Civil Discussion: Social Security

[1Clemson]

Are you going take the cap off of benefits as well?

Wouldn't have to in order to stabilize the program (at the expense of greater subsidization of lower wage earners by higher wage earners). Due to the progressive return system employed, the more you pay in the less the return % (90% for first $960 of monthly wage, 32% of above that up to $5583, then 15% for everything above that). Eliminating the cap could technically fix or make a big dent the financial insolvency issue if benefit formulas don't change as every new dollar in collection results in only $0.15 in future benefit to payer. It would increase the political issue for upper middle class/wealthier wage earners. It would have essentially zero impact on the true wealthy that make income via investment (non wage). Ultimately this is simply a math problem of balancing taxes with benefits that has been made almost unsolvable due to trying to turn it into social/political problem without addressing the math.

 

[CUFam98]

Wouldn't have to in order to stabilize the program (at the expense of greater subsidization of lower wage earners by higher wage earners). Due to the progressive return system employed, the more you pay in the less the return % (90% for first $960 of monthly wage, 32% of above that up to $5583, then 15% for everything above that). Eliminating the cap could technically fix or make a big dent the financial insolvency issue if benefit formulas don't change as every new dollar in collection results in only $0.15 in future benefit to payer. It would increase the political issue for upper middle class/wealthier wage earners. It would have essentially zero impact on the true wealthy that make income via investment (non wage). Ultimately this is simply a math problem of balancing taxes with benefits that has been made almost unsolvable due to trying to turn it into social/political problem without addressing the math.

So you just took Social Security from a safety net to a true wealth redistribution program. Its already an inefficient program and made it a political target by wage earners and businesses who pay the other 6.2% on all wages. You also just increased the cost of doing business and cost of goods sold to those lower income earners.

Good luck passing something like that through Congress.

 

[1Clemson]

So you just took Social Security from a safety net to a true wealth redistribution program. Its already an inefficient program and made it a political target by wage earners and businesses who pay the other 6.2% on all wages. You also just increased the cost of doing business and cost of goods sold to those lower income earners.

Good luck passing something like that through Congress.

Not I. Just pointing out the math for the prior poster- as I said its a relatively simple math problem that has been poorly conflated with a public policy. You can easily solve the math problem at the expense of making the public policy issues greater, or address the public policy problem and torture the math problem into non-sustainability. The math can't be fixed without a future benefit reduction or an increase in contributions- either can work.

For me SS is just one of many accepted nuisances of living in our country. Is it inefficient? Is it overly political? Is it wrong in principle? Yes, just like almost everything the government touches or chooses to treat differently- people, personal characteristics, churches, income sources, tax subsidies/policies, off-shore tax liability, criminal justice, etc.

 

[PawsFan_]

as every new dollar in collection results in only $0.15 in future benefit to payer.

Thus the problem right? We're saying most people don't get back what they pay into it. And part of that is the grand expense to manage this. SS is 33% of all Federal Spending. That's times two the DoD.

As conservative as I am, I can buy that the government has a safety net program for those less fortunate in this world. God Blesses us each differently and there are some good folks out there that need a helping hand. It doesn't benefit us as a society to have elderly in such a dire situation. Some goes for Medicaid/Medicare benefits.

Eventually we will all pay for these entitlements somehow, but there has to be a better way than taking money from all of us and giving back just a small portion when we are old.

I say we make China pay for is but tariffing the crap out of their goods.

Congrats to a thread that actually discussed differing viewpoints without using the terms libtard, snowflake, socialist, or facist.

 

[firegiver]

Uh, no it's not. It's a safety net program. Once you reach a certain level of contribution, you have fully funded your share of the safety net. And of course there's the cap on distributions, so capping contributions is totally logical.

Having unlimited, forced contributions and capped distributions is so dumb I will never understand it.

Yah people got tired of watching the elderly starve in the streets. So dumb

 

[dfrctigersc]

I willing to bet everyone in this thread has already got SS. They called it a stimulus check. This country is being dismantled right now. The really sad part is that those of us who have been working the whole time are financing it.

 

[1Clemson]

Thus the problem right? We're saying most people don't get back what they pay into it. And part of that is the grand expense to manage this. SS is 33% of all Federal Spending. That's times two the DoD.

As conservative as I am, I can buy that the government has a safety net program for those less fortunate in this world. God Blesses us each differently and there are some good folks out there that need a helping hand. It doesn't benefit us as a society to have elderly in such a dire situation. Some goes for Medicaid/Medicare benefits.

Eventually we will all pay for these entitlements somehow, but there has to be a better way than taking money from all of us and giving back just a small portion when we are old.

I say we make China pay for is but tariffing the crap out of their goods.

Congrats to a thread that actually discussed differing viewpoints without using the terms libtard, snowflake, socialist, or facist.

Us citizens pay almost all of Trumps tariff (had to do it because you complimented everyone).. Its just a tax on the citizens with another name. Shocked that a conservative would support increased taxes.