haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Why don't you give it a rest, Bob? People can decide for themselves what they think.
Ha
Last edited:
Taking what you don't need...
- Thread starter Shanky
- Start date
Ha
Bestwifeever
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,774
We actually went to the SS office near us yesterday morning (I chickened out on doing a poll of the people waiting to see if any of them would like to forgo their benefits) with some Medicare applications questions on DH's part as he turns 65 this winter. The people who work at SS are amazingly helpful; DH left with a nice printout with lots of numbers on it. Not sure when he will take SS but he will not feel guilty when he does.
Last edited:
2soon2tell
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 471
Not a moral question for me as well.
Realities of SS
Higher income workers have a smaller % of their income replaced with ss than lower income workers.
Folks that LBYM doing their working lives and have the discipline to set aside $ along the way are penalized by being required to participate in SS. IOW we would have a much larger nest egg at retirement doing it ourself.
You might ask how about the disability and early death of the participant. Private insurance could satisfy these requirements.
So for the greater good of folks that would not voluntarily save for their retirement, LBYM savers are penalized under ss.
Realities of SS
Higher income workers have a smaller % of their income replaced with ss than lower income workers.
Folks that LBYM doing their working lives and have the discipline to set aside $ along the way are penalized by being required to participate in SS. IOW we would have a much larger nest egg at retirement doing it ourself.
You might ask how about the disability and early death of the participant. Private insurance could satisfy these requirements.
So for the greater good of folks that would not voluntarily save for their retirement, LBYM savers are penalized under ss.
Okay, you go first.
I'm sure even those with smaller nest eggs could make retirement work without SS--what would be your cutoff point as to who conceivably might forego SS and who shouldn't?
I recommend people who have $1 more than me.
Willers
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 727
IMHO, the OP made a flawed assumption: that not taking SS would mean that the gov't would use those funds to ensure that the next generation would pay less and benefit more. I see nothing in recent history that tells me that this is how the funds would be used.
Because you point out that you consider charity to achieve the same goal, you steered (intentionally or not) the debate to the best use of "excess" funds.
I plan to leave whatever is left to a very well vetted charity or foundation. The absolute last group I would want to get this would be Congress.
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
Oh shoot!
Instead of you burning the pile in your back yard, I would burn it in my fireplace in the winter. That would provide me with some physical warmth, and would also give you a nice cozy feeling for doing a fellow poster a bit of favor.
Any time you reconsider, please drop me a PM. However, as I noted earlier, the US Supreme Court already decided 50 years ago that nothing was guaranteed. Hence, you and I may not get anything to burn other than a letter saying "Tough luck".
Instead of you burning the pile in your back yard, I would burn it in my fireplace in the winter. That would provide me with some physical warmth, and would also give you a nice cozy feeling for doing a fellow poster a bit of favor.
Any time you reconsider, please drop me a PM. However, as I noted earlier, the US Supreme Court already decided 50 years ago that nothing was guaranteed. Hence, you and I may not get anything to burn other than a letter saying "Tough luck".
Last edited:
Ronstar
Moderator Emeritus
I'm curious how one knows that they don't need it. Or will never need it. That aside, SS is our money for the most part. It's not like its a gift from the govt. So I will accept a payback regardless of my financial condition
tmm99
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,221
This may not directly relate to what we are talking about here, but my dad died when I was very young. My mom could get survivors benefits, but didn't claim it. (She figured she would do fine without any help from the government.) When my grandfather found that out (my mom's dad), he basically called my mom an idiot saying "it's not like the money you hadn't collected will go to someone unfortunate." He filed the paper work for her, and my mom started getting the benefits.
I whole heartedly agree with my grandfather.
I whole heartedly agree with my grandfather.
Last edited:
M Paquette
Moderator Emeritus
As a capitalist, since I bought it, I darn well expect delivery.
That I didn't have a choice about buying it, or that I bought a product in which the other party reserves the right to alter terms without my consent is entirely a separate issue. Really.
That I didn't have a choice about buying it, or that I bought a product in which the other party reserves the right to alter terms without my consent is entirely a separate issue. Really.
Your mom sounds like a wonderful, generous lady. It was good her dad was around to look after her best interest.
Here's a different view from Dean Baker:
One of themes that recurs endlessly in news coverage is that the United States and other countries face a disastrous threat to their living standards as a result of a falling ratio of workers to retirees. This is one that can be easily dismissed with some simple arithmetic.
A falling ratio of workers to retirees means that a larger chunk of what each worker produces must be put aside to a support the retired population. (Btw, this is true regardless of whether or not we have a Social Security or Medicare system. The only issue is whether retirees are able to maintain something resembling normal living standards.) However, that does not imply that the working population must see a drop in their living standards.
Fans of arithmetic might note that the ratio of workers to retirees fell from 5 to 1 in the early sixties to 3 to 1 in the early 90s. This sharp drop in the ratio of workers to retirees did not prevent both workers and retirees from enjoying substantial improvements in living standards over this period. The reason is that productivity growth, what each workers produces in an hour of work, swamped the impact of a falling ratio of workers to retirees.
The 1.0 percent growth bar shows the impact of productivity growth assuming that going forward it is worse than at any point in the post-war era. (Even in the period of the productivity slowdown, from 1973-1995 growth was somewhat more rapid than this.) In this case the 25.7 percent increase in living standards allowed by higher productivity growth is more than three times the 7.8 percent decline resulting from a fall in the ratio of workers to retirees.
I note that in the three years following the crisis of 2008 the productivity growth of the US economy fell to about 1% per year. It's reasonable to expect it to increase as the economy recovers, but even if it did not, rising living standards would overwhelming the declining number of workers per SS beneficiary.
It's interesting to me that the people who believe SS will run out of workers never account for productivity gains. They implicitly assume that the worker of 2040 will produce the same output as the worker of 1935. If that were true living standards for both workers and retirees would never have risen above the 1935 level.
Last edited:
photoguy
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,301
Does it matter if there are productivity gains when very little of that is actually captured by workers? Given that median wages have been stagnant for some time, it doesn't seem like productivity increases will help funnel money into SS.
MooreBonds
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Here's a different view from Dean Baker:
One of themes that recurs endlessly in news coverage is that the United States and other countries face a disastrous threat to their living standards as a result of a falling ratio of workers to retirees. This is one that can be easily dismissed with some simple arithmetic.
A falling ratio of workers to retirees means that a larger chunk of what each worker produces must be put aside to a support the retired population. (Btw, this is true regardless of whether or not we have a Social Security or Medicare system. The only issue is whether retirees are able to maintain something resembling normal living standards.) However, that does not imply that the working population must see a drop in their living standards.
Fans of arithmetic might note that the ratio of workers to retirees fell from 5 to 1 in the early sixties to 3 to 1 in the early 90s. This sharp drop in the ratio of workers to retirees did not prevent both workers and retirees from enjoying substantial improvements in living standards over this period. The reason is that productivity growth, what each workers produces in an hour of work, swamped the impact of a falling ratio of workers to retirees.
The 1.0 percent growth bar shows the impact of productivity growth assuming that going forward it is worse than at any point in the post-war era. (Even in the period of the productivity slowdown, from 1973-1995 growth was somewhat more rapid than this.) In this case the 25.7 percent increase in living standards allowed by higher productivity growth is more than three times the 7.8 percent decline resulting from a fall in the ratio of workers to retirees.
I note that in the three years following the crisis of 2008 the productivity growth of the US economy fell to about 1% per year. It's reasonable to expect it to increase as the economy recovers, but even if it did not, rising living standards would overwhelming the declining number of workers per SS beneficiary.
It's interesting to me that the people who believe SS will run out of workers never account for productivity gains. They implicitly assume that the worker of 2040 will produce the same output as the worker of 1935. If that were true living standards for both workers and retirees would never have risen above the 1935 level.
The author claims that productivity gains would account for the main reason why the system has been solvent despite the ratio of workers:retiree falling?
Perhaps those same "fans of arithmetic" Dean is addressing can look at the more likely causes of the system managing to last this long:
--In 1937, initial taxes were 2% at program start, capped at $3,000 in wages. That remained until 1950.
--In 1950, tax increased to 3%, and in 1951 cap raised to $3,600.
The "wage index" in 1951 was $2,799 (index started this year)
...
The SS wage cap in 2011 was $106,800.
The wage index in 2011 was $42,979
(I used 2011 since the wage index on SS's website only goes to 2011)
So if the wage cap on SS taxes had only matched the wage index growth, the 2011 SS wage cap would have been about $55,278.
This means that not only have SS taxes increased 520% (from 2% to 12.4%), but the maximum wages that is applicable to has gone up from $55,278 to $106,800, or 93%!
And that doesn't even add in the effect of drawing out the full retirement age from 65 to 67 for currently retiring (and those in the future).
Did productivity help increase revenue to the SS trust fund coffers? Of course it did. Was it anywhere near as large of an impact as raising the tax rates by 520% and raising the wage cap by 93%?
Hmmm......
Last edited:
You are right about this being a big problem. If the 1% continue to receive most of the productivity gains in ways that escape the payroll tax (above the cap income, stock options, capital gains, investment income, etc.) then the SS system will be in jeopardy. This is a problem that dwarves the demographic issue. The founds of the SS system never envisioned an America with the income distribution of a Brazil.
Right. The payroll tax has increased both nominally and the "tax max" (amount of wages subject to payroll tax) has increased also. Did this result in impoverishment of the workforce struggling to feed the blood-sucking retirees? Not at all. The standard of living of both the workers and the retirees continued to increase.
I notice that, like all of the others whose only count heads, you never actually attempt to account for productivity increases. If these were not decisive, how could a workforce whose payroll taxes increased even as their numbers relative to the retirees has declined manage to experience a higher standard of living?
But instead of counting nominal dollars collected by the payroll tax, it is more informative to look at the percent of covered earnings subject to the payroll tax. Here is the graph from the SSA website:
The graph shows a small, recent uptick in a long-term decline in covered earnings. The mechanism has been: failing to raise the cap fast enough, increased compensation through non-covered earnings such as stock options, and the increase of unearned income to the 1% as cap gains, investment income, etc.
More of the income has gone to the upper 1% who have succeeded in escaping the payroll tax. Why should Warren Buffett and I pay the same dollar amount of payroll tax each year?
Well, call me a communist, but I think Warren should pay more. He thinks so, too, as a matter of fact.
Why is this considered a payment from the government?? All of the funds collected are from individuals and from companies that match their contribution. The "Govt" doesn't put in any money at all! The "Govt" just collects it and distributes it. So why is it even considered an "entitlement"?? The "Govt" is just doling out what we and our companies paid in.
You are tipping your hand. The "income has gone to". . . reflects a particular view of things.
And if Warren wants to pay more (instead of just claiming he wants to pay more) I wish he would just send in the check. He knows how to do that. He doesn't want to pay more, he thinks other people should pay more. That's the common theme, isn't it? Warren has found good uses for his money (earning more money, philanthropy, etc) that apparently don't include sending it to the US government. But he thinks "other people" aren't so inherently good as he? Arrogance--or just wanting to gain favor on the cheap. It's not an uncommon trait, but I guess I expected more of "the Oracle"
Last edited:
Agreed. Any time I hear someone say "the government" should do/fund X, Y or Z, I find that what they really mean is "other people".
Being a little obtuse, aren't you? Buffett's complaint is that the class of people that includes himself should be taxed more and that doing so would substantially address the funding needs of govt, such as SS. If he were merely to make a personal donation, his substantial resources notwithstanding, the net effect on govt programs would be close to zero. Of course, Buffett has already committed to giving pretty much all his wealth to Gates's foundation when he dies. Doesn't sound like a cheap trick to me.
Last edited:
You didn't write that.
If Warren had said "I think other rich people like me should pay more money to the government, as I am doing with this $10 billion voluntary payment to the Treasury", then he'd have some moral authority and his thoughts on the subject would be especially weighty. But when says that he and others should pay more to the government, but then instead finds a better use for his own money (including philanthropy)--well he becomes just another of the fashionable and growing number of people buying admiration with other people's money. Warren--we're all making the same choice you are. Get off your high horse.
Last edited:
A very particular view of things called, "reality." Let's see where the income gains in the USA for the year 2010 went, from that commie rag, The Washington Post:
In 2010, 93 percent of income gains went to the top 1 percent - The Washington Post
