I keep covering this topic, so I am happy when the media does so also. :-)
And yet the politicians and general population keep their heads in the sand. :-O
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2021
(173)
-
▼
September
(12)
- From South of the Border
- Maricopa Audit Results
- $1 BILLION for Israel Iron Dome. Really?
- How Are Things Going For Biden?
- Will GOP Wreck Economy?
- SS Reduction Gets Real
- SCOTUS Partisan or Perspective
- COVID vs 9/11 Deaths
- "Dr" Noem?
- Let the Law Suits Commence
- Afghanistan Opinions
- COVID Hospitalizations
-
▼
September
(12)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
42 comments:
Social security will not be cut. It is too popular.
Well, the money will not be there... So we will see...
Either they will need to increase payroll taxes or cut SS benefits...
I hope they cut benefits... Since the current citizens have been happily ignoring this train wreck for decades...
That's because the country is failing. It's far from the biggest problem we can't do something about because we are failing as a country.
--Hiram
And it is so unnecessary. If SS had been reformed 40 years ago, when first proposed, We would be well along to retirees receiving MORE money. It could still be done.
Hiram, You really need to think more happy thoughts.
Jerry,
Every time you propose a solution, your irresponsible generation gets to keep their benefits, while younger and poorer people get screwed... :-O
And you insist that the solution I have laboriously examined mathematically, where EVERYBODY over 55 receives everything they were promised (so long as they keep paying the SS taxes) and everybody UNDER 55 retires with MORE than was promised (but cannot be paid), does only what you insist it does, with no evidence whatsoever. Spend two or three days with nothing but the math, and then you will be entitled to an opinion.
Please share this miraculous solution again...
You really need to think more happy thoughts
The headline of my morning newspaper says one in five hundred people died of Covid. This is a disease didn't exist two years ago. It seems to me we have much more serious problems than Social Security right now.
--Hiram
1 in 500 is a pretty tiny percentage...(0.2%)
And Jerry would note... Some of those 0.2% were old and/or sick and would have died any way.
Maybe you should focus on that 499 of 500 did not die of COVID. :-)
OK, I think it a fools errand to convince you of anything beyond your closed-mind conclusions, but let us try. Here are the assumptions, and you can then do the laborious math yourself. Or take my word for it. :-/
Assumptions and inputs
Death expectations: from Social Security actuarial tables
Initial Conditions: current SSA
Income: present--87% from FICA and associated, assume 100%. NOTE: employee and employer each 6.2%
SS income is assumed equal across each ten-year cohort, at the relative % of each cohort to the total.
Wages increase over the years according to the SSA wage index.
SS outgo/benefits is assumed to remain constant forever, but reduced each year according to the SSA actuarial tables.
Assumes retirement at age 67 and benefits begin.
The reform assumes that immediately:
-Those 55 and older continue with taxes and benefits unchanged
-those 45-55 move 2% of their pay to private accounts and receive 2/6.2 or 32% less benefit.
-those 35-45 move 4% of their pay to private accounts and receive 4/6.2 or 65% less benefit.
-those under 35 move 6.2% of their pay to private accounts and receive no SS benefits after retirement.
That the number of people who die before the start of benefits will continue to pay in to the system (and receive no benefits) on the same schedule as currently. That is, that their premature death will have no effect on the reform calculations.
We assume the working population remains the same size and has the same salary distribution.
Assume the percent of new retirees remains at the historic average over the last five years.
Private accounts pay the same 3.2% as SS Trust Fund bonds, or could BE Treasury bonds.
Disability and Survivors benefits are paid from the employer portion, which does not reduce over the life of the reform (~45 years).
At some point the employer portion can be reduced and the employment disincentive it creates reduced-- a policy decision
That math will never work for lower income households, the ones who benefit from SS's progressive methodology...
For people like me who pay the max FICA amount allowed, your system would be wonderful.
And what are you going to do about the bigger problem. (medicare?)
Don't change the subject. The proposed SS reform works for EVERYBODY that actually pays in to the system, and does not exclude some as SS does. Had you done the math, you would know that.
Change the subject?
SS, Medicare and Disability are supposed to ensure the most impoverished Americans have money and care during the elder years.
You proposed a solution to help everyone but them. :-O
I proposed a solution to help everyone INCLUDING them. You deny it. Which of us is right? What does your detailed mathematical analysis reveal that mine does not?
You want to change the subject to include Medicare. Stick to the "retirement benefit," the thing going broke soon, (actually, already there) as is the subject here.
So again... How does your solution help?
"the most impoverished Americans during their elder years"
Consider one "impoverished American." This young lady came out of high school and was fortunate to land a minwage job at 18. She worked full time, which put her just over the poverty level, and she kept it up for 7 years. No explanation as to why she quit. Maybe she got married, maybe not. Anyway, she pays $6825 in SS taxes.
Now, under the current SS system, at age 67 she gets ZERO, because she has not paid in for the full 10 years required to receive benefits. Under the proposed reform, she has at least $28946. Now, had she gotten married, under the current system, She would receive half of her husband's SS benefit. Whatever it is, it is more than nothing BUT, under the proposed reform, her husband's "retirement fund," will be 2-3 times what his SS benefit would be. Furthermore, if he dies after retirement, the current system pays her his FULL benefit, but she loses her half-benefit, a net loss for the household, and if he dies BEFORE retirement, she gets zip, zero. Under the proposed reform, whether he dies before or after retirement, she gets everything. AND, unlike the current SS system, if they are not legally married, she STILL gets everything.
It seems you WANT to believe that a government-run system that is OBVIOUSLY failing, and that has been so for decades, is the best possible system, yet refuse to consider a not only viable but superior alternative.
So how did she live until retirement?
You really had to stretch for that one.
If she was on disability, she would still be on disability.
And how long would $28946 get her anyway... :-O
Grasp at straws all you want. The proposed reform is superior to the current system in all cases, including those at the bottom of the economic ladder, for whom government welfare remains, still without reform. That the proposed SS reform may be "inadequate" in some cases does not alter the fact that the current SS system is even more inadequate. Do you not WANT her to have the $28946, rather than $0.00?
The lady in your example is going to get at least 75% of this minimum monthly payout for as long as she lives
Definitely a LOT MORE than $28,946...
Unless she drops dead at ~69...
"To be eligible for a special minimum benefit, a person must have at least 11 years of coverage."
The lady in my example does not qualify. So she gets ZERO, just as I said. You are beating a dead horse. Why?
As I asked before...
How did your imaginary woman live for 40 years without a job?
She was a very successful madam, and never paid SS taxes on her income.
Or she got married. Either way, the current SS system gives her ZERO, and the reform gives her back the taxes she paid.
If she is a tax cheat... That was her choice... I hope she invested well.
If she was married, she gets benefits.
When are you going to admit that the current systems work well for the working poor?
If she was married, she gets benefits. Yes, we've discussed that woefully inadequate scenario.
When are you going to admit that the SS system is going broke (you've already admitted it) and cannot deliver on its promises, for ANYBODY, and that a sensible reform is available, and has been for decades?
"If she is a tax cheat... That was her choice... I hope she invested well."
On further consideration, that is hilarious! This reform is almost exactly that! Opt out of paying taxes into the SS system in favor of making a private retirement account. It's not only vastly better for the [every] individual, but makes a huge contribution to reducing the national debt.
75% of promised is still a LOT more than you are offering low income households.
Again... Your plan is great for people with higher incomes. I would do much better on it.
Or maybe not... Since all those old poor people would then be on Medicaid / welfare...
"75% of promised is still a LOT more than you are offering low income households."
Now YOU are the one with no data, no sources, and nothing to back up your clearly false statement.
You even overlook the example I offered, where 75% of ZERO is still ZERO. Check your math skills.
As noted above, the only people who would get zero out of the system are criminals who lived off the grid.
Unless you have a new example of how legal citizens who participate in society and pay their taxes would get zero?
Wrong AGAIN. People who do not contribute for ten full years get ZERO. Those who die before receiving benefits get ZERO. Unmarried couples, one of them gets ZERO, whether the other lives or dies. Those who are already retired or will retire soon get 75% of what was promised and right now we are driving UP the national debt to pay benefits. You started this thread complaining that SS was failing, and now defend it vigorously and falsely.
Yes it is a long term care insurance program, not a savings plan. If you die you do not get it, nor do you need it. However your spouse and minor children may get benefits depending on the circumstances.
Yes, they should get married or work outside the home. Are you promoting living in sin now? And not working 11 out of 45+ years...
Yes we do have to pay the bills we are legally obligated to pay. However if we change the laws we can pay less and/or collect more to better match premiums to benefits.
I am indifferent as to what solution is chosen as long as it is paid for and those "widows and orphans" are cared for. :-) Not just so the well to do can give more inheritance to their children. :-( That is just selfish... :-O
You are indifferent to the solution, so long it is NOT the highly sensible, mathematically sound, highly beneficial to ALL that I and many others have proposed. All I have done is to check and see that the proposals of others work mathematically, and was surprised to see that it still does, 40 years later, but not for much longer. You have NOT done the math or even an honest appraisal of the proposal. You have yet to find an example of someone worse off under the proposed, which you cannot because you don't know what it is, really. And if you DID, you want to make things worse for 99.9% of the people, just to protect that one? Pretty deep socialist "thinking," isn't it? What do you have against lowering the national debt?
The only people who get a bad deal from FICA are well to do folks like me... And I am okay with that...
My kids will inherit well when I pass.
You don't even read, do you? You don't understand the current SS system, let alone the proposed reform. NOBODY gets a good deal from FICA, except those who work hard at low-wage jobs all their lives get back something more than what they put in IF they live long enough. And it only works so long as we tax employers and the youngsters keep paying more and more for the old people, while not likely to get what is promised them-- maybe 75%, maybe less. The system is still a Ponzi scheme, still broken, and reform is readily available. Politics prevents its consideration, nothing else.
And here is a thought. How about we enact this reform, and make it optional? If you want to keep paying your full FICA and get full benefits at retirement (which we all know you won't), just let us know.
The system needs people like myself to pay more than I receive to ensure poor folks who worked all their lives get enough to scrape by in retirement, or can get that disability check.
Again... Remember that it is "welfare" for old people... Nothing more. Nothing less.
And you want to take away the system's progressivity so it acts like another IRA...
I think we well to do folks have plenty of tax shelters.
SS is a very REGRESSIVE tax. Eliminating that tax by allowing "poor" people to keep that money and invest it makes the reform progressive in its effects. Even though there is money added in for those with low "investment" in SS, it's a "rob Peter to pay Paul" dividend rather than a real investment that grows the economy. And since high incomes get LESS "return on investment," it hardly seems fair, does it?
Jerry,
It is only regressive if they do not get a substantial payback on the premiums they pay.
As it is they get a great payback...
There is plenty of money awash in investments.
Again you let your primary goal show...
"high incomes get LESS "return on investment,"
Wrong. It is regressive at the time they pay the FICA taxes, and their "return" is NOT guaranteed, as you know. You say this is not an "investment for retirement," yet you insist there is a significant, guaranteed return on investment for some.
My "primary goal" is to reform the SS system so that it survives and can fulfill the promises made for it, for everybody. You are apparently happy to let this Ponzi scheme collapse of its own weight. For pure political reasons.
The only way SS, Medicare and SSD totally fail is if the US ends and/or people stop working and paying FICA. So of course some level of benefits is guaranteed.
It is actually a Flat Rate tax and the benefits are capped, so it can not be regressive. Unless you think people should not pay for their future benefits.
The primary reason SS is stressed right now is because Baby Boomers did not contribute enough.
And because the US is not controlling their medical expenses as well as the rest of the developed world.
CRFB Trustee Report
CRFB SS Fixes
CRFB Medicare Trustees
Thanks for the link! Inputting the proposed reform into the "reform tool," one sees that SS becomes self-sustaining in 2034, rather than going broke. QED.
Post a Comment