Reply to What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

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

It's not a retirement system. It's a retirement insurance system. [/quote] and yet insurance doesn't charge the rich more simply because they are rich...so no SS isn't functioning as insurance.[/quote]

Neither does Social Security.  [/quote]

+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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Big oops, I meant under no circumstances would the richer person pay LESS.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]
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.)[/quote]
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[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics