What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security

[JoeMemphis]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAYnLNa

We have had this discussion on this board from time to time. The link above is a survey so I don’t know how reliable the results may be. However it does have some interesting points. Raising the cap on earnings to $400k. Raising the retirement age to 68. Raising the FICA rate to 6.5. These among others.

This discussion needs to take place as the funding problem isn’t going away and these proposals taken as a whole seem like reasonable compromises. As we seek to expand the reach and responsibility of government and expand entitlement programs, I think such programs need to be funded thru payroll taxes where burden for paying for these benefits are spread equally across business and working people. It provides the most reliable source of funding.

[bird]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAYnLNa

We have had this discussion on this board from time to time. The link above is a survey so I don’t know how reliable the results may be. However it does have some interesting points. Raising the cap on earnings to $400k. Raising the retirement age to 68. Raising the FICA rate to 6.5. These among others.

This discussion needs to take place as the funding problem isn’t going away and these proposals taken as a whole seem like reasonable compromises. As we seek to expand the reach and responsibility of government and expand entitlement programs, I think such programs need to be funded thru payroll taxes where burden for paying for these benefits are spread equally across business and working people. It provides the most reliable source of funding.

Eliminate the earnings cap entirely. There is no need for it to be there.

FICA is regressive by nature. Should it be higher? Perhaps. Should it be graduated? Perhaps.

On a side note, once the boomers, I am one, die off in significant numbers the fund will be more stable, imo. Of more pressing concern is Medicare. I found out that due to my body’s congenital tendency to make very dense, fibrous scar tissue which has caused multiple bowel obstructions resulting in 4 surgeries I am uninsurable for long term care insurance.

[JoeMemphis]

Eliminate the earnings cap entirely. There is no need for it to be there.

FICA is regressive by nature. Should it be higher? Perhaps. Should it be graduated? Perhaps.

On a side note, once the boomers, I am one, die off in significant numbers the fund will be more stable, imo. Of more pressing concern is Medicare. I found out that due to my body’s congenital tendency to make very dense, fibrous scar tissue which has caused multiple bowel obstructions resulting in 4 surgeries I am uninsurable for long term care insurance.

I would not favor eliminating the cap entirely. The max payout from SSI is a little north of 4k. Further, the talk is about means testing the wealthy. So if this is supposed to mimic insurance, you wouldn’t charge a premium to someone whose benefits you intend to limit or eliminate. Raising the cap to 400k will bring in quite a bit more money from both employee and employer.

If we are going to expand entitlement spending, it only makes sense that folks who expect to benefit from such programs pay a portion of the cost. It’s called insurance. Insurance isn’t free.

[Number6]

For the record, I am retired and collecting Social Security so the two proposals, raising the cap to $400K and raising the retirement age to 68, won't affect me.

As for raising the cap on wages I'd go to $1,000,000 as the cap. High earners have increased their wages/salaries substantially over the past 10 years and if lower wage/salary workers are going to pay more in FICA because of pay raises then so should high wage/salary earners.

On raising the retirement age to 68, I'm not really in favor of it. By the time many people reach the age of 67 they have been working 45 - 50 years of their lives and requiring people to work longer. Many who worked in manual labor or jobs requiring more physical labor that those in a desk job shouldn't have to continue to subject their bodies to wear and tear in their mid- to late 60s just to get Social Security.

[bird]

I would not favor eliminating the cap entirely. The max payout from SSI is a little north of 4k. Further, the talk is about means testing the wealthy. So if this is supposed to mimic insurance, you wouldn’t charge a premium to someone whose benefits you intend to limit or eliminate. Raising the cap to 400k will bring in quite a bit more money from both employee and employer.

If we are going to expand entitlement spending, it only makes sense that folks who expect to benefit from such programs pay a portion of the cost. It’s called insurance. Insurance isn’t free.

Is it supposed to “mimic” insurance or is it insurance? Imo, it is neither.

The cap serves no purpose.

[Bludogdem]

I’d put in as surtax on income from stock options. Say 4%.

Musk would have paid 960,000,000 on his options in 2021.

Apple dude would have paid 30,800,000

[carmenjonze]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAYnLNa

Wow JoeMemphis, you actually included a link. Are you ok?

[JoeMemphis]

I’d put in as surtax on income from stock options. Say 4%.

Musk would have paid 960,000,000 on his options in 2021.

Apple dude would have paid 30,800,000

IMO, the notion that we can expect to expand or grow entitlement spending by targeting the wealthy makes no sense to me. These programs are huge. The burden should be borne by everyone. I think if we as a nation say these programs are an important part of our social safety net and are a national priority, then everyone ought to be willing to pay more to fund them. At least that seem to be what this survey suggests. I agree with that.

It’s all too easy to vote for programs when someone else pays the tab. It’s government crack. It’s not realistic.

[Bludogdem]

IMO, the notion that we can expect to expand or grow entitlement spending by targeting the wealthy makes no sense to me. These programs are huge. The burden should be borne by everyone. I think if we as a nation say these programs are an important part of our social safety net and are a national priority, then everyone ought to be willing to pay more to fund them. At least that seem to be what this survey suggests. I agree with that.

It’s all too easy to vote for programs when someone else pays the tab. It’s government crack. It’s not realistic.

This is not individual wealth. It’s income. Musk gets $24 billion and pays $11 billion income taxes. Another billion in FICA taxes isn’t going to hurt. Again only stock awards that are income. And I’m not interested in low income paying FICA taxes. We’ve had the earned income credit for quite awhile to return the FICA taxes and some to improve their income. We have a nice social safety net. Prefer to leave it alone.

My proposal keeps top tier under 45% on federal income tax.

[JoeMemphis]

This is not individual wealth. It’s income. Musk gets $24 billion and pays $11 billion income taxes. Another billion in FICA taxes isn’t going to hurt. Again only stock awards that are income. And I’m not interested in low income paying FICA taxes. We’ve had the earned income credit for quite awhile to return the FICA taxes and some to improve their income. We have a nice social safety net. Prefer to leave it alone.

My proposal keeps top tier under 45% on federal income tax.

I never said it was a wealth tax. My point is that when we vote to expand entitlement programs, everyone should be willing to fund a portion of the increase. To sell expansion of these programs which never go away and which are funded on autopilot to the public like it doesn’t cost anything is simply unrealistic. Eventually the middle class will bear that burden.

[Number6]

Besides taking a reduction in my Social Security benefits, what sacrifice would retirees make? I don't favor a reduction in benefits because that would hurt more people, other than me, who are more dependent upon Social Security.

How about this idea, impose a .025% nationwide sales tax on consumer goods, but not on food. You buy clothes, furniture, a car, etc. you pay an extra .025%. You buy food at a grocery store/supermarket, convenience store, restaurant, fast food restaurant, etc.. wouldn't be taxed. Using data from Statista.com, the average spending by household in 2020 for apparel and services is $1,434. If the tax were imposed on this the tax for Social Security would be $35.85 a year. In 2020, the number of households in the U.S. was 122,354,219 so if each household paid $35.85 a year that would produce about $4.4 dollars for Social Security. This may not "stabilize" Social Security in the long run but the additional funding would help and everyone from the minimum wage worker to the billionaires to retirees would all be contributing.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/247 ... s-by-type/

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... n+u+s+2020

[gounion]

IMO, the notion that we can expect to expand or grow entitlement spending by targeting the wealthy makes no sense to me. These programs are huge. The burden should be borne by everyone. I think if we as a nation say these programs are an important part of our social safety net and are a national priority, then everyone ought to be willing to pay more to fund them. At least that seem to be what this survey suggests. I agree with that.

It’s all too easy to vote for programs when someone else pays the tab. It’s government crack. It’s not realistic.

It's NOT someone else paying the tab. Everyone pays the tax immediately on the first dollar they earn. It's a real burden on low-wage workers, who much worry about having food and a roof over their head, but we all know you're here to make sure the comfortable STAY comfortable.

Me, I worry about the low-wage working mom who has to worry about seeing her children are fed, and here you are whining for the ultra-rich.

[JoeMemphis]

Besides taking a reduction in my Social Security benefits, what sacrifice would retirees make? I don't favor a reduction in benefits because that would hurt more people, other than me, who are more dependent upon Social Security.

How about this idea, impose a .025% nationwide sales tax on consumer goods, but not on food. You buy clothes, furniture, a car, etc. you pay an extra .025%. You buy food at a grocery store/supermarket, convenience store, restaurant, fast food restaurant, etc.. wouldn't be taxed. Using data from Statista.com, the average spending by household in 2020 for apparel and services is $1,434. If the tax were imposed on this the tax for Social Security would be $35.85 a year. In 2020, the number of households in the U.S. was 122,354,219 so if each household paid $35.85 a year that would produce about $4.4 dollars for Social Security. This may not "stabilize" Social Security in the long run but the additional funding would help and everyone from the minimum wage worker to the billionaires to retirees would all be contributing.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/247 ... s-by-type/

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... n+u+s+2020

I wouldn’t support cutting benefits. I don’t have a problem means testing the benefit. If you have gross income in retirement above say 200K I would start reducing the benefit amount. It’s a safety net.

I don’t favor a national sales tax.

[carmenjonze]

I wouldn’t support cutting benefits. I don’t have a problem means testing the benefit. If you have gross income in retirement above say 200K I would start reducing the benefit amount. It’s a safety net.

I don’t favor a national sales tax.

No.

Raise the cap.

[Libertas]

No.

Raise the cap.

Means testing is the beginning of the end of SS, as we know. Of course raise the cap.

The Net Worth Of America's 600-Plus Billionaires Has Increased By More Than $400 Billion During The Pandemic

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ ... d4ce504a61


And cons here will tell you their biggest issue with Dems is they want to tax the rich...god help us.

[gounion]

[JoeMemphis]

So based on this post I assume you would support means testing social security for high net worth individuals based on their income?

[gounion]

So based on this post I assume you would support means testing social security for high net worth individuals based on their income?

Probably. But my point is bigger - If I had, say, 4 billion dollars, I wouldn't even BOTHER to apply for Social Security. I'd say "leave it for those who need it!" But it shows the greed of the ultra-rich. By GOD they're going to bitch about having to pay taxes, but they sure as hell are going to have THEIR hands out!

But Joe, go ahead, and explain to that low-wage mom who's struggling to feed, clothe and house her kids, tell her why she needs to give MORE. Tell her she doesn't already have enough skin in the game. And tell her why, even as she's getting her FICA raised, why she'll have to wait even longer to be able to draw it.

[Libertas]

Raise the cap is the logical thing to do which is of course why cons here are against it.

That alone wont do it, might have to get creative.

[JoeMemphis]

Probably. But my point is bigger - If I had, say, 4 billion dollars, I wouldn't even BOTHER to apply for Social Security. I'd say "leave it for those who need it!" But it shows the greed of the ultra-rich. By GOD they're going to bitch about having to pay taxes, but they sure as hell are going to have THEIR hands out!

But Joe, go ahead, and explain to that low-wage mom who's struggling to feed, clothe and house her kids, tell her why she needs to give MORE. Tell her she doesn't already have enough skin in the game. And tell her why, even as she's getting her FICA raised, why she'll have to wait even longer to be able to draw it.

I just posted a survey that said a sizable majority of Americans are willing to make such a sacrifice. I far as I can tell nobody was bitching. I assume the increase in retirement age would be phased in over a number of years and would not affect folks close to retirement. But I thought it was interesting that a plurality of the people surveyed were agreeable to such a deal.

[gounion]

I just posted a survey that said a sizable majority of Americans are willing to make such a sacrifice. I far as I can tell nobody was bitching. I assume the increase in retirement age would be phased in over a number of years and would not affect folks close to retirement. But I thought it was interesting that a plurality of the people surveyed were agreeable to such a deal.

Yeah, I'm sure the mom will let her kids go hungry. You're always there stick up for the rich and make sure they stay comfortable with low taxes and plenty of breaks.

Again, I'm thinking of those on the edges, trying to keep afloat. You worry about the folks in the yachts.

[Libertas]

Yeah, I'm sure the mom will let her kids go hungry. You're always there stick up for the rich and make sure they stay comfortable with low taxes and plenty of breaks.

Again, I'm thinking of those on the edges, trying to keep afloat. You worry about the folks in the yachts.

And what you just said is in fact true and not an exaggeration. Thus the "brokenness" of our country. When people are brainwashed to this degree, it is irreversible and the damage is endless.

[Bludogdem]

Probably. But my point is bigger - If I had, say, 4 billion dollars, I wouldn't even BOTHER to apply for Social Security. I'd say "leave it for those who need it!" But it shows the greed of the ultra-rich. By GOD they're going to bitch about having to pay taxes, but they sure as hell are going to have THEIR hands out!

But Joe, go ahead, and explain to that low-wage mom who's struggling to feed, clothe and house her kids, tell her why she needs to give MORE. Tell her she doesn't already have enough skin in the game. And tell her why, even as she's getting her FICA raised, why she'll have to wait even longer to be able to draw it.

The low wage mom is getting plenty of help from the social safety net. SNAP, TANF, CCDF, WIC, CHIP, PUBLIC AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. Plus EIC and refundable child tax credit can generate $6,500 to $15,000 tax free refunds.

[Libertas]

Ignore the trolls.

They are called "trolls" for a reason.

[JoeMemphis]

Yeah, I'm sure the mom will let her kids go hungry. You're always there stick up for the rich and make sure they stay comfortable with low taxes and plenty of breaks.

Again, I'm thinking of those on the edges, trying to keep afloat. You worry about the folks in the yachts.

And you are not here to do anything but make personal attacks.

This is just a survey. It isn’t proposed legislation. You know. People looking to find middle ground? Tell me are you part of the 70 to 80 percent willing to sacrifice or the 20% who would rather argue and get nothing? Are you interested in possible solutions or would you rather have the issue?