Yeah, that's not the motto they live by.
Social Security
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Yeah, that's not the motto they live by.
No, they sure don't. But they should because they're trying to find meaning in their miserable life by buying themselves more luxury goodies, when making someone's day is priceless and gives you a rush like no other.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Neither do I. It can make a huge difference. 36K SS payments a year and 40K from other retirement or work income is 76K.....
I gotta admit - if I SUDDENLY became filthy rich - like winning the Mega Millions - I think I'd like to AT LEAST briefly want to enjoy the luxury of my good fortune, even knowing that before long - it would bore me.
It's been my general advice to anyone who comes into money quickly - set aside SOME for "fun" - but no more - because it's normal to want to splurge. But a lifestyle of splurging will lead to ruin, and you won't be happier.
It's been my general advice to anyone who comes into money quickly - set aside SOME for "fun" - but no more - because it's normal to want to splurge. But a lifestyle of splurging will lead to ruin, and you won't be happier.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
No, liquid cash.
Rommey
Well-Known Member
Things I would do to help the situation (admittedly, some might have unintended consequences...so it's a perfect government operation):
1. Minimally raise the FICA tax only on the employees from 6.2% to 6.5% (employers remain at 6.2%). This is a very small increase that won't be much of an impact, even for low-income earners (~100/year for someone in the 10% bracket).
2. All income over the cap is subject to FICA tax, with the following caveats: a) the employer is not required to contribute their portion over the cap level; b) the employee portion is taxed a 3%; c) the employee is allowed to contribute up to an additional 3% into an IRA/401K even if the IRA/401K limit has been reached (think of it similar to the 401K catchup contribution for those over 50). This would add additional funding into the system AND encourage employees to increase their own retirement accounts.
3. Raise the early retirement age. Currently it is 62, but it was also 62 when the full retirement age (FRA) was 65 (a three-year difference). Now the FRA is 67 but the early age is still 62 (a five-year difference). People are living longer so making people wait longer to be able to start will stretch out the funding longer. Admittedly, this would likely have to be implemented in a quicker fashion than when the FRA was increased. Basically, anyone 60-62 right now would have to wait until 62½, people between 55-60 would have to wait until 63; everyone else would have to wait until 64 (or 65). Of course exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis.
4. Phase out/eliminate benefits if annual income from non-retirement/pension accounts exceeds a certain amount (let's say if the taxable income after subtracting the SS/Pension/Retirement income, puts the employee in the top 2 tax brackets, then the SS benefits are required to be taxed at 100%; i.e., repaid.
One thing I have always wondered is what is the effect to the total fund when a person dies before taking SS. Assume a person worked for 40+ years contributing to SS and never collects anything. I realize a spouse might be entitled to ½, but that's probably a relatively small number given the number of two-income households over the past 30-40 years.
1. Minimally raise the FICA tax only on the employees from 6.2% to 6.5% (employers remain at 6.2%). This is a very small increase that won't be much of an impact, even for low-income earners (~100/year for someone in the 10% bracket).
2. All income over the cap is subject to FICA tax, with the following caveats: a) the employer is not required to contribute their portion over the cap level; b) the employee portion is taxed a 3%; c) the employee is allowed to contribute up to an additional 3% into an IRA/401K even if the IRA/401K limit has been reached (think of it similar to the 401K catchup contribution for those over 50). This would add additional funding into the system AND encourage employees to increase their own retirement accounts.
3. Raise the early retirement age. Currently it is 62, but it was also 62 when the full retirement age (FRA) was 65 (a three-year difference). Now the FRA is 67 but the early age is still 62 (a five-year difference). People are living longer so making people wait longer to be able to start will stretch out the funding longer. Admittedly, this would likely have to be implemented in a quicker fashion than when the FRA was increased. Basically, anyone 60-62 right now would have to wait until 62½, people between 55-60 would have to wait until 63; everyone else would have to wait until 64 (or 65). Of course exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis.
4. Phase out/eliminate benefits if annual income from non-retirement/pension accounts exceeds a certain amount (let's say if the taxable income after subtracting the SS/Pension/Retirement income, puts the employee in the top 2 tax brackets, then the SS benefits are required to be taxed at 100%; i.e., repaid.
One thing I have always wondered is what is the effect to the total fund when a person dies before taking SS. Assume a person worked for 40+ years contributing to SS and never collects anything. I realize a spouse might be entitled to ½, but that's probably a relatively small number given the number of two-income households over the past 30-40 years.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
Money is like a drug. Hello Elon Musk. Guy's a multi billionaire and he's spending time in court trying to get his hands on a $50 billion dollar compensation package from Tesla.
I agree with you, government has been horrible at spending tax money. And yes it is more fun to use that money to brighten someone else's day. I haven't seen many billionaires who share your feeling. Most of them are A-holes who just want to collect more an more. It is usually people who live somewhat middle income lives that spend whatever leftover money they have to help others.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct. Generations of politicians from both parties have robbed SS of the money that should be there. It is why you should never trust politicians, and why they are usually ranked just above or below Used car salesmen in approval ratings.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
To your original post, I don't think you can phase it out. SS forces people to save when many as you pointed out would not. It has been claimed to be a ponzi scheme, and to a degree I can see that. As generations continue, they draw bigger SS checks than past ones. It is dependent upon past people paying into the system, and current people paying more as their salaries increase.
But the alternative is worse. What do you do with the people who fail to save for their future? Sounds good to say, sorry you are on your own. The reality of that is not pretty. And the result will be yet another government safety net to prevent the country from becoming a third world country. At least with SS the government is collecting money from everyone's paycheck, a forced savings.
The better solution is to fund it going forward. Those who are smart and have funded their own future through 401-k savings and others like it will be fine. Those who did not will at least have minimal money to survive. SS has been called the third rail. Any politician attempting to get rid of it will seal his own fate along with that of his party. Trump promised not to touch SS. Smart. The result of trying to cut SS will be an overwhelming swarm of democrats winning the next elections and ushering in the biggest progressive march in history.
If government would stop pissing away our money on bullshit there'd be plenty to take care of our seniors. When I see them sending billions to some foreign shithole while Americans go begging it infuriates me. And there's enormous waste in other areas as well because government has a blank check and unlimited overdraft with no meaningful oversight.
That's why they're bitching about DOGE - the party's over and they still want to keep drinking.
I have always felt that the best part of winning a huge lottery would be the ability to give it away. But I don't buy lottery tickets, so I won't be able to put that to the test.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
How about just eliminating the Federal Reserve and going back to a sound monetary system administered by the US Government where the dollar maintains the same purchasing power over decades and decades and decades? Then there would be no need for SS, or any welfare system at all. It would be easier to save for one's future when the dollar isn't losing value daily.
How about just eliminating the Federal Reserve and going back to a sound monetary system administered by the US Government where the dollar maintains the same purchasing power over decades and decades and decades? Then there would be no need for SS, or any welfare system at all. It would be easier to save for one's future when the dollar isn't losing value daily.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
He isn't wanting the money, he is wanting the absolute control of the company that the extra stock provides.
glhs837
Power with Control
Well, that was the compensation package agreed to as voted on by shareholders. And its not like a 50 billion dollar check. Its rewards of stock based on performance. Which is where almost all of his wealth resides, in stock. He doesn't have a bank account with 200 billion in it. When the stock goes up, the news loves to proclaim that Musk got 20 billion richer in a day. But when it drops there's no article about how less he's worth.
Funny you choose Musk, he's one billionaire that doesn't spend much on himself.
Yachts? Nope.
Houses? Nope. He did own five on one street in LA, but sold them all.
He views wealth as a tool to accomplish his goals. Getting more EVs on the road reduces pollution. A good thing. Making humanity multiplanetary. A good thing. Developing a man/machine interface. A good thing.
Last edited:
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Actually I have seen articles that say "Elon musk lost 20 billion dollars today.
glhs837
Power with Control
Not many of those, and certainly not as much as when it goes up. I am admittedly biased. When he gains wealth, so do I.
Elon Musk Now $50 Billion Richer Post-Election As Tesla Stock Up Another 9%
Musk may be “heavily involved” in setting the Trump trade policy with China, one analyst predicted Monday.
www.forbes.com
Shoot..I read recently that SpaceX was recently revalued up about 150billion. Elon will survive.Not many of those, and certainly not as much as when it goes up. I am admittedly biased. When he gains wealth, so do I.
Elon Musk Now $50 Billion Richer Post-Election As Tesla Stock Up Another 9%
Musk may be “heavily involved” in setting the Trump trade policy with China, one analyst predicted Monday.
I just wish he'd answer my "hey buddy, can ya spare a million" emails.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Current numbers put it near $350 B.
hey buddy, can you spare a couple hunnert?