What's your take on the issues addressed by Bernanke?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Raise the age at which people start getting social security? (currently 67)

Increase social security taxation on individuals with an anual income of $100K or more? (right now, ~$100K is the cutoff; social security taxation doesn't increase after that)

Try to get the economy strong again and let the general fund pay back the social security fund? (dow just broke 6½yr high yesterday ... so we might be headin' this route)

I don't know all of the options, so I'll leave it to you guys to start the discussion and add to it.

[7960]

my first question would be why is there a limit for SS taxation? everyone should pay equal...if I make $100,000 or $1,000,000/year our tax RATE should be the same. Why are people making $100k paying in the same as people making $1M?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

my first question would be why is there a limit for SS taxation? everyone should pay equal...if I make $100,000 or $1,000,000/year our tax RATE should be the same. Why are people making $100k paying in the same as people making $1M?

No idea. I'm not even sure if that's correct. My associate told me that (though I trust him since he specializes in business management and is in charge of monitoring finances for all the employees at three stores). He could be wrong, though. I won't completely attest to his word. Perhaps someone can verify or refute that claim?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

No idea. I'm not even sure if that's correct. My associate told me that (though I trust him since he specializes in business management and is in charge of monitoring finances for all the employees at three stores). He could be wrong, though. I won't completely attest to his word. Perhaps someone can verify or refute that claim?

I'm pretty sure that's right. SS taxation cuts off at ~$100k

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Raise the age at which people start getting social security? (currently 67)

Increase social security taxation on individuals with an anual income of $100K or more? (right now, ~$100K is the cutoff; social security taxation doesn't increase after that)

Try to get the economy strong again and let the general fund pay back the social security fund? (dow just broke 6½yr high yesterday ... so we might be headin' this route)

I don't know all of the options, so I'll leave it to you guys to start the discussion and add to it.

1) I think the current age is 65 is it not?

2) It's not a 100k cut off right now, for 2005 that cut off was 93,000 for this year it'll probably be 95ish thousand.

3) Try to get the economy strong again? We've had 12 straight quarters of double digit earnings growth, the economy is doing well, its government spending thats kicking our ass.

To fix social security they need to do a combination of things.

1) Raise the age at which you draw benefits.

2) Cut benefits

3) I also think they should begin phasing in the social security tax to at least 125k (inflation adjusted of course). This gets the % of population under the cutoff back to where it was in the 1960s.

Clintons economic advisor has a fantastic article on SS its about 60 pages so I figure most wont want to read it but if anyone is interested I can either find the link or email it to you. Its a PDF. He basically lays out what bernake has laid out and the problem isn't as bad as some say IF we start fixing it now. but starting now and having both sides compromise is the key.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

1) I think the current age is 65 is it not?

Right now it is. People born in 1963 or after won't get benefits until 67. Sorry, that's what I meant.

2) It's not a 100k cut off right now, for 2005 that cut off was 93,000 for this year it'll probably be 95ish thousand.

Well, I was using an approximation (tilde). Is it the rate or the dollar amount that gets cut off at ~$95K? That's what I was wondering.

3) Try to get the economy strong again? We've had 12 straight quarters of double digit earnings growth, the economy is doing well, its government spending thats kicking our ass.

Yeah, so the spending is detrimental to our economy. Therefore, our economy is becoming weak. Foreign investors will stop buying American dollars.

To fix social security they need to do a combination of things.

1) Raise the age at which you draw benefits.

2) Cut benefits

3) I also think they should begin phasing in the social security tax to at least 125k (inflation adjusted of course). This gets the % of population under the cutoff back to where it was in the 1960s.

Clintons economic advisor has a fantastic article on SS its about 60 pages so I figure most wont want to read it but if anyone is interested I can either find the link or email it to you. Its a PDF. He basically lays out what bernake has laid out and the problem isn't as bad as some say IF we start fixing it now. but starting now and having both sides compromise is the key.

I would definitely be interested in reading it. Email is fine, if you don't want to post it here.

I'm sure someone will be outlining Bernanke's four hypothetical solutions (and the pros/cons that go with them). I'll try to stay on top of the news and hopefully get it and update my first post when that happens. I was actually really impressed with what he said.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm pretty sure that's right. SS taxation cuts off at ~$100k

That's seems wrong to me.

These people should be paying into SS on a scale just like everyone else. There shouldn't be a cutoff above a certain amount like that.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Raise the age at which people start getting social security? (currently 67)

Increase social security taxation on individuals with an anual income of $100K or more? (right now, ~$100K is the cutoff; social security taxation doesn't increase after that)

Try to get the economy strong again and let the general fund pay back the social security fund? (dow just broke 6½yr high yesterday ... so we might be headin' this route)

I don't know all of the options, so I'll leave it to you guys to start the discussion and add to it.

I don't think we should raise the age.

I think the cap on SS payments is bullshit. Although I think that there may also be a cap on payouts as well so the guy making 1 mil can take the same amount out of SS as the guy making 100k.
Even so, I think we do need to move towards a need based SS program. the guy earning 1 mill a year doesn't need SS. Someone who has managed to save up enough to live on for retirement doesn't really need the full SS payment either.

My idea is to decarese the % that everyone pays in. remove the cap, and make the program a graduated scale of payout according to need.
Obviously they would have to balance it on lifetimes earnings vs dollars saved for retirement to prevent people from sqandering thier earnings and then just relying on SS. They would need some sort of formula where they compare dollars earned vs dollars saved and then compute the payout amount up to some maximum amount.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Right now it is. People born in 1963 or after won't get benefits until 67. Sorry, that's what I meant.


Well, I was using an approximation (tilde). Is it the rate or the dollar amount that gets cut off at ~$95K? That's what I was wondering.


Yeah, so the spending is detrimental to our economy. Therefore, our economy is becoming weak. Foreign investors will stop buying American dollars.


I would definitely be interested in reading it. Email is fine, if you don't want to post it here.

I'm sure someone will be outlining Bernanke's four hypothetical solutions (and the pros/cons that go with them). I'll try to stay on top of the news and hopefully get it and update my first post when that happens. I was actually really impressed with what he said.

Spending is detrimental but to call our economy weak is not accurate. It's cooling but not weak.

Shoot me a PM with your email addy and I'll email it to you It's REALLY good.

[ballz2wallz]

Regarding age, it only makes sense that they increase retirement age as people's life-spans increase. It would be foolish to leave it the same; soon we'd have more retirees than there are those that are employed.

Regarding the cut-off, my guess is that those that make over 100k don't pay any more than those under because of what they get in return. In other words, they'd be paying for everyone else's retirement. Social Security was set up as a 'pay in, get out' type system right? Well, we all know that any millionaires won't be getting what they put in, nor do they really need it to begin with. If they payed in millions, and got millions when they retired, you KNOW people would be bitchin. I'd put my money that those people would be democrats.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think we should raise the age.

I think the cap on SS payments is bullshit. Although I think that there may also be a cap on payouts as well so the guy making 1 mil can take the same amount out of SS as the guy making 100k.
Even so, I think we do need to move towards a need based SS program. the guy earning 1 mill a year doesn't need SS. Someone who has managed to save up enough to live on for retirement doesn't really need the full SS payment either.

My idea is to decarese the % that everyone pays in. remove the cap, and make the program a graduated scale of payout according to need.
Obviously they would have to balance it on lifetimes earnings vs dollars saved for retirement to prevent people from sqandering thier earnings and then just relying on SS. They would need some sort of formula where they compare dollars earned vs dollars saved and then compute the payout amount up to some maximum amount.

If everyone pays in then we can't go to a "need" based program. That just creates another entitlement/redistribution of robbing from peter to pay paul. Even clintons advisors advised against this. What we need to to phase in the SS tax to incomes up to 125k or even all the way up but thats argued against by a MANY both on the left and right.

It already is partially graduated because if you have a certain income in retirement through other assets then they tax SS as regular income. So in that way it is graduated.

1 mil a year guy doesn't "need" it but he paid into it on the agreement that he would get some back.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Regarding age, it only makes sense that they increase retirement age as people's life-spans increase. It would be foolish to leave it the same; soon we'd have more retirees than there are those that are employed.

Regarding the cut-off, my guess is that those that make over 100k don't pay any more than those under because of what they get in return. In other words, they'd be paying for everyone else's retirement. Social Security was set up as a 'pay in, get out' type system right? Well, we all know that any millionaires won't be getting what they put in, nor do they really need it to begin with. If they payed in millions, and got millions when they retired, you KNOW people would be bitchin. I'd put my money that those people would be democrats.

Yes increasing the age is a must, most realize that.

That is a big reason why they have the cutoff limit on this tax because its not supposed to be a "tax" its supposed to be retirement. There's peak SS payments and those making 80k, 100k, 200k, 500k a year get the same amount from SS because they all paid roughly the same amount it. So they stop the tax.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That's seems wrong to me.

These people should be paying into SS on a scale just like everyone else. There shouldn't be a cutoff above a certain amount like that.

I agree on that one. If SS is a redistribution/welfare net, the cap makes no sense

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If everyone pays in then we can't go to a "need" based program. That just creates another entitlement/redistribution of robbing from peter to pay paul. Even clintons advisors advised against this. What we need to to phase in the SS tax to incomes up to 125k or even all the way up but thats argued against by a MANY both on the left and right.

It already is partially graduated because if you have a certain income in retirement through other assets then they tax SS as regular income. So in that way it is graduated.

1 mil a year guy doesn't "need" it but he paid into it on the agreement that he would get some back.

Isn't it already an entitlement program? I mean we all pay in but we aren't paying for our selves. It's just a tax so that they can pay the people who are retired now. I am not going to get back what I put in as it is. I'd rather pay in less now and save more on my own even if it does turn into a welfare system. Atleast that way it decreases taxation across the board, and it makes sure that the people who need help get it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Isn't it already an entitlement program? I mean we all pay in but we aren't paying for our selves. It's just a tax so that they can pay the people who are retired now. I am not going to get back what I put in as it is. I'd rather pay in less now and save more on my own even if it does turn into a welfare system. Atleast that way it decreases taxation across the board, and it makes sure that the people who need help get it.

It's just another example of something the government screwed up. I can't for one second imagine why anybody would continue to want the government to control so many aspects of their life.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Isn't it already an entitlement program? I mean we all pay in but we aren't paying for our selves. It's just a tax so that they can pay the people who are retired now. I am not going to get back what I put in as it is. I'd rather pay in less now and save more on my own even if it does turn into a welfare system. Atleast that way it decreases taxation across the board, and it makes sure that the people who need help get it.

It's a payment in exchange for another payment in the future.

Look I think the program is a joke and has been horribly mismanaged so if you're looking forsomeone to justify SS its not me. I'm just telling you arguments and facts about how the system was designed and how to fix it.

I'd rather pay less now and save more on my own but you'r enever going to get that approved with democrats constantly blocking it. Bush's proposal would have basically done what you said and that got redflagged, beat to shit by the media by taking pieces of it out of context.

People need to learn to provide for themselves if you're going to tax me in the name of SS then I damn sure better get some money back reguardless of what i save on my own. Thats the whole point of the system. The system was setup to lure people out of the work force and into retirement by promising them reguardless of income a check from the government based on payments throughout their working lives.

[6SpeedTA95]

Peter orszag

http://apps49.brookings.edu/dybdocro...g/20050426.pdf

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Reti.../socsec_rc.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/5-15-00socsec.pdf

Here's the good one...
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=961


Keep in mind these guys are democrats so they do unintentionally in my belief put a little spin on what they say but Orszag is fantastic and the guy brings a lot of great ideas to the table. I recommend all of the above for reading especially since a lot of left wing sites like to use his work but NOT in its entirety. When you read all of his work especially this last one you'll realize he's a fair guy that really is thinking about this issue in a non partisan manner.

[hsmith]

Raise the age
set a limit to what people can get back (what they put in)
make it off limits for the fed to borrow against

and of course, get rid of it all together.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Regarding age, it only makes sense that they increase retirement age as people's life-spans increase. It would be foolish to leave it the same; soon we'd have more retirees than there are those that are employed.