Some Inconvenient Facts About Social Security

[sartre play]

We all have opinions,
mine is that we raise the cap some, as the rich wont miss a meal or go with out housing
And we add 3 months to retirement age every year OR two,(most may grumble) but very few will have big problems over that short of time.
People who work the hardest jobs, in the lower paying fields will need the money before there body's wear out.
70 is to long to wait for to many hard working Americans.
401 or any stock market is a gamble on what shape it will be in on retirement day.
All should attempt to put away as much cash as possible, or at least try to secure your home if possible.
AS the big money has sent to many jobs over seas to make more money for them self's.
And buy everything possible from china. (to make money for them self's)
Now are buying up homes, as the cost of property's is out pacing most Americans pocket books.
We need to keep SOCIAL SECURITY. For all the right reasons.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No.
Progressive as in each income bracket pays slightly more than the previous one. This maintains equity rather than putting it all at the top.
After all, individual benefits are based on individual contributions. Not contributions from the top.

"rather than putting it all at the top" -- as in no tax system ever.
Okay, students:

Understanding Taxes - Theme 3: Fairness in Taxes - Lesson 3: Progressive Taxes

apps.irs.gov

A progressive tax takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from low-income groups and is based on the concept of ability to pay. A progressive tax system might, for example, tax low-income taxpayers at 10 percent, middle-income taxpayers at 15 percent and high-income taxpayers at 30 percent. The U.S. federal income tax is based on the progressive tax system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"rather than putting it all at the top" -- as in no tax system ever.
Okay, students:

Understanding Taxes - Theme 3: Fairness in Taxes - Lesson 3: Progressive Taxes

apps.irs.gov

A progressive tax takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from low-income groups and is based on the concept of ability to pay. A progressive tax system might, for example, tax low-income taxpayers at 10 percent, middle-income taxpayers at 15 percent and high-income taxpayers at 30 percent.

Or low-income taxpayers at 0 percent, middle-income taxpayers at 15 percent and high-income taxpayers at 20 percent.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"rather than putting it all at the top" -- as in no tax system ever.
Okay, students:

Understanding Taxes - Theme 3: Fairness in Taxes - Lesson 3: Progressive Taxes

apps.irs.gov

As in never in SS.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We all have opinions,
mine is that we raise the cap some, as the rich wont miss a meal or go with out housing
And we add 3 months to retirement age every year OR two,(most may grumble) but very few will have big problems over that short of time.
People who work the hardest jobs, in the lower paying fields will need the money before there body's wear out.
70 is to long to wait for to many hard working Americans.
401 or any stock market is a gamble on what shape it will be in on retirement day.
All should attempt to put away as much cash as possible, or at least try to secure your home if possible.
AS the big money has sent to many jobs over seas to make more money for them self's.
And buy everything possible from china. (to make money for them self's)
Now are buying up homes, as the cost of property's is out pacing most Americans pocket books.
We need to keep SOCIAL SECURITY. For all the right reasons.

mine is that we raise the cap some, as the rich wont miss a meal or go with out housing

That’s a good enough reason? Because you can? Because they won’t miss it?

How about it’s not their problem to fix?

How about we cut the lowest contributors from the system instead?

 

[hadit]

I’m talking about SS. Rather than a flat tax with an “extra” tax from the top as a fix, I’m suggesting everyone pay incrementally more based on their wages.
Certainly a guy making $$80k can afford more than the guy making $60, etc.

In some cases he could, sure, but not in all. Put guy in San Francisco and compare him to a guy making $60 in rural Alabama, for example.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In some cases he could, sure, but not in all. Put guy in San Francisco and compare him to a guy making $60 in rural Alabama, for example.

Nowhere is that consideration given in SS. Certainly not with flat rate of 6.2%. That standard is already set. Obviously the flat tax was meant to create some sort of equity within the system.

 

[hadit]

Nowhere is that consideration given in SS. Certainly not with flat rate of 6.2%. That standard is already set. Obviously the flat tax was meant to create some sort of equity within the system.

We're not talking about SS, we're talking about your blanket statement that "certainly" somebody making more can afford to pay more taxes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We're not talking about SS, we're talking about your blanket statement that "certainly" somebody making more can afford to pay more taxes.

I’m talking about SS. Who knows what you’re talking about.

 

[hadit]

I’m talking about SS. Who knows what you’re talking about.

I'm talking about this:

"Certainly a guy making $$80k can afford more than the guy making $60, etc."

That's not certain at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm talking about this:

"Certainly a guy making $$80k can afford more than the guy making $60, etc."

That's not certain at all.

It is indeed.
Explain why the top wage earners should be on the hook for securing your individual benefit based on your individual contributions?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here is an inconvenient truth about Social Security.

PREMISE:
Social Security is intended to be a supplement to an individual primary retirement income. Therefore if you play by the rules you will have additional income in retirement. Where that income comes from is up to you but it can be from a Defined Benefits Plan (Pension), a Defined Contribution Plan (401K, Traditional IRA), investment in the stock market, investments in precious metals, hell even through philately (stamp collecting) if that floats your boat).

REALITY:
If you were a working adult paying SS taxes in 1980, your Social Security has already been CUT 3 times.

CUT #1
In the early 80’s the Full Retirement Age (FRA) was raised from 65 to 67 (incrementally). This resulted in a cut in benefits and don’t let anyone tell you different. They are either (a) logically challenged, (b) mathematically challenged, or (c) NOT logically and/or mathematically challenged and are knowingly lying.

The whole purpose of raising the retirement age was to reduce expenditures from the system, in other words to reduce benefit payouts. It did this in 3 ways:

• Rebased FRA from 65 to 67 for a 100% benefit. This eliminated the percentage perk of delaying social security. So instead of getting 100%+Perk, you got only 100%. (There is also a penalty for early retirement.)
• People DIE before drawing any benefit.
• People draw benefits for fewer years.

CUT #2
Before SS benefits were not taxed. If you received a $1000 a month benefit all $1000 was available to help pay bills.

However in the early 80’s SS benefits became taxable income above certain, ridiculously low income levels. Remember the “Premise” above, SS is SUPPOSED to supplement other income. However if you have other income SS becomes taxable as income. Kind of a catch 22 there don’t you think.

So above this, ridiculously low income threshold, 50% of SS benefits become taxable. In other words they hand you a check with the right hand while the left hand is taking part of the check back in taxes. So if you have income above the, ridiculously low income threshold, and to keep the number simple will say an individual is in a 20% tax bracket. So receive $1000 in a benefit check, ½ is taxable (that’s $500 for the less than mathematically inclined), and with a 20% tax that is $100. So a $1000 benefit is received, $100 paid back to the government and at the end of the day there is $900 to help pay bills. That is a cut any way you slice it.

CUT #3
Before SS benefits were not taxed. If you received a $1000 a month benefit all $1000 was available to help pay bills.

However in the early 90’s SS benefits received an additional earning threshold, again ridiculously low, because you are SUPPOSED to have additional income in retirement. This time the new income tax is on 85% of SS benefits.

So above this, again ridiculously low income threshold, 85% of SS benefits become taxable. In other words they hand you a check with the right hand will the left hand is taking part of the check back in taxes. So if you have income above the, ridiculously low income threshold, and to keep the number simple will say an individual is in a 20% tax bracket. So receive $1000 in a benefit check, 85% is taxable (that’s $850 for the less than mathematically inclined), and with a 20% tax that is $170. So a $1000 benefit is received, $170 paid back to the government and at the end of the day there is $830 to help pay bills. That is a cut any way you slice it.

WW

 

[Lesh]

And Republicans want MORE cuts

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here is an inconvenient truth about Social Security.

PREMISE:
Social Security is intended to be a supplement to an individual primary retirement income.

The Purpose:

Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed.

The Premise:
We (the people) have a "permanent problem of economic security for the elderly."

The Act (what we shall do to "address" this issue):
Create a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed.

Notice:
It all starts with "taxes paid" -- Now add your three tax increases aka double taxations aka benefit cuts -- none of which "address" or "provide" for the "economic security for the elderly."

 

[jbander]

It is indeed.
Explain why the top wage earners should be on the hook for securing your individual benefit based on your individual contributions?

These people got fat and overbearing with self-importance with the American market while exploiting the American infrastructure. , them paying more doesn't bother me a bit, just for the hell of it give us a list of countries that don't use a progressive tax structure. If you don't have a list, then you really don't have much to say. I think if the whole world does it, that is a good enough reason for us to do the same. Love the hate party , they hate gays and say it's because they are Christian , and that is listed in the bible a couple of times but our responsibility to the needy is listed more than anything else in the bible but these haters make gays the issue. They are totally fake Christian and make me puke every time they open their ugly mouths.

 

[jbander]

Here is an inconvenient truth about Social Security.

PREMISE:
Social Security is intended to be a supplement to an individual primary retirement income. Therefore if you play by the rules you will have additional income in retirement. Where that income comes from is up to you but it can be from a Defined Benefits Plan (Pension), a Defined Contribution Plan (401K, Traditional IRA), investment in the stock market, investments in precious metals, hell even through philately (stamp collecting) if that floats your boat).

REALITY:
If you were a working adult paying SS taxes in 1980, your Social Security has already been CUT 3 times.

CUT #1
In the early 80’s the Full Retirement Age (FRA) was raised from 65 to 67 (incrementally). This resulted in a cut in benefits and don’t let anyone tell you different. They are either (a) logically challenged, (b) mathematically challenged, or (c) NOT logically and/or mathematically challenged and are knowingly lying.

The whole purpose of raising the retirement age was to reduce expenditures from the system, in other words to reduce benefit payouts. It did this in 3 ways:

• Rebased FRA from 65 to 67 for a 100% benefit. This eliminated the percentage perk of delaying social security. So instead of getting 100%+Perk, you got only 100%. (There is also a penalty for early retirement.)
• People DIE before drawing any benefit.
• People draw benefits for fewer years.

CUT #2
Before SS benefits were not taxed. If you received a $1000 a month benefit all $1000 was available to help pay bills.

However in the early 80’s SS benefits became taxable income above certain, ridiculously low income levels. Remember the “Premise” above, SS is SUPPOSED to supplement other income. However if you have other income SS becomes taxable as income. Kind of a catch 22 there don’t you think.

So above this, ridiculously low income threshold, 50% of SS benefits become taxable. In other words they hand you a check with the right hand while the left hand is taking part of the check back in taxes. So if you have income above the, ridiculously low income threshold, and to keep the number simple will say an individual is in a 20% tax bracket. So receive $1000 in a benefit check, ½ is taxable (that’s $500 for the less than mathematically inclined), and with a 20% tax that is $100. So a $1000 benefit is received, $100 paid back to the government and at the end of the day there is $900 to help pay bills. That is a cut any way you slice it.

CUT #3
Before SS benefits were not taxed. If you received a $1000 a month benefit all $1000 was available to help pay bills.

However in the early 90’s SS benefits received an additional earning threshold, again ridiculously low, because you are SUPPOSED to have additional income in retirement. This time the new income tax is on 85% of SS benefits.

So above this, again ridiculously low income threshold, 85% of SS benefits become taxable. In other words they hand you a check with the right hand will the left hand is taking part of the check back in taxes. So if you have income above the, ridiculously low income threshold, and to keep the number simple will say an individual is in a 20% tax bracket. So receive $1000 in a benefit check, 85% is taxable (that’s $850 for the less than mathematically inclined), and with a 20% tax that is $170. So a $1000 benefit is received, $170 paid back to the government and at the end of the day there is $830 to help pay bills. That is a cut any way you slice it.

WW

If anyone here plans on getting old , your best bet is to fight everything the right does , because in reality they only exist to transfer the wealth to the golden few at the top. If you support them and don't plan on getting old, you are fine.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

These people got fat and overbearing with self-importance with the American market while exploiting the American infrastructure. , them paying more doesn't bother me a bit, just for the hell of it give us a list of countries that don't use a progressive tax structure. If you don't have a list, then you really don't have much to say. I think if the whole world does it, that is a good enough reason for us to do the same. Love the hate party , they hate gays and say it's because they are Christian , and that is listed in the bible a couple of times but our responsibility to the needy is listed more than anything else in the bible but these haters make gays the issue. They are totally fake Christian and make me puke every time they open their ugly mouths.

We’re talking about wage earners. Not the elite super rich. Why should any one group pay more for their SS benefit than anyone else does?

 

[hadit]

We’re talking about wage earners. Not the elite super rich. Why should any one group pay more for their SS benefit than anyone else does?

As long as they get commensurately more as they pay more, it shouldn't be a problem. There's a problem if they don't.

 

[jbander]

We’re talking about wage earners. Not the elite super rich. Why should any one group pay more for their SS benefit than anyone else does?

What a idiot , no one pays more than everyone else , they all pay 6.2%, only different is the rapers off this country only pay that 6.2% on a small part of their income while everyone else pays on every dollar they make. Answer my question, give us a list of countries that don't pay progressive tax rate. if it is good enough for the rest of the world, it is good enough for us. You are a joke.

 

[jbander]

We’re talking about wage earners. Not the elite super rich. Why should any one group pay more for their SS benefit than anyone else does?

No we aren't we are talking about social security and the amount that people pay in. That means everyone ace. Everyone but the rich pay the same. The rich don't have top pay over a certain amount , like $170,000.00 or close to that. You have zero clue what you are talking about , you are like all right wingers you are going to try to bullshit your way through this , We won't let you, so when you say something stupid like much of your comments we will point that out , tell how little you know about the subject and get a good laugh out of your stupidity