Your employer was just telling what they are force to do by the federal government. Every two weeks/twice a month for our associate/beginning of the month I cut a check to the IRS with our employees SS taxes. No way to get around it. It sucks. But those dollars are being sent to in part to the dad of @AzCatFan ...
And one day, your parents (should they still be alive). And one day, hopefully you and your spouse too will start collecting. My father helped pay for his parents and presumably your grandparents who also collected SS.
Like your analysis as well but remember payments have increased with inflation over time. The max taxable is not over twice what inflation would have it be. The reality is we need to work together to turn the program into a true safety net.
Assuming SS benefit payments of $36K per year starting in 2013 and earnings of an average assumed risk-free rate of return of 4.5% on the declining SS fund balance, I estimate the individual's SS balance at 2012 would last until 2040. With a return of 4.5% the fund would last until 2044. I believe the low treasury (investment) rates during and after COVID may have had a greater adverse impact on the viability of the SS fund than most would expect. The loss could be several hundred billion $$s.
And because of that he was shorted even more. Just like you will be. And your kids more. But if you want to look at your kids in the eye and tell them I don’t care you are getting less. I want mine. That’s you!
I have no problem paying SS so my parents and others have it in their retirement right now. Same for my taxes supporting their military pension. I don’t feel shorted that I’m going to get less from SS than they receive and far less than I contribute over my working years. It’s part of having a functioning society.
So what. The program had also been around 90 years and helped 40% of seniors be removed from the poverty line.
There should not be a max taxable amount by any means first of all. The fact that social security is regressive is one of the biggest jokes about it. Social security should also be funded by other means such as excise taxes on certain transactions such as secured lending of high net worth individuals who use that to avoid income taxation. I 100% agree with you that social security should simply be a safety net program. However, that is basically the purpose it serves now, just done in a convoluted way with loopholes. Upper income earners get taxed withdrawals at pretty aggressive rates. I believe it really should be 100% taxed over certain amounts instead of just 80% though.
Posted by someone who has no idea how much he benefitted from welfare at state funded schools, driving on state funded roads, posting on a federally funded internet.
That is great. But the problem is scheme! I could care less as well if it were as selfish as looking at my situation. Which by the way. I don’t begrudge anyone following the system fdr engrained. I want mine as well. At the same time I know what is happening. Are we willing to fix it? I am. Though it sucks. As fdr screwed every younger generation since inception…
My dad is a retired O-4 back seater in the RF-4. Did a few small things after retiring when I was in high school. Started taking his At 62. My wife and I have easily paid more into SS than he and my mom ever did. Nothing wrong with that. But you/I/AZ/every other working American are paying them now. Because the scheme never had them pay enough. And their contributions were redistributed to our grandparents and great grandparents. I have no issues with a noble program to help those in true need. But that is not what SS is. And we have to acknowledge that!
This response is as evasive/confused as it is inane - especially from someone who proves the inability to differentiate between welfare and other government works (more likely it was intentional). I'm not aware of any welfare that i or any member of my family has ever received. I am aware that I and my family and friends benefit from state projects and programs (schools, roads, police, military, etc.) funded in small part by our share of tax dollars - just as any other person benefits from those projects. That weak attempt to shame and conflate/confuse very distinct issues aside, one may conclude that the poster has no substantive contribution to the role, efficiency, reasonableness, or fairness of SS, and more generally the concept of whether government should even be a part of the equation.
People pay taxes for benefits they don’t get all the time. People who didn’t go to college paid taxes for your subsidized education because it was deemed good for the well-being or welfare of the state. Your goodies are not welfare apparently. You are a $30T leach on society. Like everyone else.
This is a very warped perspective to say the least. According to your formula, no one is a producer or supporter of anything. Everyone is a ward of the state. People who work, raise families, pay taxes, volunteer, support their own family/friends, etc. over generations are "leaches." Exactly where do you imagine the funding comes from to provide all of the "goodies"? Since you are so focused on education and making this personal - attended private K-12, private college (established and independently funded long before gov't became involved in education), and paid tuition for graduate program directly without gov't benefits or loans. So, how did I benefit or "leach" from that system when I, my parents, grandparents, etc. paid for public education through taxes over decades but did not take advantage of those subpar products? It seems you suffer from a sense of guilt that you have had to rely on gov't subsistence and thus must accuse everyone else of being similar takers and not givers to society.
Generally agree, but would split that quarter %/year between the employee and the employer. Also wouldn’t raise full retirement age, but would substantially increase the decrements for early retirement. Something like a 50% decrement at 62, decreasing monthly up to 67. Finally, the income cap on social security taxes is adjusted annually based on a COLA adjustment. It should be cola+2% for five years then return to straight COLA thereafter.
When i began my career in the early 80s i would have taken this deal. On an individual basis i probably would have done well but tens of millions of workers doing this would have artificially inflated the Dow-Jones and i might have not done so well when the reckoning came.
