Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn't address my graph showing how the 1% did so much better than the rest of us in the past few decades. Their small contribution to SS & Medicare would bring the income classes closer to balance.
You obviously don't get the wealth distribution differential, or you wouldn't be whining about removing the cap and a measly 0.50% tax increase to save SS for the rest of us. Look at this graph of "net worth":So what does the 1% have to do with this other than targeting them for additional taxation? The top 20% of earners in this country already pay 83% of all collected income taxes for the rest of us, while the bottom 45% pay nothing in federal income tax. Now we need to find a way to tax them more?
dqydj.com
You obviously don't get the wealth distribution differential, or you wouldn't be whining about removing the cap and a measly 0.50% tax increase to save SS for the rest of us. Look at this graph of "net worth":
This is where liberal Democrats try to push their side of the immigration issue in order to save Social Security. We really need Trump to win in 2024 to head this off.
How about we just end it and pay people back the money they put in plus their employers contribution if they choose? If they want to stay and get 1200 a month then stay. The rest of us can bail out.SS has a trust fund and "trustees". They issue annual reports. Its fairly easy to "fix" SS if the DC coxuckers would just pass a fix or two:
1. Lift the cap (GOP hates this fix)
2. Raise the retirement age slightly (Dems hate this fix)
3. Increase the tax slightly (both parties hate this fix)
4. Add in ALL new Federal, State, and local government workers, eliminating other "cushy" pension plans.
5. Do all 4.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html
No elders would do what smart people do now. Have private retirement accounts. I’m quite comfortable because I planned ahead, SS is a small part of my budget. I’d have pulled out of it in my early twenties if the government would have let me. Some of my friends and crunched the numbers and saw it was a losing proposition way back in the seventies.What......no mention of a 'ponzi scheme' yet?
If SS didn't exist, the elderly would be screwed EVEN more than how (R) have already screwed them.
How about we just end it and pay people back the money they put in plus their employers contribution if they choose? If they want to stay and get 1200 a month then stay. The rest of us can bail out.
Yes, exactly.No elders would do what smart people do now. Have private retirement accounts. I’m quite comfortable because I planned ahead, SS is a small part of my budget. I’d have pulled out of it in my early twenties if the government would have let me. Some of my friends and crunched the numbers and saw it was a losing proposition way back in the seventies.
Yes, exactly.
Invest that money like 'smart people.' or people that make more than they spend per month.
That's the problem.
A). If you make $1,000 a month and your expenses are $1,200, you need to find a way to cut that $200 out of expenses.
B). If you make $1,000 a month and the SS takes $40 and expenses are still $1,200, you now need to find a way to cut expenses down by $240.
Both A and B are doable. And B creates a "forced savings plan of $40" per month.
That $40 per month is saving older people today.
They would have spent that $40, not invested it, if the G hadn't saved it for them.
C'mon man.So what you're saying is we need to force everybody on a no interest savings social plan because some people are not responsible enough to save for the future?
C'mon man.
Ray, you are taking this out of context.
Fact is, SS was set up years ago. 1935.
Whatever SS originally was, politicians have manipulated it.
Of course saving money and investing it yourself is the best option.
I'm just saying that some early current elder members had a plan from the government and that they (not all, but Most) WOULD NOT have saved any extra money, they would have spent it, and therefore had nothing in retirement.
Some (not all) live on their SS benefits.
If not for those minimal SS benefits, We the People, would be paying even more to keep our elderly alive and afloat.
Ok, one last time. That was part of the 1935 plan.Okay, I'm fine with that as I said, but you failed to address my point that if we are going to force people to save for their retirement, why not give them other options to do so like conservative private plans?
Go ahead and run on ending SS, see how many votes you'd get.How about we just end it and pay people back the money they put in plus their employers contribution if they choose? If they want to stay and get 1200 a month then stay. The rest of us can bail out.
The democrats want us all to forgive college loans taken voluntarily but they don’t want us to be able to collect on our earnings they forcibly took from us. Seems kinda fucked up.
1. You are not sending the bill to anyone, we are all still paying into SS. Its just that the cap would be removed so the uber wealthy pay the same percent as the rest of us, an equal percentage, as you prefer.I do have a problem with providing social services to the rest of the public and sending the bill to a small group of people. If we want these social programs, then all of us should fund them equally. If it's too expensive to fund them, then we need to work on a plan to phase them out and get a better plan.
If the wealthy pay a lot more into the system, then when they collect, they should also get a lot more back.
1. No they did not pay in the same as you or I did, looking at the percent of income. The 1% need to pay their fair share since they out-gained the rest of us for decades. I'm not a liberal, but I do need SS & Medicare to survive.
View attachment 534047
2. Not 68, you can get SS at 62. To fix SS remove the cap & raise the tax 0.50%. The ages can stay where they are.
3. Stop whining about taxes. An 0.50% raise in SS isn't a big deal, and it fixes SS forever.
4. In 2034 the General Fund will be paying a $trillion or so on interest on the Debt. The General Fund is BROKE. There will be heads on pikes all around DC if SS and Medicare aren't made whole.
IdiotSocial Security is a SOCIALIST PROGRAM that was always meant to buy votes and rob taxpayers.
S.S. was gonna be broke by 1970. No, I mean 1980. Wait, wasn't the 1992? Or was it 2001, I forget...Canada has a similar problem but a longer horizon. This is why people like me despise crony capitalism. It's often just theft. Help out small to medium sized innovative companies not massive multi-billion dollar companies.
What happens if this prediction comes to fruition?
Social Security won't be able to pay full benefits by 2034, a year earlier than expected due to the pandemic | CNN Politics
Social Security will have to cut benefits by 2034 if Congress does nothing to address the program's long-term funding shortfall, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the Social Security and Medicare trustees.www.cnn.com
Washington (CNN)Social Security will have to cut benefits by 2034 if Congress does nothing to address the program's long-term funding shortfall, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the Social Security and Medicare trustees.
That's one year earlier than reported last year. By that time, the combined trust funds for Social Security will be depleted and will be able to pay only 78% in promised benefits to retirees and disabled beneficiaries.
The Covid-19 pandemic and economic recession are to blame for moving up the depletion rate by a year, driven by the big drop in employment and resulting decline in revenue from payroll taxes. The trustees also project a higher mortality rate through 2023 and a delay in births in the short term.
But it remains unclear what the long-term effects of the pandemic will be on the funds and the trustees will continue to monitor developments. Last year's report did not take into account the effects of the pandemic.
The projections for Medicare are roughly on par with last year's report.
The trust fund for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital and nursing home costs for seniors, will be depleted by 2026, the same year as reported last year. At that point the program would only be able to pay out 91% of promised benefits.
