But then ...
I know. Let's fix Social Security with a tax on the rich.
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I don't like that, either. True, lower-wage earners pay more in FICA than they do in income taxes--that was true for me until a few years ago. I've read that the top income bracket for calculating FICA is about $89,000.
Instead of soaking the rich, I would rather make FICA a flat tax. What do you think?
Instead of soaking the rich, I would rather make FICA a flat tax. What do you think?
I'd rather phase it out completely. Let the old folks like me get ours since we have paid all our lives. Let the young folks invest a portion privately, increase the private portion every year and gradually ween the people off the dole. If I had been able to keep all my FICA over the years and properly invest it, I would be able to retire now and fairly well off person.
I support Lindsey Graham's proposal to increase the salary cap for FICA from $89,000 to $200,000 while reducing the rate from a total 12.5% to about 11.9%. This is suppose to raise close to half a trillion over ten years...sounds decent to me. This should be combined with tying benefits to inflation for higher earners, an index of inflation and wage increases for middle earners, and strictly wage increases for low earners.
But people like me are going to take it in the azz. Under 55, but over 40 and not enough time to get another retirement together. So I guess I'm screwed.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
rr...
...cut it out. You are held to a higher standard. You are not allowed to be stupid. Only once in awhile.
Social Security is DEAD and NOTHING will save it because of one simple, crushing, immovable fact: Birthrates.
Couples average right around 2 kids. That's one kid to pay for EACH parents retirement. When most people enter Social Security age they may have some of their grankids starting to reach an age where they can help but they will be in early career and not making big dollars.
Birth rates are going to continue to drop meaning less paying in. People will live longer meaning more drain. People are waiting longer to start having kids; more strain.
Any plan that does not being and end with finding an age you need to plan on saving your own money, is a bigger scam than the crippled old ponzii scheme SS always has been.
Do some figuring. Think about it. And quit this 'eat the rich' crap for the same reason; bad math. Eat the poor. There's more of them.
SS IS OVER. It's just a matter of how long we let it rot before we bury it.
...cut it out. You are held to a higher standard. You are not allowed to be stupid. Only once in awhile.
Social Security is DEAD and NOTHING will save it because of one simple, crushing, immovable fact: Birthrates.
Couples average right around 2 kids. That's one kid to pay for EACH parents retirement. When most people enter Social Security age they may have some of their grankids starting to reach an age where they can help but they will be in early career and not making big dollars.
Birth rates are going to continue to drop meaning less paying in. People will live longer meaning more drain. People are waiting longer to start having kids; more strain.
Any plan that does not being and end with finding an age you need to plan on saving your own money, is a bigger scam than the crippled old ponzii scheme SS always has been.
Do some figuring. Think about it. And quit this 'eat the rich' crap for the same reason; bad math. Eat the poor. There's more of them.
SS IS OVER. It's just a matter of how long we let it rot before we bury it.
soul4sale
New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Oh, you and the legion of baby booming bastards haven't paid nearly enough. In a about 15-20 years, the Xers will being doing a bonfire dance around your Soc. Sec. and Medicare benefits, especially after their retirement accounts go up in Wall Street smoke.
Well we just seem to disagree about the value of Social Security...I believe that Social Security is a terrific social program that allows all Americans a safety net (insurance, if you may) for their retirement. It is the strongest measure for our nation against widespread poverty for the elderly (which we experienced for years prior the New Deal). I understand that many of you would like to invest that FICA money in your own choice of stocks and bonds...but I believe that your investment should be on top of what you already put into Social Security. At least that is the most effective way to develop a sound retirement in my opinion...three foundations: Social Security, pensions, savings. I think that the government should allow people to set aside more tax-free money for investment...
My problem is that if we rid of the nation of Social Security, too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with. I understand that the American people deserve as much freedom as possible in their investment choices, but the fact is that our nation has an anemic savings rate. Without Social Security taxes being diverted and with savings lagging, our nation would be prime for economic troubles for the elderly.
Therefore, I believe very strongly that we should reform Social Security to increase its long-term solvency. The creation of private accounts would not do this...close to $1 trillion would be diverted from the current system which would cause the pending deficits for the program to occur before the current 2018 framework. That is something that highly worries me because increasing the debt of this nation is something we need to run away from as soon as possible.
Thus, we are forced to make tough decisions and pick between increased taxes and reduced benefits. Like I stated earlier, the Graham plan with the tax cap increase and the reduced rate would be a good start. Combining this with the new benefit scheme would also reduce overall benefits paid out while ensuring that lower income seniors maintain their current level of benefits are receive greater protection for poverty (these workers rely almost exclusively on Social Security benefits for their retirements; they amount to 25% of the population receiving benefits). I would also like to add my support for the ending of the practice of spending excess payroll taxes on non-Social Security expenditures.
My problem is that if we rid of the nation of Social Security, too many people would have too much money to freely do whatever they wanted with. I understand that the American people deserve as much freedom as possible in their investment choices, but the fact is that our nation has an anemic savings rate. Without Social Security taxes being diverted and with savings lagging, our nation would be prime for economic troubles for the elderly.
Therefore, I believe very strongly that we should reform Social Security to increase its long-term solvency. The creation of private accounts would not do this...close to $1 trillion would be diverted from the current system which would cause the pending deficits for the program to occur before the current 2018 framework. That is something that highly worries me because increasing the debt of this nation is something we need to run away from as soon as possible.
Thus, we are forced to make tough decisions and pick between increased taxes and reduced benefits. Like I stated earlier, the Graham plan with the tax cap increase and the reduced rate would be a good start. Combining this with the new benefit scheme would also reduce overall benefits paid out while ensuring that lower income seniors maintain their current level of benefits are receive greater protection for poverty (these workers rely almost exclusively on Social Security benefits for their retirements; they amount to 25% of the population receiving benefits). I would also like to add my support for the ending of the practice of spending excess payroll taxes on non-Social Security expenditures.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Knock...knock...
...is this mic on???
RR!
How about we 'force' ourselves to make some decisions that'll meet the itent of SS, old age supplamental and disabiltiy insurance?
Come on, face it. Look at the numbers. Look at the reality of birthrates.
You wanna raise the payroll taxable ceiling. Then reduce benefits on these very same people. Then, of course, tell them they don't need it at all.
Doesn't this make your brain scream?
...is this mic on???
RR!
Fine. I used to believe in Santa.
It's not 'if', it's 'when'. IT IS NO LONGER FEASIBLE.
Perish the thought!
Forced to make decisions that will do NOTHING to save a failed program?
How about we 'force' ourselves to make some decisions that'll meet the itent of SS, old age supplamental and disabiltiy insurance?
Come on, face it. Look at the numbers. Look at the reality of birthrates.
You wanna raise the payroll taxable ceiling. Then reduce benefits on these very same people. Then, of course, tell them they don't need it at all.
Doesn't this make your brain scream?
I bring this up for clarity. Social Security does not have Constitutional authority. That said, it is a failed program. Most people get a negative return now. The ROI is certainly lower than you could get with CDs. If anyone with any business sense whatsoever had a choice, they would not invest in SS. RR, you will certainly get a negative return if you live to receive SS and SS is still a viable program (I don't think it will be).
Charles
New Member
There are a whole lot of good Americans that are financially stupid people that would end up being beggars without SS. There would be a LOT of them. It is a very sad fact but that is what it is, a fact. What would you do with these people that for one reason or another, have not prepared for their own future?2ndAmendment said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Let's use some imagination, huh?
Charles, we're alreay in violation of the Constitution and we already TAKE 15% of everybody's paycheck up to $90,000 gross.
Having said that, there are endless things we could do to 'enforce' savings.
It would be a simple matter of setting up a 'glide path' of 'here, Joe Dirt, is what you would have been getting for SS.'
The IRS already does an annaul fiscal checkup to make sure the feds got theirs, so, we do an annual checkup to see that you're saving OK.
People could put it in their homes. T bills. Anything.
Folks who aren't cutting it still can fall back on the old system. That's fine.
Most people will be out of the system and doing much better.
Charles, we're alreay in violation of the Constitution and we already TAKE 15% of everybody's paycheck up to $90,000 gross.
Having said that, there are endless things we could do to 'enforce' savings.
It would be a simple matter of setting up a 'glide path' of 'here, Joe Dirt, is what you would have been getting for SS.'
The IRS already does an annaul fiscal checkup to make sure the feds got theirs, so, we do an annual checkup to see that you're saving OK.
People could put it in their homes. T bills. Anything.
Folks who aren't cutting it still can fall back on the old system. That's fine.
Most people will be out of the system and doing much better.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
OK. Good. That's ONE idea. Now, class, how about one where the patient can actually play some golf or go on a world tour of every K MART in their sunset years?
What say an individuals SS is directed to pay their mortgage? Someone making $30k would have perhaps an extra $300 a month which could be the difference between renting and home ownership, which is the largest single retirement asset most people have.
Send them to France...good, I kinda like that...
More?
OK. Good. That's ONE idea. Now, class, how about one where the patient can actually play some golf or go on a world tour of every K MART in their sunset years?
What say an individuals SS is directed to pay their mortgage? Someone making $30k would have perhaps an extra $300 a month which could be the difference between renting and home ownership, which is the largest single retirement asset most people have.
Send them to France...good, I kinda like that...
More?
Nothing.Charles said:
It is not the government's duty to provide for the financial success or security of any person including me. The federal government has become one big money handout machine. The value comes from somewhere and it is not the government. The government has no product and has no value added. The government is an absorber of funds.
If there were no income tax and no FICA or OASDI and there was a VAT, then taxation would be based on what you spend and would be equal by percentage. The United States is about equality isn't it? I know, not really anymore, but it should be. It has been estimated that the income tax system could be replace by an 11.5% VAT with no loss of revenue to the feds. If you spend a dollar, you pay 11.5 cents in tax. If you spend $100,000,000 you pay $11,500,000 in tax. No forms, no deductions, just you spend it you pay the tax applied to business and individuals alike. Again, no business deductions for VAT paid like there are for sales tax paid. Simple, straight forward, and fair. Make it clear that people have to provide for their own retirement. Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare or the grasshopper and the ant? There are lessons in those stories that people need to take to heart.
Personal responsibility, it is rare in the United States anymore. People need to be responsible for themselves, for their actions, for their well being.
