Explain to me why we should pay your social security!

They are planning that people will on average collect twice what they contribute. The plan also is that the population will continue to increase so there will be more people contributing than what are withdrawing.

TDubs7 wrote:Agree - I stated what the original intent was. But have acknowledged that it is not the case and that current withholdings are now being used to pay people drawing on SS, and we are not earning anything on it.

SS payouts have always been funded primarily by current contributions. That may not be how the system was sold, but that is the original intent.

The first U.S. citizens who received social security payments had not paid one penny into social security fund. You did not address that in your post.

It is not the fault of social security beneficiaries if politicians lack the courage to raise taxes. It takes gusto to raise taxes. Any politician can pander to the masses and campaign on cutting taxes.

When social security began, many large employers provided life long pensions. Employers did not switch from pensions to 401-k for the benefit of the workers. Employers switched from pension plans to 401-K for benefit of share holders.

Seven out 10 citizen in U.S. have a learning disability, often at sub-clinical level &/or seven of 10 citizens in U.S. suffer mental illness, often at sub-clinical level. 401-k &/or 403b plan(s) assume everyone is reasonably intelligent and reasonably sane. Social security, F.D.R.'s widow & orphan fund is needed now more than ever, The dollar contribution into the system is not going to necessarily correlate with beneficiary payments.

The truth is Americans actually did save for retirement before social security. It is a net that encourages irresponsible behaviour. It also is a ponzi scheme that depends on a growing younger base to support the entitlement. Plus it is political suicide to try to implement any corrections that could make it solvent. The program is woefully underfunded and will collapse. We're kind of stuck with it for now but it sucks because if you are under 50 it will not be there for you at all. And people retiring now thinking it will be there for them may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

A good example of how well-meaning social programs do not work and result in a far worse outcome than if nothing were done. Young people are left with a massive national debt, terrible student loans, and paying 16% of their salaries into social security and medicare which won't be there for them.

How about you show some proof that people were saving for retirement before social security? When SS went into effect, 50% of seniors were living in poverty, and most were forced to live with younger family members.

Sounds awful to me, but maybe that sounds like an improvement to you bootstrappers.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p1_chart04.gif

National debt in relation to g.d.p. in U.S. was at it's worse immediately after WW2. Republicans of 1930s did not want social security at all. Do you believe Republicans from 1940 to 1961 happily agreed to raise top marginal tax rate over 90% for most years from 1940 to 1961? No! It had to be done. I do not care what nonsense Tom Sowell or Koch brothers or any right wing think tank say. Eventually U.S. will have top marginal tax rates greater than 80% and it will not ruin U.S. economy. High top marginal tax rates on wealthy in U.S. has never harmed U.S. economy.

You’re obviously trolling. Either that or you’re very, very ignorant.

So the high top marginal tax rate nonsense has been debunked over and over again. When the top marginal tax rate in the US is highest the rich actually pay fewer taxes because there are all kinds of ways around the income tax for the wealthy. The wealthy individual's wealth is all in assets. Bezos and Musk's wealth has gone up by how many 100s of billions over the past few years. They won't ever pay a dime of taxes on it unless they sell their stock because it's all paper wealth. It has been shown over and over again when taxes go up the rich and big corporations find ways to reinvest their profits so they don't pay taxes. If you want to collect more in taxes you need to make rates at a level where it is tolerable for the rich to pay them. Plus the cronies in government write the tax laws with all sorts of loopholes. That is why consumption taxes are the fairest and easy to collect.

I love it! I got a right winger to agree to top marginal tax rate greater than 95%. To make you believe you are getting over, you may deduct interest on credit cards or you may deduct interest on one vacation home.

One time and only one time did reduction in top marginal tax rate lead to increase of tax revenue. 1961 cut. Top marginal tax rate cuts under Reagan, W. Bush and Trump all lead to increase in national debt. Since only one time did a reduction of top marginal tax rates lead to greater revenue, 1961 was an anomaly

The last time U.S. brought in more tax revenue than U.S. spent was during W. Clinton years. Top marginal tax rates were increased under H.W. Bush and then increased again under W. Clinton.

Comments:

1. Discussions of marginal rates are not all that meaningful unless factored into how broad the tax base happens to be. I was there when the 86 Act was enacted and found the widening of the base to be very welcome. Bush had a layup in increasing taxes because he had a broad base to start with, relatively speaking. No more deductions for partners in a limited partnership making passive investments in see-through office buildings built with insufficient regard for actual demand. Broadening the tax base is almost universally encouraged because it diminishes allocative inefficiency. My college roomate is head of Brookings tax research, and while I would call him progressive, he certainly supports a broader base as do many who have looked at it. Most desirable is when commercial and consumer activities are made bases on perceptions of business value, shorn of tax consierations.

2. I think SSN is necessary - whether one views it as a forced savings program or as a cushion in retirement. I would prefer that an option would exist so I could invest SSN deductions which would grant me real property rights as opposed to a promise from feckless politicians . This wouldn't be considered politically viable, as one of he ones who have paid the maximum for forty years, my contributions cover the distributions to others. I get it - part of a civilized society. But even if I was compelled to invest in US Treasuries - good for the country - it would be a very positive choice for me.

3. I find it funny that one poster here refers to right wingers in an ad hominem discussion over marginal tax rates. I recall being invited to the home of my mentor, the husband of a recently deceased Supreme Court justice. His point - as intellectual giant - one of his clients was a Scandanavian country - was that as a government increases marginal rates the tax base narrows. He beseeched us to look at the percentage of corporate taxes paid compared those paid overall - and the percentage stays roughly the same over the years. In fact, one of the perils of big government is that those well heeled (big corporations can pay, lobby and surmount a barrier to entry in terms of asking favors with the Government, and they do so quite successfully). Before the recent tax act, I pondered why my Fortune 200 clients had no problem with some of the highest marginal rates in the industrialized world. Really, very low energy about lowering marginal rates . They didn't care - they have the ability to zip money and resources all over the globe, and to limit or manipulate the re-patriation of profits in any number of ways. The class of companies which get hurt by higher marginal rates are the smaller, emerging companies - because they don't have the resources to lobby and ask for favors. But it ends up being negative for all of us, because employment growth is in the smaller companies. Higher tax rates are not exogenous to productivity, and their externalities are costs every bit as much as the observable direct costs.

I don't think right wing vs left wing helps. What is needed is discussion over the right kind of balance between rates, the tax base and our common economic objectives . And in a global tech based economy, certainly merely saying tax the rich doesn't cut it. Capital and money can move too fast. Need to go beyond envy to get into real economics, and that of course doesn't occlude a baseline of compassion which is necessary.

Ok, first off, it's not 'welfare.' I am old enough, maybe like your Parents. As a kid, a long time ago, I recall getting my first paycheck. Thinking, wow, I worked so many hours, the check will be great..by 1970's standards. Welp, it wasn't because of Social Securty, FICA, Medicare, Medicad, State and local taxes. We paid into the funds just like everybody else.

I will try to keep it short, but not until the day comes, and it will, where you will have physical limitations to keep working. Trust me, 'Father Times' remains the Undefeated Champion, no matter who you are!

Never mind the mumbo jumbo, in the system is the way it is and probably is not going to change anytime soon. I predict, the day will arrive sooner than you think, you'll be singing the praises of Social Security...not everyone can be a member of the 'lucky sperm club' and inherit a boatload of money. And, again, it's not like we didn't pay. The Government then invests our funds to make interest and more cash off of our cash in various ways.

I have absolutely no 'guilt feelings' in justifying to you or anybody else for collecting Social Security.

My other investments that I've made over the years, is nobody's business but my own. The SS is another issue. I don't need anyone telling me what I did or didn't do...that's my business.

You seem bitter and or angry...don't know or care why. The one thing that bugs me of Letsrun is that there's always somebody mad, angry and or jealous of someone else's accomplishments. I don't get it. Now you're picking on SS. If you don't like it, vote. Talk to your legislators. Do something and try and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Now kindly get to work, will ya? Social Security in depending on you! (it's a joke buddy, try and lighten up!)

Well who do you think should get the money that i've paid into since i started working at 16?

Yeah bro, my 96 and 92 year old grandparents are lazy bums who should have saved more and planned ahead. Lived through the depression, world war II vet, worked countless different jobs over his lifetime, worked part time jobs up until he was 86 actually, grandma worked her whole life too, button factory, dry cleaners, store clerks, you name it....social security really helps them, especially when you live into your 90's, that's a LONG time for your retirement savings to last. But real nice take though man, you nailed it. God damn there are some a$$holes in this world....

Once you stop working you should be killed out right, you are no use anymore.

I figured we had reached a point where the wealthiest nation in human history giving $1000 a month to the elderly that can no longer work wasn't a controversial topic. Guess I was wrong. Let them all starve I guess? Kick them out of their homes? Take away their Medicare too while we're at it.

Agreed! Imagine if people and businesses did not have to pay into Social Security. The economy would thrive and society could be truly prosperous! But then we’d have millions of old people starving and dying everywhere. This would be completely unacceptable! However, like-minded people such as yourself could come up with a solution. They could invent a process called the “Carrousel” where people happily and willfully step into the Carrousel to be recycled and thereby replenish society at the age of, oh, lets say, 30. Society would flourish and it would be a real utopia! But no, we’d have groups of people who did not like this, and they would resist. So, in order to “help” people to remember their obligation and remind them that they have spent 30 glorious years in this utopia, they could be “chipped” with a crystal in their palm. You could call it a “life clock” that changes colors as they age and finally blinks red when it’s their time to be “reborn”. But then you’d have stubborn stupid selfish people that still refuse to be part of society. They would be called “runners”. Of course, you’d need like-minded people such as yourself to hunt them down to insure the sanctity of society. I think it would be cool if you changed your handle to “Sandman”; it would be fitting.

You have accurately described Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are the young in your movie who need the over 30 crowd do give everything to them. The under 30 crowd are Democrats who think it is right for those who have enjoyed so much to give everything to them. Republicans try to resist knowing that the under 30 crowd should provide for themselves but the end up losing but the greedy end up as the majority by crushing the self sufficient.

I used to think like you, and then I grew up and realized life is not all about me.

Social security is a left wing versus right wing issue. As I stated yesterday, Republicans in aggregate have been opposed to social security for about 90 years in U.S. In 1960s through 1980s there were numerous conservative Democrats who were willing to reduce social security benefits and/or raise age of eligibility.

In regard to tools those in charge of U.S. fiscal policy control, top tier marginal tax rate is one tool of course. There were other changes favoring the top 1%: changes to to estate tax, capital gains tax, carried interest, etc.

Yesterday a poster responded to me touting Bezos & Musk. Maybe you know or do not know: economists are necessary to shape public policy for benefit of most while bringing harm to only a few. Poster yesterday was implying what is good for the roughly 650 billionaires in U.S. is best for U.S. in aggregate. Opportunity cost: Under taxing 1/2 billionaires & billionaires means U.S. does not have tuition-free education age 3 to age 23 plus tuition free medical school. Under taxing 1/2 billionaires & billionaires means U.S. does not have modern high speed rail as do other civilized nations. Under taxing 1/2 billionaires & billionaires means U.S. does not have government sponsored single-payer health care for all as they have in Austria and most European nations.

Poster, you may state: If we properly tax 1/2 billionaires & billionaires, they will flee U.S. U.S. billionaires are not fleeing to Europe for lower taxes. U.S. billionaires are not fleeing to Canada for lower taxes. Will a few or maybe a dozen U.S. billionaires flee to SW Asia, Africa or South America to cut deals with dictators for lower taxes? Yes. A very small number. So what.