ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
If they use AGI, anywhere from 0% to 85% of your SS income would be included under current tax law.I'd assume that their measure of 'income' does not include the SS payment? Bad assumption?
If they use AGI, anywhere from 0% to 85% of your SS income would be included under current tax law.I'd assume that their measure of 'income' does not include the SS payment? Bad assumption?
Two comments:Have you seen this ? Officials: President Obama seeks $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts - CNN.com - please kindly refrain from making political comments... I am posting this to share with those of us who plan to FIRE - we may be well advised to plan for significant cuts in SS.
I'd assume that their measure of 'income' does not include the SS payment? Bad assumption?
IOW, does delaying SS to 70 YO increase your 'income' under this measure?
-ERD50
I think that one very likely "cut" is that the social security for many of us will be fully taxed as income. That is a way to have a means-tested cut, yet not have any official cut listed on the social security payout list. Still, it is a 15% cut for most and a larger cut for others, particularly those with large RMDs. Plan on at leat that.
Not sure where all the funds that were redirected from SS coffers went over the years, but that would be a good place to get back from. Also, would expect to see the FICA cutoff threshold increase much more than it normally does.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/060711-federalpledgesigners.pdfThe Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____ district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
Source: Americans for Tax Reform
In 2000 we had a huge surplus. Bush said "let's give a bunch of it back," and did. So, of course there is no surplus anymore. That's is why many of us believe the cuts were always intended to force a crisis that could lead to privatization or other means to cut social programs back. Add two unfunded wars and spending to address a collapse and we have a huge mess to dig out of.Not sure where all the funds that were redirected from SS coffers went over the years, but that would be a good place to get back from. Also, would expect to see the FICA cutoff threshold increase much more than it normally does.
Not sure where all the funds that were redirected from SS coffers went over the years, but that would be a good place to get back from.
I think most people were aware the SS and Medicare needed some work to keep it solvent over the next 40 years.
The ridiculous part is that a Lobbyist (Grover Norquist) put some fear into the GOP (mainly) using the tea party as a threat to throw them out if they voted for any tax increase. Consequently a number of them were politically pressured (yes by a lobbyist) to sign a no tax pledge.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/060711-federalpledgesigners.pdf
Is GOP Resolve On Taxes Showing Cracks? : NPR
Somehow the debate over the current budget has turned into an impasse over taxes because of this pledge.... and it appears that it will be now be used as a midnight session to chop SS.
If that tax pledge was to protect taxpayers.... I am not feeling very protected!
In 2000 we had a huge surplus. Bush said "let's give a bunch of it back," and did. So, of course there is no surplus anymore. That's is why many of us believe the cuts were always intended to force a crisis that could lead to privatization or other means to cut social programs back. Add two unfunded wars and spending to address a collapse and we have a huge mess to dig out of.
In 2000 we had a huge surplus. Bush said "let's give a bunch of it back," and did. So, of course there is no surplus anymore. That's is why many of us believe the cuts were always intended to force a crisis that could lead to privatization or other means to cut social programs back. Add two unfunded wars and spending to address a collapse and we have a huge mess to dig out of.
I don't think they will. Certain people in certain occupations don't have much left in them after they hit their 60's (I was one of them).In addition to what's been mentioned, I am thinking they will likely raise the earliest age from 62 to something higher.
I would please ask the community to focus discussion more on where we are headed with SS and Medicare reform and its practical impacts on retirement as opposed to revisiting the past through politicized eyes. Thank you.
I hope you realize that wherever it went, we're not going to get it back. It's either extra spending or extra tax cuts that wouldn't have happened otherwise. .
In 2000 we had a huge surplus. Bush said "let's give a bunch of it back," and did. So, of course there is no surplus anymore. That's is why many of us believe the cuts were always intended to force a crisis that could lead to privatization or other means to cut social programs back. Add two unfunded wars and spending to address a collapse and we have a huge mess to dig out of.
Do you think I'm delusional or just popped out from under a cabbage leaf.
Heck, we can't even get the wallstreet crooks to return the $$ they absconded with, but wouldn't it be nice.
No one who has a pulse. I plan on no more than 50% and am prepared for less. If I'm wrong, I'll do some travel I wouldn't have otherwise.I don't think it is new news. Who on this forum is not expecting SS cuts and planning for them?
Don't worry, if your avatar is your photo, you probably can travel for free.I plan on no more than 50% and am prepared for less. If I'm wrong, I'll do some travel I wouldn't have otherwise.
You're not looking at it properly ...I know long term there is a problem, but shouldn't it be first things first, and cut the current overspending problems before, the other 2 programs are pared down?
I am still hanging on. Hopefully anything that is done will not affect someone who is already 63.