The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

I have a great idea:
You write the social security laws any way you want, and I will agree to them, on one condition:
- People may irrevocably opt out; those who do and already paid into the system get get their money back, to be placed into a 401(k) (or somesuch) in their name.

 

I don't understand "the tax and the benefits go flat after that".

That aside, based on your idea of getting out of it no less than what you put in, and the true maximum anyone may get out of it ($10,000 is incorrect; it is $2,861 for 2019), the cap should be set at $553,742.

 

If the cap that you claim is $2,861 / mo is based on the max of $132,900, why should the cap be set at $553,742? That's based on 6.2% paid by the employee and 6.2% paid by the employer. The employer, who may well be among the hated rich, is paying out payroll taxes and getting nothing in return aside from income that he pays income taxes on. What is the theory that says someone should pay out money so someone else can receive 100% of the benefit?

 

How come none of you right wingers have had any problem since 1980 when it first became apparent that more and more of the nations wealth began to be steered towards those who already had the most which has only increased EVER SINCE???Our governments policies and tax structure have been designed to further enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the working class,witness the recent tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Look, the OASDI tax rate for employees and employers haven't changed since 1990, and today's average interest rate on Government Account series\inflation series combined equates to 4.144%. In addition, Social Security Trustees have projected that after 2034, payroll taxes will equate to 75 percent of scheduled benefits.

Now, let's use the following compound interest calculator;

http://moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

Current principle; $100
Annual addition; $100
year to grow; 45 years
interest rate; 4.14%
Future Value; $13,715

if $13,715 equates to 75 percent of scheduled benefits, then, $18, 285 equates to 100% of scheduled benefits.

Now, using same calculator, what interest rate would equate to a future value of $18,285?

Current principle; $100
Annual addition; $100
year to grow; 45 years
interest rate; 5.12%...…..THAT'S IT?
Future Value; $18,313

yep

​

 

You would need to follow the conversation and Distraff's comments. Examination of what he said shows he was referring to a 6.2% tax on the employee and that paying a tax of $620,000 per year to get a $10,000 per year benefit later was horribly unfair. Right? Isn't that the conversation? Can you do the math?
$2,861/month * 12 months = 34,332
34,332 / .062 = $553,742
IOW an income of $553,742 taxed at 6.2% would produce an annual tax of the same dollar amount as would be later received as a benefit. Clear?

Don't you pay income taxes? Doesn't some of it go to SNAP for Walmart employees so that they can feed themselves? You're subsidizing Walmart's low wages. Your right wing bitch doesn't fly.

 

The problem with that logic is

#1 The tax is 12.4% if you include the employer contribution;
#2 A person reaching 65 today is expected to live roughly 20 years after theoretically paying in for 35 years;
#3 The principal from the time the first dollar is contributed to the Trust Fund is earning interest;
#4 20% of the SS outlay pays DI and SSI beneficiaries who don't pay into the system, at least not to the fullest extent;

If the Federal government didn't need a source of funds they could borrow at bargain basement rates, a person earning the max for 35 years before reaching 65 recently, should be bringing in alot more per month than $2861. If every year's tax was added to the prior years and the sum hit with the % increase / decrease in the S&P and if the principal at the end was invested in an immediate life annuity purchased from one of your financial sheisters, the max benefit would be $10,000 --- not $2861. We'd be far better off even if traditional advice to move any funds from a variable account to a fixed income account 5 years before you need them --- at 60.

I'm subsiding the poor choices made by the Walmart workers. Walmart is responsible for making sure that people are paid no more than the value they deliver ,,,, meaning Walmart will be around a while.

 

Those with large income often get to choose how they take their income. I might take almost zero salary, but take a huge "bonus", or take corporate stock optios that aren't taxed until certain tax events, such as sale of some of the shares - taxed at capital gains rates, or there may NEVER be tax on that if it is passed as part of an estate.

Of course, others would have had to pay taxes on that initial income - only being allowed to use or invest the remainder - while I get the benefiit of the investment on the full amount. It's like the government made me a zero intrest loan so I can have more to invest - with the loan paid back only as capital gains tax, as inheretance tax, or some other means.

And, all that while paying withholding only on the small portion of income that came as salary.


Sure. Just like ANY empolyee!

 

Once you hit the cap on contributions so does the cap on benefits. If you want to raise the cap on contributions then you have to raise the cap on the benefits. It's a retirement system.

Ok then the benefit should cap at $11,895.

 

Ok but we have surplus funds in the SS account and they are in the form of a special T-Bill. What other investment would you want those funds placed?

"The 2017 annual surplus of $44 billion increased the asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds, bringing the total reserves to $2.89 trillion at the end of the year. "
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html


In what would you prefer that money be invested?

 

They are paid huge salaries and that along with the bonuses are subject to FICA and they hit the $137,000 pretty early in the year.

 

Your talking point is a lie.

 

I agree that is common. That size paycheck is well within what various industries pay for certain skill sets. Senior software engineer salaries are higher than that even when bunuses and stock are ignored.

But, once you move up the ladder you reach a point where the "employee" has an influence on how they take compensation and use other methods for dodging taxes. And, that method can be changes as tax codes change So, in specific years it may be better to take compensation as a bonus or as stock options or as outright shares.

People talk about tax "loopholes" but that usually doesn't cover decisions made on how to take compensation.

And, those with significant wealth usually don't even care whether they get a paycheck which would incur deductions. Such paychecks are just too small a part of their income.

My overall point here is that the income disparity is more massive than any analysis of paychecks could possibly indicate. And, that translates to lower income tax rates for those who are wealthy that would seem to be indicated by our tax rate schedules.

 

A stock is an unrealized gain. Can't buy a single can of dog food with it until you sell it. Then you get taxed.

 

You know he wants to cap your benefit but not your contribution

 

Because Social Security, they believe, should be like welfare - take from the haves and give to their voter base.

 

Not a single poster on this site can defend their desire for your stuff. They'll hide behind some lame "commons" defense knowing damn well they expect to receive personal benefit from your loss!

 

What money?

Are you kidding?

Like I said, EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE VANISHED!

2018 REPORT https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html

INCOME

SS CONTRIBUTIONS...………...$874 billion
INCOME TAX ON BENEFITS.....$38 billion
INTEREST...………………………$85 billion (THIS IS AN IOU, IOU, IOU, IOU, IOU INTEREST PAYMENT)
TOTAL...…………………………..$997 billion

OUTGO

BENEFIT PAYMENTS...………$946 billion
ADMINISTRATION...…………..$6 billion
TOTAL...…………………………$952 billion

NET INCREASE IN ASSETS "WRITTEN ON A NAPKIN".....$997 billion - $942 billion = $44 billion

---------------------------------

IN FACT, UNCLE SAM HAD TO BORROW $41 BILLION TO PAY BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES...….DO THE MATH!.

AGAIN, THERE ARE NO EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE FUND MANAGERS COULD INVEST/DIVERSIFIED IN 'MARKETABLES"

NOTE;

The Trustees now project that OASDI annual cost will exceed total income beginning in 2018—four years earlier than projected in last year's report—and continuing throughout the projection period. If no changes are made to the program, the trust fund reserves would be drawn down until they are depleted in 2034—the same year as estimated in the last three reports. After trust fund reserve depletion, continuing income would be sufficient to pay 79 percent of program cost, declining to 74 percent for 2092

 

Because the poster wants other people's stuff.

 

I'm very well aware of that.

The point is that it is a way to take compensation that dodges payroll tax and allows benefit of investtment of pre-tax dollars.

AND, it allows taking advantage of capital gains tax rates.

The top capital gains tax rate is 20% while the top payroll tax rate is 32%.

Besides dodging withholdings and allowing investment of pre-tax compensation, moving income from salary to stock options offers savings of 12% on taxes - more than 1/3 of income tax.

These factors and others available to those with significant income offer serous tax advantages.

As for corporations, let's rememberr that Amazon nearly doubled its PROFIT this year and is paying $0.

 

No it doesnt.
There is a basis and a gainl

 

"The 2017 annual surplus of $44 billion increased the asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds, bringing the total reserves to $2.89 trillion at the end of the year. "
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html

AGAIN what do you want to do with the surplus funds and reserves?

 

And at the Clinton 29% rate we collected half the revenue than at the Bush43 15% rate so why would you want to increase the rate even more? Isn't the tax system supposed to be about raising revenue for the treasury not satisfying your desire to just take a higher percentage of the income of the higher earners?

 

Let the gov spend them and replace them with special treasuries that have no market for sale?