- This topic has 1 reply, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”VictoriaLST”]SS tax pays for retirement income? Nah – they raided that.[/quote]
So all those folks who get a check every month are just imagining that? Hmmm.[/quote]
I suggest you set aside an hour or so and read this year’s Social Security and SSI’s Annual Reports http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/index.html
http://ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI13/index.html[quote=”sweikert925″]I have actually read those. I visit the SSA website pretty regularly.
Of all the problems that the federal government faces, fixing SS is actually the easiest. Raise the SS tax a couple of percentage points, remove the cap on which incomes are taxed and gradually raise the retirement age to 70. Problem solved.
See [url=http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/retirement/saving-social-security.moneymag/]here[/url] and [url=http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/02/13/5-ways-to-fix-social-security]here.[/url][/quote]
Steve, once again you fail to see what this issue is. Raising taxes is the answer? When are too much taxes enough? I ask you these questions, and please answer honestly, what percentage of taxes are too much? 20%, 30% 40%, 50% 60%, 70%? Why don’t we cut some spending? Start with 90 Million dollars for salmon research, start with any $400 million green energy loans that go bankrupt. Start with $400 toilet seats….start anywhere!!!
SS is done, you or I will never see it, I will bet you $1,000 that there will be a major change to SS for the worse before you and I see it, but yet we both put into it every week don’t we.
[quote=”sweikert925″]I have actually read those. I visit the SSA website pretty regularly.
Of all the problems that the federal government faces, fixing SS is actually the easiest. Raise the SS tax a couple of percentage points, remove the cap on which incomes are taxed and gradually raise the retirement age to 70. Problem solved.
See [url=http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/retirement/saving-social-security.moneymag/]here.[/url][/quote]
A raise of more than a couple of points would be required because as our employment rate is going up the average pay of those who have returned to work has declined greatly (an army of underemployed). And, this loss of social security revenue would be much greater than the revenue it would receive from removing the s.s.tax cap.
Gradually raising the retirement age to 70, for the many who have labored physically all their lives it’s not possible to continue working to that age. But, I suppose, for someone who earns their income sitting behind a desk … I’ll chalk this suggestion up to thoughtlessness and not selfishness.
Being a simple solution … with you having only 5 years remaining until you make the choice as to when to start collecting … and with such proposed changes, if they were to be imposed, not taking effect until after your retirement … heck!!! it sure would be easy since there would be no sacrifices made by or pain felt by you. Selling out the unborn is always the simple easy solution. And, regardless, even with your easy solution, all it would be doing is continuing kicking the can down the road once again! And, that is no solution!!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”VictoriaLST”]SS tax pays for retirement income? Nah – they raided that.[/quote]
So all those folks who get a check every month are just imagining that? Hmmm. That must be some powerful imaginations those folks have.[/quote]
I also suggest you spend 29 minutes to understand how our money supply is created http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Gradually raising the retirement age to 70, for the many who have labored physically all their lives it’s not possible to continue working to that age. [/quote]
It seems doubtful that any change to SS will remove the early payout option starting at 62.[quote=”pixframe”]if they were to be imposed, not taking effect until after your retirement … heck!!! it sure would be easy since there would be no sacrifices made by or pain felt by you. [/quote]
If they fix this next year and increase the tax rate by 2% immediately it would be fine with me. In 1986 they raised both the tax rate AND the retirement age for people born the year I was and it seemed a reasonable thing to do both then and now.[/quote]As I’ve already said, it’s just kicking the can down the road. Watch that 29 minute film I suggested … hopefully it will help open your eyes.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”sprite”]I will disparage the military. Soldiers are at the root of evil regardless of whichever uniform they wear.[/quote]
I really hope you rethink that statement. Don’t blame the solider for doing his or her duty. Even in this age when they are all volunteers they (and their families) still make huge sacrifices for each and every one of us. The very least we can do is thank them.The root of all evil is actually greed and selfishness. That seems pretty clear – to me, anyway.
[quote=”sprite”] Cooperation between people is normal. [/quote]
Yes, you only have to read the comments on this message board to see how truly cooperative we all are with each other LOL.[/quote]
As I said, soldiers are the problem, not the solution. You guys should really think a little about what you are saying. Chinese send soldiers to invade your country and you think the solution is to have your own form of evil (soldiers)as a defense? Fighting fire with fire just makes a bigger fire.By the way, Sweikert, we cooperate on this message board. I don’t see any need for military intervention here.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Kwhite1″]I will bet you $1,000 that there will be a major change to SS for the worse before you and I see it.[/quote] If that means a change to my own benefits which SS has calculated as being worth $2,329 a month at age 66.5 (my full retirement eligibility age) then I will take that bet.
See you back here on August 19, 2023.[/quote]
Steve, typical of liberals, dodging the direct question. How much is too much tax to pay? Your failure to answer screams volumes to me. So you are good paying 52% of your income to taxes? Your good paying 64% of your income to taxes? While the government waste billions upon billions on frivolous programs? Stop the wasteful spending, BS bonuses for your job description completion, 2 Billion rounds of ammo they don’t need, then I would look at my percentage of tax I pay in a different light.
Short story, 2006 I had to pay $156,000 to the IRS in taxes, that was waaaaay more than I physically took home, the loan I took from my company to pay those taxes was taxed again at 33%, so double taxation, I ended up paying the IRS 72% of the profit I made that year, why in the world would I strive to be successful? Why not suck off the teat from the government and get money back every year. I know folks who are unemployed that make $60K a year off benefits from the government. Why should I be motivated to be penalized for working hard?
The bet is, no change (for the better) in SS by the time you or me collect. I guarantee that the % will go up or the amount of benefit will go down, or no SS at all. That’s a sucker bet and I look forward to donating the $1,000 I collect from you to an orphanage.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Kwhite1″]Steve, once again you fail to see what this issue is. Raising taxes is the answer? [/quote]
If the SS funding problem could be fixed by the other 2 solutions I mentioned alone, then fine – but it can’t. The only other alternative is to reduce benefits – and I don’t mean reducing annual inflation INCREASES, I mean actual reductions in benefits. Is that what you prefer?If we do nothing at all, SS can still pay promised benefits at 75% of the promised amount. For me that would be no hardship as I have 3 other sources of retirement income, 2 of which are for life.
When SS was first devised in 1935, you had to wait til you were 65 to collect – and oh, by the way, the life expectancy for someone who reached 65 was another 5 years. Today you can start collecting at 62 and life expectancy is 78. And to top it off the numbers of people reaching retirement age from 2011 on is exploding thanks to all those frisky returning soldiers after WWII.
5 years of benefits in 1935, 13 to 16 years in 2014. 45 million recipients in 2000, 57 million in 2013. Why shouldn’t taxes be raised to fund the additional years of benefits that most of us can expect to get? Who do [b]you[/b] think should pay for those additional years worth of benefits?[/quote]
You (conveniently?) omitted when it was first devised it did not include a “Social Security Disability” component which has had a major impact on shortening the life of the (supposed) fund.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Kwhite1″]…dodging the direct question. How much is too much tax to pay? [/quote]
Fair enough. On my last paycheck the taxes I paid came to 22% of my gross income. That includes both federal and state income taxes, Medicare and Social Security. For 2013 my total federal income tax was 16% of my income. I don’t consider that too much, and I make considerably more than the median income. Most people pay a lot less than that. So how much is too much? Well let’s say double my federal income tax rate – 32%.
[url=http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/taxes]The average federal income tax rate paid was about 12% [/url]
[url=http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3151]Average taxes paid by Americans.[/url]
[quote=”Kwhite1″]Stop the wasteful spending.[/quote]
I’m all in favor of that. But we have a system where people vote for Congress, and then all those Congressmen get together and decide what to spend money on and how much. There is money spent on some things I personally don’t approve of. But I had my say when I voted. You had your say when you voted. If you or I still aren’t happy with the outcome, then we can run for Congress ourselves.
[quote=”Kwhite1″] I know folks who are unemployed that make $60K a year off benefits from the government.[/quote]
I flat out don’t believe that. The average monthly SSDI benefit is $995. The average monthly food stamp benefit for a family of 4 is $275. The average weekly unemployment benefit in Florida is $275. Even if you were collecting all 3 (and it’s illegal to collect unemployment if you are also on SSDI) then the total would come to $29,240/year. And unemployment benefits run out after 6 months in most states.
I assume you got that $60,000 figure from [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html]the same place Senator Sessions of Alabama did.[/url]. So you just made up that “I know some folks….” assertion, didn’t you?
OK, I’ve answered your question, so it’s only fair you answer mine: How would you fix SS if you insist that SS taxes not be raised?[/quote]
You kept it too simple Steve and didn’t read what was written or tally up the total cost White1 was talking about. By using a single person, averages, and a narrow view of all the government hand outs people grab you kept your number rather low. You forgot Section 8 housing payments, Medicaid health benefits, Heating assistance, SSI for each and other benefits. Add 3 or 4 kids from different daddies and the money/benefits they EACH get and a welfare mommy is getting $60,000 in cash and inkind government benefit payments easily! I deal with many that hit or exceed that total $60k number no problem. That’s total cost not just cash in the pocket. Or as is the case with WORKING folks… cash that left their pocket when they had to PAY for all those same expenses.
See how much Octomom is taking in!
Steve, how to fix SS? I have no clue, I am not a magician nor accountant. But I do know it is broke, and after 2033 it will not be able to pay the obligations.
The privitization of SS would be a good start, set up several SS approved, tax free investment accounts that perform better than the return the current system. Allowing you to opt for a bigger percentage to be deducted if you wish, that goes into your individual account. Much like an IRA….I will be responsible for my own retirement, I won’t depend on the government to provide it to me. Most things the gov tries to run/regulate just dont turn out so spiffy.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]See how much Octomom is taking in![/quote]
If you want to base social welfare spending on the basis of a particular case of a single mom with 14 kids (who committed welfare fraud to get her benefits) then you are using some rather twisted logic, if you can call that logic at all.[/quote]
Come now Steve… even just including the various forms of assistance she’s getting legitimately “for the children” she’s getting well over $60k! And there are tons more like her… with 4,5,6 children they brought into the world with NO realistic ability to ever support!
I put “for the children” in quotes because that’s where the system gets sucked into paying for people’s irresponsible actions. No one wants to hurt children… so they become the “breadwinners” in many families!
Just like folks that claim illegal aliens don’t get welfare and other assistance…. that’s not really true is it
…. because the 3 or 4 kids they have after they sneak into the country are US CITIZENS! And as such are entitled to all the goodies! Nothing like rewarding folks for breaking the law…. no wonder they keep coming…. try that act in reverse to Mexico or any other country and see how it works out!I’ll stand by my comments… not twisted logic my friend… but sad unfortunate and unsustainable facts… much like every other social program that rewards those that choose to only take and not contribute at some point it fails… even with fiat currency and a government willing to print itself into a harsh nasty debt fuel death.
You never responded to my query as to your plans on bailing out of Chi-town and ILLinois before the big TAX increases needed to keep the dream (or is it a nightmare) going! I’m interested on your thoughts about the financial viability of Chicago and Illinois beyond 2016.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Pixframe wrote:
You (conveniently?) omitted when it was first devised it did not include a “Social Security Disability” component which has had a major impact on shortening the life of the (supposed) fund.[/quote][quote=”sweikert925″] True enough. But the tax was raised to cover the additional benefits. In 1935 the tax was 2%, SSDI was passed in 1956 and the tax was raised to 6% in 1960 in steps. That was supposed to cover both the increased lifespan that Americans enjoyed and the new SSDI benefit. The fact that there is still a shortfall means that we have to tinker with SS again as was done in 1986.[/quote]
Tinker? That’s just another euphemism for “kicking the can down the road”.[quote=”sweikert925″][By the way I am getting a little irked with these snide insinuations that I am only looking out for myself in the arguments I make. Every argument you make happens to benefit you personally, but I don’t feel the need to keep pointing that out.[/quote]
Since I’m already collecting social security, how does my rejecting the suggestion that the FICA rate be increased and the full retirement age be postponed benefit me?[quote=”sweikert925″]If I truly was only out for myself, I would be in favor of no changes to SS at all. There is enough money in SS to pay currently promised benefits until well after I am dead. I was in favor of the 1986 reform even though it meant waiting until age 66.5 to collect the full benefit for me instead of age 65.[/quote]
I very much hope, for your sake, that your unbridled enthusiasm for the future of the fund doesn’t interfere with you providing for yourself some form of survival plan in the event your unrealistic, overly optimistic, beliefs don’t come to fruition.
Ahem!
I most courteously suggest that you folks arguing in the sandbox about Social Security et al., take your deaf locked-in opinions to the PM route unless they have direct relevance to Costa Rica.
Scott, I wonder how many WLCR readers have/will bail out because of these boring exchanges?
PEH[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]I put “for the children” in quotes because that’s where the system gets sucked into paying for people’s irresponsible actions.[/quote]
So you have 3 possible alternatives:
(1) Provide for those innocent children regardless of the shameful behavior of their parents and resign yourself to the fact
(2) Stop providing for them to show those dirty stinkin’ poor people they can’t get away with their shameful behavior
(3) Keep providing for them but whine and moan at every opportunity that you’re forced to do soI see you’ve gone with option (3).[/quote]
Oh, gee, a survey. I love taking surveys! And, although this one’s wording is more than somewhat biased … I vote for #2 (Stop providing for them to show these parents they must personally take responsibility for their actions).
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]I put “for the children” in quotes because that’s where the system gets sucked into paying for people’s irresponsible actions.[/quote]
So you have 3 possible alternatives:
(1) Provide for those innocent children regardless of the shameful behavior of their parents and resign yourself to the fact
(2) Stop providing for them to show those dirty stinkin’ poor people they can’t get away with their shameful behavior
(3) Keep providing for them but whine and moan at every opportunity that you’re forced to do soI see you’ve gone with option (3).[/quote]
Oh, gee, a survey. I love taking surveys! And, although this one’s wording is more than somewhat biased … I vote for #2 (Stop providing for them to show these parents they must personally take responsibility for their actions).[/quote]
I vote for #2 as well…. in addition I’m voting with my assets and feet… both of which have been headed off shore for some time now, way ahead of the latest changes designed to keep people from doing so (ie The topic of this thread)!
In addition to forcing folks to take responsibility for their actions I would add that it would stop people from having a sense of entitlement that the world owes them ( and their offspring) a living!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
