What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kill it and make it optional

Making it optional would be a disaster because so many people would opt out, fail to save anything for retirement - I believe I read that half the people 50+ have less than $10,000 saved - and when retirement came about, then what? Are we going to let those people starve? 0f course not! They'd get some form of welfare (in lieu of SS they opted out of). But what about the people who DID participate in the program - and with less in their paychecks had to forgo a new car....expensive vacation....larger house, etc......how is that fair? Or what about people who DID opt out, but knowing they had no SS, saved on their own? Not fair to them, either. With an opt-out option, there's no incentive to save for retirement, knowing there will be a safety net there regardless.

If you do 401k you should opt out

PP. That would work. But you'd have to show proof.....say, when you file your taxes, you submit forms showing your contributions. If they equal at least 6% of your earned income (not gross since one doesn't pay FICA on investment income), you can opt out of SS for the following year. I'd go for that.

The employer + employee contribution totals 12%. 6% isn't enough to build a secure retirement--some sources say 15%, others say even more.

You'd also still have the problem of low-income people contributing to to a system that's insolvent after all the high-income people pulled out.

PP here. Well, I was figuring that the employer would still be contributing its half to SS, so the employee just has to put 6% (his half that he previously had put to SS) to a 401k. That's the minimum requirement. But true....many people contribute to a 401k in addition to SS, so to end up with the same retirement security, those people would have to contribute an amount equal to both "legs." For example, I'm contributing 6% to SS (forced of of course) along with 10% to a 401k. So I'd want to contribute 16% if I opted out of my half of SS. But that extra 10% would be optional, since the 401k contributions are optional.

Didn't consider that the opt-out would weaken the program for the lower income people who would remain. That's a problem.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kill it and make it optional

Making it optional would be a disaster because so many people would opt out, fail to save anything for retirement - I believe I read that half the people 50+ have less than $10,000 saved - and when retirement came about, then what? Are we going to let those people starve? 0f course not! They'd get some form of welfare (in lieu of SS they opted out of). But what about the people who DID participate in the program - and with less in their paychecks had to forgo a new car....expensive vacation....larger house, etc......how is that fair? Or what about people who DID opt out, but knowing they had no SS, saved on their own? Not fair to them, either. With an opt-out option, there's no incentive to save for retirement, knowing there will be a safety net there regardless.

If you do 401k you should opt out

PP. That would work. But you'd have to show proof.....say, when you file your taxes, you submit forms showing your contributions. If they equal at least 6% of your earned income (not gross since one doesn't pay FICA on investment income), you can opt out of SS for the following year. I'd go for that.

The employer + employee contribution totals 12%. 6% isn't enough to build a secure retirement--some sources say 15%, others say even more.

You'd also still have the problem of low-income people contributing to to a system that's insolvent after all the high-income people pulled out.

PP here. Well, I was figuring that the employer would still be contributing its half to SS, so the employee just has to put 6% (his half that he previously had put to SS) to a 401k. That's the minimum requirement. But true....many people contribute to a 401k in addition to SS, so to end up with the same retirement security, those people would have to contribute an amount equal to both "legs." For example, I'm contributing 6% to SS (forced of of course) along with 10% to a 401k. So I'd want to contribute 16% if I opted out of my half of SS. But that extra 10% would be optional, since the 401k contributions are optional.

Didn't consider that the opt-out would weaken the program for the lower income people who would remain. That's a problem.....

Most Americans save very, very little for retirement, like you say. So you'd have to make the 15% or so contributions mandatory, in order to avoid millions of impoverished retired Millennials appealing to their state and federal governments for help. On the plus side people could choose their own investments, but research shows that's not always a good thing. Mutual funds would love reaping all the fees, so you'd have to institute some fairly tough rules about fees.

Some states are looking at doing exactly this--a mandate through the employer. But it would be in addition to Social Security, not a replacement. They're only looking at 3-6% contribution rates, depending on the state.

And still the financing problem for those who remain in a weakened program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, no limit on FICA tax. This never made any sense to me.

[Anonymous]

18:35 again. Also you'd still have to pay benefits to retirees because you can't just cut them off, and maybe to people 55+ who are too old to save enough under the new system. This is incredibly expensive. It's shy private accounts were discussed in 2000 when we had a surplus, but you don't hear so much about them now.

[Anonymous]

If social security is not a pyramid scheme then you should have no issues with people opting to invest 6% elsewhere

[Anonymous]

I am ok with means testing for recipients. Some people really need SS, some not so much. Means testing would make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

The problem with choosing 401K's over social security is risk. Your 401k could underperform or even go bust, but Social Security is guaranteed income. Since you don't know what the future holds, you want at least some of your money guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am ok with means testing for recipients. Some people really need SS, some not so much. Means testing would make a lot of sense.

FDR was smart. He made Social Security for everybody because he knew if it was just for poor people, it would vulnerable to political attack. But since everybody gets something, whether they need it or not, it is also safe for the people who really need it.

[Anonymous]

Raise the retirement age to 70. When SS was implemented, the average American died before reaching retirement age. It was never meant to be a safety net that people relied upon for 20+ years.

[Anonymous]

Keep up with the obesity rates - life expectancy will drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

and yet insurance doesn't charge the rich more simply because they are rich...so no SS isn't functioning as insurance.

Neither does Social Security.

You don't have any idea hoe it really works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

and yet insurance doesn't charge the rich more simply because they are rich...so no SS isn't functioning as insurance.

Neither does Social Security.

+1. The rich currently pay LESS than their housekeepers and lawn guys, because nobody pays the FICA tax on more than about $118,000. That's called a regressive tax. The proposal to raise the cap would just fix that.

You are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

and yet insurance doesn't charge the rich more simply because they are rich...so no SS isn't functioning as insurance.

Neither does Social Security.

You don't have any idea hoe it really works.

Are you the same poster that doesn't know the difference between a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, no limit on FICA tax. This never made any sense to me.

Well, let's try.

FICA is capped at $118,500

So if you pay the max, you get the max benefit


Proposals where the cap is removed and the max benefit is not raised convert SS into a welfare program


If you make, say $418,0000 per year, you are looking at paying SS tax on $300K (an extra $18K per year) - with no added benefit. $1500 a month contributed to a welfare program, every month for the rest of your working life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

and yet insurance doesn't charge the rich more simply because they are rich...so no SS isn't functioning as insurance.

Neither does Social Security.

+1. The rich currently pay LESS than their housekeepers and lawn guys, because nobody pays the FICA tax on more than about $118,000. That's called a regressive tax. The proposal to raise the cap would just fix that.

How do you figure this? Let's say some rich person earns $1,000,000 a year. He (or she....don't want to be sexist!) pays 6% on the first ) $118,000 - or $7080. He oays his housekeeper $50,000, and she ( or he....don't want to be sexist!!) pays $3000. Under no circumstances would someone earning $118,000+ pay more than the working class people earning $40,000 or whatever.