Social Security (House) Proposal

[GenXguy]

You’re welcome to your POV, but repeating yourself dozens of times is pointless, especially with the rest of us providing the facts for you.

As noted above, spousal benefits won’t be among the changes implemented when something is finally done.

Everything I have posted has been factual. People who gamed the system just don't like my recommended reforms. I would have only stated it once but got some ridiculous responses. I know how it works since I know people working the system for those unearned benefits.

Genx...you've got a lot to learn about the Social Security system.

I know all about it, have read many of the recommended reforms as well, and dozens of ridiculous posts like yours with bad ideas. lol Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't know how it works, very well actually.

This thread isn't introducing any new info, at least of any significance, for me.

 

[Midpack]

If anyone interested what options government is considering - here is a link, all grouped by type.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/index.html

Interesting read under section Benefits for Family Members

Another good link. Thanks!

+1. Pretty much explores every, but not all, plausible option to enhance SS solvency most of us have ever seen. Again the options are well known, and quantified for those who look before speaking. Too bad voters and special interests won't let Congress do anything...

 

[GenXguy]

I think I have said more than once that I agree with you and that phasing out the spousal benefit is a good idea, but your incessant bitching about it is very annoying, not to mention your frequent mischaracterization of it.

So when anyone disagrees with you and responds, you call it "bitching". lol What a rude attitude. If you can't handle discussions, and feel annoyed by some guy on the internet who happens to disagree with you on about everything, you should probably stay out of it and keep away from the name calling. And of course, giving my opinion on a reform of it is not mischaracterizing it. I have stated the facts on the matter to support my opinion. I was correct earlier when I said the non-working spouse can get that same full spousal benefit as one who had worked some. It's not just a "step up" benefit.

What in the world would make you think that SS benefits shouldn't be taxed at all. Bad idea.

So why should social security, which you contribute to be totally tax free and you don't get taxed on benefits received in excess of contributions!

It's not true that the SS contributions are tax free. All your income paid to SS taxes has already been taxed by the federal government and certainly in my state with state taxes as well. There is no federal tax deduction for the amount paid into SS.

As for not taxing SS benefits.... did you even read the OP? That's one thing this very bill does. So, I'm not sure why you are so shocked by my post on that matter. At the very least, as it is now, it's amounting to a tax increase every year as more benefits exceed the 1983 tax thresholds each years. See these articles which will clarify it for you:

https://www.fool.com/retirement/gen...ear-old-social-security-rule-is-wreaking.aspx

https://www.foxnews.com/story/double-whammy-the-taxation-of-social-security-benefits

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/p...-punished-by-social-security-taxes-2019-01-07

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2015-02.html

 

[jollystomper]

Everything I have posted has been factual. People who gamed the system just don't like my recommended reforms. I would have only stated it once but got some ridiculous responses. I know how it works since I know people working the system for those unearned benefits.

I am curious as to what your definition of "gamed the system" means.


For example, do you feel that couples, when they choose to marry, say to themselves "Hey - if one of us does not work, we will still get additional SS benefits in addition to the one that works - so we need to do that, whee! Take that, other taxpayers!" ?

 

[AudiDudi]

Is it "gaming the system" if you play by the rules? A good source of how to use the rules as written is the book "Get what's Yours", by Kotlikoff.


https://www.amazon.com/Get-Whats-Yours-Secrets-Security-ebook/dp/B00LD1OPP6

 

[GenXguy]

I am curious as to what your definition of "gamed the system" means.

Taking advantage of the system as it is to get more out of it than they paid in compared to single people with kids, for example. It's not about breaking the law or anything nefarious. You're reading too much into it. I'm just giving my opinion on a reform, and I'm not the only one with that opinion.

Is it "gaming the system" if you play by the rules?

We're talking about the current rules and how they could be changed. See above comment.

 

[FiveDriver]

Everything I have posted has been factual. People who gamed the system just don't like my recommended reforms. I would have only stated it once but got some ridiculous responses. I know how it works since I know people working the system for those unearned benefits.


I know all about it, have read many of the recommended reforms as well, and dozens of ridiculous posts like yours with bad ideas. lol Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't know how it works, very well actually.

This thread isn't introducing any new info, at least of any significance, for me.

GFY
Good For You.

Here's some factual actions to return to solvency. From Investopedia --

Eliminate the Cap on Taxable Income
There's a cap on annual income subject to Social Security payroll taxes and this is also used in calculating Social Security benefits. The cap is $160,200, increasing to $168,600 in 2024.

According to a December 2021 Congressional Research Service report, eliminating the payroll tax cap while leaving in place the rules that cap high earners' benefits would address 73% of the projected shortfall. Payroll tax rates could then be raised from 12.4% to about 13.36% to eliminate the shortfall in its entirety.


https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/120415/how-secure-social-security.asp

 

[GenXguy]

GFY
Good For You.

Here's some factual actions to return to solvency. From Investopedia --

Eliminate the Cap on Taxable Income
There's a cap on annual income subject to Social Security payroll taxes and this is also used in calculating Social Security benefits. The cap is $160,200, increasing to $168,600 in 2024.

According to a December 2021 Congressional Research Service report, eliminating the payroll tax cap while leaving in place the rules that cap high earners' benefits would address 73% of the projected shortfall. Payroll tax rates could then be raised from 12.4% to about 13.36% to eliminate the shortfall in its entirety.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/120415/how-secure-social-security.asp

Those are not new suggestions. Eliminating the cap has been mentioned multiple times. Raising taxes to fund SS is never popular, although it should probably be done on earned income, pensions, and LTCG's for higher income earners. Some years back, SS taxes were actually lowered temporarily - crazy.

 

[AudiDudi]

<snip> Some years back, SS taxes were actually lowered temporarily - crazy.

They took the equivalent funds from the general fund and put it in the trust fund so no effect on the trust fund.

 

[Midpack]

Everything I have posted has been factual. People who gamed the system just don't like my recommended reforms. I would have only stated it once but got some ridiculous responses. I know how it works since I know people working the system for those unearned benefits.

Is it "gaming the system" if you play by the rules? A good source of how to use the rules as written is the book "Get what's Yours", by Kotlikoff.


https://www.amazon.com/Get-Whats-Yours-Secrets-Security-ebook/dp/B00LD1OPP6

Taking advantage of the system as it is to get more out of it than they paid in compared to single people with kids, for example. It's not about breaking the law or anything nefarious. You're reading too much into it. I'm just giving my opinion on a reform, and I'm not the only one with that opinion.

We're talking about the current rules and how they could be changed. See above comment.

False by your own definition. You don't agree with the system (spousal benefits began in 1939), you've made that abundantly clear - but that doesn't make it "gaming the system." Beneficiaries are adhering to the system like it or not, unless you have an actual example?

 

[GenXguy]

False by your own definition. You don't agree with the system (spousal benefits began in 1939), you've made that abundantly clear - but that doesn't make it "gaming the system." Beneficiaries are adhering to the system like it or not, unless you have an actual example?

Not sure how you can say it's false by my own definition. I said they are taking advantage of the system as it is, meaning they are not doing any thing illegal or nefarious, they are using it as it was designed, merely working the system as a personal benefit, despite it being a bad implementation in that respect. But I never said they were doing something wrong or not following the law as you appear to be implying I said. Never once did I say that people weren't adhering to the current system as it is to take advantage of it and game it to their advantage. That's not illegal or dishonest. Everything I stated was fact, but I added my own opinion that this reform should be made to make that unearned undeserved benefit go away.

Seems you didn't actually read my posts that you quoted. You said I have made it abundantly clear, yet then you quote me and clearly didn't understand it despite me having clearly stated it. So your response actually makes no sense in spite of that.

I wouldn't have anymore to say on it if it wasn't for the attacks and a few people mischaracterizing what I stated.

I had specifically responded about what I mean about gaming the system in this post:
https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/social-security-house-proposal-121427-8.html#post3068151
SPOILER: I didn't say they were doing anything illegal, nefarious, or wrong to get benefits.

 

[foxfirev5]

While the devil may be in the details, I've always taken a big picture view of SS. One night in 1978 I had a friendly pub debate with the local SS manager. My crude calculations were presented that the boom was over and SS was slowly going down the tubes. I was laughed right out the place. When the 1983 cuts, yes the net result was cuts, were announced I further cemented my position.

Combined with my corp pension being frozen in 1994, I received yet another wake up call. Take care of yourself.

This thread is a prime example of what I've seen in the evolution of SS. The whole deal is changing. First it was an earned benefit. The next phase, now, is transitioning to an "entitlement". Finally, in the future, a full blown government welfare program.

Personally I no longer have a dog in the hunt. I took SS early and did something the vast majority say they would do but don't. I invested the dollars and got lucky.

 

[GenXguy]

First it was an earned benefit. The next phase, now, is transitioning to an "entitlement". Finally, in the future, a full blown government welfare program.

The first recipients of SS benefits didn't pay into SS over 40 quarters like now, so it wasn't an earned benefit. It's been an entitlement, that's not something it's just now transitioning into. Who knows about the future.

 

[HarveyS]

GenX - I understand you don't like the way the rules are. Lots of people don't.

You can't have it both ways (post 161). People cannot, by definition, be "adhering to the current system as it is to take advantage of it and game it to their advantage."
They do not game it to their advantage, they merely use it to their advantage.

Spouses are not "gaming the system". They are following the system.

Hope this helps.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the Wikipedia guideline, see Wikipedia:Gaming the system.
Gaming the system (also rigging, abusing, cheating, milking, playing, working, breaking the system, gaming, or bending the rules) can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome.[1]

 

[Gremlin]

Wow. I see this thread went off the rails late last night.

Genx...you've got a lot to learn about the Social Security system. I offered some solid suggestions about how to keep the Fund solvent. Your response was a repetitive rant about double-dips and woeful 'tax' payers.
My wife put in her 40 quarters, and then ran the household which enabled me to maximize my earnings record.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But just know that on the 3rd Wednesday of every month, DW will get a Direct Deposit with some of your 'taxes' adding to her payment.

We might even go to our favorite restaurant downtown next month. We'll raise our glasses in a toast to your generosity.

Increase the Wage Base. Raise the Full Retirement Age.

Man, I really got a chuckle out of that!

I agree at least one factor needs to be to increase the wage base.

 

[foxfirev5]

The first recipients of SS benefits didn't pay into SS over 40 quarters like now, so it wasn't an earned benefit. It's been an entitlement, that's not something it's just now transitioning into. Who knows about the future.

WOW. You had to go back that far to make an argument. It like everything else had to start somewhere. At the time the country was growing and SS was a huge leap for many reasons.

 

[GenXguy]

GenX - I understand you don't like the way the rules are. Lots of people don't.

You can't have it both ways (post 161). People cannot, by definition, be "adhering to the current system as it is to take advantage of it and game it to their advantage."
They do not game it to their advantage, they merely use it to their advantage.

Spouses are not "gaming the system". They are following the system.

As you can see from your own definition, "gaming" can mean different things. I think I have clarified sufficiently multiple times what I mean by "gaming." It's no different than how people talk about gaming the ACA by getting their MAGI income lower. It's not that they are doing something wrong/illegal to take advantage of the system. Strange I have to keep explaining that. lol

 

[GenXguy]

WOW. You had to go back that far to make an argument. It like everything else had to start somewhere. At the time the country was growing and SS was a huge leap for many reasons.

I don't disagree with you. I just couldn't have call it an "earned" benefit for those early recipients. I'm glad we have the system, also.

 

[qwerty3656]

No, that's not how it works. It's not factored in when choosing to double dip on the spouse. It's one or the other. Other tax payers are paying for a benefit she didn't earn. That should concern everyone about unearned benefits being paid when the people who actually earned benefits are looking at future 25% haircut or other cut.
No, that's not how it works. You have a choice between only your own SS credits or double dipping on the spouse. She would get the double dip amount regardless of her own work record, so that's thrown out when double dipping. They don't pay one one and then just add on the other. It's one or the other. And that's on the backs of other taxpayers.

Here is from the SS website:

Can you collect both spousal benefits and your own Social Security?
Yes. If you qualify for your own retirement and spouse's benefits, we will always pay your own benefits first. If your benefit amount as a spouse is higher than your own retirement benefit, you will get a combination of the two benefits that equals the higher amount.

 

[AudiDudi]

Just for grins, here's the history on Ida May Fuller - the 1st person to collect Social Security. She collected almost 925 times the amount she paid in.



https://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html

 

[foxfirev5]

Just for grins, here's the history on Ida May Fuller - the 1st person to collect Social Security. She collected almost 925 times the amount she paid in.



https://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html

An accidental financial genius.

 

[GenXguy]

Here is from the SS website:

Can you collect both spousal benefits and your own Social Security?
Yes. If you qualify for your own retirement and spouse's benefits, we will always pay your own benefits first. If your benefit amount as a spouse is higher than your own retirement benefit, you will get a combination of the two benefits that equals the higher amount.

You get the same amount even if you haven't earned any benefit yourself. You still get that spousal benefit. That is what I have explained more than once. Either way, you're getting a bigger benefit than you rightly deserve based on your own payments. I'm just saying this should be reformed.... as I have kept saying. It's not that complicated. This is nothing against anyone who is taking advantage of the benefit as the system is currently designed.

 

[qwerty3656]

You get the same amount even if you haven't earned any benefit yourself. You still get that spousal benefit. That is what I have explained more than once. Either way, you're getting a bigger benefit than you rightly deserve based on your own payments. I'm just saying this should be reformed.... as I have kept saying. It's not that complicated. This is nothing against anyone who is taking advantage of the benefit as the system is currently designed.

No one disagrees with you, but you keep saying others are wrong about things when they aren't and it makes you look [mod edit]

 

[braumeister]

MOD NOTE:
Let's all remember to keep it civil here.

 

[Midpack]

Not sure how you can say it's false by my own definition. I said they are taking advantage of the system as it is, meaning they are not doing any thing illegal or nefarious, they are using it as it was designed, merely working the system as a personal benefit, despite it being a bad implementation in that respect.

At the very least a very poor choice of phrase accusing beneficiaries of "gaming the system" that's all. While that can have benign purposes, more often it carries negative connotations - cheating is a common meaning. But go ahead and give yourself the benefit of the doubt after the fact.

Gaming the system (also rigging, abusing, cheating, milking, playing, working, breaking the system, gaming, or bending the rules) can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome.