Something needs to be done to save Social Security, and even that spritzer drinking Duke fan will tell you that means either raising more revenue (taxes) or paying out less benefits.
Something has to give and these proposals by the fat fucker are much better than the left's solution of removing the cap on earned income. Here's how I look at it, I NEVER expect to get a dime out of SS, I am 56 one of the last of the baby boomers and I know they will continue to "move the goalposts" on me and I will never see a dime of my own money, I have accepted that fact and I am actually fine with it as long as they can only steal about fifteen grand a year from me. What I am not fine with is letting these thieves take fifteen percent of every penny that I, and every other business owner makes with no cap.
Let's say a business owner (as opposed to a stock or real estate speculator who "earns" nothing) runs a successful business and makes a million bucks a year. That person now pays about $15,000 a year in personal payroll taxes. remove the cap and that same person is now paying ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS in personal payroll taxes alone. If you were a business owner, wouldn't you prefer giving up a potential couple of grand a month to avoid paying millions of dollars in payroll taxes for other peoples retirement who are either too lazy or too stupid to fend for themselves?
I believe in a safety net for people who otherwise would be out on the street, and I am willing to chip in $15,000 a year that I will never see again to do so, but I am not willing to pay millions of dollars in what was pitched as "insurance" into this giant ponzi scheme.
He is planning to run with these proposals on his presidential campaign.
1. Increase max benefits age fro 67 to 69.
2. Increase medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67
3. Allow workers over 62 to not have any more social security tax taken out.
4. minimum age to get benefits from 62 to 64.
5. Benefits phase out for income over $80,000/year and go no existent if retire income is over $200,000 a year.
6. Retires making with over $85,000 in income will pay 40% of medicare costs.
7. Retires making over $196,000 in income will pay 90% of medicare costs.
How long do you think he will last in this presidential campaign ?
These proposed provisions start in 2040.
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150414/NEWS0605/150419538/0/NEWS0612
Means testing my ass. Ranks right up there with Hillary's "it takes a village".
Talk about creating a huge disincentive for people to save. If you thought income verification and manipulation is a brilliant idea under Obamacare, you'll love this potential intrusive and expensive investigation of income and asset holdings.
Maybe Christie is testing the waters to see if something like this gets traction in the polls before he pulls the trigger. Nevertheless, I too may have to vote for the old lady, but I wouldn't put it pass her to pull this same kind of crap.
1. Increase max benefits age fro 67 to 69.
2. Increase medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67
3. Allow workers over 62 to not have any more social security tax taken out.
4. minimum age to get benefits from 62 to 64.
5. Benefits phase out for income over $80,000/year and go no existent if retire income is over $200,000 a year.
6. Retires making with over $85,000 in income will pay 40% of medicare costs.
7. Retires making over $196,000 in income will pay 90% of medicare costs.
How long do you think he will last in this presidential campaign ?
These proposed provisions start in 2040.
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150414/NEWS0605/150419538/0/NEWS0612
Something needs to be done to save Social Security, and even that spritzer drinking Duke fan will tell you that means either raising more revenue (taxes) or paying out less benefits.
Something has to give and these proposals by the fat fucker are much better than the left's solution of removing the cap on earned income. Here's how I look at it, I NEVER expect to get a dime out of SS, I am 56 one of the last of the baby boomers and I know they will continue to "move the goalposts" on me and I will never see a dime of my own money, I have accepted that fact and I am actually fine with it as long as they can only steal about fifteen grand a year from me. What I am not fine with is letting these thieves take fifteen percent of every penny that I, and every other business owner makes with no cap.
Let's say a business owner (as opposed to a stock or real estate speculator who "earns" nothing) runs a successful business and makes a million bucks a year. That person now pays about $15,000 a year in personal payroll taxes. remove the cap and that same person is now paying ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS in personal payroll taxes alone. If you were a business owner, wouldn't you prefer giving up a potential couple of grand a month to avoid paying millions of dollars in payroll taxes for other peoples retirement who are either too lazy or too stupid to fend for themselves?
I believe in a safety net for people who otherwise would be out on the street, and I am willing to chip in $15,000 a year that I will never see again to do so, but I am not willing to pay millions of dollars in what was pitched as "insurance" into this giant ponzi scheme.
I get it that changes need to be made, but means testing is going way too far.
People make really bad decisions in life, especially when it comes to money. I'm not going to allow a politician to dictate to me that although I did all the right things as it relates to savings, investing and managing money, I have to forego what is rightfully mine.
I'm not talking about the those that have had to work hard, unable to save because of limited income, and only have social security to rely on. I'm talking about those who will benefit because of really bad life decisions. Christie is talking about starting the phase out of SSN at the $80K level. If you did all the right things that you were expected to do as it relates to the current behavioral based tax code (401K, IRA, home ownership, blah, blah, blah), now all of a sudden you are being punished for it.
Means testing is a penalty on thrift. It creates a huge disincentive to save. A means test undermines the principle that benefits are an earned right. It would also mean a much more intrusive IRS and Social Security as applicants would have to go through investigations of their income and asset holdings, which would have to be done on a yearly basis.
I get it and understand your disdain for the Patriot Act and Obamacare. This shit takes it another level.
Eliminate the payroll cap on SSN, and/or change the retirement age. I was fine with most of Christie's ideas, but not means testing.
P.S. And what about certain government workers that DON'T have to contribute to SSN because of their government pensions. Are we going to means test them?
Eliminating the payroll cap could easily cost me a hundred grand a year, before I retire, making it that much harder to actually retire, You do the math.
Besides, that fat fucker is NEVER going to be POTUS anyhow. The dems never liked him and his sucking up to Obama will cost him the trust of the Reps.
I hate to agree with Laffy, but there is no easy fix, at least means testing means "shared pain" while eliminating the cap means small business owners will most likely carry most of the burden.
I've never come close to that "income" point so I never thoroughly researched it. But if someone who earns millions annually is paying SS on no more than $200 to $300K I'd think they could 'save' some of those monies not "taxed" to offset the costs endured if they are so unfortunate to be earning $80,000+ annually after age 65.
That is as long as the cap remains. For the record SS only applies to "earned income" none of this effects the uber rich you hate so much because very little of their income is subject to SS in the first place.
But let me further agree that I don't expect to "need" SS when I retire, quite frankly if I need SS to retire, I won't retire in the first place unless it's for health or other such reasons.
maybe the definition of 'earned income' needs to be changed to start having the 'rich' who have little or no income participate in sharing the contribution. And means testing. And stop the 'cheating'. And stop giving (or stop a pending discussion of how to pay SS to illegals). combination of new ideas has to get implemented soonest.