How NOT to fix the Social Security balance sheet?

[djAdvocate]

my understanding is that eliminating the cap on benefits would solve most of the problem.
retirement age should be raised SLIGHTLY to compensate for whatever differences there are.

but as we both know, Social Security is not a serious fiscal problem.  Medicare, however, is.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Apr 23, 2015 10:45:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

My understanding is that eliminating the cap would either entirely or very close to entirely solve the problem. Of course, it creates an unintended consequence that now the program taxes and re-apportions income, which is something that was expressly and importantly avoided when the program was created. Of course times have changed since the 1930's. Have we changed ideologically enough to accept such a solution?

This article is short, and not particularly brilliant or groundbreaking. However it has really made me rethink my position on it.

I have known many people who have not been able to work, for one reason or another, up until the official retirement age. I haven't thought it through but I bet most of them did not have very long life expectancies either.

The current retirement age for SSI is 67.  I'm not sure it makes sense to raise it ANY more.

Social Security is only not a serious problem if we fix it- which we can easily do.  However it must be done.  The quicker it is done, the easier it is.  However I think we all know it won't get fixed until the 11th hour.

Getting rid of the cap basically would require increasing the amount of SS those people would earn, unless of course you want to get rid of the income cap while continuing to cap benefits. What's another 15% tax increase (or lets just 7.5% since employers will pick up half unless you don't want them doing that either) on top of the tax rates already charged?  I'm sure the government will use it wisely and not ask for anymore funds.    It's a good thing we don't want to take any risk in the market with the funds or phase in any privatized accounts for the system.

If you have to keep raising the age of eligibility, raise how much is taxed, decrease benefits, and/or some combination of all of the above....maybe there is something wrong that should be examined instead of constantly wanting people to pay more, for longer, for fewer benefits.

[zibazinski]

Or punishing those who saved by stealing their benefits from them to support those that didn't.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2015 16:34:59 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Apr 23, 2015 10:45:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

My understanding is that eliminating the cap would either entirely or very close to entirely solve the problem. Of course, it creates an unintended consequence that now the program taxes and re-apportions income, which is something that was expressly and importantly avoided when the program was created. Of course times have changed since the 1930's. Have we changed ideologically enough to accept such a solution?

This article is short, and not particularly brilliant or groundbreaking. However it has really made me rethink my position on it.

I have known many people who have not been able to work, for one reason or another, up until the official retirement age. I haven't thought it through but I bet most of them did not have very long life expectancies either.

The current retirement age for SSI is 67.  I'm not sure it makes sense to raise it ANY more.

Social Security is only not a serious problem if we fix it- which we can easily do.  However it must be done.  The quicker it is done, the easier it is.  However I think we all know it won't get fixed until the 11th hour.

Getting rid of the cap basically would require increasing the amount of SS those people would earn, unless of course you want to get rid of the income cap while continuing to cap benefits. What's another 15% tax increase (or lets just 7.5% since employers will pick up half unless you don't want them doing that either) on top of the tax rates already charged?  I'm sure the government will use it wisely and not ask for anymore funds.    It's a good thing we don't want to take any risk in the market with the funds or phase in any privatized accounts for the system.

If you have to keep raising the age of eligibility, raise how much is taxed, decrease benefits, and/or some combination of all of the above....maybe there is something wrong that should be examined instead of constantly wanting people to pay more, for longer, for fewer benefits.

first of all, it is, i believe 6.25% of income we are talking about here.  medicare already has no limit.
second, the rates you are hollering about do not apply to the 90% of US wage earners that are below the current threshold.
third, employment income is a fairly minor share of what the wealthy make.  let's take my own income stream as an example.  over 75% of my household income last year was PASSIVE.  i did not owe SSI on it, and i would not under any changes we are discussing.  in the case of Mitt Romney, the percentages are much higher.
finally, if you actually bothered to read dem's post, you would know that he is opposed to raising the age limit.

i think it really comes down to whether you think SSI is worth saving or not.  do you?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2015 16:43:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Or punishing those who saved by stealing their benefits from them to support those that didn't.

i don't feel "punished" for wanting a society in half of us are not in need in our old age.  i don't think i am alone in that respect.

[zibazinski]

Of course YOU aren't. No ones stopping you from giving it your all either.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2015 20:54:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Of course YOU aren't. No ones stopping you from giving it your all either.

that doesn't concern me.  the only thing that concerns me is that someone does NOT stop you from NOT giving your all. 

[zibazinski]

Typical socialist or Dem. Stealing from the ants to give to the grasshoppers.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 27, 2015 6:54:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Typical socialist or Dem. Stealing from the ants to give to the grasshoppers.

1) all economic systems are voluntary, particularly to those that have mobility.
2) everyone benefits from SSI, no matter what income level.

so, there are either no ants or no grasshoppers in our system. 

[Deleted]

I've known how to fix Social Security for ages.

> remove the cap on taxation.
> cap payout to 1.5x the poverty level.

[EVT1]

How about 2X cap and no taxes on it? 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2015 22:38:18 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

The question I have is what kind of shape would SS be in if we didn't shift the current overages to the general fund, and kept it in the SS "pot of money" for the future when there aren't overages.

Also, I agree that SS income should not be taxed.  It already WAS a tax that the person paid, and is now receiving their benefit from.  It would encourage people to work longer if they removed the tax from it, instead of penalizing them for working longer.  But leave it to the government to design a plan that entices people not to work...

do you work less when offered more money?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2015 13:01:56 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Apr 30, 2015 11:41:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

do you work less when offered more money?

Hence the inherent flaw in our SS system...

not following your logic. 

if i work harder, i pay more taxes, but i also take home more pay.

if i work less hard, i pay less taxes, but i take home less pay, as well.

therefore, i see the economic incentive to working harder.

how is that NOT currently the case with SS?

[Malarky]

I'm one of the seemingly rare individuals on this board who has a physical job.  I've worked in a bakery for the past 31 years in various capacities.  

I NEED to be active.  I tried sitting behind a desk and it was the most horrible experience of my life.  I gave it a year and a half and went back to baking.  

OK, so you raised the age when I can retire with a substantial portion of my money from 65 to 67.  Now you're thinking 70?  

Makes me want to cry.  The same 50# sack if flour I could carry around all day at 25 is a lot heavier at 53. Years of being on my feet and doing physical labor have kept me from going all postal on people, but has definitely taken a toll on my body.  

Pencil pushers maybe can work until 70 or beyond-maybe.  I couldn't sit behind a desk for years on end.  

But the people I know who do physical work generally are desperate for retirement by 60.  

I'd be more than willing to have more of my current funds directed towards SS with the caveat that IT ISN"T TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING BUT SS.  

But please stop making the old joke that "I'll retire when I expire" closer to reality for me.  I also hope not to have to retire "early" without full benefits because although the spirit is willing, the body gives out.    

I'm a reasonably intelligent person with ADD who found a way (as we used to do) to be a productive member of society in a job that keeps me from "oh shiny...is that a squirrel?"   

[The Captain]

Apr 29, 2015 22:38:18 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

The question I have is what kind of shape would SS be in if we didn't shift the current overages to the general fund, and kept it in the SS "pot of money" for the future when there aren't overages.

Also, I agree that SS income should not be taxed.  It already WAS a tax that the person paid, and is now receiving their benefit from.  It would encourage people to work longer if they removed the tax from it, instead of penalizing them for working longer.  But leave it to the government to design a plan that entices people not to work...

Just have to jump in and clear up a misstatement here...

Neither the employee nor the employer have paid any income taxes on the employer's portion of the SS contribution so IMHO it would be fair to tax up to half of SS.  As I stands now I think up to 85% can be taxed?

 
AND...discounting the time value of money let's be honest, a significant number of recipients received more in SS/Medicare benefits than the actual amounts paid in so this is a bit of a logic flawed argument. 

I did the calc once, and even assuming a 5 or 6% ROI the average retiree hit break even at around 74 or 75 I think.  So, should anyone over that age receiving benefits be taxed on 100% of them?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2015 14:05:42 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Apr 30, 2015 13:43:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not following your logic. 

if i work harder, i pay more taxes, but i also take home more pay.

if i work less hard, i pay less taxes, but i take home less pay, as well.

therefore, i see the economic incentive to working harder.

how is that NOT currently the case with SS?

You're not following my logic because you're talking about how hard people work and I'm talking about social security.

really?  it appeared to me that you were taking about people working above the taxable limit while receiving SS.

my mistake.

[Deleted]

Apr 29, 2015 21:29:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

How about 2X cap and no taxes on it? 

1.5 is plenty. It's supposed to make sure you don't starve and aren't homeless... it's not supposed to be able to pay for vacations and stuff.


I do agree that SS payments should not be taxed.

[EVT1]

Sounds like a fair compromise   Too bad the asshats on the hill can't do that anymore.

[Deleted]

It's simple... so of course they can't figure it out.

or

It's fair and reasonable... so someone is probably paying them NOT to figure it out.



Either could be possible, depending on the Representative or Senator you are thinking of at any given moment.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2015 19:01:53 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Apr 30, 2015 16:43:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

really?  it appeared to me that you were taking about people working above the taxable limit while receiving SS.

my mistake.

I was. I never made the statement that you were asking me about though. So you'll have to find somebody who did say that if you want to get your question answered.

i never claimed you made the statement.  i was simply asking you a question.

your position APPEARS TO BE that taxing social security for those that work is a disincentive to work.  yet, since the recession hit in 2008/9, record number of senior citizens are working AND paying taxes.  i was asking you, basically, WHY?  if what you are CLAIMING is true, one would think that FEWER senior citizens would work because more of them would be SUBJECTED to taxation, but that is not the case.

in other words, i was calling you on your statement- or if your wording was not exactly as i phrased it above, YOUR IDEA.

got anything to back it up?

edit: if i got your position wrong, just tell me what it actually is, and i will abandon or rephrase the question.

[EVT1]

Apr 30, 2015 20:39:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's simple... so of course they can't figure it out.

or

It's fair and reasonable... so someone is probably paying them NOT to figure it out.



Either could be possible, depending on the Representative or Senator you are thinking of at any given moment.

I also like the idea that PBP floated about eliminating property taxes for retirees. Of course his version would shitcan the taxes for people like Trump or the Kochs.

But if we look at SS for what it is- an insurance program to make sure our senior citizens can life the rest of their days with some standard of dignity- then why not as part of the program eliminate property taxes up to a level as well for retired people. 

[EVT1]

Apr 30, 2015 20:59:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2015 19:01:53 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I was. I never made the statement that you were asking me about though. So you'll have to find somebody who did say that if you want to get your question answered.

i never claimed you made the statement.  i was simply asking you a question.

your position APPEARS TO BE that taxing social security for those that work is a disincentive to work.  yet, since the recession hit in 2008/9, record number of senior citizens are working AND paying taxes.  i was asking you, basically, WHY?  if what you are CLAIMING is true, one would think that FEWER senior citizens would work because more of them would be SUBJECTED to taxation, but that is not the case.

in other words, i was calling you on your statement- or if your wording was not exactly as i phrased it above, YOUR IDEA.

got anything to back it up?

edit: if i got your position wrong, just tell me what it actually is, and i will abandon or rephrase the question.

A tired old argument the right pulls out of the hat every time a tax increase is on the horizon.

Something along the lines of- "Well I make 250K, and since the top tax rate is going up why would I want to work any harder and pay that much more"    You can reduce that to 'Why should I work at all when I can live the welfare life with steak and lobster dinners and a new Escalade"

Because people only work as hard as their tax rate   "Well I could make another million, but- nah- the taxes"  Some absurd shit being floated.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2015 22:36:57 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 30, 2015 20:39:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's simple... so of course they can't figure it out.

or

It's fair and reasonable... so someone is probably paying them NOT to figure it out.



Either could be possible, depending on the Representative or Senator you are thinking of at any given moment.

I also like the idea that PBP floated about eliminating property taxes for retirees. Of course his version would shitcan the taxes for people like Trump or the Kochs.

But if we look at SS for what it is- an insurance program to make sure our senior citizens can life the rest of their days with some standard of dignity- then why not as part of the program eliminate property taxes up to a level as well for retired people. 

I could agree with that... up to a point.

Give everyone over (what is it now? 67?) 67 an automatic deduction on their property tax, one use per year (so you don't get it on every property you own if you own more than one) of, say, 50% of the average single home taxes for the COUNTY. That would give people that are poorer and live in poorer homes a better discount than they would otherwise receive, and it would allow rich people SOME deduction, but, the average elderly would still be paying SOME taxes for services like Police and Fire.

[Deleted]

Wow. This stuff is amazingly easy to figure out... maybe I should run for office.

Anyone got a Bazillion dollars I can have so I have a chance of winning?

[EVT1]

Pragmatism has no place in congress anymore.

I have a simple position- take care of the old, the disabled, the underpaid.  We already have a solution for the first two.

And if a publically traded company- like Wally- maintains its huge profitability because the government pays the rent, food, and power for their dirt paid employees then it is time to drop the hammer on them.

[EVT1]

www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/

     After analyzing data released by Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that a single 300- person Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year – about $5,815 per employee.”

So much for the 'free' market

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2015 23:55:25 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Apr 30, 2015 20:59:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never claimed you made the statement.  i was simply asking you a question.

your position APPEARS TO BE that taxing social security for those that work is a disincentive to work.  yet, since the recession hit in 2008/9, record number of senior citizens are working AND paying taxes.  i was asking you, basically, WHY?  if what you are CLAIMING is true, one would think that FEWER senior citizens would work because more of them would be SUBJECTED to taxation, but that is not the case.

in other words, i was calling you on your statement- or if your wording was not exactly as i phrased it above, YOUR IDEA.

got anything to back it up?

edit: if i got your position wrong, just tell me what it actually is, and i will abandon or rephrase the question.

I don't care for the way you ask people questions, but reword their statement to fit an argument you want to have at the time. 

huh?  i phrase questions in a way that i think is clearest, so that i can actually understand the response.

It's dishonest.  I've asked you twice before not to do that to me, and both times you went back to edit your comments to make it look like you didn't do it.  So I don't trust you and don't really want to talk to you.  Go find somebody else to talk to.

i am trying to have an honest conversation, Ratchets.  i specifically asked you, if i got your position wrong, to tell me how to rephrased a question to elicit a response.  this was actually the MOST respectful approach i have taken with any poster.  if that is not enough to satisfy you that i was well intentioned in this debate, then i don't really want to "talk to you" either.

[Ombud]

deminmaine, there isn't a retirement 'age' for SSI (disability not based on work history) only SSA (retirement) & aren't SSI / SSDI (disability based on work contribution) at the '11th hour'? I sincerely hope they don't merge the 2 (AKA: raid SSA to fund SSI / SSDI)

@richardintn, those 65 & over can already petition to not pay certain parts of their property taxes ... at least in CA. They just have to prove it's their primary residence

Ratchets, SSA is only taxed if AGI exceeds a certain amount

[Ombud]

Apr 30, 2015 23:22:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I have a simple position- take care of the old, the disabled, the underpaid.  We already have a solution for the first two.

The current solution of taking care of lower wage earners via food stamps, ACA subsidy, etc is requesting that they go to high school and get a free education or local job training opportunities via the unemployment offices. Do you mean we should do more? What do you suggest so they'll move to higher paying jobs instead of stuck in entry level positions and trash their local employers (thus putting themselves out of work)? What right do we have to demand they do this?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2015 23:22:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Pragmatism has no place in congress anymore.

I have a simple position- take care of the old, the disabled, the underpaid.  We already have a solution for the first two.

And if a publically traded company- like Wally- maintains its huge profitability because the government pays the rent, food, and power for their dirt paid employees then it is time to drop the hammer on them.

there is no profit in pragmatism, or very little.  congress is there to maintain profitable problems, not fix them.