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 10-29-2019, 08:59 AM
  #51  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
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.
Okay. Yesterday I spent most of my hunting time talking with the property owners who are good friends. The Bucks are starting to chase around here so, in around 2 hours of sitting I saw one young buck chasing a yearling doe and another buck I couldn't make out very well through the trees. Considering the corn is still up that's not too bad.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 09:48 AM
  #52  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,555
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
My proposal is simple. Fund it so that it can keep doing what it's been doing so well.
So this isn't really a discussion. I asked you "HOW" you proposed to fix SS and your response is basically just do it like this is some kind of commercial. Based on this proposal of not making any changes to SS, money for the program will decrease and benefit amounts will be cut. Apparently you agree with Congress who are also doing nothing to resolve the upcoming problem.

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.

You do like your graphs and pictures. Unfortunately, they only show part of the information.

In 1947 (at the start of your graph), the fed collected $38,514,000,000 and spent $34,496,000,000 for a surplus that year of $4,018,000,000.
In 2018 (last full year), the fed estimated they collected $4,029,856,000,000 and spent $4,443,145,000,000 for a deficit of $413,289,000,000.
In 2019, the fed has projected they will collect $4,226,119,000,000 and spend $4,728,791,000,000 for a deficit of $502,672,000,000.

Just for reference, the fed has been running a deficit every year since 2002 which exceeded $1 trillion in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. If you add up the deficit for all of those years (2002 through 2019), the aggregate total deficit spending is $11,024,253,000,000. That's $11 Trillion or almost years of the entire federal budget.

Using the actual # of $$ spent each year, most people would say that the fed has grown. If you consider the # of programs, befits, beneficiaries, etc., people would still say the fed has grown. If you look at the deficits since 2002, most people would say the government has apparently grown too big since it cannot fund all of its' expenses.


http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats...et_history.htm


CalHunter--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
I did read FM's posts (see quotes below) as well as all of the other posts in this topic. It was hard to come to any other conclusion given the standard dictionary definitions but perhaps you are using some non-standard dictionary?

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
My apologies for not taking your points and addressing them directly. This is a topic I want my generation to step up and break the mold. Do the right thing even though it's going to cost us big time. The youth shouldn't get screwed like those of us who are nearing retirement. ...
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
I've already pointed it out in this thread. Cap the payout so the recipient can only receive a total income in the 30k range Max / year. Also make it wealth based just like other welfare programs. This would allow the payroll tax collected each paycheck to be dramatically reduced and allow the individual to save that money in their own retirement account. For anyone who claims the individual can't do better than the government? BS, the government spends that money the instant they receive it.

Any calls to raise retirement age or uncapping the upper limit of income that is taxed, only screws the younger generation who had nothing to do with or had a chance to fix the existing system. Retirees need to have skin in the game when it comes to the fix.

Last edited by CalHunter; 10-29-2019 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Correct #'s
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 11:15 AM
  #53  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I did read FM's posts (see quotes below) as well as all of the other posts in this topic. It was hard to come to any other conclusion given the standard dictionary definitions but perhaps you are using some non-standard dictionary?
Cal, if you have read all of FM's post. I'm sure you have noticed that time and again he's made it clear he wants private investments to take the place of the best anti-poverty tool we have.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 12:02 PM
  #54  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,482
Default

Not to say that private investments aren't a better way to peel that onion. Down the road ss may morph that way but the arguement is what about the people in the pipeline. I have to belive if the actuaries devise a different plan going forward that a no loss transition for current enrollees will be part of it.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 01:38 PM
  #55  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,555
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Cal, if you have read all of FM's post. I'm sure you have noticed that time and again he's made it clear he wants private investments to take the place of the best anti-poverty tool we have.
I have read FM's post Mickey. All of them. I aware of his proposals (there have actually been more than 1) and their details. There are some recurring themes in all of his posts. Privatize SS. Take SS away from the fed. SS as it currently stands is going to screw younger people who are just starting out in their working careers. I have consistently asked you what YOU would do and you keep ducking by saying just pay it. Not how to fix or address the shortcomings. What are YOUR ideas on how to do that? Not some pundit or opinion piece. What does Mickey Finn think and why? Surely you have some ideas on the subject. Other than merely disagreeing with FM.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 02:31 PM
  #56  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I have read FM's post Mickey. All of them. I aware of his proposals (there have actually been more than 1) and their details. There are some recurring themes in all of his posts. Privatize SS. Take SS away from the fed. SS as it currently stands is going to screw younger people who are just starting out in their working careers. I have consistently asked you what YOU would do and you keep ducking by saying just pay it. Not how to fix or address the shortcomings. What are YOUR ideas on how to do that? Not some pundit or opinion piece. What does Mickey Finn think and why? Surely you have some ideas on the subject. Other than merely disagreeing with FM.
Cal, I've gone into detail about what the "problem" is with SS funding. The solution is in fact funding. I'm sorry if that's not interesting to you but it's the solution none-the-less.

If they want to raise or eliminate the cap I'm fine with that like I said before. If they can channel money from defense spending outside our borders (with the affected countries making up the difference) I'm fine with that. I would like to see folks with lower benefits who had retired many years ago being brought up to current benefit levels.

Otherwise, the program as it exist today is fine with me.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 04:00 PM
  #57  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Athens, TX for now.
Posts: 7,681
Default

I say we double the FICA deduction on every union hack in the nation to help alleviate the issue. After all, the non union citizens have had to bail the union hacks out many times. Call it payback. Won't solve the problem but at least we can recoup some of our $$$.
flags is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 04:46 PM
  #58  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,555
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Cal, I've gone into detail about what the "problem" is with SS funding. The solution is in fact funding. I'm sorry if that's not interesting to you but it's the solution none-the-less.
Not really on details other than telling us that it's an "anti-poverty program." And now it looks like you're telling us/me that the solution is "funding." I'm not sure how you decided this isn't interesting to me with our back and forth posts.

If they want to raise or eliminate the cap I'm fine with that like I said before. If they can channel money from defense spending outside our borders (with the affected countries making up the difference) I'm fine with that. I would like to see folks with lower benefits who had retired many years ago being brought up to current benefit levels.
So you're basically okay with whatever "they" decide to do. Or not. You could have indicated that in the beginning.

Otherwise, the program as it exist today is fine with me.
ATB
Finally, we get to your bottom line. The program as it exists today is okay with you. That pretty much ends the discussion of how to fix the program.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 06:51 PM
  #59  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,555
Default

CI, I read an article from Motley Fool that was dated 2016 but it had some interesting information on the subject.

They quoted some poll results on what changes to SS that Americans support percentage-wise and put forth some ideas on how to fix the funding problems for SS. They said that "gradually increasing the payroll tax to 7.2%" would eliminate 52% of the funding gap and "gradually eliminating the earnings cap over a 10-year period" would eliminate 74% of the funding gap. In their opinion, both changes would eliminate 126% of the funding gap and could be used to raise the minimum benefit to the poverty level which they said would be about 20% higher than the current minimum.

It was an interesting proposal that was written in 2016 using 2015 data but I imagine the figures would at least be in the ballpark for this year. Certainly something to research further.



https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016...-you-away.aspx
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 07:31 PM
  #60  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,834
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Cal, if you have read all of FM's post. I'm sure you have noticed that time and again he's made it clear he wants private investments to take the place of the best anti-poverty tool we have.
funny, no skin in the game. Let's start taxing your wages at 12.4% to fix the funding problem. you seems to want to raise everyone's taxes but your own.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service