• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

ChrisL68 said:
You started one sentance too late in your quote.

The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security "insurance" was supported from "contributions" in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds.
Click to expand...

And those payouts can be set as Congress decides they should be.
 
RJKarl said:
And those payouts can be set as Congress decides they should be.
Click to expand...

Of course, but the system was set up as a pension plan where people contribute based on work credits (contributions) and they will receive benefits based on those contributions once they reach a certain age.

Means testing to deny benefits would be a complete departure to how social security has been presented to the American public for decades.
 
If it makes you feel better RJ, social security is taxable income so if a richer person draws SS it will be added to their other income from savings (such as traditional 401k/IRA RMDs which are ordinary income) and as a result they’ll likely pay a higher tax rate on it than those whose only source of income is SS.
 
Anybody else seen discussion a student loan forgiveness plan that’s conditional on forfeiting social security?

Not sure where I saw it or maybe I just made it up.
 
06deacon said:
If it makes you feel better RJ, social security is taxable income so if a richer person draws SS it will be added to their other income from savings (such as traditional 401k/IRA RMDs which are ordinary income) and as a result they’ll likely pay a higher tax rate on it than those whose only source of income is SS.
Click to expand...

SS as taxable income is phased in. For wealthy people 85% of it is taxed.
 
06deacon said:
If it makes you feel better RJ, social security is taxable income so if a richer person draws SS it will be added to their other income from savings (such as traditional 401k/IRA RMDs which are ordinary income) and as a result they’ll likely pay a higher tax rate on it than those whose only source of income is SS.
Click to expand...

that's totally irrelevant...
 
RJ I was just trying to throw you a bone. What is the purpose of your quest against rich people (undefined as of yet) getting SS? Are you concerned about solvency of SS or what?

Thanks for the clarification Chris
 
RJKarl said:
"The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions received by the Federal Government, and to send payments to recipients"

"Prior to Social Security, the elderly routinely faced the prospect of poverty upon retirement. For the most part, that fear has now dissipated."

There's nothing about supporting the wealthy.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing about not supporting the wealthy.
 
06deacon said:
RJ I was just trying to throw you a bone. What is the purpose of your quest against rich people (undefined as of yet) getting SS? Are you concerned about solvency of SS or what?

Thanks for the clarification Chris
Click to expand...

It's about what's right and best for the country. If the money given to those who don't need it was used to bump up payments to the lower end, it would help many more people and the economy. Those at the bottom need more to stay alive. Those at the top will just save the money.

Or we could tax all earnings (including dividends, etc.) and use the additional funds to help those who need it.
 
We also need to add a month a year for the next half century or more to get the age to 72 or higher.
 
RJKarl said:
It's about what's right and best for the country. If the money given to those who don't need it was used to bump up payments to the lower end, it would help many more people and the economy. Those at the bottom need more to stay alive. Those at the top will just save the money.

Or we could tax all earnings (including dividends, etc.) and use the additional funds to help those who need it.
Click to expand...

But you don’t support student loan forgiveness for those making under a certain threshold, which would help many more people for literal decades longer.
 
Shorty said:
We need to eliminate the earnings cap. There is no reason why someone earning $200k should only pay FICA on the first $132K
Click to expand...

This is the easiest (and actuarially approved) means of "saving" social security.

The idea of idea of terminating SS payments entirely for some segment of the population is a moot point. That will never ever never ever happen. Nor should it.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
But you don’t support student loan forgiveness for those making under a certain threshold, which would help many more people for literal decades longer.
Click to expand...

Again, it's easy to reject debt forgiveness (without means testing) when you're already receiving government benefits that isn't means tested. Another way of looking at it: I'm subsidizing RJ's life by paying into social security, but he doesn't want to subsidize mine to support a proposal that would waive by $50k+ in student debt. Never mind the fact that he wouldn't actually have to contribute anything to do this; it just requires a vote.

Boomers are the worst.
 
Well said, Strick. “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.” That’s the boomer way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top