Posted on 09/22/2007 2:50:53 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
On the positive side — I’m rich! I’M RICH! FINALLY!!!
Initially a Beatles tune.
But it sure is bitter reality.
Simple SS solution:
Adjust the retirement age from year-to-year to maintain break-even solvency.
You’re in a Baby Boom, tough luck. Plan accordingly.
Great idea! well need the extra revenue when millions more illegal immigrants start drawing from the social security trough when shamnesty passes
Good one!
Then get rid of it, which would be fine with me. However, as long as you are going to pay out to everyone then everyone should be taxed at the same percentage on ALL of their salary. If that means some higher income people get more back to make it fair fine. I happen to be one of those that makes more than $97K and other times I have made less. Why was it all right to tax all my income when I was younger and I was paid less, but now that I am older and better paid only SOME of my income gets taxed?
You do understand that the SS benefits are not proportionate to the taxes paid, right ? So the guy that hit the cap gets back much less per dollar in SS taxes than somebody below the cap ?
What Obama is talking about is raising taxes on those people currently above the cap, even though they will get no additional SS benefits at all. That means the high earner will just ge screwed even worse than he is now. The middle-wage earner gets a pretty good rate of return out of SS — about equal to a 7% investment. The high-wage earner can expect a return of less than 2%. Remove or raise the cap and the high-wage earner will have a negative rate of return.
If the SS surplus money had not been borrowed, what would have happened to it ?
If it had simply sat in a bank, then it would be losing value to inflation.
If it had been invested in something, what would that investment be that would pay more interest than the IOUs ? Corporate bonds ? Stock markets ? What could it have been invested in that had a better return without higher risk of loss ?
Not allowing the Federal Government to borrow it might have curtailed spending, but it might not have, also. If the government couldn’t issue IOUs to SS, it might have just issued more T-Bills instead. Would it really matter whether future general fund taxes go up to pay off T-Bills or the SS IOUs ?
You do understand right now the rich get to invest everything over the cap in much higher interest earning funds than the poor slob middle-class grunt who never reaches the cap. You also understand that the poor slob can't opt out like teachers and government employees. And, we all agree those on the dole only take but never give. So as it stands right now, the middle class slob pays the bulk of social security with a return that sucks on a good day. Let's be honest. Social security is a way to shift money from the working middle-class to the idle poor. Drunks, fake disabilities, druggies are all collecting disability out of SS. So, I say sting the rich and lets get those who opt out as well if we can. Maybe then enough people will raise a big enough fuss to kill SS. Until then, the rich can kiss my ass.
Yes, we understand all that.
“Until then, the rich can kiss my ass.”
Dragging more people into the misery sounds more spiteful than it does a solution to the problem.
SS exists only because the middle and lower income people failed to provide for their own retirement. That gave FDR the excuse to have the government run the the rescue by forcing people into contributing for their retirement. The high earners have never given the government an excuse to interfere with their own retirement planning. High earners consider that 12% tax on the first $97K of their income to be just that — a tax where they will get practically nothing back for it. Eliminate the cap and it will just be a larger tax that they will get nothing back for it.
Contrary to your belief, there are not enough people in this group to matter politically. The really wealthy do not get their money from wages. Those are the ones that might have political influence. What you are talking about is hurting the comparative little guy — with $100K to $500K in wages — that couldn’t pull a political lever if his life depended on it.
Homosexuals make up about 1 to 3 percent of the population. They have a disproportionate share of political clout. Many of them are in the wage group you think will be most hurt. Maybe we can put the homosexuals to good use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.