Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-29-2016, 02:45 PM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
if you don't that breaks one of the founding PRINCIPLES of social insurance
True, but do the prospects for a particular change depend on appealing to principles, or do they depend on gaining the support of a majority of voters? A majority of voters will be positively impacted if the earnings cap on SS taxes is eliminated and if those high earners get zero increases in their benefits despite paying more in taxes.

As they say: " Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch."
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-29-2016, 02:51 PM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post

As they say: " Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch."
And, worse, it's never the same two wolves or lamb depending on the issue...
__________________

__________________
LARS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 02:56 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
True, but do the prospects for a particular change depend on appealing to principles, or do they depend on gaining the support of a majority of voters?
voters shouldn't have a say, IMO - that would be like voting to legally steal

SS is already heavily leveraged to the lower paid. The "R" in the principles acronym stands for "relationship between benefits and earnings"; thus, if you remove the cap but keep the pay capped in the benefit calculation, you are breaking one of the fundamentals of SS; that's why SS isn't means tested the "N" stands for "need is presumed"....man I hated studying that stuff but I still remember it!

I was lucky enough to be in a few PD sessions with Mr. Myers early in my career - we could ask him how he feels about this but he passed away a few years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/business/26myers.html
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 03:30 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
SS is already heavily leveraged to the lower paid.
Yes, it's a tremendous wealth transfer to those with low incomes. But many people believe SS needs to do even more in that regard.

We have constitutional protections designed to shield individuals and groups against "the will of the majority," and the resultant laws do protect against the use of government power to take their lives or their freedom. But there's no protection for their property.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 03:57 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,882
Myers didn't like the taxation of SS benefits - that broke one of his principles - heard him say that in a PD session
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 05:01 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
Myers didn't like the taxation of SS benefits - that broke one of his principles - heard him say that in a PD session


Yep-I met him once and he said the same thing- anything that made SS needs-based (and that would include taxing benefits because you have other sources of income) would discourage people from saving.
__________________
athena53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 08:50 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indialantic FL
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
"Fixing" SS seems so simple to me. (Of course, what do I know...)

Keep SS the same for those over 50.
Stop the deduction cap.
I agree. I would also return the income tax on taxed social security back to the social security trust fund.
__________________
JimnJana
"The four most dangerous words in investing are 'This time it's different.'" - Sir John Templeton
jimnjana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 09:10 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,045
Before they start adding much needed revenue the least they could do is go back through the laws and eliminate all the freebee benefits that assist in helping suck the SS teat dry. Like that "Viagra Trust Fund" for example....That is the most asinine rule I have heard of....Warren Buffet could marry a 35 yr old and she could drop twins and next thing you know those 3 are getting SS checks too. Blows my mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 09:16 AM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 41,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Blows my mind.
Good idea. Limit those old Warren Buffet's to that and we wouldn't have to worry about paying benefits.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 09:22 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Good idea. Limit those old Warren Buffet's to that and we wouldn't have to worry about paying benefits.


Ya but he is getting his check too....Or any poor old fart that convinces some fertile young lady to marry him. I dont know what is crazier...This being part of the law, or the whacks who actually thought of this to put it in the regs to begin with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 01:40 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 2,487
It is far better off to print the money to save Social Security.

There is virtually no downside to printing 10+ trillion. The entire world is printing money, we need to print it just as fast, on a percentage basis. We are falling behind and our USD is too strong. Jobs are being shipped elsewhere.

If we print the USD, other countries help pay if they use the USD. If they trade with us, and the USD gets weaker, their prices increase and they sell less. So, they lower prices.

At some point, we need to realize that people do not want to work until 70. I am one of hem. Paying less taxes is one reason I am leaving work. 40%+ of my wages is too much to pay. I can work for cash somewhere and make the same money with less work.

Let those that want to work, work. For me, I'm out next week.
__________________
FIRE no later than 7/5/2016 at 56 (done), securing '16 401K match (done), getting '15 401K match (done), LTI Bonus (done), Perf bonus (done), maxing out 401K (done), picking up 1,000 hours to get another year of pension (done), July 1st benefits (vacation day, healthcare) (done), July 4th holiday. 0 days left. (done) OFFICIALLY RETIRED 7/5/2016!!
Senator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2016, 10:48 AM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimnjana View Post
I agree. I would also return the income tax on taxed social security back to the social security trust fund.
The 50% tax from the 1983 amendments already goes into the "trust fund".


Quote:
It is also important to note that funds raised under this provision do not go into the General Fund of the Treasury but into the Social Security Trust Funds.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Skimming a little further, it looks like the additional 35% in 1993 goes to Medicare.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2016, 12:08 PM   #33
Recycles dryer sheets
ownyourfuture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator View Post

I always thought it was ironic that SS could run out of money, yet other government programs never run out.
Me too.
__________________
ownyourfuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2016, 06:25 AM   #34
Recycles dryer sheets
Greencheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator View Post
It is far better off to print the money to save Social Security.

There is virtually no downside to printing 10+ trillion. The entire world is printing money, we need to print it just as fast, on a percentage basis. We are falling behind and our USD is too strong. Jobs are being shipped elsewhere.

If we print the USD, other countries help pay if they use the USD. If they trade with us, and the USD gets weaker, their prices increase and they sell less. So, they lower prices.

At some point, we need to realize that people do not want to work until 70. I am one of hem. Paying less taxes is one reason I am leaving work. 40%+ of my wages is too much to pay. I can work for cash somewhere and make the same money with less work.

Let those that want to work, work. For me, I'm out next week.

I don't think there's ever been an issue with realizing people DON'T want to work. The question is what to do with the people who CAN'T work until 70. For all the examples of the elderly wo/man working in the office analyzing powerpoint at 80 and "enjoying themselves" there's 1 or 2 55-60 year old construction worker/roofer/etc... who simply cannot do their old job and has no skills to do anything else. Do we retain all those people at the ripe old age of 67 to be power point analyzers?

But I fully agree with not wanting to work until 70 though, as do probably 99% of workers
__________________
Greencheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 02:24 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
if you don't that breaks one of the founding PRINCIPLES of social insurance
Because "PRINCIPLES" is in caps, I assume this is an acronym. I'm not familiar with it.

I have one of Myers' thousand page books sitting on my bookshelf. He lists five principles of OASDI (but not social insurance in general):
1) benefits based on presumptive need
2) benefits provide a floor of protection
3) balance between social adequacy and individual equity
4) benefits related to earnings
5) self supporting, based on designated contributions

I like the first two, and would try to keep them in future changes to SS.
I view the other three as political accommodations to achieve passage. I'd prefer to see them fade away.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 02:42 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Because "PRINCIPLES" is in caps, I assume this is an acronym. I'm not familiar with it.

I have one of Myers' thousand page books sitting on my bookshelf. He lists five principles of OASDI (but not social insurance in general):
1) benefits based on presumptive need
2) benefits provide a floor of protection
3) balance between social adequacy and individual equity
4) benefits related to earnings
5) self supporting, based on designated contributions

I like the first two, and would try to keep them in future changes to SS.
I view the other three as political accommodations to achieve passage. I'd prefer to see them fade away.
I'll dig it out of my study notes from the early 90s....
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 07:15 PM   #37
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Augusta
Posts: 128
My benefits will already be severely impacted by my decision to be a stay at home mom for a number of years. I would have to work until 70 to avoid a zero year already! I surely don't want more zero years added in!


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Yarnstormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2016, 10:02 AM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,882
check out the article on page 22 - they propose feathering in a later retirement age based on income because the study on page 62 says that longevity is directly correlated with income

Contingencies - July/August 2016
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2016, 10:23 AM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
ProspectiveBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
check out the article on page 22 - they propose feathering in a later retirement age based on income because the study on page 62 says that longevity is directly correlated with income

Contingencies - July/August 2016

Wouldn't raising the cap on SS income taxes accomplish this (gathering more net contributions from high-income workers) without introducing a variable FRA? Having a variable FRA sounds like it'd be a nightmare to administer.
__________________
I can't complain, but sometimes I still do.
- Joe Walsh
ProspectiveBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2016, 10:27 AM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 3,882
i think they are varying the fra based on the ame so it wouldn't be that bad since the ame is a career average - raising the cap only works if you don't count that in the benefit calculation which breaks one of the principles of social insurance
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama's Upcoming Social Security Proposal ItDontMeanAThing FIRE Related Public Policy 31 04-14-2011 08:45 AM
Think Tank Blasts TSP Real Estate Fund Proposal hellbender FIRE and Money 14 07-20-2006 07:45 AM
Indecent Proposal Eagle43 Other topics 30 08-17-2005 06:51 PM
Proposal for Tax Free Savings Accounts johnblake Other topics 5 08-14-2004 07:01 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.