- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Realistically in 15 years .. will social security payments still be paid
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:15 pm to ronricks
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:15 pm to ronricks
Buy people out. It's cheaper to buy out using cheap money than paying inflationary benefits and interest. I mean, I'd clearly have to do the math but I'm pretty sure I'd jump on a lump sum, low-tax buyout. Start by buying out the olds with pro-rated amounts and work your way down until you reach a tolerable equilibrium between debts and assets.
0
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:44 pm to Clint Torres
I think the FICA cap is $168,000.
Seems like not many people make more than that, so the financial impact cant be that big.
Seems like not many people make more than that, so the financial impact cant be that big.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 4:03 pm to Billy Blanks
quote:
Wish it could just be an account invested in the S&P 500. Complete BS how the set up is.
It is set up the way it is to relieve $3T of supply pressure from the treasury market. If they dumped it on the market to reinvest it in something that actually appreciates the treasury market would shite the bed for good. It forces every taxpayer to “invest” in deficit spending. It’s a matrix of ponzis, ponzis inside of ponzis, lol.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 4:21 pm to CastleBravo
6% of Americans make more than the cap, but a lot make substantially more. Lifting the cap would raise more than a trillion $ over 10 years. Because the rich are getting richer, the % of income subject to SS tax has decreased. In 1982, over 90% of total American income was subject to the Social Security tax, but pre-Covid the share had decreased to 84 percent.
One idea is not have based on dollar figure but instead on a portion of earnings. Individuals would pay the 6.2% tax on 95% of their earnings.
One idea is not have based on dollar figure but instead on a portion of earnings. Individuals would pay the 6.2% tax on 95% of their earnings.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 4:32 pm to UpstairsComputer
quote:
Bruh, that's some commie shite right there. You might as well just say "they should pay their fair share"
Bruh, a generational ponzi scheme with no opt out feature that auto invests your money into a failing sovereign debt market so the govt can spend more money that they don't have is quite literally some commie shite.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 4:36 pm to Art Blakey
Posted on 9/27/24 at 6:11 pm to ronricks
I thought this WSJ piece was interesting, about how SS is doing just fine on its own if you get rid of or at least drastically rework all of the welfare spending. Welfare is what's eating the budget
quote:
Social Security and Medicare are a drain on general revenue and will become big fiscal problems if not reformed. But they aren’t the major source of our current fiscal crisis, because both are financed in large part by dedicated payroll taxes. Since its inception, Social Security has produced cash surpluses 60% of the time. In 2023 Social Security payroll taxes funded 88.9% of benefits. The cost of Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance program, net of payroll tax collections, was only $88.1 billion. Medicare payroll taxes and premiums funded 49.7% of Medicare expenditures, producing a net cost of $509 billion.
Means-tested social-welfare spending totaled $1.6 trillion in 2023. Welfare spending now absorbs an astonishing 72.6% of unobligated general revenue (total revenue net of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes and premiums and mandatory interest on the public debt) and is larger than the claims against unobligated general revenue by Social Security (4.1%), Medicare (23.5%) and defense (37.2%) combined.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 7:33 pm to tirebiter
quote:
Why should mega millionaires up through billionaires be paid SSI they have zero need for and the de minimis contributions they have made compared to their income?
quote:
I'm not a lefty.
Are you sure about that? One of the hallmarks of the Left is to use government to redistribute wealth; "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Forcing people to pay into a system then cutting off those you deem as not needing it because they make too much money is textbook redistribution of wealth.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 8:34 pm to LChama
Yes
Posted on 9/30/24 at 10:38 pm to LChama
Yes. There would be hell to pay for whatever party gets rid of them. It’ll change but there will still be social security
Posted on 10/1/24 at 6:43 am to Bard
Phasing out benefits based on net worth is unlikely to have a meaningful impact. However, it’s easily achievable politically so I expect it to eventually happen.
If the cap is removed and the benefits phase out for high net worth individuals, then the premise of the program has to be redefined…it’s effectively just an incremental flat tax at that point.
If the cap is removed and the benefits phase out for high net worth individuals, then the premise of the program has to be redefined…it’s effectively just an incremental flat tax at that point.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 6:46 am to Pelican fan99
The premise of a safety net makes sense. Most people are financially illiterate and then provides a back stop.
I don’t think the conversation ia about abandoning SS rather how to get it afloat. Politicians without a spine to implement the required changes and “kick the can” is an embarrassment.
I don’t think the conversation ia about abandoning SS rather how to get it afloat. Politicians without a spine to implement the required changes and “kick the can” is an embarrassment.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 7:26 am to LChama
In its current form? …. 0% chance.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 9:10 am to LChama
quote:yep. just less of them.
Realistically in 15 years .. will social security payments still be paid
Posted on 10/1/24 at 10:58 am to LChama
quote:Odds are right at 100% that social security payments will still be paid in 5 years, 15 years, 25 years, 50 years, and years after.
Realistically in 15 years .. will social security payments still be paid
Why?
Because the chief (and arguably sole) beneficiary of Social Security is the Federal Government.
SS is a program forcing employed Americans to invest in low ROI US Debt instruments (Treasuries, etc). As long as we are a debtor nation, the Feds need that investment, and so SS isn't going anywhere. It is simply too valuable as a cheap, reliable money source for the Feds.
Given those facts, the question you should be asking is how much more are you going to have to pay in SS tax for the "privilege" of receiving SS payments? Raising employer/employee "contributions" from 12.4% to 15% is unfortunately the most likely outcome.
This post was edited on 10/1/24 at 4:30 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News