Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Cap on payroll SS income tax

Reply

Old 10-27-2019, 08:56 PM
  #41  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,605
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Actually I have. Cut everyone below 40 off of the program. No more tax collected. Means test everyone who is retired. Cut them off if they have the 300k average or income of 30k/year or so. Those over 40 live with what SS has in the system. When it's done it's done. This will mean adjusting pay outs to an ever decreasing amount until it done. Those in the 50s still have time to plan. Those in retirement, had years of voting and squandered their responsibility.
You don't think this is a little ah... sociopathic?
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 03:40 AM
  #42  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,487
Default

It seems like that solution just moves the inequity from young to old. A solution might come if funding could come until the people in the pipeline are gone and the younger workers are put into a privatized but regulated savings system. It seems like we give billions each year to other countries in the form of foreign and or military aid. I dont know if we are the only ones doing that but if other industrialized countries dont then we are being taken advantage of. We give others money but aren't willing to take care of our own??? In addition our government has gotten too big with far too many redundancies. Streamline the biggest business in America which is the government and funding could come from that. Eventually when the existing pipeline is dry all workers could be on that privatized plan which is self funded.

Last edited by Champlain Islander; 10-28-2019 at 04:07 AM.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 06:55 AM
  #43  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,605
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
It seems like that solution just moves the inequity from young to old. A solution might come if funding could come until the people in the pipeline are gone and the younger workers are put into a privatized but regulated savings system. It seems like we give billions each year to other countries in the form of foreign and or military aid. I dont know if we are the only ones doing that but if other industrialized countries dont then we are being taken advantage of. We give others money but aren't willing to take care of our own??? In addition our government has gotten too big with far too many redundancies. Streamline the biggest business in America which is the government and funding could come from that. Eventually when the existing pipeline is dry all workers could be on that privatized plan which is self funded.
Yeah, if we really are going to end or drastically change SS something like you suggest is worth considering as a plan.

As for foreign aid this has been a question since we were young. It's good to be generous and there is certainly a need in this world. But like every thing else, the burden should be divided on a more or less equal basis. (maybe it is and we don't know). But we certainly have given more to defense of our allies which I guess Trump is trying to address.

CI, it's not accurate to say that our government is a business it certainly is not. But on that point a business can and will go "out of business". Just as a fully funded private plan will certainly suffer from fluctuations and eventually fail. Our government and anti poverty programs must stay in operational condition. The world wide trend had been social safety nets ever since the last world war. The whole goal of attacks on these systems seems to be freeing up money for the investment houses to gamble with and increase their wealth. It's a simple money trail to follow and as a retiree you certainly have to time to educate yourself. (I'm actually going deer hunting today how about you?)

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 07:54 AM
  #44  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,487
Default

Raining here and only a few days left in bow season. I'll get out a bit later and finish up some property chores to get ready for winter. have to empty and clean my fishing boat and get that ready for winter and covered up. I have a few items left down on the beach to bring up to the house and find some straw to cover the garlic. I have been battling a sore knee so I didn't bow hunt this year plus fishing for crappie has been my choice of things to hunt for. Hopefully I'll be OK for rifle when it opens in a couple weeks. I have seen some figures on the percentage of local, state and federal employees in the USA and some figures say 14% which counts contractors. I believe the largest single employer in the government is the USPS followed by the military. We need the military but what's the story on the USPS which loses money every year due to declining business along with high overhead and has competition in the private sector. Then look at all the related bureaucracies within the government which all have redundancies such as human resources. IRS is another giant which stays alive due to a complex tax code that invites fraud. One would think it should be easy to simplify the tax code and eliminate the IRS as it is today. There has to be a fix for something like that but like the SS question is something our under worked and over paid government leadership fails to deal with. Nope I think our government is a business whose sole purpose is to grow and they are doing a great job at that.

Last edited by Champlain Islander; 10-28-2019 at 07:57 AM.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 09:24 AM
  #45  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,558
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Yeah, if we really are going to end or drastically change SS something like you suggest is worth considering as a plan.
Now we're getting to a discussion. Since you don't like anybody else's plans, what would you propose to fix the looming SS problems?

As for foreign aid this has been a question since we were young. It's good to be generous and there is certainly a need in this world. But like every thing else, the burden should be divided on a more or less equal basis. (maybe it is and we don't know). But we certainly have given more to defense of our allies which I guess Trump is trying to address.
Maybe if our foreign defense spending was reduced a bit, we could have more for domestic spending (including SS) or even to balance the budget.

CI, it's not accurate to say that our government is a business it certainly is not. But on that point a business can and will go "out of business". Just as a fully funded private plan will certainly suffer from fluctuations and eventually fail. Our government and anti poverty programs must stay in operational condition. The world wide trend had been social safety nets ever since the last world war. The whole goal of attacks on these systems seems to be freeing up money for the investment houses to gamble with and increase their wealth. It's a simple money trail to follow and as a retiree you certainly have to time to educate yourself. (I'm actually going deer hunting today how about you?)

ATB
Just my impression but I believe that CI was commenting on the growth characteristics of the federal government. I does continue to grow and often is fiscally irresponsible in how it administers programs. There probably are some people who want to reduce SS or other programs to free up money for investment houses (not sure how that linkage occurs and you didn't explain how either). But, I think it's a mistake to accuse everybody who wants to fix SS as having a mutual "whole goal of attacks on these systems seems to be freeing up money for the investment houses to gamble with and increase their wealth."

Maybe I missed it but from what I've seen, everybody who posted about changing SS seems to want to fix the funding issues and/or not give younger Americans a raw deal. Nobody mentioned that any proposed changes would help their investment accounts, etc.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 07:24 PM
  #46  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,841
Default

Well, I thought SS was an anti-poverty program. So let's cut back the benefits to the poverty line is what 16 or 18k per year? Meanwhile, just posting this shared by a good friend of mine.
Attached Thumbnails Cap on payroll SS income tax-fb_img_1572315687294.jpg  
Fieldmouse is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 09:54 PM
  #47  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,605
Default

Now we're getting to a discussion. Since you don't like anybody else's plans, what would you propose to fix the looming SS problems?
My proposal is simple. Fund it so that it can keep doing what it's been doing so well.
Maybe if our foreign defense spending was reduced a bit, we could have more for domestic spending (including SS) or even to balance the budget.
Maybe.
Just my impression but I believe that CI was commenting on the growth characteristics of the federal government. I does continue to grow and often is fiscally irresponsible in how it administers programs. There probably are some people who want to reduce SS or other programs to free up money for investment houses (not sure how that linkage occurs and you didn't explain how either). But, I think it's a mistake to accuse everybody who wants to fix SS as having a mutual "whole goal of attacks on these systems seems to be freeing up money for the investment houses to gamble with and increase their wealth."
I have not seen a plan that didn't propose eliminating or limiting the most successful program we have. They all do propose moving the funding of SS from the budget and placing it in private investments. By the way, the part about Federal employees growing is not accurate. The last figures I saw put federal employees at an all time low as a percentage of the over all employment.

So, I'm not sure where you got the idea their numbers have grown.

Maybe I missed it but from what I've seen, everybody who posted about changing SS seems to want to fix the funding issues and/or not give younger Americans a raw deal. Nobody mentioned that any proposed changes would help their investment accounts, etc.
I not sure how you came to this conclusion. I guess you don't read FM's posts either. lol
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 05:36 AM
  #48  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,487
Default

That shows federal civilian employment which has gone down as you pointed out. My comment was for all government employees which includes local, state and federal which also has military. Some states such as NY and places like Washington DC have a very high ratio of "government employees". There are lots of agencies within the government and from my limited knowledge all have their own hierarchy such as human resources, IT etc.The government is huge and growing and the list above is just agencies within the government not to mention agencies within the Legislative and Judicial branches. My point was that there could be some dramatic streamlining of both budget and employees if someone really wanted to save money.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 08:21 AM
  #49  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,605
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
That shows federal civilian employment which has gone down as you pointed out. My comment was for all government employees which includes local, state and federal which also has military. Some states such as NY and places like Washington DC have a very high ratio of "government employees". There are lots of agencies within the government and from my limited knowledge all have their own hierarchy such as human resources, IT etc.The government is huge and growing and the list above is just agencies within the government not to mention agencies within the Legislative and Judicial branches. My point was that there could be some dramatic streamlining of both budget and employees if someone really wanted to save money.
CI, the numbers do not support your claim that government is huge and growing. They in fact tell another tale. California for example (the Great Satan to some republicans) has among the fewest state and local employees per 10,000 citizens. Sparsely populated Wyoming and Alaska have some of the highest. So, it's hard to compare state to state as they all vary greatly in population, geology, and weather. Many of the job titles/positions you posted above are agencies which serve a specific purpose. Their heads are often appointed which means they are deemed worthwhile by our president. As we voted for him we must approve of his methods right? In the end the Government provides services which the civilians use. Fuel, electricity, museums you name it.

Now, we are talking about SS. SS employees tend to be state employees paid by the Federal SS administration. As I've said before it's one of the most successful programs we as a people have ever put in place. I've yet to hear a rational argument for limiting or ending this program. Most of the ideas put forward are not based on facts but on "the sky is falling" theatrics. I get the feeling SS has become a whipping post for those anti-government radicals we all laugh at.
It's a program fund it.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 08:31 AM
  #50  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,487
Default

It is and has been a successful program which has been funded. My point was there is money to fund now and in the future. If funding becomes a problem there should be some efficiencies available to transfer money into the system without cutting benefits off for anyone. Personally speaking I would rather see foreign aid cut out before funding cut off for our own SS. If more money is needed run the government business more efficiently. From what I can see nothing is run well in government. USPS loses billions most years and that doesn't seem to concern anyone.
'll add this...I never was concerned about paying into SS. It was a given and part of working for a living. They withheld around 6% of my wages and my employer paid another 6 % which were part of my compensation. Later on my wife opened up a real estate business and she paid the full amount since she was self employed. That money came out of my check just like federal and state withholding. I always felt that the program would continue and still do.

Last edited by Champlain Islander; 10-29-2019 at 08:38 AM.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service