pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Close enough for me. ..
Close only counts in horseshoes (and hand grenades)... we have a little higher standards here.
Close enough for me. ..
Close only counts in horseshoes (and hand grenades)... we have a little higher standards here.
Find a single post that I have made where I have claimed that Social Security is sound or that Medicare is sound or that the amount of federal debt isn't a problem or that the Fed balance sheet is A-OK and you might have a valid point. So please, put up or shut up and stop lying. You're being ridiculous now.
<mod note> Disagreement without being disagreeable is an essential quality of ER Forum and it sets us apart, in a positive way. The moderator team invites all those who believe we embrace higher standards to show it by demonstrating civility and respect in their posts.
I'm guessing you've heard of MMT modern monetary theory ?
...
.....
What Is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic framework that says monetarily sovereign countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada, which spend, tax, and borrow in a fiat currency that they fully control, are not operationally constrained by revenues when it comes to federal government spending.
Put simply, such governments do not rely on taxes or borrowing for spending since they can print as much as they need and are the monopoly issuers of the currency. Since their budgets aren’t like a regular household’s, their policies should not be shaped by fears of a rising national debt.
https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060
But hey, it's just silly and ridiculous me talking, so everyone should probably ignore.
I was interested in this thread when it started.
Please, can we talk about the topic without sniping, sarcasm & anti-government rants?
Full disclosure: I have real concerns about the future of Social Security, but it's not about me. Barring a worldwide collapse, I'll be fine financially for the rest of my life. Not everyone is that lucky, including several friends/family of mine.
we do need to talk about if from time to time (and that doesn't mean we don't like it.)
I have yet to see anything written anywhere indicating that a haircut would be anything other than across-the-board, so do you have any authoritative support for your assertions or are you just making sh!t up?
I'm just pointing out all historical changes have been to make the already progressive SS retirement system...even more progressive.
Which helps the early retiree (little benefit to add'l wage earnings beyond the second bend point) but hurts those collecting higher benefits (85% taxed)
If benefit cuts actually become necessary those expecting close to max benefits can expect to have their monthly check percentage wise reduced much more than those collecting only $1,000/month.
Not according to anything that I have read anywhere and they'll need to follow the law, not make stuff up. If you find something, anything, that is authoritative suggesting that the haircut will be anything other than across-the-board, then please share. Also, please look at post #29.
Not according to anything that I have read anywhere and they'll need to follow the law, not make stuff up. If you find something, anything, that is authoritative suggesting that the haircut will be anything other than across-the-board, then please share. Also, please look at post #29.
Make it 100% taxable for everyone. If you have SS benefits less than the standard deduction of $25,900, you'll pay zero tax. If you are MFJ and have SS benefits less than $ 46,450 (standard deduction plus the 10% bracket), you'll pay 10% of the amount over $25,900, or a max of $2055 per year. I see that as a way to save the trust fund and also be progressive.
Actually, I've never understood why it isn't already 100% taxable. It's income like any other.
... Actually, I've never understood why it isn't already 100% taxable. It's income like any other.
The reason that it isn't 100% taxable and shouldn't be 100% taxable is that part of what you get is a return of after-tax money that you contributed and did not get a deduction for, like a non-deductible tIRA or a contributory defined benefit pension plan.... and the contributions are about 15% on average so that amount is not taxed. The 85% is a combination of employer contributions and interest earned on the funds over the average lifetime.
If I take 72% of what I contributed from my SSA statement divided by my PIA from FRA to an average age of 83 it is close to the 15% that is excluded from tax. The reason for only using 72% of contributions is that my contributions covered survivor benefit for my family akin to life insurance, disability benefits akin to disability insurance and retirement benefits... and I read somewhere that 72% of contributions relate retirement benefits and the other 28% relate to survivor and disability benefits.
The last time SS retirement system was in crisis Congress did not just leave it up to the trustees or existing law.
Instead they explicitly intervened so that higher-income households were now forced to pay taxes on nearly all of their SS retirement benefit, thus making the system more of a means-tested entitlement not unlike other, progressive federal transfer programs.
So based on actual history, we can expect to see such intervention again.
Cutting the same percentage for those with the lowest monthly benefits (who most likely only have SS for retirement income) as those with the highest monthly benefits would be political suicide.
EDIT: What Koolau said...IF benefit cuts have to happen, though hopefully not, given potential solutions as ERD50 points out in post #29.
That makes sense, but it shouldn't be less than 85% taxable. The income tax system is already progressive.
The thing that I forgot to add is that if the SSA were to take a broad-brush similar to contributory pension plans then the exclusion ratio would be 15% and that is where the 85% comes from, but lower income people were provided a break and that is why for lower income people it is 100% or 50% excluded... there is no real theoretical rationale for that... it's just a tax benefit provided to lower income people.