social security proposal

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter 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."

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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...

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter 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.

[Big_Hitter]

Myers didn't like the taxation of SS benefits - that broke one of his principles - heard him say that in a PD session

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter 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.

[jimnjana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko "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.

[Mulligan]

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

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Blows my mind.

Good idea. Limit those old Warren Buffet's to that and we wouldn't have to worry about paying benefits.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo 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

[Senator]

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.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimnjana 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.

[ownyourfuture]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator I always thought it was ironic that SS could run out of money, yet other government programs never run out.

Me too.

[Greencheese]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator 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

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter 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.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent 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....

[Yarnstormer]

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

[Big_Hitter]

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

[ProspectiveBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter 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.

[Big_Hitter]

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