AARP members get more! Take a look at your member benefits.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
179
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

179 Views
Message 61 of 74

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
179
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
182
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

182 Views
Message 62 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
182
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
192
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

192 Views
Message 63 of 74

Since Social Security began,  the more extreme sectors of the Republican Party have pushed hard for eliminating the system entirely.  It's welfare....the 'government' shouldn't be doing it.  An absurd view from people employing an absurd ideology.  The People establish government to promote the general welfare.  Says so in an authoratative souce.

 

This same political sector is sometimes truthful, most times not,  The data habitually used  comes from disingenuous sources who disingenuously analyze it, distort its meaning,  and then disingenuously employ it for advocacy.  Propaganda.  

 

Truth is the Social Security system is doable.  The most economical, humane and rational solution possible for dealing with people who can no longer 'work' and do for themselves. It ALL has to be paid for.  How to do that 'fairly' has always been in question.  The 'cap solution' proposed can be 'fair'.  If not yet 'there', it can easily be fixed.  The concept works.  Enough of the 'yeah but' bs.  It is getting old.   

 

Not surprising, this same political sector views all of humanity to be 'selfish', just as they are.  A 'cynic's' viewpoint influencing everything they speak, write and do.  "I'm that way so you must be that way too."  Absurd.  That viewpoint completely ignores the fact that cooperation for mutual benefit is why mankind got to where it is and essential for civilization to exist.  The United States is an experiment to prove that is a Truth and I, for one, intend that this Nation finish what has been started. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
192
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
199
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

199 Views
Message 64 of 74

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?  Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
199
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
207
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

207 Views
Message 65 of 74

TM67 me too !!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
207
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
203
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

203 Views
Message 66 of 74

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
203
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
199
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

199 Views
Message 67 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
199
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
255
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

255 Views
Message 68 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
255
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
252
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

252 Views
Message 69 of 74

@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.

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
252
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
257
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

257 Views
Message 70 of 74

@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%.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
257
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors