Reply
Honored Social Butterfly
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1wrote:

Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.

 

From the article

The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.

 

I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits. 

 

Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.


In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

Honored Social Butterfly


@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.

0 Kudos
279 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.



@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.


Not true, but typical of the far right. They are for anything that would hurt people, and sadly a lot of the far right would be hurt the most but they do not understand that as they are mostly uneducated, easy to lead, etc. per the experts. With Trump and the far right no wounder this country falls in to last place so quickly in everything. The US from the most admired, to the most you do not follow.

Honored Social Butterfly


@john258wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.



@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:

In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.

"Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".

Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.


Not true, but typical of the far right. They are for anything that would hurt people, and sadly a lot of the far right would be hurt the most but they do not understand that as they are mostly uneducated, easy to lead, etc. per the experts. With Trump and the far right no wounder this country falls in to last place so quickly in everything. The US from the most admired, to the most you do not follow.


Not true but typical of this poster - thinking that Conservatives like to hurt people. And the assumption that anyone not in agreement with him/her/it must be uneducated, easy to lead, etc. And, of course, absolutely nothing about the topic.

0 Kudos
268 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1wrote:

Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.

 

From the article

The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.

 

I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits. 

 

Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.



@GailL1wrote:

Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.

 

From the article

The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.

 

I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits. 

 

Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.


Totally bogus argument. The payment "cap" is the based on the payment to an individual who had made the maximum contribution EVERY YEAR. There is no reason to NOT increase the payment if the person now contributes on $250,000 instead of $128,400. See, the calculation of payments is based on each year's contribution, so the pay-out for the $250,000 cap will not be applied in full for 30 years. Since the Revenue increase from raising the cap to $250,000 immediately will be much greater than the pay-out, the cap increase will cause the SSTF to continue to grow for another 20 years, and with the accumulated interest (currently 4%pa) the fund will remain solvent FOREVER.

 

If you examine the CBO reports on SS you will notice they NEVER calculate the impact of an immediate increase in the cap to $250,000, they always want to "phase it in" over a decade or so, which is the ONLY reason the increase in the SSTF is not enough to sustain the system FOREVER.

 

The NRAGOP opposes the immediate increase in the cap to $250,000 (covering the same portion of total income that Reagan's increase covered) simply because it makes privatization of the SS system totally absurd and only benefits the bottom 99%.

Honored Social Butterfly

Of course from a Plutocratic view , it's Stupid !!!

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84wrote:

Of course from a Plutocratic view , it's Stupid !!!


It is NOT a Plutocratic view, it is the CHANGE to the actual historical philosophical nature of the Social Security program.  It is why we have the payroll tax cap and the maximum benefit.

 

You want more - OK

We live in a society where it is not uncommon to have not just one ex-spouse but several.  This proposal could actually cause even more divorces.  At least now a divorced spouse has to have at least 10 years into the marriage commitment to stake a claim on the other spouses benefit.

 

You need to read the question proposed by  mp70559584  on the Social Security board to get a clear view of this problem with multiple marriages during a lifetime. I thought it quite amusing and complicated for the SS program.

 

I like the suggestion which I discussed with someone on this forum a while back - during a marriage, each member of the couple gets 1/2 Social Security credit for all the income which is reported by the couple during their marriage.  That way there is no problem in figuring the benefit when they retire without any concern whether or not they stayed together 1 year or 40 + years they each get credit for their time together and the income is reported as such.  This would work for everybody regardless of the number of marriages or the time they were together.

 

I have no problem raising the age of dependency for kids to an early 20's age as long as they are in school but let's do it the other way too - quit school at 16 and your benefits stop.

 

Increasing the benefits for widows to where they are getting close to receiving both their own benefits and that of their deceased spouse - seems unfair to those who never marry.  However, the restructuring of contributions like I described above during marriage would most likely increase the benefit for widowers just because the income amount used to figure the benefit would be higher.

 

IMO, it seems it would be better to fix the financial problem in the current system and then make sure the finances for the system are adequate for any other increases in benefits.   I mean a 23% decrease in benefits come 2034 would affect everybody then getting a benefit or planning to get one.

 

As the Trustees have said every year, it is gonna take a combination of efforts to fix the system - more income and less outflow - if we want to keep the historical philosophy of  the insurance  program as opposed to making it just another welfare program.

 

 

0 Kudos
334 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000

$    246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000

$   957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017

$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018

$   987Billiom = total outlay in 2018

$   218Billion = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.

 

So please GOPers, show the math where this will not keep SS solvent for the indefinate future?

 

NRAGOP will not increase the cap to save the system because their owners use their SS checks for greens fees and could care less if it disappeared.

 

Since REpublicans will never allow SS to be fixed WITHOUT making the 99% work longer and collect less, the solution for saving SS is

GET RID OF THE NRAGOP IN 2018 AND EVER-AFTER!

Honored Social Butterfly

One more time for the mathematically challenged:

 

$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000

$    246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000

$   957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017

$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018

$   987Billiom = total outlay in 2018

$   218Billion = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.

 

The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019.

1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. Annuity payable = $28,178 (90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)

2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = $29,216, and increase of $1038 PER YEAR

3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000

4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000

5. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the interest earned on the additional $218B in revenue

 

So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...

AND YOUR GRANDKIDS

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66wrote:

One more time for the mathematically challenged:

 

$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000

$    246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000

$   957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017

$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018

$   987Billiom = total outlay in 2018

$   218Billion = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.

 

The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019.

1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. Annuity payable = $28,178 (90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)

2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = $29,216, and increase of $1038 PER YEAR

3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000

4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000

5. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the interest earned on the additional $218B in revenue

 

So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...

AND YOUR GRANDKIDS


So the standard Socialist MO again - redistribution of money. It's simple when you have the brilliant idea to take other people's money and give it to others.

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENINGwrote:

@Olderscout66wrote:

One more time for the mathematically challenged:

 

$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000

$    246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000

$   957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017

$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018

$   987Billiom = total outlay in 2018

$   218Billion = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.

 

The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019.

1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. Annuity payable = $28,178 (90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)

2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = $29,216, and increase of $1038 PER YEAR

3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000

4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000

5. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the interest earned on the additional $218B in revenue

 

So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...

AND YOUR GRANDKIDS


So the standard Socialist MO again - redistribution of money. It's simple when you have the brilliant idea to take other people's money and give it to others.


So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again  so it must be the new far right.

0 Kudos
316 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258wrote:


So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again  so it must be the new far right.


So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.

 

Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism. 

 

BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.

0 Kudos
304 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

rk posted..

So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.



Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism.



BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.

==========================

Well said.

There are ways today that are wealth redistribution...the two biggest are income taxes and property taxes.
0 Kudos
281 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152wrote:

@john258wrote:


So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again  so it must be the new far right.


So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.

 

Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism. 

 

BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.


Rk, what you need to really understand is that your idea of what is wealth redistribution is perhaps not correct?
Perhaps there are many other meanings and ways of redistributing wealth that do not "smack of socialism"?   sorry, RK  but you only present one way, and we all know that there are many ways.

no name
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png