Social Security Changes

[steelheadbluesman]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

No sacrifices need be made, we just need to tax everyone at the same rate for social security. Right now there is a cap on social security tax payments at 120,000$. Anything made above 120,000$ is not taxed at all. Who does that favor? The richest folks. I don't mind Mitt making 38 million dollars last year. Good for him! What I do mind is that he doesn't pay any social security tax after the first 120,000$ of income. We also need to pass bills that require the same sacrifices from our elected officials no matter what party they belong to, as they demand of us. Since they get retirement and health care for life paid by all tax payers, cutting social security affects them not at all.

Mitt paid less then 15% income tax last year on 38 million income. I paid almost 30% on 80,000$ and you ask why there is a problem?!? Everyone needs to be held to the same tax standard. Now, I'm not picking on Mitt or the repuplican party but as long as these injustices are true in todays tax laws the poor will pay way more then the rich for everything amd make the backbreaking sacrifices.
-Paul R. Haller-

Amen, brothers and sisters

[JC2]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

No sacrifices need be made, we just need to tax everyone at the same rate for social security. Right now there is a cap on social security tax payments at 120,000$. Anything made above 120,000$ is not taxed at all. Who does that favor? The richest folks. I don't mind Mitt making 38 million dollars last year. Good for him! What I do mind is that he doesn't pay any social security tax after the first 120,000$ of income. We also need to pass bills that require the same sacrifices from our elected officials no matter what party they belong to, as they demand of us. Since they get retirement and health care for life paid by all tax payers, cutting social security affects them not at all.

Mitt paid less then 15% income tax last year on 38 million income. I paid almost 30% on 80,000$ and you ask why there is a problem?!? Everyone needs to be held to the same tax standard. Now, I'm not picking on Mitt or the repuplican party but as long as these injustices are true in todays tax laws the poor will pay way more then the rich for everything amd make the backbreaking sacrifices.
-Paul R. Haller-

The nail has been hit on the head.

[Perry White]

Was just wondering to myself, what kind of retirement do the civil service employees that take care of my Social Security tax and send me payments do for retirement?

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by JC2

The nail has been hit on the head.

Unfortunately the nail was missed. Income is taxed at different rates to spur investment, build new homes, start new businesses, and so on. The rates weren't set by one man or even one party. Is it a bigger crime that one man pays almost $6 million on his income and almost half of the country pays no income taxes at all?

By the way the inaccuracies in the post on taxes are pretty severe. The cap on Social Security is a little over $110,000, not $120,000 and I'll bet that most of the people on this forum also have dividend income and capital gains income that is either taxed at that same 15% or if they are in the lowest two tax brackets they pay NO tax on that income at all.

It appears that many are in favor of sacrifices......as long as the sacrifices are made by someone else. We complain about the politicians, yet they get reelected to term after term. The City of Buffalo is a perfect example. It is the second poorest city in the US, yet in the City Council election not one politician had any opposition. That has to be one of the saddest commentaries of our political system that one could make.

I'll go back to my original question. What would you be willing to do to help save the Social Security System?

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by Perry White

Was just wondering to myself, what kind of retirement do the civil service employees that take care of my Social Security tax and send me payments do for retirement?

Perry, this will probably get your blood boiling. Up until a few years ago the employess of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department were not in the Social Security System, but rather covered under the Federal Employee Retirement.

[Perry White]

Aaaaarrrrggghhhh

[VanDiemen23]

Well, I'll tell you. wnytaxman is wrong on civil service retirement unless you consider 1984 "a few years ago".

If you are in the "old" system called CSRS, you pay into the system at some rate (I don't have the numbers with me right now) and you can retire any time after age 55 AND with a minimum of 30 years in. Your retirement benefit is 2% of the average of your highest three years, per year of service, up to ~80% if you stay in 40+ years. When you retire you pay all your own insurance. If you want survivor's benefits for your spouse when you die, your benefit is reduced. This system is referred to as the "golden handcuffs" because if you leave before retirement you get essentially NOTHING. It is perhaps the last of the old-fashioned pension programs.

Pure CSRS people pay no Social Security and are not eligible unless they amass the required number of quarters elsewhere. We do pay Medicare and are eligible for that.

Since 1985 or so we've been allowed to participate in a thrift savings plan (essentially an IRA) but there's no matching funds from the employer.

There are very few CSRS people left in the system because it was discontinued in 1984, and people were encouraged to join the new system, called FERS. Most youngsters did. Except for a few workaholic crazies (I have 3 people with more than 40 years and there are a couple of guys on base with 50 years in), by 2025 all the CSRS people will be gone. It also means that with fewer Fed CSRS constituents, our pension fund is a big fat target for budget balancing congressmen, just like private pensions were for corporate raiders in the 1980s.

Now this is a good deal overall if you can put up with the government's BS for 30+ years, but it comes with another price - During my technical days I made about 20% less than my friends in private industry. Now that I manage a fairly large group of scientists and engineers, I make about 30-50% of my peers in industry. I do however, have a reasonable amount of job security, but I've been through two RIFs since I started working and they are no fun.

If you joined up after 1984 you have a thrift savings plan that includes employer matching funds. You have to work longer (62 I think) to retire. You still get a pension, but it's much smaller - the TSP is meant to be the main part. You pay social security and medicare and can collect both. You still make less than similar jobs in industry, but your retirement is more portable - so the government is now losing a lot of folks around the age of 40-45 - when they move into management and the big salaries from industry kick in. We tend to hire good folks during recessions and lose them as soon as the economy picks up.

Military get to retire at 20 years and can now join the government and "double dip"

It's actually a lot more complicated than this, but I've hit the high points.

[wnytaxman]

VanDiem, my point was not that the old system was a wonderful system because it wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. My point was that the people who administered the Social Security System were not covered by the same system they were administering.

[Rubix cube]

Obviously the public's low opinion of Congress is not having the desired affect on effective legislation, no matter how unpalatable.

It used to be that people wanted to get into office to make a difference, and some still do on both sides of the aisle, but I feel more are just interested in getting into office, no matter the cost to our citizens.

Social Security itself has not failed. Drawing it into the general fund destroyed it. And why was it drawn in? To augment funds for projects other than the intended use of the money.

I'm convinced that our government is bloated with redundancies and misspending, which if eliminated would maybe get spending under control. Now, this may sound like I fall right of center; however, I like to think they agree with my philosophy of how our country should be run rather than my taking their whole platform.

I don't find our government successful in many adventures they run or create. The Fed was institutionalized to stop Bank failures. (right ) Its current policies will undoubted bring inflation upon us - which is a lagging aspect to creating excesses in the Money supply. Medicare is rife with fraud, and the government responds with effectively trying to put everyone on it. The Department of Education has us at 25th in the world for its efforts. ATF - guns sold to Mexico says it all , The Attorney Generals office has become a political position, and well I'm sure we could do this all day.

The federal government should not be deciding how much we will give to Charity. Charity is best administer at a local level, if not personal level. I currently have a young couple in my house that is struggling with finding jobs. I know they are looking hard, and finding some temp or part time positions. Last month i gave $50 to a family I barely knew, (based on their church's recommendation) because they had hit a bump in the road. I don't expect the money back. THAT is charity.

I would like Social Security taken OUT of the general fund. Its need has NOT disappeared, just its funding's use.

BTW, I'd like to hear how many folks have ever met with their House Representative. Not write, but actually sat down with them. Mine, Adam Smith, is a Democrat, and I was impressed , even if I could not agree with him on all issues. He spent 30 minutes with me on a one-on-one basis.

[JimM68]

again, we're heading off the deep end...

but so what. SS should remain what ir was intended to be, a safety net for the "old poor". It should continue to pay out according to it's formulas, as originally imagined. Those who can't think far enough ahead to save for retirement should get whatever social security there is, and those who did, well, if you contributed, you should get paid, according to the same rules.

SS should be out of the general fund immediately, it should be made back into the self perpetuating system it was originally designed to be.

Welfare and disability should be removed. The US of A does not owe a subsistence living to anyone. Disabled? Poor? 18 with 3 out of wedlock children? Sorry. We (as in the workers and taxpayers of America) owe you nothing. Die in the streets if your families won't take care of you.
Anyone applying for public assistance for thier born out of wedlock child should be sterilized as part of the deal.

and congress and the senate should not be due any more than anyone who has worked fopr 4-6 years for the same company, that is, dot one single public dime.

"same sex couples" or whatever they call you these day, we owe you nothing. If you want death bed benifits, take a moment to write a will.

Further, term limits, as in 2 senate 6 year terms, and 3 congress 4 year terms, period, end of discussion, would go a way long way toward solving most of this countries problems, particularly if the states ran the same bandwagon for thier governers, mayore, congress, etc...
Here in Illinois, we have a "CABLE" who has been running the state for generations, people with names like Daly, Stroger, Madigan. People who have been running our sad state for generations. People who think the state of Illinois exists to give them power and make them rich.

[Perry White]

We have the best Govt money can buy.

[kstateaddict]

I'm really getting tired of people complaining that people that have money should pay more!!!!! What really irks me are is the 50% that pay nothing!!! How about the people that try to make a change then are crucified for "trying to take away my social security" One more thing.... When I signed up for SS I went in for my appointment the office was standing room only and I was the only person in the room with grey hair. It was full of people that looked homeless,covered with tatoo's,hoodies etc.I went to the window and asked if I was in the right place. She assured me that I was then I asked her what in the hell were all these people during here. She said they are on disabilty and dependants. That's when I knew we were in so much trouble it was going to be next to impossible to fix. We have to support the people trying to change the system.

[Warden]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

From various news reports the Social Security system is in deep trouble and the potential is there for the system to completely run out of money within the next 20 years. Many of us are either already on Social Security or will be drawing in the not too distant future.

In an effort to save the System, would you be in favor of changes to Social Security, even if it reduced your benefits?

Stop Giving it to Illegals

[wildtoad]

Originally Posted by CarlGeo

If you are a worker and contribute the full amount to social security, you will never get back what you put in the system.
Now the employee contributes directly about 7.5% and your employeer contribtes the same 7.5% for a total of 15% +/-, so for an income of $150,000 per yr x 15%=$22,500 per year. Take this amount over a period of thirty years with compounded interest and you have some serious money.
Taking that lump sum x the maximum monthly benefit and you will not / connot live long enough to collect what you would have accumulated.

Actually many receive far more than THEY put in. Unless you were self employed and paid both parts (the 15%) you will get back more than you paid in very quickly. The 7% company match is in itself government required welfare. So if you count just what YOU put in, the numbers are not so large.

I don't know about you but the last year(s) I worked I made good money but the first 10 years I made not so much. 7% of $6,600 in 1973 was chump change as in $472. Factor in a decent annual raise, the numbers are still not that large.

My current report from SSA says I'll get $2,100 a month if I wait till 66. Thats approx 24,000 a year and in no time I will have been paid much , much more than I paid in. If I start drawing at 62, then by the time I'm 66, I will have recovered more than I put in. And I haven't contributed in 12 years (58 years old).

There are issues with the system that need to be looked at.....