Social security discussion

[morgan98]

The wage cap gets raised nearly every year.

Yes, I understand the wage cap, as indexed for inflation, is raised every year (or at least almost every year). What I meant is to say is that I am in favor of them raising the cap even more (potentially even without increasing my payout) in order to preserve our payout. In other words, I would rather pay a "penalty" in terms of additional tax for which I would not receive a benefit, than have the government sweep in and tell me that I do not need any of my benefit.

 

[runwad]

But the question is, why should you be able to if you didn't pay into the system?

Because we as a society should value her role in the "family".

 

[mefordis]

I think it is totally unfair that my sister, who has worked all of her life, will receive less in SS than both of our SILs solely because our brothers made good money. Everyone should only be able to collect on their own employment record. I think survivor benefits should be phased out as people are free to buy life insurance or it can be provided as a SS option to the spouse that worked in exchange for lower benefits, just like pensions used to do. SS disability should be separately financed apart from SS entirely and should be further restricted so it doesn't provide checks for kids with ADHD, adults with phantom back pain, etc.

Well, doing that that would eliminate the need to raise or eliminate the cap (if there were one)!

 

[longboard55]

I agree with that to a certain extent but how early are you talking. I've been "investing" since my late 20s in a 401K. There's no way I'll have enough to feel secure. I've never taken a loan and have always done something. I have had two HUGE hits to the account. One was in the 90s (and I can't remember why) and another was the 2008 housing bubble burst. I think 401Ks/IRAs are great but you must put your faith 100% in the stock market and sometimes that doesn't work out so well. My parents both lost a lot in 2008. Unfortunately, they haven't has as much time to recover from those losses. I didn't used to feel this way, but I am now feeling a "distrust" of the market. I don't think it offers much protection to the little guy.

Its interesting to look back at your investments and see what would have happened if you never touched them.

 

[georgina]

But the question is, why should you be able to if you didn't pay into the system?

Like I said in other posts, I DIDN'T WRITE THE SS RULES. I agreed they may not be fair. I DID PAY INTO THE SYSTEM, and said I would be eligible for some from my own pay, but the half of my DH's pay would be higher. That is currently the way the SS law is written. Good luck getting the laws changed. My DH has worked for the same company for over 35 years and will also be eligible for a pension when he retires next year. We are very fortunate.

 

[piccolopat]

Like I said in other posts, I DIDN'T WRITE THE SS RULES. I agreed they may not be fair. I DID PAY INTO THE SYSTEM, and said I would be eligible for some from my own pay, but the half of my DH's pay would be higher. That is currently the way the SS law is written. Good luck getting the laws changed. My DH has worked for the same company for over 35 years and will also be eligible for a pension when he retires next year. We are very fortunate.

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I know that's the way the law is written today. I just think that it is one part of SS that needs to be revised.

 

[morgan98]

Because we as a society should value her role in the "family".

Really, I do not mean this to sound mean, but your role in your family is valued by your family. The fact is that role did not pay taxes. I am not saying it is not the right choice, or it is not important, I am just saying it is different in that that role does not pay into social security.

 

[mefordis]

Really, I do not mean this to sound mean, but your role in your family is valued by your family. The fact is that role did not pay taxes. I am not saying it is not the right choice, or it is not important, I am just saying it is different in that that role does not pay into social security.

Didn't she birth and raise x number of tax payers who will pay your social security when you retire? That has to count for something. I mean, if women decided to stop having children, I guess the system would collapse, wouldn't it?

Also, if they were to lift the cap (won't happen) and cause our family to pay waaaayyyy more in social security tax, I'd like to see it mean greater amounts for the recipients. At least that would make it worth it. That should even include women who quit work for a while to raise children.

 

[morgan98]

Didn't she birth and raise x number of tax payers who will pay your social security when you retire? That has to count for something. I mean, if women decided to stop having children, I guess the system would collapse, wouldn't it?

Also, if they were to lift the cap (won't happen) and cause our family to pay waaaayyyy more in social security tax, I'd like to see it mean greater amounts for the recipients. At least that would make it worth it. That should even include women who quit work for a while to raise children.

Some people have children (future taxpayers) and also continue to pay into the system. That does not change the fact that when you are not in the workforce, for whatever reason, you are not paying payroll taxes.

Anyway, as I have said before, I may not have a future taxpayer but both my husband and I have been very fortunate and have had very successful careers. We have covered our costs in terms of social security and income tax.

 

[Mokat76]

People pay into many programs that they'll never qualify to get paid out from. Why should SS be any different than, say, food stamps or health care? Paying into the system doesn't equate to getting a return on an investment.

Because we specifically paid into SS with the expectation we would get an ROI. We Didn't specifically pay into the other programs you mentioned (right or wrong).

 

[barkley]

This is one reason I'd like to see SS and disability separated. They are not the same and should be set up and funded as two different things.

SS disability should be separately financed apart from SS entirely and should be further restricted so it doesn't provide checks for kids with ADHD, adults with phantom back pain, etc.

just as a point of clarification-there are 2 types of social security disability-ssdi and ssi, with one having a separate funding source.

ssdi recipients (in addition to being deemed disabled) are held to the exact same qualifying standards as any non disabled/age qualifying social security recipient-they must have worked a certain number of years, and made enough contributions to social security to meet the 'work credit' criteria. "kids" (minors) no matter what type of disability they have are NOT entitled to ssdi. The amount of the monthly benefit depends on the earnings record, much like the social security retirement benefit. people who are younger ( well into their 30's and 40's) frequently do not qualify for this program unless they have worked and contributed for decades.

ssdi is funded through payroll taxes. it's the recipient drawing from the social security identically as they would if they qualified by virtue of age.


ssi is a strictly need based program based on an individual's income and assets (it's literally a public assistance program for aged, blind or disabled persons). ssi is the program that provides for disabled 'kids'.

ssi is funded through general fund taxes.

 

[manning]

This is my simple solution. Do away with SS and let people do with that money as they see fit.

I believe when it first started it was voluntary. Also today you pay a SSN tax. Then when you go over a dollar amount you pay 85% tax on money you have already paid taxes on. So much for no double taxation.

Been a while since I read an article. A number of promises have been broken.

The taxes paid into SSN is to be held in a separate fund for SSN payment.

This is being done....sort of. Do get around it congress borrows the money from the fund to use in general fund. There isn't much money left in the SSN, the vast majority are IOUs. Of course you know those IOUs are never paid back. Why is this done. It makes the national debt look smaller than it really is. Bet that 20 trillion debt is way smaller than the true one.

Why is the done? The politician wants to keep his/her job.

IE this is done also with inflation and unemployment rates. Both are higher than reported.

 

[manning]

I agree with mnrose. Have Congress put back the money they've "borrowed" out of the fund, and write a law saying they're not allowed to borrow any more. Problem solved.

I think you will see a snowball survive in hell before that happens.

 

[mom2rb]

I don't think that raising the retirement age is a good idea. DH has an office job, not a problem for him. I coach gymnastics, would you really trust me to stand up on a platform, 10 feet in the air to keep your child safe as she is flipping off a high bar? Some jobs just can't be done when you are older.

 

[rigs32]

The counter argument is that you could transition to a different job within your career or into another career.

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I agree that we need to leave the provisions the way they are and stop borrowing from it for any reason! DH and I don't quite max out yet, but we still have about 30 years to full retirement age. In today's dollars, the max if you start collecting at FRA and not delaying until 70 is $2,639. That times two is SIGNIFICANT for us! I will be infuriated if after all these years of paying in there is some sort of means testing. And a FRA of 75? Who on earth wants to work that long? That will only benefit the rich, and pensioned employees who can afford to retire much sooner.

In 2010, the HIRE Act gave employers an exemption on the 6.2% employer portion of the SS tax, if they hired someone who had been unemployed 90 days. Then, they got an additional $1,000 back if they kept the person employed a year. In 2011, the EMPLOYEE side was reduced to 4.2%, and that was in effect through the end of 2012. This was millions of dollars for large companies, I couldn't find anything online in total stating how much was paid out or not collected due to these economic stimulus provisions. This was all supposed to be made up by transfers from the general fund into the OASDI funds, but does anyone know if it actually happened? I always find it interesting that this is never talked about in these discussions. No one wants to complain about having paid in a reduced rate for 2 years I guess.

 

[RedHatDisney]

I am a widow. age 66. My husband died at at age 55. He paid into Social Security all his working life. I paid into a private pension and social security, but lack quarters to qualify to receive any of my social security. My pension monthly payout, before taxes, etc., is $6.00 TOO high for me to receive ANY of his Social Security benefits, much less half.

 

[mefordis]

I am a widow. age 66. My husband died at at age 55. He paid into Social Security all his working life. I paid into a private pension and social security, but lack quarters to qualify to receive any of my social security. My pension monthly payout, before taxes, etc., is $6.00 TOO high for me to receive ANY of his Social Security benefits, much less half.

Wow, so someone can have assets totaling upwards of a million dollars in securities, money market funds, and still collect but because of your pension you cannot collect?

 

[RedHatDisney]

Yep. Because of SIX DOLLARS before taxes, etc. sigh

 

[John VN]

LOGAN'S RUN CAROUSEL = solution ????