View Poll Results: Do you view social security is an entitlement that can be altered?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it should be eliminated completely.

    45 50.00%
  • Yes, I could handle a small level of program reduction.

    6 6.67%
  • No, its my money, and the government has no right to touch it.

    32 35.56%
  • I dont know and/or it depends on what is offered as a replacement program.

    7 7.78%
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 132

Thread: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

  1. #121
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Providence RI USA
    Last Seen
    09-26-11 @ 01:19 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    I truly believe that SS is a total scam on america. I really can't understand why anyone believes in this crud. Since my first paycheck when I was 16 or so, SS has been taking my money. I tried to get straight answers on where the money went, and all people told me was it went in a whole in the ground. What?
    What I can gather is that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers wanted a little free pass in life and decided to throw us a little debt. And their thinking was that if we all fought in the great wars, why shouldn't we benefit from a break. Hell, they did save the world from gruesome evil.
    Either way SS goes, I'll keep paying until all the baby-boomers are dead, and I say cut your loses and work til your dead.
    seriously.

  2. #122
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    fascinating. the Social Security Administration under the Obama Presidency is made up of conservatives trying to find ways to plunder the poor and middle class?



    they depend on a pittance - Social Security does not provide the money necessary for our working poor to survive, which is why we should reform it so that it does.
    401k Advice That Everyone Could Use

    This chart, courtesy of the Motley Fool, really shows you the power of compound interest. If you contributed only $5,000/yr for 10 years at starting at age 25, you would have almost $800,000 by retirement at age 65 (assuming an 8% compound rate of return). If you started contributing the same amount, starting at age 45, you would only have $170,000. In both cases, you only contribute $50,000 of pre-tax income, but the major difference is the amount of time that the $50,000 gets to grow at 8% a year
    walmart worker 7.50 per hour 15,600 per year 1950.00 total 975.00 from worker and 950.00 from the employer, remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

    15.6 g is not a lot of money to live on so saving money if even possible would allow a person in a 401k to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

    Walmart is the largest employer in the USA followed by Macdonalds

    15.00 per hour means 31,200 per year 3900 dollars into SS 1950.00 from employee 1950.00 from employer remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

    31,200 is not a lot of money to live on so saving money in a 401k allows a person to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

    The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

    20.90 per hour means 43,460 per year 5215.20 dollars into SS 2607.00 from employee and 2607.00 from emplyer

    I have to tell you the truth 43,460.00 a year is not much to earn and still be able to stuff money away for retirement, my conclusion is that the average wage earner would be lucky to put 5000.00 in a 401k and even luckier if they did not have to draw some portion of it out before retirement.And who knows thier is no guarantee that a crash or recession in the market won't reduce or totally wipe out a person 401k savings

    SS can not be touched until a person retires at least insuring some kind of income for many poor and elderly people.

    If you are a high wage earner open up a 401k and reap in those big benefits, use you SS money to buy your new cadillac or boat or whatever but leave the poor and those who did not ever have your earning potential a little money and a little dignity.we may have all had the same opportunity but unfortunately we were not all given the same gifts our IQ' are not all the same, we are not all athelitic nor are we all models or born with the same physical capacities, some are born into proverty and some are born into wealth but the facts are we all part of the whole and when push comes to shove we are all needed

    Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 43.6 million (14.3%) Americans were living in absolute poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million (13.2%) in 2008.[2] In addition, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. [(United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]


    The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[3] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[4] There remains some controversy over whether the official poverty threshold over- or understates poverty.

    The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[5] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.
    The number of people living at or below the poverty level in 2010 was 15.1% of our population or over 47 million people that means if they can not pull thier selves out of poverty they will be living under bridges and eating out of garbage cans in thier retirement years

    If you think I am a bleeding heart liberal you are absolutely right, I live in a country that wil rush to the aid of foreign countries but wants to reduce the minimum wage from 7.50 per hour

    I will repeat myself again SS is the best thing that has happened for many millions of Americans, so if you are among those who can invest in 401ks have at it I hope your investments pay off handsomely so that you can afford to keep spending in your retirement years, those less fortunate may need to work at Walmarts or MacDonalds to supplement thier SS checks

  3. #123
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    walmart worker 7.50 per hour 15,600 per year 1950.00 total 975.00 from worker and 950.00 from the employer, remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

    15.6 g is not a lot of money to live on so saving money if even possible would allow a person in a 401k to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

    Walmart is the largest employer in the USA followed by Macdonalds

    15.00 per hour means 31,200 per year 3900 dollars into SS 1950.00 from employee 1950.00 from employer remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

    31,200 is not a lot of money to live on so saving money in a 401k allows a person to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

    The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

    20.90 per hour means 43,460 per year 5215.20 dollars into SS 2607.00 from employee and 2607.00 from emplyer

    I have to tell you the truth 43,460.00 a year is not much to earn and still be able to stuff money away for retirement, my conclusion is that the average wage earner would be lucky to put 5000.00 in a 401k and even luckier if they did not have to draw some portion of it out before retirement.
    I was saving for retirement (I think I managed $4,000) when I was making around 30K as the sole income provider for my family. What your figure doesn't fully represent is that that is not the case for everyone - as the average household income is around $51,000. The reason, being, of course, that a large number of those Walmart-esque jobs are held by second-income-earners who work part time.

    however, fortunately for you, I ran the numbers on what would occur if we were to convert a portion of the FICA tax into a tax-free personalized account as I suggested:

    Joe graduates High School and goes to work, making 25,000 a year. Not anyone's idea of incredible pay, but there you are. Joe gets' a 2% raise every year to account for his increasing talent, experience, etc. The 10% of his income goes into a mix of funds that matches the S&P 500 Combined Annualized Growth average since 1982: 7.98% (after you account for inflation). If Joe retires nice and early at 62; his retirement fund will be worth $1,030,110, and if placed into an annuity / conservative account that generates a 5% annual return, his monthly benefit will be $4,292. That would be slightly less than his last monthly paycheck of $4,979; but still quite livable. If Joe works until he's 65, his monthly benefit will climb above his monthly income to $5,473; and if he decides (as most of us probably will) to delay retirement to 68, he's looking at a monthly retirement check of $6,966.

    And remember, Joe isn't exactly one of society's higher paid workers.

    But he also had the advantage of time. Let's say instead Joe went to two years of college, and got an associates before entering the workforce to earn that 25,000; and let's say that instead of 2%, Joe turns out not to learn new skills that well, and his annual raise above inflation is actually 0.5%. We're stacking the deck a little against ole Joe, but he still seems to come out okay; his monthly benefit at age 62 is $3,050; at age 65 it's $3,875; and at age 68 it's $4,915. It's worth noting that under this model, the most Joe ever made was $31,672 in a given year; and that his monthly retirement benefits at age 65 represents a $1,200 monthly pay increase over his monthly income. Even if Joe retires early at 62 he will have more in income off of his account than he would from working; and the longer he chooses to keep working, the greater, obviously, his return is.

    AND ALL THIS WITHOUT COSTING OLE JOE A SINGLE RED CENT. since the money was cash he was losing to taxes in the first place, his take-home pay wasn't reduced one iota; but because we partially privatized social security, Low Income Worker Joe can retire a millionaire...

    And who knows thier is no guarantee that a crash or recession in the market won't reduce or totally wipe out a person 401k savings
    fortunately, I ran that scenario as well:

    ...If the market tanks right as Joe was planning on retiring, he can work for an extra year while it rights itself, or simply choose to draw less from the account in order to leave more in there to ride the upswing. OR, if Joe makes the worst decision possible, at the worst time possible and withdraws all of his money while the market is at the low point on the trough (say, a 40% drop, similar to what we just saw), to purchase a 5% annuity... then his monthly income in our worse-case scenario at age 65 will still be more than twice what the average worker (whose benefit would be greater than Joe's) could expect from Social (in)Security.

    glad to help.

    SS can not be touched until a person retires at least insuring some kind of income for many poor and elderly people.
    agreed.

    I will repeat myself again SS is the best thing that has happened for many millions of Americans, so if you are among those who can invest in 401ks have at it I hope your investments pay off handsomely so that you can afford to keep spending in your retirement years, those less fortunate may need to work at Walmarts or MacDonalds to supplement thier SS checks
    what you are missing is that social security benefits are calculated off of what you have paid into the system. those workers who were at Walmart or MacDonalds making $7.50 would have had a much better return off of private investment in an S&P 500 index fund than they would have had from SS - because their SS benefit is going to be abysmal.

  4. #124
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    what you are missing is that social security benefits are calculated off of what you have paid into the system. those workers who were at Walmart or MacDonalds making $7.50 would have had a much better return off of private investment in an S&P 500 index fund than they would have had from SS - because their SS benefit is going to be abysmal.
    What you are missing is according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of the American Worker as of January 2010 is $629.04, or $32,708.10 per year. With the conservatives pushing to lower the minimum wage and the lack of jobs the annual salaries of the middle class and poor will continue to go down, Job opportunities are not going to improve meaning employers hold the purse strings if people want to work they will have to take what ever they can find 7.50 per hour will end up a descent paying job, people will not be able to save without the payroll deduction, if they can get at the money they are saving they will. Millions make that a hundred million or more will end up with nothing in thier old age and what group will reap the rewards of privatized savings plans? The same group that has benefited from 30 years of Reaganomics, the same group that engineered the recession the boys and girls on Wall Street, sorry when a snake sheds its skin it's still a snake, a biting dog continues to bite until it's teeth are removed

    SS can be made solvent easily just by raising the cut off ceiling ensuring that people will have at least some type of retirement income, presently you can see below that even a annual salary of 15.2G provides 13G in retirement income, not a lot of money but older people usually don't end up with the same level of expences they had in thier younger years

    SALARY 32G Social Security may provide $20,964 per year.
    sALARY 20.5G Social Security may provide $18,124 per year.
    SALARY 15.2G Social Security may provide $13,483 per year.

  5. #125
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I was saving for retirement (I think I managed $4,000) when I was making around 30K as the sole income provider for my family. What your figure doesn't fully represent is that that is not the case for everyone - as the average household income is around $51,000. The reason, being, of course, that a large number of those Walmart-esque jobs are held by second-income-earners who work part time.
    You just proved that Earlzp was right. You made $14,400 more than the minimum wage worker (your $30,000 - $15,600 that the Walmart worker made) and you could only save $4000. If you needed $26,000 to support your family, how is the minimum wage worker supposed to support his family on $15,600
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #126
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    What you are missing is according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of the American Worker as of January 2010 is $629.04, or $32,708.10 per year.
    now that is fascinating. that is, of course, roughly the maximum income that the individual ever earned in my model. It's good to see the BLS confirm my income selection.

    however, color me curious. what measure is this - those who are paid hourly only; which is going to include a heavy proportion of low-paid jobs, and a much smaller proportion of the higher paid jobs? because that is barely higher than per-capita income, which tells me either we have very few retirees, very few children, and very few non-employed (all of which I would tend to doubt), or that number doesn't mean what you think it means. According to the Social Security Administration (which may have a better read on wage-to-benefits), the National Average Wage Index as of 2009 was $40,711.61, and according to the Census Bureau, the average earnings of a year-round full-time male employee in 2008 were $61,783.

    With the conservatives pushing to lower the minimum wage and the lack of jobs the annual salaries of the middle class and poor will continue to go down
    this is incorrect - not only would lowering the minimum wage increase the number of jobs available, it would over time increase wages as well. but that is a debate for a different thread - we're talking about social security here.

    Job opportunities are not going to improve meaning employers hold the purse strings if people want to work they will have to take what ever they can find 7.50 per hour will end up a descent paying job, people will not be able to save without the payroll deduction
    I disagree (I was saving with a smaller income, and so were my folks), but that is immaterial, as the plan put forth would use the FICA tax to fund Joe's personal account. Joe becomes a millionaire without seeing a single red cent deducted from his take-home-pay.

    if they can get at the money they are saving they will.
    if they are foolish they may try. however, there is no reason we have to make this easy or even possible.

    Millions make that a hundred million or more will end up with nothing in thier old age and what group will reap the rewards of privatized savings plans? The same group that has benefited from 30 years of Reaganomics, the same group that engineered the recession the boys and girls on Wall Street, sorry when a snake sheds its skin it's still a snake, a biting dog continues to bite until it's teeth are removed
    ...this part makes literally no sense.

    SS can be made solvent easily just by raising the cut off ceiling
    that is incorrect, as even the AARP now admits. SS cannot be made solvent by removing the cap for the simple enough reason that SS benefits are calculated off of payments into the system. If you were to combine removing the cap with means testing and raising the retirement age, you could probably get there.

    ensuring that people will have at least some type of retirement income, presently you can see below that even a annual salary of 15.2G provides 13G in retirement income, not a lot of money but older people usually don't end up with the same level of expences they had in thier younger years

    SALARY 32G Social Security may provide $20,964 per year.
    sALARY 20.5G Social Security may provide $18,124 per year.
    SALARY 15.2G Social Security may provide $13,483 per year.
    So, Social Security would provide Low Income Joe with about 21,000 a year once you assume a 2% annual raise (which SS does). I am assuming Joe here retired at 65.... versus my low income model, in which Joe retired with $46,500 annual benefit.

    however, according to the Social Security Administration, the average monthly benefit is currently sitting at $1,177; which comes out to an annual benefit of $14,124 - and so I would like to see where you got your numbers from.

  7. #127
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    You just proved that Earlzp was right. You made $14,400 more than the minimum wage worker (your $30,000 - $15,600 that the Walmart worker made) and you could only save $4000. If you needed $26,000 to support your family, how is the minimum wage worker supposed to support his family on $15,600


    statistically, the minimum wage worker isn't supporting a family, I didn't need $26,000 to support my family, I spent $26,000 on my family, and in the model I have proposed, the worker get's to save without it costing him a dime of take-home pay.

  8. #128
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post


    statistically, the minimum wage worker isn't supporting a family, I didn't need $26,000 to support my family, I spent $26,000 on my family, and in the model I have proposed, the worker get's to save without it costing him a dime of take-home pay.
    You are somewhat wrong. There are plenty of people working min wage jobs to support their families. Unfortunately, they need several min wage jobs to do so

    Note: Most poor adults have jobs
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #129
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    "If retirees today think a little inflation is reducing their purchasing power and a making it hard to live within a budget, wait until they -- and eventually, all of us -- feel the impact of a 10% or even 20% cut in Social Security payments.

    Tea Party lawmakers and other conservatives will also probably try to couple the cut in your Social Security payment with a reduction in the amount of income that's subject to the Social Security tax, as that will give their core constituency -- upper-income Americans -- yet another tax cut.

    Ryan's 2012 budget plan already recommends decreasing the maximum income tax rate for individuals to 25% from 35%. Now that's what the nation needs: Having people whose annual adjusted gross income is $1 million and up pay 25% in federal income taxes, instead of 35%. It's pure genius: Cutting taxes even further for the wealthy is guaranteed to solve all of our nation's social problems.

    Cutting the Social Safety Net


    Perhaps you think the Tea Party wouldn't risk the political fallout of proposing cuts to Social Security, which is, after all, an extraordinarily popular program. Think again. The Tea Party hasn't shown much respect so far for programs and policies most Americans favor. In several key states, Tea Party-inspired Republicans have already succeeded in stripping most public employees of their collective bargaining rights -- the primary power workers have to negotiate fair salaries, benefits and working conditions. The Tea Party brought the nation to the brink of a damaging, and clearly unpopular federal government shutdown. And the Tea Party has already announced a plan to end Medicare.

    The Tea Party appears determined to dismantle the nation's limited social safety net. It would be naive to assume that Social Security isn't next.

    In the months and years ahead, the Tea Party-led GOP, if it's not stopped, will announce its plan to cut Social Security payments. And to save both Medicare and Social Security, there's only one option -- replacing Tea Party extremists in 2012 with lawmakers who will protect the programs that protect the American people."

    See full article from DailyFinance: Is Social Security Safe with the Tea Party in Power? - DailyFinance
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #130
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    now that is fascinating. that is, of course, roughly the maximum income that the individual ever earned in my model. It's good to see the BLS confirm my income selection.

    however, color me curious. what measure is this - those who are paid hourly only; which is going to include a heavy proportion of low-paid jobs, and a much smaller proportion of the higher paid jobs? because that is barely higher than per-capita income, which tells me either we have very few retirees, very few children, and very few non-employed (all of which I would tend to doubt), or that number doesn't mean what you think it means. According to the Social Security Administration (which may have a better read on wage-to-benefits), the National Average Wage Index as of 2009 was $40,711.61, and according to the Census Bureau, the average earnings of a year-round full-time male employee in 2008 were $61,783.
    I think we have to get real and look at things as they are not as they appear to be the average annual income for the bottom 90% of Americans is $31,244. You do under stand that 33.3% of our population controls 90% of the nations wealth,right?

    this is incorrect - not only would lowering the minimum wage increase the number of jobs available, it would over time increase wages as well. but that is a debate for a different thread - we're talking about social security here.
    Your right and since any thing that effects wages effects SS this IS the right thread to be talking about jobs and annual wages, So first I see no reason that reducing the minimum wage would increase jobs I know that is what conseratives would like people to believe but I am not buying it, reducing the minimum wage will just add to the transfer of wealth, reduce the amount that is paid into SS and reduce the payments to SS recipients and it will reduce the amount that people can save

    I disagree (I was saving with a smaller income, and so were my folks), but that is immaterial, as the plan put forth would use the FICA tax to fund Joe's personal account. Joe becomes a millionaire without seeing a single red cent deducted from his take-home-pay.
    Is this comedy central? The FICA tax is that Joe's money? Tell me that Joe did not earn the money he is or Josephine is paying into FICA, any thing that comes out of my paycheck is money that I earned, if Joe and Josephine are both working and combined make 50g to 60g a year it still may be difficult for them to save money at least with SS when they hit retirement age thay will have an income that should keep them from sleeping under bridges and eating out of garbage cans


    if they are foolish they may try. however, there is no reason we have to make this easy or even possible
    .

    Believe it or not life is not predictable people do run into problems that require extra money especially those who are living close to the cuff and if they have it in a private account they can get at it and will

    ...this part makes literally no sense.
    Really explain to me where all of these Wall Street players get thier huge salaries and bonuses from when you can do that get back to me okay? Sorry I just don't trust the Goldman Sachs bunch, average GS employee makes 622,000 per year thats 26,000 employees making 622,000.00 per year. I bet they would support your plan

    that is incorrect, as even the AARP now admits. SS cannot be made solvent by removing the cap for the simple enough reason that SS benefits are calculated off of payments into the system. If you were to combine removing the cap with means testing and raising the retirement age, you could probably get there
    .

    Here are 5 easy painless ways to ensure the solvency of SS for the next 75 years

    1.Increase worker and employer contributions by 1.1%; estimates are that this change alone would eliminate the program deficit and create solvency for 75 years;
    2.Increase worker and employer contributions by 1% in 2022, and by an additional 1% in 2052; the 75-year shortfall is projected to be eliminated with this recommendation;
    3.Increase worker and employer contributions 1/20% annually for 20 years; this recommendation makes the change very gradual for both workers and employers, and has a significant effect in reducing the 75-year shortfall;
    4.Raise rates based on the trustees’ most current intermediate assumptions of the tax rate needed to balance revenues and outlays. In effect, this recommendation increases Social Security contribution rates to correct future estimates of insolvency.
    5.Enhance Collection of Existing Taxes. The tax gap is the amount of taxes that are legally owed, but not collected, by the federal government in a timely fashion or at all. The IRS estimates the total tax gap at about $345 billion a year, of which approximately $58 billion is in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes (most of the $58 billion is from Social Security payroll taxes). Increasing the collection of unpaid Social Security payroll taxes could significantly reduce the funds needed to make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years.

    So, Social Security would provide Low Income Joe with about 21,000 a year once you assume a 2% annual raise (which SS does). I am assuming Joe here retired at 65.... versus my low income model, in which Joe retired with $46,500 annual benefit
    .

    Your Joe retiring with 46.5 G a year is a pipe dream for most working americans especially for the 90% who are sharing 10% of the countries wealth

    however, according to the Social Security Administration, the average monthly benefit is currently sitting at $1,177; which comes out to an annual benefit of $14,124 - and so I would like to see where you got your numbers from.
    Ask and you shall receive


Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •