3 legged stool is ideal when referring to retirement funding.
If we are talking about increasing SS benefits, free college tuition, free healthcare perhaps the better approach might be choose one of the three.
Take free education to give yourself the means to fund the other two.... oops, getting political better stop.
But I think it is safe to say most here who follow
LBYM don't need or want Gov't handouts.
The operational word here is "earned." Is this W-2 income such as working a job? Or does it include unearned income such as TIRAs, dividends, and interest?
You think Social Security is a handout? If so, I follow LBYM and apparently I want a handout.But I think it is safe to say most here who follow LBYM don't need or want Gov't handouts.
Does the 93% mean that someone making $1,000 a month while working, they will make $930 a month in SS?
No.
So under the current formula, someone with AIME of $1,000/month would have a PIA of $839.10.... the proposed 3% increase would increase it to $865.95.
Primary insurance amount (PIA) equals
90% of the first $895 of average indexed monthly earnings (AIME), plus
32% of AIME over $895 through $5,397, plus
15% of AIME over $5,397
Yup, 93% is better than 75%.If someone was making the first bend point ($895.00 a month?), when they claim SS they get 93% of the amount they made while working. Not bad for a non-pension. The military only gives 75% after 30 years.
Yeah, but the 93% only applies to the first $895/month and subsequent percentages are much less generous.... so lower earners get a higher percentage of average earnings than higher earners... I'm ok with that.
So let's say you had someone that earned $30k a year. Military pension at 75% would be $22,500.... SS would be $16,151 (54% of $30k)... big difference.
If "here" means discussions of Social Security, it's is that type of income that is subject to SS taxes. You pay SS tax on wages, not on withdrawals from IRAs, dividends, or interest.The operational word here is "earned." Is this W-2 income such as working a job? Or does it include unearned income such as TIRAs, dividends, and interest?
The bill currently has more than 200 co-sponsors in the House. Supporters plan to hold a markup of the legislation in the fall, and then move it to the House floor for a vote.
We aren't allowed to discuss partisan politics.Why are we bothering to discuss this bill?
Sure it has 200 cosponsors, but they are all Democrats meaning that this has approximately 0% chance of passing Congress, let along be signed by the President.
Any serious reform of Social Security will have to be at least superficially bipartisan.
The post was not directed at you, sorry for that misunderstanding.I'm not trying to be partisan, it's just that there a lot of bills introduced that have little to no chance of passing (by both sides). They really aren't with discussing as something that might affect us.
Polls repeatedly show that most folks think they only need to save up to the company match, and no more.
My opinion is in the next 20-30 years we'll have substantial changes to social security and other forms of citizen payments or else our society will pretty much crumble.
There is going to be way too many people without enough for retirement who will be past working age and politicians aren't going to ignore them.
I'm not sure about the "without enough" part, but many, many people depend on their Social Security benefits for a significant part of their retirement income. I read today that a third of retirees get more than 90 percent of their income from Social Security and that two thirds get half their income from Social Security.
It seems unlikely that politicians will just ignore that voting block.
Sure.Or it could go to food, shelter, and all expenses paid trips to Hawaii and Europe.
Uhm, okay.Thirty years ago I didn't think gay marriage would become a reasonable change.
Seems unlikely that "politicians" will create a new large bureaucratic program in this case. Mostly, since there is no need to create anything at all, just to fund what already exists.My point is simply that if a large majority have a need, politicians generally react to it and try to correct it by creating a large bureaucratic program to "solve" the issue.