High earners/savers: How do you feel about social security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?

Right now, max payout is about $63K per year per person. So if both were "high earners" for most of their age 35+, they would each collect that. IN reality, there are not that many couples where both have been that high to collect the max benefit. Cutting it to $50K/year per person is not that much of a cut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Squeezing donut hole families, not high earners. Release the cap and tax ALL income, that would be taxing the high earners

Enough with the donut hole nonsense. Your lifestyle choices are the problem.

Its unfair to force people to pay in then not give them the full benefits.

This. Get rid of carried interest and raise income taxes on billionaires. Stop penny pinching the upper middle class - while giving tax cuts to the uber wealthy. It’s not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are high income and I think we should pay a social security tax on ALL of our earnings, plus have a cap.

Why? I'm from a lower middle class background and have many elderly relatives who only have social security to support them on old age.

So why don't you help them personally if you feel the need?

I came from LMC/MC background and somehow my parents managed to save for retirement. They lived frugally and kept a budget and got a 2nd job if needed. But they now have a decent retirement.

Just don't get how you can expect to only live on SS in retirement. It was never intended for that. It's SUPPLEMENTAL, not "your only retirement plan"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

We understand these basic notions. We however, are opposed to continuing to pay more and more and more. When we already pay for 90% of all taxes and federal tax based programs (SS, medicare, etc)
Happy to pay my 37% (on everything over 700K), 8-10% state tax, 7% on first 184K wages, 2% medicare on all wages, 20% on all Cap Gains ....but I think that is enough.

And given that it's people like me who pay for 90%+ of all taxes, I'd say we have a right to voice our opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I retired early with a pretty high net worth and elected to start taking SS at 63. My spouse never worked and gets the spousal benefit which is 50 percent of my SS. Together it’s just under 50k and most of it is taxable income. It’s nice to have.

Unlike SS, Medicare premiums are income based and the two of us pay quite a bit. We’re close to $1000 a month all in. And I can see from my SS statement that between me and my employer over the years we paid close to $500,000 in Medicare taxes.

So yea I kinda feel entitled.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are high income and I think we should pay a social security tax on ALL of our earnings, plus have a cap.

Why? I'm from a lower middle class background and have many elderly relatives who only have social security to support them on old age.

So why don't you help them personally if you feel the need?

I came from LMC/MC background and somehow my parents managed to save for retirement. They lived frugally and kept a budget and got a 2nd job if needed. But they now have a decent retirement.

Just don't get how you can expect to only live on SS in retirement. It was never intended for that. It's SUPPLEMENTAL, not "your only retirement plan"

It's not always that simple. DP - for my MIL she always worked minimum wage jobs, and at one point for a husband/ex husband who never paid into the system for her. She simply didn't know better. She had my husband young, barely got a high school diploma and struggled with good choices (she was a lovely person who I loved deeply). She got early onset dementia (as in her 60's) and we helped what we could but we didn't have a high income, special needs child and other issues. We were struggling ourselves. We eventually figured it out, moved her to us, I couldn't work to care for her and the kids (my income wasn't high enough) and eventually it got bad enough the only option was long-term care medicaid.

Many people live paycheck to paycheck and cannot save. My MIL had almost nothing materially and didn't eat well/proper nutrition to save money. I had to go out and buy her all the basics when she came to us. She never had more than a few outfits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been a fan of means-testing SS ever since I started studying tax policy over 20 years ago.

I used to think this was a good idea, until it dawned on me that it only serves to reward spendthrift/irresponsible behavior.

Take two neighbors:
- both earn a solid UMC income;
- one guy lives frugally and saves for retirement and after working saving for 45 years has a decent amount of retirement savings - not wealthy but enough to afford a retirement;
- the other neighbor spends all his money, takes fancy vacations, drives new cars, etc., doesn’t save for retirement

If we means-test them both at 68 (or whatever the retirement age is by then) one looks “poor” and the other does not. So we subsidize the irresponsible neighbor and he ends up living a retirement lifestyle funded by taxpayers while the responsible guy gets nothing, after living a much more frugal life.

Perhaps “means testing” based on “how much did you earn during your working years?” instead of “how much do you have saved by retirement age?” would be a better way to do it. Of course, you can’t stop people from being irresponsible with their money, so we’d likely end up with a lot of people who COULD have saved for their retirement, but didn’t.

I understand that only the first X amount of income is subject to social security taxes. I guess the first thing we can fix is to remove that cap and increase benefits somewhat for the higher earners (since they’ll pay so much more in taxes).

All that said, I’m living frugally and saving for retirement and not counting on SS because I expect to get screwed by the govt as I’ve outlined above, because it’s just the way I was raised.

There’s always a problem with these govt subsidies, including SS — they incentivize bad behavior and penalize good behavior.

This exactly! At some point, people have to learn to plan for themselves!

My parents never made much, but always lived within a budget and saved. The amount they had by retirement was astounding, relative to their earnings. And now they have a great retired life. For them the life before that was decent, because they had grown up poor, so being LMC/MC was an improvement and they wanted to provide for themselves.

More people need to do that. Cut out the extras, include savings in your budget and make it work. If you can't find money to save, then you have two choices: cut expenses or get another/better job and make more. But you cannot live in debt each month and not expect to deal with the consequences. It's not up to others to provide for you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

We understand these basic notions. We however, are opposed to continuing to pay more and more and more. When we already pay for 90% of all taxes and federal tax based programs (SS, medicare, etc)
Happy to pay my 37% (on everything over 700K), 8-10% state tax, 7% on first 184K wages, 2% medicare on all wages, 20% on all Cap Gains ....but I think that is enough.

And given that it's people like me who pay for 90%+ of all taxes, I'd say we have a right to voice our opinions.

I'm not happy to pay medicare. We have tricare and when we hit retirement, we have to pay preminums for tricare and medicare and medicare premiums are pretty high. Then we have to use medicare first over tricare. Why promise medical care for life if you stay till military retirement age if its not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are high income and I think we should pay a social security tax on ALL of our earnings, plus have a cap.

Why? I'm from a lower middle class background and have many elderly relatives who only have social security to support them on old age.

So why don't you help them personally if you feel the need?

I came from LMC/MC background and somehow my parents managed to save for retirement. They lived frugally and kept a budget and got a 2nd job if needed. But they now have a decent retirement.

Just don't get how you can expect to only live on SS in retirement. It was never intended for that. It's SUPPLEMENTAL, not "your only retirement plan"

It literally was intended for it for poor elderly people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

No, all high earners understand this perfectly. It’s just that they worked hard to become high earners precisely so they wouldn’t end up in a precarious and destitute situation later in life. They believe that older, poorer people that require assistance should be wheeled away into mass burial graves and gas chambers or otherwise eliminated from society. Problem solved as far as the MAGAs are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

No, all high earners understand this perfectly. It’s just that they worked hard to become high earners precisely so they wouldn’t end up in a precarious and destitute situation later in life. They believe that older, poorer people that require assistance should be wheeled away into mass burial graves and gas chambers or otherwise eliminated from society. Problem solved as far as the MAGAs are concerned.

Ummm, plenty of high earners who are NOt MAGa. I literally vote D 99% of the time, despite the fact I would greatly benefit from the r tax cuts. Only good thing about T is the tax cuts and the estate tax now basically being 15m+ and not likely to change (except up for inflation). I benefit greatly from that so. But would weather never have had him as president

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

No, all high earners understand this perfectly. It’s just that they worked hard to become high earners precisely so they wouldn’t end up in a precarious and destitute situation later in life. They believe that older, poorer people that require assistance should be wheeled away into mass burial graves and gas chambers or otherwise eliminated from society. Problem solved as far as the MAGAs are concerned.

Ummm, plenty of high earners who are NOt MAGa. I literally vote D 99% of the time, despite the fact I would greatly benefit from the r tax cuts. Only good thing about T is the tax cuts and the estate tax now basically being 15m+ and not likely to change (except up for inflation). I benefit greatly from that so. But would weather never have had him as president

I think you’re what is referred to as a Stealth MAGA. The prototypical BigLaw Liberal that openly vehemently opposes conservatives and republicans, votes along party lines, but then secretly and sometimes even subconsciously is addicted to self-serving capitalist greed at its very finest. Stealth MAGAs go out their way to support the dems, donate to various charities, drive Teslas, hug trees, and patronize underrepresented minorities. It’s all about virtue signaling to reduce guilt and never truly for the greater good.

Malcolm X once stated, “The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical than the conservative."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

No, all high earners understand this perfectly. It’s just that they worked hard to become high earners precisely so they wouldn’t end up in a precarious and destitute situation later in life. They believe that older, poorer people that require assistance should be wheeled away into mass burial graves and gas chambers or otherwise eliminated from society. Problem solved as far as the MAGAs are concerned.

Ummm, plenty of high earners who are NOt MAGa. I literally vote D 99% of the time, despite the fact I would greatly benefit from the r tax cuts. Only good thing about T is the tax cuts and the estate tax now basically being 15m+ and not likely to change (except up for inflation). I benefit greatly from that so. But would weather never have had him as president

I think you’re what is referred to as a Stealth MAGA. The prototypical BigLaw Liberal that openly vehemently opposes conservatives and republicans, votes along party lines, but then secretly and sometimes even subconsciously is addicted to self-serving capitalist greed at its very finest. Stealth MAGAs go out their way to support the dems, donate to various charities, drive Teslas, hug trees, and patronize underrepresented minorities. It’s all about virtue signaling to reduce guilt and never truly for the greater good.

Malcolm X once stated, “The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical than the conservative."

Stealth MAGA requires you to essentially be socialist/communist as their economic policies align more with Bernie Sanders than true capitalism. You also need to be on fake disability and generally poor.

Seems like PP is stealth Reagan, which is nothing like MAGA.

[Anonymous]

I'm a high earner. I expect and want my fair SS payments when the time comes based on the contributions I've made over the years.

Pretty simple.

[Anonymous]

I make a ridiculous amount of money and I don't consider SS at all. Wish paying into it was voluntary from the beginning. I would have much preferred to have kept that money and invested it on my own.