so one of the taxes is the FICA. Should go up 2%, on 50K salary that is about $85 a month...thought we "middle classers" weren't getting a tax increase?
Considering I got a one time $100 stipend raise for the yr. Glad I refied...I'll be breaking even again.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
Its not a tax increase...the tax has always been there. You just got a reduces benefit from it for a while. When the reduced % was passed it also came with an ending date as well.
We're all going to be paying more one way or another. Do what you can to cut costs now so you can brace for it then.
It's not an Obama versus Romney, Republican vs Democrat thing, either --- we've been borrowing against Social Security over many administrations for decades and now the old farts are retiring and want their benefits that they've paid into for years.
I agree, I know it had an end date....but I guess from not paying it to paying it it's an increase...I think welfare, military (having a SMART efficient military is more important) are 2 off the top. Will MY benefits be there? not so sure.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
Either raise the FICA tax or let Social Security go broke even faster.
The cut should have never happened in the first place. Just another gimmick used to reschedule growth from the future.
"They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchy by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king…six thousands years of it in every language"
Fixing SS is easy and, imo, a no brainer, which means no one will do it.Originally Posted by FaninAma
Just raise the salary cap over a three to five year time frame to $180k-$185k,
with legislation preventing gov't "borrowing" from the trust fund. Number
crunchers two or three years back said that raising it to $140k would fix the
problem with 95% certainty. Just sayin'..
ROS, I wouldn't care how high they raise my FICA taxes IF they guaranteed that I or my family received every cent back that I paid in. Heck, I really don't even care that they don't pay interest on the money I contributed.
FaninAma, if you look into how SS works, you'll see that most likely you
and your family will get back more than every cent you paid in...all kinds
of survivor benefits and different ways for your spouse and kids to continue
your benefits after you're gone.
The biggest problem with the SS Trust Fund is that the federal gov't has
used the fund as an interest free banker, to the tune of $2.6 trillion and
counting. That's why I advocate legislating idiot proof raiding of the fund
and it'd be there far into the future. But, (sigh), there aren't enough "warriors"
in Congress to fight that battle.
In theory it's a simple fix. In practice it would be a painful process because of demographics. What should have happened is when baby boomers started retiring they would have been paid out of a huge surplus. That surplus has been squandered on various government programs and replaced with IOUs. There really is no good solution at this point.
that's the problem with our policies over the last 30 years. Trading the future for the here and now has resulted in very few options for our future.
If we go the austerity route then we risk getting in a feedback loop where recession results in tighter consumers which results in another recession......then tax revs will really dive.
There are very few options to consider: repudiation, structured default, or inflation.
Last edited by Sooner5030; 11/12/2012 at 03:52 PM.
"They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchy by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king…six thousands years of it in every language"
I am for raising the cap but I also think we need to raise the age limit another couple of years...
I still think a limit of 140k would get the job done...
I would also do away with the special issue bonds where we pay interest to ourselves...
Move the bonds over to the private sector...high quality corp, city, and state bonds...the additional money chasing those bonds would reduce the interest rate on those bonds...making cities and states end up paying less for capital improvements...
One of the Pub candidates during the primaries, I can't remember which one,
offered raising the retirement age 2 months at a time over a time frame to get
the retirement age to 68, not a bad idea, but I think the cap should go higher
than $140k, maybe not the $180k I said earlier but $160k at least to take any
guess work out of it, PLUS idiot proof raiding legislation. Doing the age thing
and the cap thing at the same time would fix SS at least to the year 2100. And,
stop calling it "entitlement", cause everyone pays into it!
For years I have been touting the couple of months every year till we get to 68 method...
I did some basic number crunching a couple of years ago and came up with a 140k limit would be good...but I could damn sure see where I was off by 10 or 20k....
I also think that once us Baby Boomers die off we could actually drop the salary limit and still be good going forward..
No thoughts on my moving money from the Special Issue bonds into the private sector?
Somebody else would be paying the interest...
It would lower the rate for cities, states, and corps giving a sort of stimulus...
Since we would be buying bonds outslde the fed government our "leadership" wouldn't have the ability to use the money since it would be in hands of the cities, states, and corps....we would only have their bonds...
Risk would be minimal...right now we pay ourselves the interest...so we are actually getting nothing on our money...if we had three percent failure per year in the bond market we could subsidize those losses and still be at the same point we are today where we pay interest to ourselves...
It is a no lose situation...
They need to just get rid of the cap. Most people already pay it and for those who earn over the ceiling maybe drop the rate a couple of points but not totally stop the deduction.
Wasnt there talk years ago about letting people make their own investment choices vs payjng ss?
You just can't remove the cap..
First, we don't need that much to make it viable...
Second, it is a defined benefit play...it would be criminal to have someone pay 60k a year so they could get 3 grand a month in benefits when they retire....
There was never anything that I know of that was going to stop payments into SS...only an idea to give each person a choice in how to invest their money and for each person to have an individual SS account...
I would support the individual accounts...but there are a couple of deep rooted problems...
1. When you divide up the money into the pphilfran and One4OU accounts there is nothing left to pay for the people currently drawing benefits...
2. You would have to limit the ways to invest..risk would need to be kept to a minimum or you risk the basic reason for SS...guaranteed income (small, but still guaranteed)
In my estimation none of those are viable options. Of course the we will try the soft default route through currency debasement but sooner or later (sooner probably) we will face the day of reckoning when the market says no more. We are partially there now.
That is no longer the case. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...king-historic/
removing the cap seems more fair than raising the age all the time
if the vast majority of people have to pay into it based on their entire income, why shouldn't everyone else?
Posting Permissions
