View Poll Results: Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model

Voters
91. You may not vote on this poll
  • Socialist and Against

    10 10.99%
  • Socialist and For

    1 1.10%
  • Democrat and Against

    21 23.08%
  • Democrat and For

    6 6.59%
  • Republican and Against

    2 2.20%
  • Republican and For

    22 24.18%
  • Libertarian and Against

    9 9.89%
  • Liberarian and For

    9 9.89%
  • I am for it, but with a particular modification (explain)

    11 12.09%
Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 503

Thread: Social Security Fix

  1. #361
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    I don't discount your formulas. What I believe is skewed is the number of people paying in is very small and the number of people getting a benefit is very large.
    For Social Security this is not correct - there are more payers than recipients.

    Your formula reduces what is paid in dramatically and reduces what is paid out only to those who pay in.
    ...no. Firstly, we peg the growth in COLA to inflation, rather than wages, meaning that we are reducing Social Security's scheduled payouts to everyone, including the housewives etc. A second reduction in payouts comes from the accounts of those who are wage-earners, which is the vast majority of recipients.

    I do want to believe in your math, but I don't see it. Please correct me.
    Which part? I've put up quite a lot throughout the thread.

    According to this
    Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    48% of the US population makes less than $25 k a year. Does your plan reduce their social security payment? 75% makes less than $50k is there social security to be reduces?

    Now if I read your plan correctly that higher 25% will get less social security while 10% of their social security is diverted to their retirement accounts? So you are taking out 80% of the money and redding the benefit obout. 25%. Please correct me?
    Younger workers make less and older workers make more - remember that what we are looking at here is people retiring at different times, and the younger/lowerincome folks are (see OP) actually better situated than the older/higher income folks because their long term return is better. If your typical 28 year old is making $38,000 today, then that's more than fine because it means that (assuming a RIO of 7.5% and a growth in income of 2%, commensurate with what Social Security currently assumes) he will have completely replaced what the government would have been on the hook for by the time he reaches about age 50. So he's a lower income worker, yes. Who now represents zero liability to social security. Since the vast majority of low income earners are in that age bracket, and since the average income of the 15-24 year old age bracket is about $14,539; they have a fairly heavy pull on national averages.

    So (as of 2012), full time workers had an average income of $59,532 (median $45,365), which cuts out the part-timers that are going to be heavily represented in that 15-24 year old lower-income age bracket.

    So a relevant bit to bring in is household income by age bracket:



    And you'll see the same trend repeated - the older workers have greater experience and skill sets, and tend to earn more, until they start retiring (it seems we like to retire early - boomers are all getting out asap), at which point they earn less.

    The point being that the very workers who represent the largest loss in revenue from their 10% FICA, A) current figures do not depend on much more income from them, making the loss the least over time and B) they are most likely to most heavily mitigate through replacement of the benefit from their accounts.

    Social Security deficits are sustainable for a short time:



    This is about where we are currently sitting. By popping the cap and indexing growth to inflation instead of wages, we reduce the near-year deficits by about 85%, before we reduce FICA inputs to put the deficits back up. By the time we get to that 2032 year mark, by my count, the average retiree should be replacing somewhere around 75% of his SS check, significantly reducing necessary outlays instead of collapsing the system. When the first private-account-retirees start dying, as well, an additional 50% of their account is taxed right back into SS.



    I wouldn't be averse to additionally flattening the benefit by ending or sharply reducing COLA increases for upper-income retirees, similar to the Simpson-Bowles Proposal:



    But only if necessary to make the thing solvent.

  2. #362
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Ok simple question:

    Are you advocating the reduction of benefits for everyone? If you are the points kind of moot because the left will never sell off their votes.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    For Social Security this is not correct - there are more payers than recipients.



    ...no. Firstly, we peg the growth in COLA to inflation, rather than wages, meaning that we are reducing Social Security's scheduled payouts to everyone, including the housewives etc. A second reduction in payouts comes from the accounts of those who are wage-earners, which is the vast majority of recipients.



    Which part? I've put up quite a lot throughout the thread.



    Younger workers make less and older workers make more - remember that what we are looking at here is people retiring at different times, and the younger/lowerincome folks are (see OP) actually better situated than the older/higher income folks because their long term return is better. If your typical 28 year old is making $38,000 today, then that's more than fine because it means that (assuming a RIO of 7.5% and a growth in income of 2%, commensurate with what Social Security currently assumes) he will have completely replaced what the government would have been on the hook for by the time he reaches about age 50. So he's a lower income worker, yes. Who now represents zero liability to social security. Since the vast majority of low income earners are in that age bracket, and since the average income of the 15-24 year old age bracket is about $14,539; they have a fairly heavy pull on national averages.

    So (as of 2012), full time workers had an average income of $59,532 (median $45,365), which cuts out the part-timers that are going to be heavily represented in that 15-24 year old lower-income age bracket.

    So a relevant bit to bring in is household income by age bracket:



    And you'll see the same trend repeated - the older workers have greater experience and skill sets, and tend to earn more, until they start retiring (it seems we like to retire early - boomers are all getting out asap), at which point they earn less.

    The point being that the very workers who represent the largest loss in revenue from their 10% FICA, A) current figures do not depend on much more income from them, making the loss the least over time and B) they are most likely to most heavily mitigate through replacement of the benefit from their accounts.

    Social Security deficits are sustainable for a short time:



    This is about where we are currently sitting. By popping the cap and indexing growth to inflation instead of wages, we reduce the near-year deficits by about 85%, before we reduce FICA inputs to put the deficits back up. By the time we get to that 2032 year mark, by my count, the average retiree should be replacing somewhere around 75% of his SS check, significantly reducing necessary outlays instead of collapsing the system. When the first private-account-retirees start dying, as well, an additional 50% of their account is taxed right back into SS.



    I wouldn't be averse to additionally flattening the benefit by ending or sharply reducing COLA increases for upper-income retirees, similar to the Simpson-Bowles Proposal:



    But only if necessary to make the thing solvent.

  3. #363
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Ok simple question:

    Are you advocating the reduction of benefits for everyone? If you are the points kind of moot because the left will never sell off their votes.
    No. I am willing to reduce the benefits of the wealthy - but I have not proposed such a thing here. I have proposed increasing their FICA contributions in order to help fund the shift over to a partially-privatized Social Security model that would cause people to provide for their own retirement rather than being dependent on others.

  4. #364
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    So my hypothesis of what you suggested is real then. You are going to divert much of the wealthiest people money into personal retirement accounts for their own good (great) but you are going to leave the social security liabilities for everyone else in tact - which means you are decreasing the labilities a small sum (only for the rich) and decreasing the income dratically - unless you are alking a huge FICA increase? I did not see a FICA increase in your proposal so I missed that.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. I am willing to reduce the benefits of the wealthy - but I have not proposed such a thing here. I have proposed increasing their FICA contributions in order to help fund the shift over to a partially-privatized Social Security model that would cause people to provide for their own retirement rather than being dependent on others.

  5. #365
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    So my hypothesis of what you suggested is real then. You are going to divert much of the wealthiest people money into personal retirement accounts for their own good (great) but you are going to leave the social security liabilities for everyone else in tact - which means you are decreasing the labilities a small sum (only for the rich) and decreasing the income dratically - unless you are alking a huge FICA increase? I did not see a FICA increase in your proposal so I missed that.
    No. I am decreasing liabilities for the entire population, and I am also diverting the money of everyone into personal retirement accounts for their own good. The only FICA increase currently proposed is popping the cap.

    You are correct that this will increase the deficit in the short term. It will reduce it in the long term, and have the opposite effect of generating a powerful surplus for the government in the out-years, allowing us to decrease other forms of taxation.

  6. #366
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Social Security Fix

    At least you acknowledge the short term hit on the deficit. I think it's bigger then you imagine however. Also I oppose removing the cap as a solution. This just penalizes success and rewards failure even more and we have too much of that in society now. Mind you though I'd take that compromise if it meant we all had our own retirement plans instead.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. I am decreasing liabilities for the entire population, and I am also diverting the money of everyone into personal retirement accounts for their own good. The only FICA increase currently proposed is popping the cap.

    You are correct that this will increase the deficit in the short term. It will reduce it in the long term, and have the opposite effect of generating a powerful surplus for the government in the out-years, allowing us to decrease other forms of taxation.

  7. #367
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    At least you acknowledge the short term hit on the deficit. I think it's bigger then you imagine however. Also I oppose removing the cap as a solution. This just penalizes success and rewards failure even more and we have too much of that in society now. Mind you though I'd take that compromise if it meant we all had our own retirement plans instead.
    Myself as well. However, it's worth pointing out that their taxes are also effectively reduced by the 10% they are now keeping, and that is allowed to be invested and grow tax-free.

  8. #368
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,555

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. I am decreasing liabilities for the entire population, and I am also diverting the money of everyone into personal retirement accounts for their own good. The only FICA increase currently proposed is popping the cap.

    You are correct that this will increase the deficit in the short term. It will reduce it in the long term, and have the opposite effect of generating a powerful surplus for the government in the out-years, allowing us to decrease other forms of taxation.
    What you are suggesting is a compromise that just might work: "Pop the cap" on SS, make wealthier wage earners pay more into the system so that people can put a (presumably ever increasing) percentage of their SS money into private accounts.

    Of course, the radical right will call that "Marxism", as you're taking money from the wealthy to give to the less wealthy, and the radical left will say you're destroying Social Security. That is the hallmark of a good compromise: Neither extreme likes it.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #369
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    What you are suggesting is a compromise that just might work: "Pop the cap" on SS, make wealthier wage earners pay more into the system so that people can put a (presumably ever increasing) percentage of their SS money into private accounts.

    Of course, the radical right will call that "Marxism", as you're taking money from the wealthy to give to the less wealthy, and the radical left will say you're destroying Social Security. That is the hallmark of a good compromise: Neither extreme likes it.
    due to the accounts belonging to the individual, it's a net win for upper income earners up to about $460,000 a year, before you count the tax benefits. I'm willing to face down the Pledgers on the right over that border.

  10. #370
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,555

    Re: Social Security Fix

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    due to the accounts belonging to the individual, it's a net win for upper income earners up to about $460,000 a year, before you count the tax benefits. I'm willing to face down the Pledgers on the right over that border.
    If you're ever elected president, you can try to get your idea through Congress. If we've thrown out the incumbents by then, you just might be successful.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •