Major Social Security trust funds could be tapped out by 2033: CBO

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...y-trust-funds-could-be-tapped-out-by-2033-cbo

so here’s the question. Who’s okay with their taxes being raised by 4.9% just to pay social security? As far as I’m concerned, no I’m not okay with it. I can take that money and invest it better on my own which would likely give me a better retirement anyway. However, as for the folks on social security they are going to get mad at that response because if we don’t they will get less money. My response to them, cry me a river. That’s what you get for trusting government to begin with. I don’t count on social security being there for me although I have put into it for the past 27 years. I look at it more like theft, it’s paying for someone else retirement but screwing me out of my money. So no I don’t care. I say get rid of SS

 

I've read in this forum that they'll likely cut benefits to 70% of what they should be. We will have less but get by and the system won't go broke.

 

Well that's not going to happen, and the way the Social Security is designed you can't really get rid of it without pulling the rug out from under a hundred million people, nor are you going to be able to replace the program because of the transition costs (trillions of dollars). So yes, you are going to need to increase payroll taxes. Do I think they should be raised 4.9%? No. But it needs to be raised enough to keep doomsday 30 years or so away until we can come up with something better.

 

Oh we definitely can pull the rug out and I don’t see why we can’t. It’ll screw me too out of my money but I could care less. It would give me more to invest in my own.

 

Virtually no one has that opinion. Meaning that it's not politically possible and if you cede the ground to the Democrats for a Democratic solution, you'll get a Democratic solution and you'll probably like that a lot less.

So you can be open to realistic ideas to save the programs, or continue living in la la land and you'll get something like this:

House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation

 

I began paying into Social Security on my first paper route back in 1964. I'm getting an 8% raise in benefits this year and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

Okay… I can concede that a 4.9% increase in payroll taxes is better than that option. If they done that though, I think they would find it to be unconstitutional being they are confiscating property and that according to the 5th is unconstitutional without just compensation. So I doubt that’s constitutionally possible.

 

And what about the elderly who rely on it? The character of a country can be seen by how the elderly are cared for.

 

Can I get an Amen! My first SS deduction happed at my first job working in a Mexican restaurant back in 1972. I was 15. The program does need to be fixed but the UE rate is a clearly a lie. The actually number of non-retired eligible workers are not counted. These are people who could pay into SS if they had jobs. And there are actually quite of few of these folks. Let's put these folks back to work before we start talking about raising rates. And while we are at it let's look at government spending? Does any one disagree that the government waste tons of money?

 

republicans want to kill social security

 

yes, republicans want to cut social security rather then just raising the caps a bit for the rich, it's amazing

 

agree, lets crack down on excessive foreign imports and excessive foreign outsourcing and bring the jobs home

 

About 30 years ago, that cap was $80K. My accountant then said if they simply raised that to $110K, SS would be solvent. She was a radical Republican, with a book very critical of FDR on her shelf (Don't recall the name). I don't know this is a partisan issue.

 

Covid taught us that globalization is detrimental to many economies. If a country can manufacturer a product it should.

 

when I say Republicans, I mean Republicans in power, most Republican citizens support Social Security

 

Agreed. This could be very popular (raising caps to ensure SS is solvent) yet, it isn't happening.

 

A bit you say? The national debt is over $30T because all of those caps over the years were "raised a bit." Where does the borrowing of money end?

 

I didn't trust government and I was still forced to pay into Social Security. I have taken what my lifetime contributions were and with just an average 5% annual return calculated the much better retirement I could be enjoying. And forced I was so any reforms will have to transitioned so that current benefits are protected. We don't have time to make up any difference.

I say transition to a partial privatization so that those still in their middle years can have time to build up an even better retirement when they reach it. A 401k type using broad based securities over time building PERSONAL wealth which YOU own.

The question is which party is more apt to move us in that direction? Which party is even trying to address it?

 

Define "a bit" and of course their benefits would have to be increased to be fair wouldn't they. It IS a retirement system the more you contribute the more you get.

 

Maybe you needed a better one. Here is what was being said 30 years ago when it was being proposed


The Impact of Removing Social Security's Tax Cap on Wages

January 19, 1999
.....To answer the question of whether it is possible to save the Social Security system by changing the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes, Heritage analysts relied on government data and a leading econometric model of the U.S. economy.6 Specifically, they chose to examine the impact of a change in the cap that would raise the largest amount of revenue and thus have the best likelihood of restoring the system to full solvency. That change involves eliminating the wage cap and subjecting all labor income to the Social Security subjecting millions of American families to a massive hike in payroll taxes. And it would harm their economic prospects by slowing economic growth and reducing their employment opportunities.

The Heritage analysis, based on the SSA's own projections, shows that eliminating the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax would generate only enough revenue to push back the date of the system's bankruptcy a few years. It would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history,8 subjecting millions of American families to a massive hike in payroll taxes. And it would harm their economic prospects by slowing economic growth and reducing their employment opportunities.

Specifically, eliminating the cap on taxable wages would:

• Result in the largest tax increase in the history of the United States--$425.2 billion in nominal dollars over five years.9
  

• Fail to save Social Security from bankruptcy; it would push back the system's insolvency date by only six years, from 2013 to 2019.10
  

• Increase the top federal marginal effective tax rate on labor income to 54.9 percent,11 its highest level since the 1970s.
  

• Reduce the family budgets of 23.4 million Americans by an average of $9,147 in the first year alone after the tax cap is removed.12
  

• Weaken the economy by reducing the number of job opportunities by 219,000 in 2004 and the amount of personal savings by $34.4 billion that year as well.13
  ..........

....Despite the massive hike in the tax burden, eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would not save the Social Security system; it would only extend its solvency by a mere six years. Even after implementing this tax increase, the Social Security system in 2042 would have enough revenue on hand to pay only 79 cents on every promised dollar in benefits. Either payroll tax rates would have to be raised or promised benefits would have to be cut. In short, eliminating the Social Security maximum taxable wage cap will do little good and too much economic harm.


MUCH more in detail here
https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/the-impact-removing-social-securitys-tax-cap-wages

 

We could come up with an age warning bracket, I’m okay with that. Not 100% okay with it but I would say I would accept it.

 

Age warning?

 

First, Social Security was established on and is on solid actuarial data. It is financially sound. The problem is that SS money gets included in the general budget, so
all the SS trust fund has is a bunch of IOU's from the federal government.

Second, even if more money is needed to meet the obligations, there are a number of very simply adjustments that can be made. First, raising the retirement age. Second, lifting the cap on wage contributions. Third, NOT MIXING THE SS money into the general budget.

Of course Republicans want to privatize SS. It's another in their long list of welfare items for the wealthy. Imagine private investors getting their hands on SS money and then speculating with it. It would make Enron, Madhoff, the S&L ripoff and the Sub-prime speculation disaster look like petty larceny.

 

All due respect, if I had a dollar for every time I watched and heard a politician say that, I'd be rich The only difference is the date it will become insolvent.

 

And what would you rather those surplus funds be invested?

The retirement ages will have to go up because people simply live and work longer. Instead of 65, as was the age when I first started working, I retired at 67. People in their mid-life should plan on 68 at the least more like 70 by then. Raise the contribution levels then you have to raise benefits accordingly and it will not fund future needs as I cited above.

Yes the return on those funds need to be increased and people take some ownership of their contributions. And I know of no such proposals that would allow such speculation with those monies can you cite me a few?