I am not sure most are aware that the SS tax is the least progressive, meaning those less able to afford it are taxed at a much higher percentage than those who will never "need" it. For those who argued that "they have paid into it", remember it is there as a supplemental program devised to keep people from being in abject poverty at the latter end of their lives. It was developed after the Great Depression, and acted as sort of a welfare program, but for the elderly who had lost everything.
The SS tax is progressive but so is the benefit. People who paid in the most get the lowest return on their contributions.
Not true. Your SS payments are based on the average of your highest 40 quarters. The higher you earned and paid, the higher amount you will receive.
Good post, but I think you are not being aggressive enough with this. Raise the cap on contributions to a very high number, like $250M. Early take is fine, but lower the amounts offered early. Full to a higher age, possibly 70. Latest to start drawing could be 75, but with a lower percentage increase than current levels.
I am not sure most are aware that the SS tax is the least progressive, meaning those less able to afford it are taxed at a much higher percentage than those who will never "need" it. For those who argued that "they have paid into it", remember it is there as a supplemental program devised to keep people from being in abject poverty at the latter end of their lives. It was developed after the Great Depression, and acted as sort of a welfare program, but for the elderly who had lost everything.
People who are not aware that SS is not very progressive, are people who have not paid any attention, obviously.
But part of the entertainment of these boards is all the trolls whose comments are based on no attention to actual issues at all, but just insults and inflammatory kindergarten level stuff. It is just part of the charm of the site.
fake news. it's "progressive" relative to life around the great depression, when granny might have lost her wealth and retirement when the bank folded (before FDIC) and the stock market cratered. we have also shifted away from set income contribution pensions towards accounts. your employer contributes a sum then washes its hands of your old age.
what happens if granny has her money in PNC and it folds. what happens if granny has her non-SS retirement in a fund and either the market crashes or the fund company blows up?
people need to take an effing history class.
and if the last election taught anything, it should be that today's working class wants the whole class helped and not a bunch of special interest/identity politics stuff. in other words, "progressive" needs to be "help everyone." even if it hands Joe Rich some funds too.
People who are not aware that SS is not very progressive, are people who have not paid any attention, obviously.
But part of the entertainment of these boards is all the trolls whose comments are based on no attention to actual issues at all, but just insults and inflammatory kindergarten level stuff. It is just part of the charm of the site.
fake news. it's "progressive" relative to life around the great depression, when granny might have lost her wealth and retirement when the bank folded (before FDIC) and the stock market cratered. we have also shifted away from set income contribution pensions towards accounts. your employer contributes a sum then washes its hands of your old age.
what happens if granny has her money in PNC and it folds. what happens if granny has her non-SS retirement in a fund and either the market crashes or the fund company blows up?
people need to take an effing history class.
and if the last election taught anything, it should be that today's working class wants the whole class helped and not a bunch of special interest/identity politics stuff. in other words, "progressive" needs to be "help everyone." even if it hands Joe Rich some funds too.
You need a course on reading comprehension. By progressive, we mean those who earn the least pay the highest percentage of taxes on their income. The Marxist that you are defined the word incorrectly, and had to argue nonsense that was unrelated.
It should be modified so that people don’t get it if they don’t need it, but that will probably not happen because cutting social security is incredibly unpopular
Wrong. It should be modified so that slugs who never paid into it, don't work and claim bs disabilities because they are addicted or lazy or both don't get a damn thing.
I've paid into it since I was 16. I'm 58 now. For the last 12 years, I've paid the max. Since I have a pension, I only get a fraction of "my benefit."
It should be modified so that people don’t get it if they don’t need it, but that will probably not happen because cutting social security is incredibly unpopular
If you mean the very wealthy should not be eligible, I agree. I also think the wage limit for contributions should go up. I believe the current maximum is only for the first $250-500K. That is far too low to keep is afloat.
So you would fundamentally change it from a safety net, retirement system into a welfare transfer program?
More like a forced savings program where the if you are a good investor you get nothing. Retire in debt and get someone else's savings transferred to you.
Thats the mantra of the left: Incentivize incompetence, indifference and bad behavior while foolishly expecting less of the same.
If people like you hadn't voted for Trump/Republicans, this commonsense idea might actually be viable! But now it's just an absurd fantasy. Republicans want to gut social security, not raise taxes on higher earners to ensure the program remains solvent.
No, the Democrat solution was to continue flooding the country with open borders and then give them amnesty so they'd start paying into the system. (Never mind that they would eventually become additional SS collectors too, so it only kicks the can down one generation until we'd need another round of mass immigration.)
If they wanted to lift the payroll tax cap, they would have done it in 2021. Or 2009 for that matter.
SS is nice but we knew better than to have to rely on it.
pity those who need it to get by.
Such a typical and awful post from you. You're an old fart and have happily been collecting SS for years no doubt. Your medical care is also likely covered by Medicare, so kudos for you and yours while you happily pull the ladder up behind you.
Typical cruel, ugly right wing attitude. I hope you too suffer in coming years.
Help me out here. You tell someone they are "cruel and ugly" in one sentence. Then, in the very next sentence, you "hope they suffer in the coming years." Tell us who is "cruel and ugly" again.
Not true. Your SS payments are based on the average of your highest 40 quarters. The higher you earned and paid, the higher amount you will receive.
Low wage earners get a bit of a "bump up" in payments, I believe. I can see people thinking that scenario to be unfair.
Everyone pays 15.3% of their income. That is capped at an amount that is too low for the current situation. If that is the bump in payments you refer to, you are mistaken. If you mean payments to them, and not from them, then any bump for lower earners would not be enough to make a difference that anyone should complain about.
We tried to tell you back in 2000 that SS wouldn't work out in the long haul. W tried to add private accounts but you dummies blocked him.
If Trump does absolutely nothing benefits will be reduced across the board by about 25% because SS can't borrow money to pay benefits. All the proposals out there are to try and avoid this 25% cut.
Low wage earners get a bit of a "bump up" in payments, I believe. I can see people thinking that scenario to be unfair.
Everyone pays 15.3% of their income. That is capped at an amount that is too low for the current situation. If that is the bump in payments you refer to, you are mistaken. If you mean payments to them, and not from them, then any bump for lower earners would not be enough to make a difference that anyone should complain about.
Google bend points… it explains how payouts are calculated.
Everyone pays 15.3% of their income. That is capped at an amount that is too low for the current situation. If that is the bump in payments you refer to, you are mistaken. If you mean payments to them, and not from them, then any bump for lower earners would not be enough to make a difference that anyone should complain about.
Google bend points… it explains how payouts are calculated.
Yes there are two bend points creating three brackets and the payments are 90% on the first bracket, 32% on the next highest bracket and 15% on the last bracket. Therefore those earning the least get the greatest return and those that earned the most get the poorest return. As was previously claimed, the benefits are progressive.
Google bend points… it explains how payouts are calculated.
Yes there are two bend points creating three brackets and the payments are 90% on the first bracket, 32% on the next highest bracket and 15% on the last bracket. Therefore those earning the least get the greatest return and those that earned the most get the poorest return. As was previously claimed, the benefits are progressive.
The taxation is what I was saying is not progressive. You all flipped the terms on me to try to make me look to be in the wrong.
Project 2025 suggests raising the retirement age to 69 and reducing the benefits. I think it's a pretty safe bet they'll at least do the former.
This will be interesting because Republicans are two things:
1. Cowards
2. Sexual deviants
Will the cowards in Congress kiss Trump's feet and vote to reduce Social Security and risk losing their jobs to old fools who rely on SS but STILL voted for the people who want to take it away from them?
Project 2025 suggests raising the retirement age to 69 and reducing the benefits. I think it's a pretty safe bet they'll at least do the former.
This will be interesting because Republicans are two things:
1. Cowards
2. Sexual deviants
Will the cowards in Congress kiss Trump's feet and vote to reduce Social Security and risk losing their jobs to old fools who rely on SS but STILL voted for the people who want to take it away from them?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.