits, but the system will last forever.

[Anonymous]

Not quite:

"It's all based on the assumptions. When social security was set up, it was assumed that men worked and women did not. One person's salary covered three people and the SS tax was set so that the one person's person would be able to pay for the worker, his wife and any minor children he might have. "


https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Number two is a no-brainer. Yes, I like the bump up in my paycheck at the end of the year, but if I'm making that much already, I won't miss it that much either if I keep paying my FICA.

Agreed.