What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

[Anonymous]

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

That doesn't follow. Social Security isn't a pyramid, but it is a pay-as-you-go scheme, meaning that cash out = cash in. Take away half the revenues by letting people put 6% somewhere else, and suddenly the system can't pay promised benefits to current retirees, let alone to future retirees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

So is it fundamentally a welfare system or a pension system? I think that is where reasonable people can disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

You really don't understand the system at all


In this scenario, the 'rich' guy gets benefits proportional to the $118,000 he paid taxes on


The housekeeper gets benefits proportional to the $50K that he paid SS taxes on

Also, let's not forget that the the 'rich' guy also paid $3,000 as the employer


There is absolutely nothing regressive about it because benefits are capped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That doesn't follow. Social Security isn't a pyramid, but it is a pay-as-you-go scheme, meaning that cash out = cash in. Take away half the revenues by letting people put 6% somewhere else, and suddenly the system can't pay promised benefits to current retirees, let alone to future retirees.

Correct, but it also has a pre-paid fund for baby boomers that will run out just as baby busters start to retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

Yes, bu it's more complex than that. The "return" in terms of monthly benefits in relation to the contribution drops, percentage-wise, as you move up the income ladder. I don't have the numbers - I'll get them - but say, for the contribution of the first $1000 (of monthly earnings), you get $700 in benefits, but for the second $1,000 you get only $600, the third $1000, you get $500. (As I said, I've made these specific figures up....I'll get the actual in a bit.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

You really don't understand the system at all


In this scenario, the 'rich' guy gets benefits proportional to the $118,000 he paid taxes on


The housekeeper gets benefits proportional to the $50K that he paid SS taxes on

Also, let's not forget that the the 'rich' guy also paid $3,000 as the employer


There is absolutely nothing regressive about it because benefits are capped.

Please look up the definition of "regressive tax" before you accuse other people of not understanding the system. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

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

Most people with 401ks haven't saved much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

So is it fundamentally a welfare system or a pension system? I think that is where reasonable people can disagree.

I don't think there is room for reasonable disagreement


It is a social safety net. Intended to give people a little extra cash to get by. It is not a welfare system and is not designed as a welfare system.

The problem is that too many people, for various reasons, have come to depend on it as a significant portion of their retirement so there is a lot of pressure to not make necessary changes to the system

Not a welfare system. Welfare is getting something for nothing. In a few cases that is true of SS (children who lose a parent) but not many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

Yes, bu it's more complex than that. The "return" in terms of monthly benefits in relation to the contribution drops, percentage-wise, as you move up the income ladder. I don't have the numbers - I'll get them - but say, for the contribution of the first $1000 (of monthly earnings), you get $700 in benefits, but for the second $1,000 you get only $600, the third $1000, you get $500. (As I said, I've made these specific figures up....I'll get the actual in a bit.)

PP here. I looked it up, and here's what I mean about the " richer" person getting proportionately less than the lower earner. When you calculate SS monthly benefits, you get 90% of the first $885....32% on the amount above $885 uo to $5157....and only 15% on anything above $5157. So more money is funneled bsck to the housekeeper, percentage wise, in term of earnings than the rich guy.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2014/08/02/how-are-social-security-benefits-calculated.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.

PP meant that the rich person pays lower as a percentage of income and a marginal rate of zero.

PP here. That's exactly what I meant. In your example, $7,080 tax on $1,000,000 income is a tax rate of 0.7%. The housekeeper who pays $3,000 tax on $50,000 earnings has a tax rate of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

You really don't understand the system at all


In this scenario, the 'rich' guy gets benefits proportional to the $118,000 he paid taxes on


The housekeeper gets benefits proportional to the $50K that he paid SS taxes on

Also, let's not forget that the the 'rich' guy also paid $3,000 as the employer


There is absolutely nothing regressive about it because benefits are capped.

Please look up the definition of "regressive tax" before you accuse other people of not understanding the system. You are embarrassing yourself.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/04/are_payroll_taxes_regressive


Not regressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[s e of 6.0%. That's called a regressive tax.

You really don't understand the system at all

In this scenario, the 'rich' guy gets benefits proportional to the $118,000 he paid taxes on

The housekeeper gets benefits proportional to the $50K that he paid SS taxes on

Also, let's not forget that the the 'rich' guy also paid $3,000 as the employer

There is absolutely nothing regressive about it because benefits are capped.


It's you who doesn't understand the system. The middle class and rich get more in dollar terms, but their replacement rate (SS benefit as a pct of pre-retirement income) is about 40%. The poor get less benefits in dollar amounts, but their replacement rates can be as high as 90%. That's called a progressive benefit structure. However, tons of studies from places as diverse as Heritage and AEI (trying to trash the SS system) to Brookings and Urban (trying to improve the SS system) have pointed out that lower lifespans among the poor completely undoes the progressive benefit structure in terms of lifetime total benefits received.

The rich guy paying $ as the employer is bogus. Long-established economic theory says he already reduced the wages he pays by the full amount of the taxes be pays. You won't find a conservative or liberal who disagrees with this.

You really shouldn't talk about things, or try to bully people, when you're so ignorant....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is it fundamentally a welfare system or a pension system? I think that is where reasonable people can disagree.

I don't think there is room for reasonable disagreement


It is a social safety net. Intended to give people a little extra cash to get by. It is not a welfare system and is not designed as a welfare system.

The problem is that too many people, for various reasons, have come to depend on it as a significant portion of their retirement so there is a lot of pressure to not make necessary changes to the system

Not a welfare system. Welfare is getting something for nothing. In a few cases that is true of SS (children who lose a parent) but not many.

+1. It's social insurance. You get it when you become disabled, your kids get it if you die, and you get it at retirement as a relatively small income base that you need to supplement with your own savings of you don't want to spend your retirement in poverty.

It's not welfare because everybody pays in and everybody gets benefits (progressive benefits which are undone by differential mortality rates).

It's not an investment either. Although PP above who said it should get interest is wrong--SS does earn government bond interest rates on the government bonds it holds.