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

it's called killing two birds with one stone, why just solve one problem when you can solve two

 

So rich people don’t deserve the money they put into social security? I’m lost on this argument, it doesn’t sound like something you would support.

 

I don’t support it at all. Social security is not a tax and if you turn it into that I would strongly appose it. Social security is suppose to be a retirement savings, not a wealth redistribution. I would argue to raise the retirement age to 70 at a minimum or get rid of SS at a best

 

To "self correct", somebody has to get screwed which in my opinion is a failure of the program regardless if it continues on or not.

 

Not the rich, why aren't they paying SS taxes on ALL their income like you and I do? SS wouldn't be in any trouble if they would.

 

That’s not true, they would still be in trouble because when they retire they have to pay it back. Social security should not be a wealth redistribution scheme. People are all too often greedy for money that is not theirs.

 

But it would help if they had to pay their fair share ... why are you opposed to that.

 

Its not so much about what you think you deserve, but about balancing what is collected and what is paid out, so that everyone can be covered to some extent. As of now, lower income people pay the payroll tax out of 100% of their income, while higher earners are capped at $160K and the rest is payroll tax-free.

How do you figure the "greedy" part? Your pay-out is based on how much you paid into it, except if you put a lot, then you get a flat dollar amount (the max).

As for raising the cap, - if does not have to result in higher pay-outs.

 

Fair share is such a BS argument. Who are you to say what anyones fair share is. Social security is not a tax and if it is then why have separate? It is also not designed to be wealth redistribution as you are advocating for.

 

Is IS redistributive by design.

 

I'm and American, I have a right to my say in the debate; that's who I am. So, I agree, SS is not a tax, but why don't the wealthy pay in on ALL their income like the rest of us. Pro_Line answered your question about payouts.

 

What part of law makes SS redistributive? I understood it as you get what you put in with the added inflation adjustment. It’s more or less a savings program that the government can not save because well, the government is ran by the very people who can not save and attack those who do. So why expect our government to act any different

 

The original idea was that ALL paid and ALL benefited, some would obviously pay more and benefit less, others wouldn't be able to pay as much but would still benefit.

There is nothing wrong with the rich paying back to a society that provided them with the infrastructure, laws and labor that made them rich in the first place.

 

Its designed to collect from the working people to pay for the retired ones, so its redistributive by design. Private account system, which I would prefer, is not redistributive. The current system does have a requirement that you get what you paid in while you worked (until you max-out), so there is that, but its still redistributive because of its design.

 

SSI is insurance, its not a 401k. Given the ups and downs of the stock market, be thankful you will have SSI when you retire as insurance. Just raise the limits we tax and then cap the benefits for the very rich. Plus we have a FIAT currency, we can never run out of money we can create at will.

 

Where in the original idea does it suggest that some benefit less? Point to the law that states this

 

SS was designed to pay a set amount to everyone but those paying in would pay a part of their income, the more you made the more you paid.

 

The more you made the more you got back. It is no set amount.

 

Not originally. Even today it's disproportionate.

 

DUH it's not a 401k which belongs to the person funding it.......it's a pension fund. Had the money I had contributed all my working years been invested in the stock market my retirement would be at a MUCH higher standard. Raise the contributions on some raise the benefits and don't use it to rip those whom you believe owe you something. And yes we can never run out of printed money we can print tons of, but happens to the value of it? Have you not paid attention to inflation recently?

 

yes, the rich will get a new 2% bracket for payout

https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...es/how-much-you-will-get-from-social-security

90% for the first $1,115
32% for the remaining earnings up to $6,721
15% for earnings over $6,721
2% for earnings over $12,500 <---- new for income from $150k to the SS income tax cap

we need to do it soon though, should have done years ago

 

The argument is trying to extend the life of the Social Security program. Raising the cap does put more money into the program now, but you end up owing more benefits to the upper income people later, so my point was that it's not a real good fix. I wasn't passing judgement on who deserves, or doesn't deserve anything. Anyway I thought you wanted to just go ahead and end the program now and just let the rioting begin?

 

What do the above numbers represent? The max benefit is $4,555, and in order to get that, you much be 70 and have reached the 'max-out' point with your payments during your career.

 

it's how social security decides your monthly check... based on the highest 35 yearly (with the wage index) income divided by 12

then you can also get cola's on top of that, so if you retire at 67, you get all the cola's from 62 to 67 applied to the amount you get at 67

 

I think you are mistaken thinking someone gets $12,500 in SS payments, because they are capped.