In the book "The World according to Laffy" Every rightie speaks for ALL righties, but each leftie speaks only for himself. Unless of course Laffy agrees with said rightie, and then by definition that person is not a "Real" rightie. Got it?
I would send you a copy of the rather poor selling book, but the rest of it is mainly rolling eyes, lessons on how to speak only in hyperboles and how to set your hair on fire and type at the same time....When Social Security was enacted 80 years ago, Alf Landon said the Soc. Sec. trust fund contained "worthless IOUs." Chris Christie said the same thing during the last Republican debate. Who knows, in another 80 years, the Republicans may actually be right about this issue - if the party is still around.
...come up with anything new so they have to go back 80 years for the same trite talking points? That's what the OP is about. Speaking of trite, how about some more of your subject-changing posts since you obviously have nothing with which to respond to the OP?
and I'm sure many, of both parties, will use the line in the future.
to say Christie stole it from Alf is rather dishonest of you but what's new.
Also how do you know that Alf was the first to say it, maybe he stole it from someone.
You're welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way
-- Modified on 10/30/2015 10:22:54 PM
"Also how do you know that Alf was the first to say it, maybe he stole it from someone(?)" Social Security was enacted in 1935, Landon ran for President in 1936. "Maybe he stole it from someone(?)" WHO?
"Maybe" someday you dishonest righties will actually have some facts before calling others "dishonest." Meanwhile, go ahead and have the last word as you are wont to say, and continue with your factless, ad hominem posts. You continue to demonstrate what kind of person you are and continue to be a shining example of your political persuasion.
-- Modified on 10/30/2015 10:43:06 PM
"So" again you take the bait.
"So" you go ahead and put your dishonest, distorted, misguided spin on it and have the last word.
"So' also how about you update us on how many times I've used that line and since you are So obsessed with me link a post of mine, from your archives, that has nothing to do with the topic.
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way
BTW "So" you want me to name one.....Ha I do not take orders from you but apparently you do from me (as you will post a reply and take the last word). "So" since you have nothing else to do look it up yourself there are actually dozens who have said it over the years
-- Modified on 10/31/2015 8:55:51 AM
-- Modified on 10/31/2015 9:07:49 AM
BWAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Look at what a simple Google search of "worthless IOU's" brings up, go ahead and take your pick from any of the dozens of references to "worthless IOU's" where it comes to SS.
I would think it's pretty easy to break this issue down on philosophical lines. We should all be able to agree that SS is in trouble. Less people entering the work force coupled with people living longer makes SS unstainable without one of two major changes, or some combination of the two. Either the system needs to pay out less, screwing the people who paid into it for decades like you and me, OR the system needs to take in more money, also screwing people like you and me.
Here is where I largely agree with lard ass Christie. Giving the system more money will only give the politicians a bigger fund to loot as the system is still solvent today, which means the new revenue will get "stolen" for other purposes, just like the old money was stolen. I know ST C disagrees with the other solution vehemently, but in order to save the system if guys like me (if I don't go broke in the meantime) who don't need SS to survive have to pass a "means test" or preferably an income test, or maybe some combination of the two, where if you make $200,000 a year or more, you are eligible for SS. Even if that means that I don't get a red cent back on the money I put it, I can still live with this solution if it means keeping seniors in need from getting tossed out into the street.
That could be part of a solution but it wouldn't save all that much (depending on the setting of the means test of course). There already is a cap on the SS retirement payments to the "rich". They don't get paid any more in SS payments than a person whose income was just at the annual cap.
The testing in retirement solutions wouldn't penalize those people that were "rich" while they were young but ended up broke or not so rich in retirement.
But there already is means testing. For a means test in retirement to be designed correctly I think a change is needed in the way wages are treated differently from investment income. If a person is making $200K in wages they wouldn't be eligible for much SS payment today. 85% of their SS income is subject to federal income tax plus they are still paying SS tax at either 6.2% or 12.4% for self employed.
So, assuming you made the cap every year until retirement in 2015 your
Annual SS benefit = $31,956
x 85% = $27,163 taxable
minus x 33% marginal tax rate = $8,964 fed tax (39.6% if your in the $400K bracket)
minus 12.4% of $118,500 cap = $14,594 (use 12.4% even if not self employed since the money is going into SS system regardless)
Total net to you = $31,956 - $8,964 - $14,594 = $8,298 ($6,506 if in $400K bracket)
It wouldn't take much adjustment to relieve you of this remaining $6K to 8K.
Now, if your income is non-wages there's no means testing (other than the $31,956 cap).
-- Modified on 10/31/2015 12:07:11 PM
and yes I completely agree the system for means testing needs a lot more than a tweak to save the system. I think it should be much more slanted towards actual need. If a person has $500,000 a year coming in from dividend or other passive income that person is most definitely not in "need" of SS income. The same thing goes for a person with a ten million dollar bond fund who is only drawing less than one percent and whose actual income is less than $100 K.
If SS is going to be saved, and be saved without stealing more money from a person than he could ever receive back in benefits unless he lived to be a thousand is to make serious cuts in who gets to feed at the trough, the amount they contributed not withstanding. Lard Boy was correct when he said that the reality of the situation is the "Money is gone" Fair has already gone out the window as the only way to give every worker who paid into the system his "fair share" is to steal even more from the next generation and the more we steal from the next generation the closer we move to real socialism. It's a shame that our generation is going to be the one footing the bill, but it's not like we haven't seen this coming for decades. I knew twenty plus years ago that I most likely would never see a nickel of all the thousands and thousands of dollars that I have paid in, so none of this is exactly a surprise to me. As long as I am "rich" they can keep my money, but it would be a bit reassuring that if I were to go broke in my senior years the system would still be around to provide the basics for me.
Well, I’m not rich. Richer than most but I’m only a couple of years from retirement and I am counting on SS. If I live to present life expectancy (which I doubt) I’ll get back 190% of what I put in (that includes both halves since it was really mine to begin with as part of the total cost of employing me). That's 190% over 42 years with no adjustments for inflation. Not really a very good savings strategy but one strange thing is how some view it as not fair that I am getting back more than I put in. Of course that was the big original lie that somewhere along the way it was sold a savings for retirement plan.
Simply treating unearned income the same as earned income makes all high income people on the same field in my SS example. But I doubt that’s where most of the money shortfall fix exists. Then there’s the 6 Trillion already stolen (i.e borrowed) and spent by other federal departments, which of course is only a third of the 18 Trillion hole we’ve dug, but of course we can’t even get them to consider putting down the shovel. The even bigger problem is Medicare (where federal spending now exceeds SS) and of course nothing done so far does anything significant to curb actual health care costs. Ben Carson’s ideas are spot on (no real plan yet though). I’ve posted the same ideas here several times to essentially change to a system where the dollars actually flow through everyone’s personal checkbook and make them responsible for watch-dogging the prices, no differently than any other consumer market
for income. But please tell me you are NOT suggesting wealth testing? You open up wealth testing, you're opening Pandora's box for the liberals. How do you define wealth? Are all assets on the table? I can only imagine the unintended consequences!
There are not enough rich people to have a meaningful impact to SS. I think you said in your earlier post, but at the peak of SS, there were 3.4 workers to for every retired SS recipient. Today, we are down to 2.9. Add the fact about the quality of the 2.9. We need more immigration. We need more quality immigration. This is one of the reasons Germany is willing to take in 1M refugees, specifically Syrians.
You used the word "need" in your 2nd sentence. Just that word reminded me of that famous Bernie Sanders quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Maybe it wasn't Bernie (lol)
-- Modified on 11/1/2015 7:06:40 AM
I will agree that there are only 2.9 workers for every retired SS recipient, but that number is not down from a peak of 3.4, which would be a rather modest, easily tweaked problem to solve. In fact at the height of SS, there were over 40 workers for each retiree, this is a problem that is unlikely to be reversed without some serious changes to the system. At a 15% combined contribution from both employer to employee how in the fuck are only 2.9 workers supposed to support a retired person. The numbers just don't work. We need to drastically reduce the numbers of people feeding at the trough.
Doing away with Social Security altogether is simply not an option, so IMO the least of the evils is to make SS the ultimate safety net, and make it VERY difficult to qualify, it's either that or steal more of my money, and government already takes too much of it already.
There are of course other things than can and most likely will be done, like moving the goal posts for people in our age group, pushing the age you can receive benefits back further and further so the likes of you and me will most likely never be eligible.
One last thing, the threshold where I would instate wealth testing was so high, I believe I mentioned a number of $10,000,000 that it would effect very few people. Actually I believe a lower number would be fair, I see no reason that someone with a net worth of lets say $5,000,000 in assets other than their primary residence should be feeding at the public trough that is in such danger of collapsing completely. We aren't talking about what is "fair" here, it's a matter of making tough choices in the face of a reality that won't just go away.
You said $10M, then you adjusted to $5M. Why not $1M. It now becomes a moving target, and if one party controls all 3 branches, like the Democrats, you are giving them carte blanche to go after anything and everything. Look how the goal posts for estate tax changes?
It's the unintended consequences that bother me, and it happens in every tax legislation. How many different taxes were increased or created to support Obamacare?
There is something like 9M households with a million dollars in investable assets. I'm going to go out on the limb and say that 95% are just millionaires ($1M - $9.9M). The impact on SS for that 5% is miniscule. Is it worth going after that 5% of 9M multi-millionaires? Not with the potential of unintended consequences.
Income testing at $200,000 based on your AGI is fine.
Doing away with Social Security altogether is simply not an option, so IMO the least of the evils is to make SS the ultimate safety net, and make it VERY difficult to qualify, it's either that or steal more of my money, and government already takes too much of it already.
There are of course other things than can and most likely will be done, like moving the goal posts for people in our age group, pushing the age you can receive benefits back further and further so the likes of you and me will most likely never be eligible.
One last thing, the threshold where I would instate wealth testing was so high, I believe I mentioned a number of $10,000,000 that it would effect very few people. Actually I believe a lower number would be fair, I see no reason that someone with a net worth of lets say $5,000,000 in assets other than their primary residence should be feeding at the public trough that is in such danger of collapsing completely. We aren't talking about what is "fair" here, it's a matter of making tough choices in the face of a reality that won't just go away.
The number of people that are worth more than $10 MM yet make less than $200K a year are probably not enough people to be worth opening that particular door.
I do believe that ALL income needs to be counted against that $200 K threshold, that includes all passive income as well, and I am completely aware that this does open the door to lowering that threshold to $150K someday, or even $100K. I just don't see any other way to save the system, but as I have also said, I never expect to see a dime anyhow.
Today, a self employed person who is at full retirement age making $400K in wages, that has reached the SS cap over his lifetime, is eligible for the maximum $32000 in SS income. Yet he only receives $6500.
Make these changes:
1) Instead of just wages, make ALL AGI above ~$40K, subject to SS tax with an increased cap of $200K.
2) Change taxable upper limit on SS benefits from 85% to 100%
At those set points you have a net $0 from SS. A $200K income results in a net +$1500.
Adding reductions to SS benefits at some wealth threshold for those that have income lower than an aggressive investor just creates further social engineering. Just like all the QE and extremely low interest rates has forced CD and Bond money into the market, so will this. Today, a $5 to $10 million cash position will only generate about $50K to $100K in guaranteed income. Start taking away their SS and you will force them into riskier investments. If they are already more aggressive the increased SS tax take goes way up.
Much better than if the dems get their way and rather than simply losing any claim to SS, your hypothetical senior citizen would end up paying $60,000 a year into a system that is supposed to be paying him back at this stage of his life instead.
As anyone who is self employed is painfully aware "self employment tax" is currently 15.3% that mercifully caps at $118,500 in 2015 and reduces to 2.9% on all income above $118,500. If Bernie gets elected, what do you want to bet that sometime in the next four years that cap gets eliminated and your hard working senior citizen sees his payroll tax spike to a whopping $60,000 a year as a reward for remaining a productive citizen in his golden years?
Your hypothetical $400K unearned income would pay about $25K into the SS/MC system and if they'd capped out over the years they would pay about $13K in income tax on their $32K SS benefit.
Their net new payment to the feds would be $6K.
Under today's rules they receive $21K.
Removing the present $118.5K cap would also result in theoretical future benefits proportionally greater as well. Of course Bernie wouldn't let that happen
all I ever hear is "Lets tax the rich!!!" I suppose people who make a 118,501 are now "rich people" who need to pay more.
Where did you ever hear about these "theoretical future benefits" that are greater than what we have now? First I have ever heard any mention of them.
Theoretical is my phrase, nothing you would have read.
I've always wondered how the benefits were exactly arrived at or decided. Sure, their annual increase is tied to inflation (or so they say) but where did the base number come from? One assumption was there would be a fairly stable or strict relationship between the maximum taxable cap and the maximum benefit. In order to qualify for the maximum benefit one must earn at least the taxable cap for the most recent or highest 35 years. I've had an eyeful of AIMEs (Average Indexed Monthly Earnings), PIAs (Primary Insurance Amounts), Indexed Wage Base and Bend Points.
http://financialducksinarow.com/1962/social-security-bend-points-explained/
http://financialducksinarow.com/1949/social-securitys-pia-what-is-this/
There should be a proportional (at least long term) between the maximum taxable cap and the maximum benefit. I discovered there is but the ratio of the two has been steadily decreasing (at least since 1987 which as far back as I went).
In 1987 the annual cap was 4.6 times the annual max benefit. The ratio has been steadily decreasing pretty much year after year and is now only 3.7. So my original statement was based on my assumption that if the cap doubled the max benefit would roughly double (of course not unless they wanted it to double). You can't find this ratio published or even find the two sets of data on the same web page.
Another interesting fact I found is that for the last couple of decades the level of the cap has resulted in (or due to) the fact that only 5% of all earners exceed the cap. I now personally think this fact sets the cap.
-- Modified on 11/2/2015 1:57:10 AM
Under any circumstance that the government chooses to "sock it to the rich" by eliminating the cap, there is ZERO chance that they will vote to give any of that money back to those "evil rich people"
Lets take a ridiculous (but plausible) example, Let's say you are a hard working business owner still going strong well into your late sixties knocking down $10,000,000 a year. Removing the cap would put his SS obligation at $1,530,000 for the year. Do you really believe that under lets say a Sanders administration our hard working senior would now be eligible for a SS benefit in the mid six digits? If you do I have a nice, slightly used bridge I would love to talk to you about.