Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Urban Institute disagrees. They provide research on SS. A retiree 2015 who put his contributions aside in a bank account earning 2% real which is close to 5% would have about $300,000.
1969 was a fine year to make $40K a year. That would have been roughly $200K today. Of that 40K, you didn't lose 15%, you paid about 5% of the first $2,500, or $500.
At no point have you ever paid 15% for Social Security. Today is pretty much the max and it is 10.6%. Payroll taxes as a whole are 15.3% - but 4.7% is HI and DI which have nothing to do with retirement.
Of that 40K, you didn't lose 15%, you paid about 5% of the first $2,500, or $500.
5% of $2500 is $125.
The maximum taxable income in 1969 was $7800.
The OASDI tax rate in 1969 was 8.4%.
$655.20 max cost per employee.
Today is pretty much the max and it is 10.6%.
12.4%.
And folks like me and my partners pay the ENTIRE %12.4 ourselves.
Yup. And they want to remove the cap.
Not realizing that would boost your benefit and still not balance the books.
It will help because the replacement rate on the contribution is almost zero. I have a piece at Independent Voter Network hammering the idea of raising the cap. It is a bad idea.
It will help because the replacement rate on the contribution is almost zero.
Please explain further.
The Urban Institute disagrees. They provide research on SS. A retiree 2015 who put his contributions aside in a bank account earning 2% real which is close to 5% would have about $300,000.
how is that possible given that $40k x 12.4% x 46 years = $228k without any interest at all!!
If the government spent less (including debt service) than it takes in, the result would be deflation, depression and disaster.
.
The Urban Institute uses the right figures. .
In the 1970s, people didn't earn 40K. .
[
Ignorance of economics is the backbone of the conservative movement..
very true, an average American could retire with an estate of $1.4 million rather than the dog food money they get from SS, assuming they live long enough to collect any of it.
Do you have any data to back-up that claim? And I am not counting spam on the internet.
figure it out for yourself. Take 15% of $40k a year at 6% and invest it for 46 years and tell us how much it comes to.
1969 was a fine year to make $40K a year. That would have been roughly $200K today. Of that 40K, you didn't lose 15%, you paid about 5% of the first $2,500, or $500.
At no point have you ever paid 15% for Social Security. Today is pretty much the max and it is 10.6%. Payroll taxes as a whole are 15.3% - but 4.7% is HI and DI which have nothing to do with retirement.
Who said anything about 1969, other than you?
Hmmm 1969 + 46 = 2015. My point is that his example is inaccurate and absurd. You are dealing with someone who is making 5 times median income at the start of his career, and by the end is making minimum wage.
If the government spent less (including debt service) than it takes in, the result would be deflation, depression and disaster.That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
Both inflation and the national debt can play a positive role in the economy if prudently used.
The government balance sheet is NOT comparable to family finances. Were it so, university economics departments would shrivel to half their size. Families don't print money. Families don't have investors from around the world trying to lend them money.
Ignorance of economics is the backbone of the conservative movement. GWB was correct: it's voodoo economics.
If the government spent less (including debt service) than it takes in, the result would be deflation, depression and disaster.
GWB was correct: it's voodoo economics.
In the 1970s, people didn't earn 40K. .
its just an average. For half their working life they earned more and for half they earned less. Get it????
From the perspective of the individual taxpayer, the statistic that really counts is the total tax burden. It is comparing that total tax burden as a percentage of income that the regressive nature of our tax system becomes shockingly apparent.I see you have dodged the issue. Not surprised. You are on the right track about the war years, that is when the income tax was extended downward to the middle class.Because you seem to think that reading the mind of FDR is a useful guide to understanding contemporary government policies, you might enjoy looking up the original federal income tax law to see the threshold income level at which tax liability began to be incurred. Compare that income amount to the prevailing median family income at the time and see just which sections of the population were subject to income tax.No.. It was silly statement. Raising the floors to lower the ceiling? I like my ceilings as the designer saw them in the first place. Don't even understand it,. EVERYONE should be involved as a TAXPAYER. Having damn near half of workers now EXCUSED from income tax (or on EITC) is prescription for disaster. And that's not gonna raise the floor or lower the ceiling.
For the purposes of THIS discussion ---- the SS solutions that I've heard sound good but are actually cruel and sadistic. Raising the age of retirement means you're in favor of making that rickety roofer climb ladders in the hot sun for another 4 or 6 years. It means that 2 working spouses probably need to keep working to avoid draining their private retirement funds.. And raising the exemption levels on payroll tax -- means that some folks will be paying 4 to 10 times more than others for the same benefit. SS is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL insurance program and FDR would be screaming bloody murder about these proposals.
So -- if that's done. And SS is OFFICIALLY changed from UNIVERSAL retirement to a grinchy WELFARE retirement program --- What do you think the chances are the public would EVER trust you leftists/socialists with UNIVERSAL healthcare or UNIVERSAL anything in the future??
If that assignment is too difficult for you, let me know and I'll give you the answers. Good luck.
I'll do that ----- just as soon as you look up the original participation schedule for SS and see where the caps and the contributions were when THAT program was started.
And I doubt that we have EVER EXEMPTED over 45% of working Americans from paying ANY income tax. Especially not during the War years.
Nobody likes paying taxes Those who leap from dislike to foaming rage have deficient understanding of the nature of the American community. It's so Ron Paul.
Not that it's on topic here (but I will skillfully make it that way) -- why shouldn't the middle class pay for the Fed Govt in some small way? There are MILLIONS more of them than the 1%.
We ask even the WORKING POOR to pay into SS.. Why aren't we exempting them? Is it because that would screw the notion of SS being a UNIVERSAL program? With equal contributions and benefits for everybody?
Why isn't funding the CDC or NSF or NPR a UNIVERSAL benefit for everyone?
One of the biggest difference between the rich and the middle class is that most middle class income is earned as salary or fees while the truly wealthy derive their income from capital gains and its many loop holes such as the carried interest definition.
Another class difference is that the lower classes spend all their income just to survive while the upper-middle manages to save and invest a bit, primarily for retirement. The rich, even with their garage elevators and million-dollar yachts spend only a small part of their income, most of it is reinvested, compounding wealth. Sales taxes as a percent of income are steeply regressive.
The federal tax code is many thousands of pages long. In bound volumes it takes up a bookshelf. Most of that endless text consists of definitions and exceptions to the basic code. If you have enough income to be able to hire a tax expert to manage your taxes in coordination with the financial advisors who manage your income, those thousands of pages of tax code serve as the means whereby your paid advisors earn their fees by sheltering your income from taxation.
The bottom line: poor people pay a larger fraction of their income in taxes than rich people. Some of us don't think that is fair.
That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..
That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?
Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT...
That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?
Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT...
Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books
If they borrowed SS funds, that is a debt on the books.
Intragovernmental holdings. The difference between the debt and the debt held by the public.
Can't fool the Toddster -- can ya???? 
I get paid the same amount, my kids pay the same amount regardless. What does the government owing me have to do with anything? In no scenario do I get more or less money based on the existence of the bogus fund. The existence of this fantasy fund effects who?
You will get paid an amount based upon your contributions to the fund. That's what the government owes you for your SS contributions, and that's EXACTLY how a defined contribution pension plan or annuity works.
Whether or not you will get the amount promised - and I don't think you will - is another story. But the economics of how SS works is no different than any other pooled capital of retirement savings.
Actually, other "pooled capital of retirement savings" typically involves actual money, not IOUs the pool wrote to itself. And the amount I get paid is irrelevant to the discussion because there is no connection between the amount I will be paid and whether or not those IOUs government wrote to itself are a "trust fund" or not..
What is relevant to the discussion is that the amount we get paid has nothing to do with whether SS has a "trust fund" or not, and there is no connection between what our children will pay and whether SS has a trust fund or not.
There is no cashflow connection to anyone regarding whether the government's IOUs to itself are considered a trust fun or not.
All other financial securities as assets affect cashflow to someone somewhere somehow. Social Security's phantom "trust fund" doesn't.
Seriously, with what you do for a living, and I do believe you even if we banter sometimes, how can you possibly consider something that EX-ANTE has no effect on cashflow, positive or negative, ever, to anyone, an economic asset? How is that possible?
The trust fund does not write IOUs to itself. The government writes an IOU to the trust then the trust owes you. You keep repeating that mistake.
The "real cash flows" are your FICA taxes and the SS payments you will receive in later life.
What is the difference between that and you investing in government bonds for your retirement?
Seriously, you don't understand the difference between me loaning money to someone else, and me loaning money to myself. You actually mean that? Seriously?
And as a finance guy, you actually, truly didn't grasp my point that whether or not there is a trust changes zero cash flows ex-ante to anyone, ANYONE, EX-ANTE
you want to look someone in the eye who knows that that means and say you don't get it? I withdraw my statement that I believe you. You are full of shit. And I mean that in the most disrespectful sort of way. In a way that most who say that to you don't. I know what I am talking about. that you don't grasp that your arguement changes zero cashflows is pathetic. If you do what you say, you should be shit canned on the spot.
Cash flows is wall street, Holmes. You don't know that? You aren't Wall Street, you are a janitor, you are a canard:
Toro: There doesn't have to be any money for something to be an asset, WTF are you talking about? Yeah, there does
You're not loaning money to yourself. You keep repeating that mistake.
Tell me the difference between the two are
1. You give the government taxes and you are credited with future SS payments
2. You give the government money for a bond which you are credited for future interest and principle payments.
Tell me what the difference is?
You will get paid an amount based upon your contributions to the fund. That's what the government owes you for your SS contributions, and that's EXACTLY how a defined contribution pension plan or annuity works.
Whether or not you will get the amount promised - and I don't think you will - is another story. But the economics of how SS works is no different than any other pooled capital of retirement savings.
Actually, other "pooled capital of retirement savings" typically involves actual money, not IOUs the pool wrote to itself. And the amount I get paid is irrelevant to the discussion because there is no connection between the amount I will be paid and whether or not those IOUs government wrote to itself are a "trust fund" or not..
What is relevant to the discussion is that the amount we get paid has nothing to do with whether SS has a "trust fund" or not, and there is no connection between what our children will pay and whether SS has a trust fund or not.
There is no cashflow connection to anyone regarding whether the government's IOUs to itself are considered a trust fun or not.
All other financial securities as assets affect cashflow to someone somewhere somehow. Social Security's phantom "trust fund" doesn't.
Seriously, with what you do for a living, and I do believe you even if we banter sometimes, how can you possibly consider something that EX-ANTE has no effect on cashflow, positive or negative, ever, to anyone, an economic asset? How is that possible?
The trust fund does not write IOUs to itself. The government writes an IOU to the trust then the trust owes you. You keep repeating that mistake.
The "real cash flows" are your FICA taxes and the SS payments you will receive in later life.
What is the difference between that and you investing in government bonds for your retirement?
Seriously, you don't understand the difference between me loaning money to someone else, and me loaning money to myself. You actually mean that? Seriously?
And as a finance guy, you actually, truly didn't grasp my point that whether or not there is a trust changes zero cash flows ex-ante to anyone, ANYONE, EX-ANTE
you want to look someone in the eye who knows that that means and say you don't get it? I withdraw my statement that I believe you. You are full of shit. And I mean that in the most disrespectful sort of way. In a way that most who say that to you don't. I know what I am talking about. that you don't grasp that your arguement changes zero cashflows is pathetic. If you do what you say, you should be shit canned on the spot.
Cash flows is wall street, Holmes. You don't know that? You aren't Wall Street, you are a janitor, you are a canard:
Toro: There doesn't have to be any money for something to be an asset, WTF are you talking about? Yeah, there does
You're not loaning money to yourself. You keep repeating that mistake.
Tell me the difference between the two are
1. You give the government taxes and you are credited with future SS payments
2. You give the government money for a bond which you are credited for future interest and principle payments.
Tell me what the difference is?
You know nothing about finance if you actually can stand behind that a "trust fund" which effects cash flows to no one positively or negatively ex-ante is a financial asset
Assets are valued on risk adjusted expected cashflows, Holmes. Bonds, stocks, all of them. An "asset" which has zero effect on cashflows in or out of the imperial federal government therefore has a value of zero
Read a book on asset valuation and get back to me
That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?
Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT...
That surplus was SPENT.
The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.
Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?
Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT...
You will get paid an amount based upon your contributions to the fund. That's what the government owes you for your SS contributions, and that's EXACTLY how a defined contribution pension plan or annuity works.
Whether or not you will get the amount promised - and I don't think you will - is another story. But the economics of how SS works is no different than any other pooled capital of retirement savings.
Actually, other "pooled capital of retirement savings" typically involves actual money, not IOUs the pool wrote to itself. And the amount I get paid is irrelevant to the discussion because there is no connection between the amount I will be paid and whether or not those IOUs government wrote to itself are a "trust fund" or not..
What is relevant to the discussion is that the amount we get paid has nothing to do with whether SS has a "trust fund" or not, and there is no connection between what our children will pay and whether SS has a trust fund or not.
There is no cashflow connection to anyone regarding whether the government's IOUs to itself are considered a trust fun or not.
All other financial securities as assets affect cashflow to someone somewhere somehow. Social Security's phantom "trust fund" doesn't.
Seriously, with what you do for a living, and I do believe you even if we banter sometimes, how can you possibly consider something that EX-ANTE has no effect on cashflow, positive or negative, ever, to anyone, an economic asset? How is that possible?
The trust fund does not write IOUs to itself. The government writes an IOU to the trust then the trust owes you. You keep repeating that mistake.
The "real cash flows" are your FICA taxes and the SS payments you will receive in later life.
What is the difference between that and you investing in government bonds for your retirement?
Seriously, you don't understand the difference between me loaning money to someone else, and me loaning money to myself. You actually mean that? Seriously?
And as a finance guy, you actually, truly didn't grasp my point that whether or not there is a trust changes zero cash flows ex-ante to anyone, ANYONE, EX-ANTE
you want to look someone in the eye who knows that that means and say you don't get it? I withdraw my statement that I believe you. You are full of shit. And I mean that in the most disrespectful sort of way. In a way that most who say that to you don't. I know what I am talking about. that you don't grasp that your arguement changes zero cashflows is pathetic. If you do what you say, you should be shit canned on the spot.
Cash flows is wall street, Holmes. You don't know that? You aren't Wall Street, you are a janitor, you are a canard:
Toro: There doesn't have to be any money for something to be an asset, WTF are you talking about? Yeah, there does
You're not loaning money to yourself. You keep repeating that mistake.
Tell me the difference between the two are
1. You give the government taxes and you are credited with future SS payments
2. You give the government money for a bond which you are credited for future interest and principle payments.
Tell me what the difference is?
You know nothing about finance if you actually can stand behind that a "trust fund" which effects cash flows to no one positively or negatively ex-ante is a financial asset
Assets are valued on risk adjusted expected cashflows, Holmes. Bonds, stocks, all of them. An "asset" which has zero effect on cashflows in or out of the imperial federal government therefore has a value of zero
Read a book on asset valuation and get back to me
