Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

More Eve of Destruction news

I don’t like this anymore than the next guy, but I would be curious peoples’ thoughts on keeping it financially solvent. One talked about idea is removing the upper pay on cap limit, ie you keep paying in no matter how much you earn, but your max take-out stays fixed. Right now, any earnings above 168,800 don’t get taxed into social security. Apart from raising the age, lowering the benefit amount (or not having it keep pace with inflation), or removing the upper pay in cap, I don’t see how it could stay afloat.
I was talking with a workmate about this today. This could more than protect the system without reducing anyone's benefits.

This is my thread, but I'm fully aware this is most likely political gamesmanship for the most part. Nothing like saying the other guys are going to take away your nest egg.

No doubt the AARP will start lighting up the congressional phone lines any minute now.
 
I don’t like this anymore than the next guy, but I would be curious peoples’ thoughts on keeping it financially solvent. One talked about idea is removing the upper pay in cap limit, ie you keep paying in no matter how much you earn, but your max take-out stays fixed. Right now, any earnings above 168,800 don’t get taxed into social security. Apart from raising the age, lowering the benefit amount (or not having it keep pace with inflation), or removing the upper pay in cap, I don’t see how it could stay afloat.
Bingo! Making SS solvent is pretty easy, but it has to include collecting more in taxes. The Office of the Actuary lists all of the legislative proposals and their impact. Link attached below. Great reading if you have insomnia. Not paying people would work, but the mandatory 20% cut to benefits to match what is collected would double the rate of retirees in poverty. Not a good look for any politician. It will get fixed, but probably at the last minute, like everything else in DC.

Medicare is harder. Basically because everyone thinks their $100k procedure or medicine should be covered and news $100k treatments are created every year. Extending the benefit age is a bet on people dying before they reach it. For the average American, the 10-15% (depending on which study- have seen some as low as 8%) of their total health care expense will be incurred in the last 12 months of life.

 
Would you change your mind, or your guess, if it was easier? Hard to believe these people go to the lengths they do to get to this country but wouldn't fill out paper work.
Only if I had something to hide, definitely not the majority, but in the scheme of things more than a handful.
 
Only if I had something to hide, definitely not the majority, but in the scheme of things more than a handful.
The bad stories are terrible, but it's not like we raise them all pure and innocent in this country.

 
The bad stories are terrible, but it's not like we raise them all pure and innocent in this country.

Still no reason to take the bad apples we have enough.
 
Probably because the system won't let them. Would you change your mind, or your guess, if it was easier? Hard to believe these people go to the lengths they do to get to this country but wouldn't fill out paper work.
my observations of people over lots of decades… once they get on the freebie Government gravy train, they seldom get off.
 
Medicare is harder. Basically because everyone thinks their $100k procedure or medicine should be covered and news $100k treatments are created every year.

Spot on. Not only is it harder, but due to US age demographics it is much more important to address asap. The current system is collapsing under its own weight.
 
my observations of people over lots of decades… once they get on the freebie Government gravy train, they seldom get off.
They never get off, and vote to make sure they never get off. Everyone may complain, but they all cash the check. Americans love their handouts.
 
Sure, but idealistic- Keep the good apples, keep out the bad ones. We can't do that for ourselves. Like it or not, we have to acknowledge the economic benefit we receive from the apples. Modify the system on that premise.
It's really not that hard to fix. But then they're wouldn't be a campaign for either side to run on. I'm all for the apples. After all that's how I got here. But when's the last time you bought apples and didn't throw the rotten ones away.
 
I’m in my early 40s. I’ve always assumed that I would get nothing from Social Security. It’s just another tax, as far as I’m concerned. Our political leaders should have never been able to raid those funds.
Same. I figure I’ll work until I can’t and die a few years after. Most of that is on me but some is on the system. It is what it is.
 
51+ years of work, life expectancy of 77ish...MRA of 69?

@BuzzH, this is something we mostly agree on, so not picking to pick. But life expectancy for a male in the US that has reached age 65 is 83 or so. When SS was started, it was probably 10+ years less than that.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider moving the SS age back a bit, nor do I think it’s appropriate to position SS as the sole means of retirement for most people. In my opinion, that is not what it is intended for- it is an insurance against poverty amongst the elderly. Exactly what that means is subject to interpretation, I do acknowledge that.
 
Back
Top