That is so not the bigger picture.We are living longer.
We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is so not the bigger picture.We are living longer.
We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.
The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.
I told you.
5.4% were over 65 in 1935.
9% were over 65 in 1935. That means there remained a SMALLER percentage in the workforce than 1935.
Today, 15% over 65, which means a MUCH SMALLER percentage in the workforce than 1935.
A shrinking percentage working, supporting a growing percentage in retirement.
And you are working from the assumption that the cap on taxable income remains in place. My proposal removes the cap. That's one of the key components of it. So when you were posting that chart before, about how many people it takes to provide benefits for one person, that's working off the assumption that the cap remains in place. What happens if you remove the cap?
The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.
No, the number is not shrinking. There are more Millennials + Gen Xers in the workforce than there ever were Baby Boomers + Silents. The number is rising.
75,000,000 Millennials
68,000,000 Gen Zers
141,000,000 Total
74,000,000 Boomers
28,000,000 SIlents
103,000,000 Total
The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.
Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't.
At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia
That is so not the bigger picture.We are living longer.
We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.
141,000,000 Total.......
103,000,000 Total
1.37/1 ratio.......getting worse.
Exactly. Here's the problem. It's very difficult to get hired when you are past 50 or so. The idea we are going to put 70 year olds back on the job market so that we can pay for tax cuts for rich people is just silly.
I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handedThat is so not the bigger picture.We are living longer.
We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.
Exactly. Here's the problem. It's very difficult to get hired when you are past 50 or so.
The idea we are going to put 70 year olds back on the job market so that we can pay for tax cuts for rich people is just silly.
You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.
Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't.
At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia
You can put out whatever babble you want, but they had every right to strike to address working conditions that were putting safety at risk.
141,000,000 Total.......
103,000,000 Total
1.37/1 ratio.......getting worse.
No, getting better because Boomers and Silents are dying off.
Also, that ratio could be a problem if you're not finding the solve by removing the cap on taxable income and taxing all forms of income.
There's not a single reason as to why there has to be a cap on taxable SS income. Donald Trump only pays 6.2% of $127,000 towards Social Security. Which is the same percentage someone who makes $53K a year pays. That's fucking stupid. Remove the cap on taxable income, cap benefits for higher earners, lower the retirement age, and expand benefits. That way, you get the older, obsolete workers out of the workforce and replace them either with younger workers, or robots built and maintained by younger workers.
It benefits no one to have someone work to age 70. In fact, it harms the economy.
You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.
How much is "a bit" in your world? And what liabilities are being incurred?
You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.
From PBS: "What Impact Would Eliminating the Payroll Cap Have on Social Security?"
Question: How much revenue would come into the Social Security Trust Fund each year and how far out would Social Security solvency be extended if the payroll cap were to be eliminated?
Paul Solman: I’ve just gone back to a story we did on this very subject back in 2005 with Columbia finance professor Stephen Zeldes, “Raising Tax Cap Explored as Way to Close Social Security Gap,” and here’s what I reported at the time:
“Removing the cap entirely, thereby imposing a flat tax of 12.4 percent on all earnings — essentially a $100 billion a year tax increase on the wealthy — would more than completely close the funding gap.”
More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:
“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”
As life expectancy rises and birthrates decline, the ratio is getting worse..
You want to turn it into a welfare program?
Careful, you'll reduce support for it.
I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handed
A bit. Not enough to push back the depletion of the trust fund more than a few years.
You double the tax collected from someone, you double (not exactly, close enough) the benefits they are due.