Fixing social security

What is your most preferred method of changing the social security system?

  • Remove the upper pay-in limit

    Votes: 64 47.8%
  • Continue to push back the age of first withdrawal as needed

    Votes: 9 6.7%
  • Reduce benefits to maintain system solvency

    Votes: 4 3.0%
  • Abandon it all together over time and let everyone fund their own retirement

    Votes: 45 33.6%
  • Don’t know

    Votes: 12 9.0%

  • Total voters
    134
You are naive as hell. People really don't know the reall story on social security, medicare, and state & local govt retirement benefits. The retirement medical care is EXPENSIVE. A friend who was a fireman in Pittsburgh told me "You think I got good healthcare, the teachers NEVER pay a deductible or copay!!". Maybe not every prison guard in Calif, but how about an average pension of $200K??? Go do some searches on google. I recall seeing a woman that retired with 30 years in the prison system and got a pension of $300K.

People just cant conceptualize the cost of $300,000 pension. What is the present value of something like that??? Well here ya go. 30-year U.S Treasury yields are at 4.5% now. Take the iverse of that (1/.045) and that is 22.22 times. $300,000 times 22.22 = $6,666,666. So her pension is equivalent to you having $6.7 mil in your 401k!!!! Does it now hit ya? Duh! Add in another $500k-$1 mil for the healthcare. Remember, they have no mortality risk whatsoever with a pension. That is worth a considerable too. Mortality risk is "that you outlive your assets". Are you the world's smartest investment manager??? Pension (no mortality risk) or 401K (you take the mortality risk)???? Which would you take????

Now do you see? What is the pre-tax salary you need in aftertax takehome pay to accumulate $7-9 million for your pension over a 30 year period??? Where's the genius on here with the simplistic 30 year app to calculate that??? With not a volatile stock market!
Show some data to back up your claim on 250k pensions. Not just hear say. I would like to see it.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 322195
View attachment 322196

$200,000, you still pay higher taxes in MT than CA. Your premise is not supported by facts. CA's taxes aren't what's driving folks to move to MT.

Yes CA has a deficit, yes folks from lots of states esp CA are moving to MT.

It's not the taxes.
Include property tax, sales tax, local tax, gas tax, ect before claiming its not the taxes.
 
You are naive as hell. People really don't know the reall story on social security, medicare, and state & local govt retirement benefits. The retirement medical care is EXPENSIVE. A friend who was a fireman in Pittsburgh told me "You think I got good healthcare, the teachers NEVER pay a deductible or copay!!". Maybe not every prison guard in Calif, but how about an average pension of $200K??? Go do some searches on google. I recall seeing a woman that retired with 30 years in the prison system and got a pension of $300K.

People just cant conceptualize the cost of $300,000 pension. What is the present value of something like that??? Well here ya go. 30-year U.S Treasury yields are at 4.5% now. Take the iverse of that (1/.045) and that is 22.22 times. $300,000 times 22.22 = $6,666,666. So her pension is equivalent to you having $6.7 mil in your 401k!!!! Does it now hit ya? Duh! Add in another $500k-$1 mil for the healthcare. Remember, they have no mortality risk whatsoever with a pension. That is worth a considerable too. Mortality risk is "that you outlive your assets". Are you the world's smartest investment manager??? Pension (no mortality risk) or 401K (you take the mortality risk)???? Which would you take????

Now do you see? What is the pre-tax salary you need in aftertax takehome pay to accumulate $7-9 million for your pension over a 30 year period??? Where's the genius on here with the simplistic 30 year app to calculate that??? With not a volatile stock market!

1712674774080.png

1712674844714.png
 

View attachment 322202

View attachment 322203
Cornbread is a lost cause of clueless self narrative - but thanks for providing context/background to those who care about understanding reality.
 
"It's not the taxes......"


"Factors driving the California business exodus include “California’s high tax burden, over-regulation that strangles businesses of all sizes, poor public schools performance and an ever-increasing cost of living,”"
 
"It's not the taxes......"


"Factors driving the California business exodus include “California’s high tax burden, over-regulation that strangles businesses of all sizes, poor public schools performance and an ever-increasing cost of living,”"
CA creates more new and more successful companies than most (all?) states. I would assume a certain percentage would move over time for all kinds of reasons - taxes/regulations/cost/labor/etc. What is missing from these “companies fleeing CA” sound bites is the context. How many new companies were created? In which sectors were they gaining vs losing? How well did the companies labor needs fit the market? How important is cheap land to the business model? How many were poached by other states subsidizing the move? etc. I just don’t see enough useful data to decide whether CA is dying or just going through normal turnover for the most dynamic economy.
 
Last edited:
CA creates more new and more successful companies that most (all?) states. I would assume a certain percentage would move over time for all kinds of reasons - taxes/regulations/cost/labor/etc. What is missing from these “companies fleeing CA” sound bites is the context. How many new companies were created? In which sectors were they gaining vs losing? How well did the companies labor needs fit the market? How important is cheap land to the business model? How many were poached by other states subsidizing the move? etc. I just don’t see enough useful data to decide whether CA is dying or just going through normal turnover for the most dynamic economy.
Cali has a state capital gains tax, so the owner of a company, for example Elon Musk, might want to move the company to a no-tax state if he wants to get rid of those shares. WA recently implemented a Cap gains tax on very large amounts, even though it has no income tax. Hence Bezos move from Seattle to Florida where he sold a few billion in AMZN stock.
 
Cali has a state capital gains tax, so the owner of a company, for example Elon Musk, might want to move the company to a no-tax state if he wants to get rid of those shares. WA recently implemented a Cap gains tax on very large amounts, even though it has no income tax. Hence Bezos move from Seattle to Florida where he sold a few billion in AMZN stock.
No doubt, but still broader issues to understand beyond “founder flight”
 
IRS rules say if a public fund meets certain regulation requirements the person can opt out of SS. Basically they have to pay about the same. You will see the amounts with and without SS are about equal to the retiree.
About 300 posts ago you guys were saying SS was a safety net for the less fortunate. Now you are comparing it to a retirement fund. How does a pay go system fund itself when a good number of the collective don't have to participate?

Here's a glaring loophole that should get removed going forward if we truly are interested in fixing SS. Odds are slim to none that it will get removed IMO
 
If memory serves, the impetus behind excluding some civil servants from SS was to end what was called, double dipping. It is true that public pensions are more generous than many in the private sector. When a civil servant also was able to collect SS, the disparity widened.

My father was one of his generation who qualified for multiple public retirement sources. He retired after 20 years in the Air Force, collecting a pension for that for the rest of his life, along with excellent retired military medical insurance. He worked a couple of jobs, ultimately being hired by the Postal Service. He collected a military pension, a Social Security benefit and a Post Office pension. I used to tease him that he wasn't a double dipper, but a triple dipper.

So, it is less that they opt out, but are now excluded from the SS program.
 
CA creates more new and more successful companies than most (all?) states. I would assume a certain percentage would move over time for all kinds of reasons - taxes/regulations/cost/labor/etc. What is missing from these “companies fleeing CA” sound bites is the context. How many new companies were created? In which sectors were they gaining vs losing? How well did the companies labor needs fit the market? How important is cheap land to the business model? How many were poached by other states subsidizing the move? etc. I just don’t see enough useful data to decide whether CA is dying or just going through normal turnover for the most dynamic economy.
Here's a list of California startups. See anything that interests you?

 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,969
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top