Social Security is Fine...

Heat Miser wrote:Eliminate the cap on withholding, $168,600 for 2024. That's right...rich people get a nice little bump in their paycheck when they hit this magic number during the year.

Making 168k doesn't make you rich.  

Top 1% net worth is about $11 million, top 2% net worth about $2.5 million, top 10% net worth $855,000.

I think to be rich means you can live well off the income your net worth can generate without "working".   To me that would require about $5 million (the standard 4% would give you $200k/year).

The solution to social security comes at both ends.   Raise the retirement age as well as the withholding cap.

Zurn wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:Eliminate the cap on withholding, $168,600 for 2024. That's right...rich people get a nice little bump in their paycheck when they hit this magic number during the year.

Making 168k doesn't make you rich.  

Top 1% net worth is about $11 million, top 2% net worth about $2.5 million, top 10% net worth $855,000.

I think to be rich means you can live well off the income your net worth can generate without "working".   To me that would require about $5 million (the standard 4% would give you $200k/year).

The solution to social security comes at both ends.   Raise the retirement age as well as the withholding cap.

At a minimum the Social Security tax cap should have been written so that the same percentage of national income was always taxed to pay for Social Security.

I'm fine with taxing all income, including capital gains and corporate income.

As to age, there are still jobs in the country that are physical and people bodies are worn out at age 55, let alone 65.

Trapper Gus wrote:

As to age, there are still jobs in the country that are physical and people bodies are worn out at age 55, let alone 65.

Then again, there are people who are willing and able to work well into their 70s and even 80s. Certainly you are not advocating that people be able to collect social security at 55.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As to age, there are still jobs in the country that are physical and people bodies are worn out at age 55, let alone 65.

Then again, there are people who are willing and able to work well into their 70s and even 80s.   Certainly you are not advocating that people be able to collect social security at 55.  

Do it like it's done today.  Have a minimum retirement age and increase the amount until a maximum age.

Or as Cam says UBI at birth.

You are implying everyone retires when they first can receive old age insurance, however that just isn't correct.

Cam and Trapper and just proposing more benefits when we can't pay for the benefits we currently are committed to.

Zurn wrote:Cam and Trapper and just proposing more benefits when we can't pay for the benefits we currently are committed to.

You mean "won't". We can, of course and we have done so up to this point.

The most significate problem, as the pandemic showed us, is that the corporations will increase prices with no justification if the working class has more to spend.

Cameron wrote:

Tax the rich, ... tax the rich some more...

The most common of all liberal mantras.  And always stated without defining "rich" or acknowledging the easily researched fact that the upper 1%-10% do indeed pay taxes and in fact pay more than their fair share.

I would also argue that being "rich" is more of a net worth thing than an income thing.

Zurn wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Tax the rich, ... tax the rich some more...

The most common of all liberal mantras.  And always stated without defining "rich" or acknowledging the easily researched fact that the upper 1%-10% do indeed pay taxes and in fact pay more than their fair share.

I would also argue that being "rich" is more of a net worth thing than an income thing.

Taxing the people who are living high off the hog, the upper 20% or so, at rates higher than the poor bastards who are struggling to make their car payments is just common sense.

As does a significant tax on estates, since the people who amassed the money are dead.

However, the uber wealthy are paying like 3.4% of their incomes in taxes, so you should factor that into your beliefs.

All right. America's wealthiest individuals are avoiding paying their fair share in taxes. A new investigation by the nonprofit ProPublica shows that the country's super rich pay only a fraction in federal income taxes compared to the average American. Over a five-year period, the 25 richest Americans paid a combined $13.6 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/08/1004312236/propublica-wealthiest-u-s-individuals-avoid-paying-their-fair-share-in-taxes

Trapper Gus wrote: Over a five-year period, the 25 richest Americans paid a combined $13.6 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

My God Trapper. Propublica illegally obtains tax records only to point out that people pay income tax on ... wait for it ... income! They never explain (at least in your link) how they come with that 3.4% figure, but it is apparently some calculation of income tax paid/wealth (not income).

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote: Over a five-year period, the 25 richest Americans paid a combined $13.6 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

My God Trapper.   Propublica illegally obtains tax records only to point out that people pay income tax on ... wait for it ... income!   They never explain (at least in your link) how they come with that 3.4% figure, but it is apparently some calculation of income tax paid/wealth (not income).

You went beyond what you know with the "illegally" claim.  There are all sorts of public records when it comes to the uber wealthy.

They also included the INCOME number in the article, you fool, so they are talking about income taxes.

One way the wealthy avoid taxes, legally, is that instead of paying themselves income from their self-controlled corporations, they borrow money against the stock, and thus not only do not pay taxes on their income but write off the interest as a business expense.

But you may have heard that Social Security is on its way out due to a looming financial crisis. And that's apt to be concerning.

The good news is that Social Security is not, in fact, on the verge of bankruptcy. Its impending demise is really nothing more than a myth. However, Social Security is facing some financial challenges that workers and seniors alike need to plan for.

Social Security's main source of funding is payroll tax revenue, and it's for this reason that it can't go bankrupt.

As long as there's an active labor force, the program will have money coming in. But it may not be enough money to keep up with scheduled benefits in full, and that's the problem.

See, in the coming years, baby boomers will continue to exit the workforce in droves, and there will be a smaller number of people entering the workforce to replace them. That's going to lead to a revenue shortfall.
Social Security can tap its trust funds to keep up with full benefits as long as those funds have money remaining. But in about a decade's time, they're expected to run dry.
(Two half-truths: The number of people in the workforce will continue to grow, just not as fast as before; the huge amount in the trust funds was built up to cover the extra costs of the baby boomers' benefits, which it will mostly do - TG)

At that point, Social Security might have to cut benefits to the tune of about 20%. (Meaning social security will be paying about 80% of what the full amounts are, not 20% - TG) That's not great. But it's also a far cry from the program going bankrupt and benefits disappearing entirely.

* TG disclaimer - Social Security estimates of future benefits are calculated using a Monta-Carlo simulation of possible economic growth & mortality rates.  The number reported is the mean of these simulations.  The sigma of the simulations is large.  Should the GDP be higher than the estimates used, or the mortality** be higher the point in time at which the trust fund is used up is extended, and the fund pays full benefits longer.  Potentially, at the higher values on the positive side of the bell curve created by the simulations, the simulations show the trust funds are never depleted.

** TG comment - The Social Security estimates of mortality are one of the more controversial areas of its estimations.  Some academics say they are too low, meaning people will live longer.  TG believes they are too high, meaning people will die sooner, the recent decreases in life expectancy at social security ages suggest TG may be more correct.  Being too high means that Social Security, potentially, spends less than estimated and never depletes the trust fund in the higher levels of the bell curve created from the simulations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/social-security-s-impending-bankruptcy-is-nothing-more-than-a-myth-here-s-why/ar-AA1lYdPs?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6c1c38b2f2a444d58e6d5e79356a1f31&ei=20