Social Security
Tags:
- Politics
- Security
Last response: in News & Leisure
Do you think COLA should be eliminated all together?
Total: 3 votes
- Yes or No
-
34 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
-
34 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
- 0 %
- Yes or No
-
34 %
musical marv
December 9, 2012 1:22:35 AM
dogman_1234
December 9, 2012 4:54:44 PM
Related resources
- CPI and Social Security - Forum
- Social Engineering: The Biggest Risk to Internet Security - Forum
- Social Security -should Bush reform the system? - Forum
- More truth about Social Security - Forum
- Your Social Security # might be floating around the intern.. - Forum
mjmjpfaff
December 9, 2012 5:33:14 PM
mjmjpfaff
December 9, 2012 5:34:10 PM
musical marv
December 10, 2012 1:35:23 AM
JAYDEEJOHN said:
Tell that to the mayor of NY cityThat rule of no sugar-sweetened soft drinks over 16.0 fluid ounces appears asinine at first. People will simply get more refills or buy multiple 16.0 ounce containers and get just as many calories from their sugary drinks as before. However, I betcha he realized that both of those will happen and in fact that may even be the whole point of the law. Smaller containers cost more per unit of material than larger ones and thus you will pay more in sales taxes on two smaller containers than on one larger one. New York is mired in debt from rampant overspending on entitlements like any other leftist state. Bloomberg is pretty crafty SOB in being able to sell a tax hike on already highly taxed New Yorkers as a health issue so they don't realize they are really just being taxed.
The Polls are confusing to setup.
I'm all for COLA when it is necessary. Not a COLA for the sake of one. What has been the COLA change in the last 5 years in reality? The question is should SS COLA be pegged against true COLA? I would agree that it should lag 1 year behind true COLA to allow money to fill the coffers before handing it out.
I'm all for COLA when it is necessary. Not a COLA for the sake of one. What has been the COLA change in the last 5 years in reality? The question is should SS COLA be pegged against true COLA? I would agree that it should lag 1 year behind true COLA to allow money to fill the coffers before handing it out.
dogman_1234
December 10, 2012 10:57:04 PM
musical marv
December 11, 2012 1:22:07 AM
MU_Engineer said:
No, because then all there would be to drink is Mountain Dew. Mountain Dew is good but one needs a little variety now and then, and Sprite, root beer, and orange soda aren't all that great compared to Pepsi or Coke.
mjmjpfaff
December 11, 2012 2:59:53 AM
musical marv said:
This is a serious discussion not some dumb remarks you posted to me. 55 million people are worried about this movement from Congress they are dependent on this!And we will make a huge difference on this forum.....
This is for us and our wandering minds not for the 55 million people.
Calm down Marv. The humorous behavior started from you messing up the yes or no answers.
musical marv said:
This is a serious discussion not some dumb remarks you posted to me. 55 million people are worried about this movement from Congress they are dependent on this!Geez, you can't take a joke *at all.*
On topic, Social Security is a pyramid scheme. The only way a pyramid scheme works in the long term is if you make it not a pyramid any more and instead have the current intake equal or exceed the amortized future liabilities. That would mean promise less to people than previously or ensuring that far fewer people get to draw out than are paying in. The first method is mostly a non-starter as who really wants to pay money into a scheme and get less back out than they put in? Also, Social Security covers disability and such and will pay far more out to some people than they ever paid in. We will see some of the limiting payouts with "means testing" of people who took the initiative and saved money for their own retirement rather than blowing it on eight-foot-wide TVs and cigarettes. We will also see an increase of the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes (e.g. all of it) while maximum payouts remain capped. However that will only affect a relatively small number of individuals and raise a fairly insignificant amount of money.
Decreasing payouts to people is what really has to happen as there isn't really that much left to gain from increasing Social Security taxes. Many people are very resistant to decreases in payouts, in fact, many want to see *more* money out of Social Security, hence the COLA increases being talked about. There are a few ways to accomplish that. The first is simply to phase out Social Security. That was what Romney and Ryan were talking about. People over 55 are kept in, everybody younger unfortunately has to pay taxes to give the over-55s Social Security payments but won't get any benefits. Social Security and its taxes would eventually go away as the people collecting Social Security die. That is likely the most politically palatable option as the over-65 set that votes in huge numbers will still get their checks and most people under 40 already assume they will get no Social Security as it will go bankrupt. You'd only tee off the people between 40-54 in doing that, it's not nearly as many votes. The second way is to increase the eligibility age until few enough people are still alive at the eligibility age that they can be paid for by the current workers paying into Social Security. Raising the age has been talked about as well, and met a lot of resistance even though for this method to really contain costs the age would have to go far higher than the 67 that is being proposed. The last way is to simply cut benefits for everybody enough that the amount spent on benefits does not exceed the tax revenue. This is probably the least politically palatable option so it will not happen.
dogman_1234 said:
I thought COLA was adjusted for real inflation?Nope, they keep getting raises regardless. That's kind of the issue, SS is going up faster than the cost of living, so people are getting a lot more than what was intended. SS is not a sole retirement fund. It was designed to supplement your existing retirement and in doing so SS payouts have increased to become a retirement, not a supplemental income.
wanamingo
December 11, 2012 12:17:54 PM
Let me correct myself that I wasn't saying that it was raised each year - that it simply was on a predetermined path to always get an increase regardless. There isn't anything tying it to a COLA based on inflation or anything.
While I would agree COLA has definetely gone up in the last 2 years, I believe SS has far outpaced COLA over the past few years. It needs a correction.
It would take ~2 people making what I make to support 1 person a month on social security getting around $1500-$1600/month. My father was going to get $1500 a month in 2008.
While I would agree COLA has definetely gone up in the last 2 years, I believe SS has far outpaced COLA over the past few years. It needs a correction.
It would take ~2 people making what I make to support 1 person a month on social security getting around $1500-$1600/month. My father was going to get $1500 a month in 2008.
johnsonma
December 11, 2012 4:27:08 PM
johnsonma
December 11, 2012 5:01:00 PM
dogman_1234
December 11, 2012 5:43:33 PM
johnsonma said:
2.4 trillion has been siphoned from the program, I think it would be fine either way if that money had stayed within the program. The overall trend of the tax rate has been dropping since the 60's. In 1986 the top bracket was 50%.You're right. Also recognize that the tax numbers stay pretty much the same instead of expanding out. In the 60s, someone making $100k was doing really well. Not so much today. I agree with Republicans that tax code reform needs to happen, not increased taxes.
The AMT is hitting way too many people. Originally it was designed to only hit the super high income earners. Now it hits a lot of people.. why doesn't that get changed? Because it generates money since the base of tax people has greatly increased. Again, tax reform would fix this.
The bigger picture is tax reform is needed, not higher taxes on a crappy outdated system. Spending cuts are a must.
johnsonma
December 11, 2012 7:45:47 PM
riser said:
You're right. Also recognize that the tax numbers stay pretty much the same instead of expanding out. In the 60s, someone making $100k was doing really well. Not so much today. I agree with Republicans that tax code reform needs to happen, not increased taxes.The AMT is hitting way too many people. Originally it was designed to only hit the super high income earners. Now it hits a lot of people.. why doesn't that get changed? Because it generates money since the base of tax people has greatly increased. Again, tax reform would fix this.
The bigger picture is tax reform is needed, not higher taxes on a crappy outdated system. Spending cuts are a must.
What loopholes would you close/fix?
wanamingo
December 11, 2012 7:48:30 PM
johnsonma
December 11, 2012 8:18:07 PM
wanamingo said:
I never understood this argument either. Romney couldnt say what he would close, and for some reason they think that "Closing Loopholes" is strictly a republican idea..... Its not.Its make sense in way because it makes the tax code much clearer. An example would be that you can afford a more expensive house because you get some of it back through the mortgage deduction. Technically your living beyond your means but relying on the deduction to get by. It would be better to just not have the deduction so people would live within their means but getting rid of it would be the equivalent of increasing taxes on the middle class because of the additional burden on their incomes. Thats why Romney could never say which loopholes he would close because of lot of them would work like the mortgage deduction. Maybe when the economy is growing at a steady pace we could absorb the transition that would happen from certain loopholes being closed, not really sure how much damage it would do right now. I think the best bet would be to phase it out over a few decades if possible. Thats just the mortgage deductions too, plenty more loopholes out there and some are even trickier.
I liked writing off mortgage interest since your first few years you're pretty much paying almost all interest.. and the amount is significant since you're putting that money into the market to be used.
There are a lot of loopholes people use. I would only close ones if the tax rate was lowered to accomodate. For example, the private jet loophole could be closed as previously argued. There are a lot of loopholes out there that I'm not even aware of because I haven't interacted or made enough money to benefit from them.
The tax code is huge. Simplify it with a lower tax rate and no write offs, or far fewer write offs (such as a roof for a house, one time student loans, mortgage interest, charity, religious donations, etc).
There are a lot of loopholes people use. I would only close ones if the tax rate was lowered to accomodate. For example, the private jet loophole could be closed as previously argued. There are a lot of loopholes out there that I'm not even aware of because I haven't interacted or made enough money to benefit from them.
The tax code is huge. Simplify it with a lower tax rate and no write offs, or far fewer write offs (such as a roof for a house, one time student loans, mortgage interest, charity, religious donations, etc).
musical marv
December 12, 2012 1:04:23 AM
riser said:
SS was drying up long before tax breaks. I would argue the last 4 years of +8% unemployment has hurt SS far more than tax breaks.With higher unemployment you have less money going into SS and more people getting paid out SSD.
wanamingo said:
I never understood this argument either. Romney couldnt say what he would close, and for some reason they think that "Closing Loopholes" is strictly a republican idea..... Its not.Romney said that this "loophole closing" was going to bring in the same amount of tax revenue as before but allow for lower bracket rates. That suggests an across the board limiting of deductions and probably limiting of tax credits as well. That would raise the effective tax rate as you have a larger percentage of your income subject to taxation. Lowering the tax rate to compensate for a larger percentage of taxable income would then be "revenue neutral." I am guessing that Romney didn't want to say too much about it as 1) it would give Obama a chance to go on the offense against the particulars of the plan, 2) he may not have had all of the particulars figured out yet, and 3) it would have resulted in popular deductions and tax credits being limited, which would lead to 1) occurring.
The Democrats are likely against such a plan because limiting deductions and tax credits would mean that more people would be subject to having to pay taxes. Romney correctly if inelegantly stated that about half of all people do not pay federal income taxes and that quite a few of them actually get larger refunds than what was withheld due to refundable credits. A good chunk of that population votes Democrat and would be upset if they had to start paying taxes all of a sudden, because they feel only the "rich" should have to do so. The Republicans are for having more than only half of the country paying taxes as people paying taxes tend to be less in favor of large amounts of government spending and thus more likely to vote Republican. There is also the element of fairness in having everybody have some skin in the game. The Democrats also dislike limiting deductions and credits as it would decrease the social engineering and giveaways that the tax code is increasingly being used to accomplish. The Democrats do far more of the social engineering with the tax code than the Republicans and the Republicans would like to take this power away from the Democrats. Many Republicans are also against the idea of government social engineering in the first place.
Personally I am in favor of a flat tax. It is the most logical and most efficient way to collect revenue- subtract a standard exemption from your gross income and then everybody pays the same percentage on that. Can't get any simpler or more equitable than that, and you get rid of all of the perverse incentives and moral hazards in our current tax code. The Republican proposals to limit deductions are good as it moves the tax code closer (albeit only a tiny step closer) to the flat tax method.
musical marv said:
SS is solvent until the year 2033 and it has it's own private fund.Social Security is not its own private fund. What actually happens is an accounting trick that would make Arthur Andersen proud. The payroll taxes collected for Social Security get immediately used to pay for Social Security benefits for current beneficiaries. If anything is left over, the federal government takes it and puts it into general revenue. They however give the Social Security Administration an IOU in the form of a T-bill when Social Security revenues exceed expenditures like they have from the program inception up until the past couple of years. The SSA has been paying out more in benefits during the past couple of years than it has been taking in, so it calls in the IOUs from the feds and the difference between SS revenue and expenditures comes out of general revenue. There are quite a few IOUs from the feds left in the SSA which is why you hear people say SS is "solvent until the year XXXX." However those T-bill IOUs are not actual money, they are debt. The government lent itself money and claims it as an asset instead of as debt. That's trying to make something from nothing and one of a long reasons why the federal government is in much worse shape WRT debt than the federal government is letting on.
Oldmangamer_73
December 12, 2012 12:07:33 PM
gamerk316
December 12, 2012 12:24:49 PM
For reference, simply removing the upper limit on the payroll tax (which funds SS) would make the program solvent for the next century or so (according to CBO estimates).
Alternatively, you could also increase revenue into the pot by having more eligible workers. Fixing the immigration system would accomplish that.
Yes, lets tax the guy making $10k a year at 10%. Then complain when the costs of Medicare, Medicade, and just about every other Federal aid program skyrocket as a result (probably by more then the extra revenue you bring in). Taking money away from the lower/middle classes is economic idiocy at its finest.
Lets call a Flat Tax for what it is: A tax hike on 90% of the country, and a tax cut for the other 10%.
The only true flat tax would be an across the board sales tax on non-essential items. Even that is unfair though (favors established business over startups, for instance).
Hence why at no point have any of the said loopholes been named during negotiated. Because theres no way to close $800 Billion worth of them without cutting some really popular ones. And that would be political suicide.
Alternatively, you could also increase revenue into the pot by having more eligible workers. Fixing the immigration system would accomplish that.
Quote:
Personally I am in favor of a flat tax. It is the most logical and most efficient way to collect revenue- subtract a standard exemption from your gross income and then everybody pays the same percentage on that. Can't get any simpler or more equitable than that, and you get rid of all of the perverse incentives and moral hazards in our current tax code.Yes, lets tax the guy making $10k a year at 10%. Then complain when the costs of Medicare, Medicade, and just about every other Federal aid program skyrocket as a result (probably by more then the extra revenue you bring in). Taking money away from the lower/middle classes is economic idiocy at its finest.
Lets call a Flat Tax for what it is: A tax hike on 90% of the country, and a tax cut for the other 10%.
The only true flat tax would be an across the board sales tax on non-essential items. Even that is unfair though (favors established business over startups, for instance).
Quote:
The problem is they are calling legal deductions 'loopholes'. Pay attention to the language. They use the term 'loophole' for a reason. To someone who has a mortgage, its a deduction. To someone who doens't, it's a 'loophole'. Hence why at no point have any of the said loopholes been named during negotiated. Because theres no way to close $800 Billion worth of them without cutting some really popular ones. And that would be political suicide.
Oldmangamer_73
December 12, 2012 1:14:45 PM
You can't elminate the SS upper limit unless you want to start paying them SS on that income as well. The upper limit was created to be truly fair.. and now you're arguing to make the system unfair by removing it.. do you propose to pay more on SS then? Or maintain same levels and make the system unfair as it was originally made a fair system..
chunkymonster
December 12, 2012 1:29:50 PM
dogman_1234 said:
Wasn't Social Security an option as well? You could pay into it or not?The notion that SS was voluntary comes from the fact that not all jobs, only about half, at the start of the program were covered by the SS law and required to pay FICA taxes. So, a person could have worked in a job not covered by the SS law and not pay the FICA tax; in that sense it was "voluntary" in that a person could choose a job not covered by the SS law. However, as more jobs became covered by subsequent laws, which is almost ALL jobs, the idea of SS being "voluntary" was legislated out.
There area few exceptions to the jobs covered by SS laws, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.
chunkymonster
December 12, 2012 1:45:43 PM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
I'm kinda of leaning towards getting rid of all deductions and lower the rates. That seems to be the most fair among all income brackets.Most of the argument against a flat tax come from big government types not wanting to lose the stranglehold the current tax code has on the people. Progressives also argue that a flat tax would hurt lower income people, but considering the rhetoric about everyone "paying their fair share" and considering 47% of the population (mostly lower income families) has a 0% federal tax liability, the narrative of a flat tax hurting lower income families seems be an exercise in class warfare more than ensuring tax liability fairness.
I am all for a federal flat tax...
musical marv
December 13, 2012 1:22:48 AM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
The problem is they are calling legal deductions 'loopholes'. Pay attention to the language. They use the term 'loophole' for a reason. To someone who has a mortgage, its a deduction. To someone who doens't, it's a 'loophole'.
chunkymonster
December 13, 2012 2:03:25 PM
riser said:
@Chunky:Reality of is, States have a flat tax and local sales taxes are generally flat. It works well. In fact, here in Tennessee we pay around 9.25% to 9.50%. The benefit of that is more money stays local instead of going up to the Feds.
I'd much rather pay a higher rate at the State level and a lower rate at the federal level, knowing my money would stay local, much like TN, rather than like it is now, with NJ paying the Feds only to receive bloc grants to maintain social programs.
A comparison of NJ to some flat tax States has shown that high income earners shoulder less of a tax burden that the same income levels in flat tax States, which IMO leads to the corruption that NJ has become infamous for; same concept with a progressive federal tax.
This gets us to the point of excess.
If it were done the right way, excesses wouldnt be that great, states would retain their rights and monies, and the feds would be much smaller in reach.
The excesses would then have to more wisely used, where the needs are to be meant, and frivolous attempts at spending it would be frowned upon
Just a thought.....
If it were done the right way, excesses wouldnt be that great, states would retain their rights and monies, and the feds would be much smaller in reach.
The excesses would then have to more wisely used, where the needs are to be meant, and frivolous attempts at spending it would be frowned upon
Just a thought.....
musical marv
December 14, 2012 12:56:00 AM
chunkymonster said:
When you research countries that have adopted a flat tax, the results and realized benefits are hard to argue against. Heck, when former soviet bloc countries dump the progressive tax (currently used in America) for a flat tax, it speaks volumes about how they view their national budget and providing societal benefits.Most of the argument against a flat tax come from big government types not wanting to lose the stranglehold the current tax code has on the people. Progressives also argue that a flat tax would hurt lower income people, but considering the rhetoric about everyone "paying their fair share" and considering 47% of the population (mostly lower income families) has a 0% federal tax liability, the narrative of a flat tax hurting lower income families seems be an exercise in class warfare more than ensuring tax liability fairness.
I am all for a federal flat tax...
I can see two main reasons for continuing to have the current tax structure:
1. The multiple deductions and exemptions allow for the politicians to exercise a lot of power in that they get to determine what gets the special treatment and what does not.
2. The progressive tax rate allows for the statists to tax individuals who are unlikely to vote for them and give the money to people who are more likely to vote for them in an attempt to cement themselves in power. Plus the whole class warfare rhetoric makes the recipients of the pilfered money feel good about it and further help cement the statists in power.
Simply taxing income on a percentage basis to provide revenue to the government accomplishes none of those goals and actually is harmful to most politicians and especially the statist ones. Increased government size and spending would cause an increase in taxes on everybody- and thus provides a significant negative incentive to grow the government and thus limiting the government's power and influence. That is why I bet we'll never see a flat tax with the current government we have. Also, a flat tax would simply be too high to actually pay for the amount of spending we have. I estimate about 50% of all income over $15,000 would be required to balance the budget. Not too many people would sign up for that, especially not people who now pay little to nothing in taxes.
JAYDEEJOHN said:
This gets us to the point of excess.If it were done the right way, excesses wouldnt be that great, states would retain their rights and monies, and the feds would be much smaller in reach.
The excesses would then have to more wisely used, where the needs are to be meant, and frivolous attempts at spending it would be frowned upon
Just a thought.....
What you are describing is how the nation was initially set up. The 16th Amendment had to be passed to allow the government to levy the income tax as the Constitution did not allow the federal government to tax citizens of the various states and then put the money into general revenue. The tax money obtained from income taxes would have been required to be returned to the states. The income tax was started under our first socialist president, Woodrow Wilson, and significantly expanded upon by FDR. There are various reasons why this was done, one of which was because the federal government wanted to be able to use the supremacy clause of the Constitution to force states that didn't want to fall in line with what the White House and Congress thought to have to do so. This came again to a head in the 1960s with the states' rights movement when some states tried to fight LBJ's Great Society and some of the civil rights legislation. The idea of states having any rights retained to them by the 10th Amendment was pretty well killed by the late 1960s and any attempt to bring the topic back up always gets met with accusations of racism by the statists, even though the issues being fought over now don't have anything to do with race relations.
Oldmangamer_73
December 14, 2012 11:56:46 AM
To me, taxing one's earned income is immoral. The government should tax commerce, and economic activity, not someones labor.
But, like you say MU_E, politicians will never give up the power the current tax code gives them to choose the winners and losers in society.
I also want to destroy the false narrative that the tax code has anything to do with raising revenue for the governement. It doesn't. The tax code, as currently constituted, is social change tool for the ruling elite. Nothing more.
But, like you say MU_E, politicians will never give up the power the current tax code gives them to choose the winners and losers in society.
I also want to destroy the false narrative that the tax code has anything to do with raising revenue for the governement. It doesn't. The tax code, as currently constituted, is social change tool for the ruling elite. Nothing more.
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- SolvedIs Social Engineering a viable career option? Forum
- SolvedMax Payne 3 for pc doesn't work? Social club account not working...! Forum
- SolvedCan my Social Club automaticly update itself? Forum
- GTA iv - social club password Forum
- SolvedHow do I stop Netflix reading my Social Network cookies? Forum
- GTA IV Black Maximized window after social club then crash Forum
- SolvedQuad core, Social Gaming $600-700 Forum
- Server requirement for maintaining database of employees and provide social networking within the portal Forum
- want to play max payne 3 in offline mode, but when i start the game on my pc it asks social club pass, but i want to play offl Forum
- GTA IV won't start up after logging into social club? Forum
- buying social accounts? Forum
- even toms is infiltrated with social engineers. Forum
- Social Discussion on Life Question. (Qoute given) Forum
- Looking for gaming social networking app, like xfire. Forum
- Looking for a source code of a social network using java programming Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!