How GOP Social Security Cuts Will Hurt You

I think this would be a better approach: 1. Create a list of all publicly traded dividend equities. 2. Divide that list into 3 or 4 age appropriate appropriate ETFs. 3. Let the owners make the final choice.

I have become very leery of debt instruments right now, but there may be a place for government and corporate bonds, preferred stock, and treasury bills in the mix.

 

Yes, credibility is all about telling the truth. That is why WikiLeaks is credible and the CIA is not.

Snopes has always been an incredible source.

“Almost all(*)of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes(*)did not respond to a list of questions from TheDC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.

At least two(*)of the site’s fact-checkers joined Snopes after writing for Raw Story, a far-left publication that describes itself as a “progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.” Several others have demonstrated liberal partisanship.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/s...-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

 

Liberals are lying again.

Read the law.

The 1935 Social Security Act quite clearly states that any excess funds shall be converted to special treasury notes. In 1935, that was literally the 2nd [Series] Liberty Bonds. In other words the excess cash was handed over to the Treasury Secretary who issued special treasury securities in the name of the Social Security Administration and then put the cash in the General Fund. You can read that here...

TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS

OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT

Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account.

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired
(1) on original issue at par, or
(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.

(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.

(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.

(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.

(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.


See this link for more details: https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actii.html

 

No one's benefits are being slashed and you cannot prove otherwise. The only thing you can do is fear-monger and spread disinformation.

Ryan's Plan calls for means-testing for those single people who earn more than $55,000 of non-Social Security income. Benefits would be reduced by 1.8% for every $1,000 of income they have over the threshold. The threshold is doubled for married filing jointly.

 

It's been debunked repeatedly.

I'll show you how to do the math, so you don't get suckered again.

SOI Tax Stats - SOI Bulletin: Spring 2015

Statistics of Income (SOI) Bulletin - Spring 2015 (entire publication in PDF)

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/soi-a-inpd-id1505.pdf

That is the latest data.

Scroll down to Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2012 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income

You're looking at 3 distinct income brackets from columns 6, 7 and 8:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000
( $250,000 or more

You need the total number of returns filed:

(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = 14,123,441
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = 1,654,070
( $250,000 or more = 3,032,742

...and you need the total income reported:
(6) $100,000 under $200,000 = $1,610,920,079,000
(7) $200,000 under $250,000 = $297,831,541,000
( $250,000 or more = $1,281,411,930,000


We'll start with Column (.

There are 3 Million (3,032,742) people who earned more than $250,000 annually totaling $1.28 TRILLION ($1,281,411,930,000)

$1,281,411,930,000 * 6.2% = $79,447,539,660


*That's the wrong answer.*

The Social Security Cap in 2013 was $113,700.

$113,700 * 3,032,742 = $344,822,765,400 * 6.2% = $21,379,011,454.8

The amount already paid has to be subtracted from the total amount:


$79,447,539,660 - $21,379,011,455 = $58,068,528,205 Net New FICA Employee Revenues


Now we do that for the $200,000 to $250,000 Crowd:

1,654,070 * 113,700 * 6.2 = $11,660,201,058 is what they already paid.

$297,831,541,000 * 6.2% = $18,465,555,542

$18,465,555,542 - $11,660,201,058 = $6,805,354,484 Net New Revenues

And now the $100,000 to $200,000 Crowd:


14,123,441 * $113,700 * 6.2 = $99,561,784,985 already paid.

$1,610,920,079,000 * 6.2% = $99,877,044,898

$99,877,044,898 - $99,561,784,985 = $315,259,913 Net New FICA Revenues


Now we add them together

$58,068,528,205
+$6,805,354,484
+ $315,259,913
----------------------
$65,189,142,602

Add in the employers share --- another $65,189,142,602

That's it.

Projected short-falls are $500 Billion to $750 Billion annually, and $130 Billion isn't going to cover it.

 

how much did republican two ten plus year wars cost

if previous generation could give SS and medicare to their elderly, so can we

 

Ironic since it the extremist alt right that is entirely responsible for fake news.

The source for this comes from Speaker Ryan himself.

 

No, it wouldn't because the number of people who would pass the means test would not make sufficient difference to the remaining funds.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._584c6e01e4b0171331051152?section=us_politics

 

Where is your link proving those projected shortfalls and for how long will they occur? The Boomers aren't going to live forever.

 

You must be assuming that those making more then $118,500 per year are not saving for their retirement, and therefore would fall short of the means threshold. I completely disagree. Someone making that kind of money would definitely have planned for their retirement including having a 401K. I submit that many that fall well under the income cap would be weeded out by a means test. But, I think a good compromise would be a combination of the two approaches. Raise the Income Cap to say $500,000, and establish a means test

 

I made no such assumptions whatsoever!

There is a built in means test with the benefits cap in place as it currently stands. Furthermore there is an overhead to means testing that just adds a complication that isn't necessary. The benefits cap works just fine for this purpose.

There should be no income cap whatsoever. That is the primary reason why SS has it's current problem. Without any income cap there would be no problem. And yes, it should apply to ALL sources of income, including capital gains.

Those who earn the most have the benefit of ways to pay the least when it comes to taxes so having them pay SS taxes on their full pre tax income is one of the means to ensure that they arevcontributing to the society that they are reaping massive rewards from.

 

Good post of clarity

 

The reason met Snopes writers have a Liberal background is that Conservatives are not really interested in the truth. On a more serious note it is interesting that people are always willing to do generalized attacks when they can't actually rebut what Snopes has reported. And only in the new world does idealogical background influence actual fact.

 

Tell us: How long does Trump get to blame Bush?

 

Wait... the left cannot / does not disseminate "fake news"?

 

It's going to be privatized alright, when this debt bubble that Obama rigged to kick the can down the road blows up in our faces and destroys the currency. You'll still get a social security check, it'll just be worthless. And at the point, the game is over. Nothing that the government will do will restore confidence except to return to the gold standard, which will then limit government spending and make any type of socialist system impractical.

 

In fact, most Americans think the fact checkers and the rest of the MSM are incredible.
Informed Leftists and conservatives know that the corrupt entrenched political class and its "fact checkers" are notorious liars.

 

if the GOP destroys Social Security, they will be voted out forever

 

SocSec died long ago.
Presently, it's just another welfare program.

 

not hardly....

 

One day you might understand this isn't free money.
But then, you are a *********. Facts don't matter to someone like you.

 

funny how republicans threaten to destroy SS after the election rather then during, wonder why that is?

 

The HI Payroll Tax needs to be increased 0.7% to a total of 3.6%.

The FICA Payroll Tax would have to be increase from 6.2% to at least 8.2% for both employer and employee.

The Silent Generation was slammed with a 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

If Generation X-Box and Generation Whine can't handle a 44.6% increase to make sure Social Security still exists for them, then my recommendation is Wilkinson Bonded or Gillette Silver Blues.

EITC has nothing to do with payroll taxes.

That would be a Straw Man, since Social Security is an insurance scheme and not an investment scheme.

 

They collect because they paid in. What if the mutual fund called you up and said you're not going to get your 401k because we determined you don't need it, our you union told you you look pretty good on you own investments so you don't get to collect you union retirement benefit you paid into.