re: Social Security has 6 years left, cut benefits or raise taxes?

And we’re saved from your 3rd person BS

Bump

Change your name to pussy

quote:

---

to avoid people over 65 riots.

---

Boy, we really better take this guy seriously. He just did the thread necrosis quintuple rage post.

The champion of social security on display for all

quote:

---

t is amazing people can’t see that.

They cap your benefits,..
62- $2962
67- $4152
70- $5181

So what poster is saying we will take your earnings above the present amount because you worked and have more than enough and shouldn't be allowed more than me.

---

Eliminating the wage cap, which only exists so a small number of taxpayers have a reduced tax rate. Only 6% annually earn more than the wage cap and only 20% of wage earners will "cap" out in at least one year of their career. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people would see their SS taxes doubled this year if they made $350K. Out of about 153 million....if one is an adult seeking fairness one is going to often be disappointed. Almost 145 million people would see no increase in their ss tax burden while only 9 million would. With or without SS some number of people are going to be a burden to society, they are going to be too old to work, orphaned, widowed or disabled. Why145 million would give a frick about an individual earning $200k a year paying an extra $4100 a year in payroll taxes is beyond me but my wife and I both thank y'all for taking an interest in our tax burden. It is simply not a matter of fairness it is a matter of logic....some people are going to become too old to work, become disabled, orphaned or widowed...and historically people do not plan, financially, for any of these things and have been a burden on society as a result. We do not live in an ideal world, we live in the real world.

quote:

---

Social Security’s pay-as-you-go structure

---

That is a lie to help propagate the myth that SS is a "retirement benefit."

SS isn't a retirement benefit. It never was.

Every 1¢ of SS tax money is converted into a US debt obligation. Not one penny has ever been directly transferred from taxpayer to retiree in the history of the program. That is not a pay-go structure. If SS was pay-go, there would be no Trust Fund.

So what is SS?

SS from inception was a government borrowing program. FDR entered his Presidency in the 1930's with promises of a "New Deal" for Americans. But, in the midst of the Depression, he had limited means to pay for it. International and institutional lenders were out of play, and individual Americans could barely put food on the table.

So FDR, in a stroke of political genius, decided to force American workers to lend the government money. Instead of framing it that way, he called the forced loan a retirement program – "Social Security". Incredibly, when the government eventually paid back the money it had borrowed, those paybacks on debt obligations were termed "benefits" for the recipients.

Regarding those "benefits," if a 30 something walked into a financial advisor's office, and said "I'm going to put 12.4% of my paycheck into a retirement account. How should I invest that?" If the financial advisor said "Put it all in 30yr treasuries," he'd be run out of town on a rail.

Yet, that's what Social Security does.
Well, not exactly.
Social Security significantly underperforms 30 year treasury return on investment.

So a 22-year-old in his first job has 12.4% docked from his paycheck. That money will generate an average ROI of 3% of the next 45 years. Which means for every dollar put in the "beneficiary" will receive about $3.60 back. Hence, proponents of Social Security, especially those in Congress, say "See ... Social Security pays more back than you put into it!"

But here's the problem:
If that 22 year-old put the same money into an S&P account, reinvesting dividends over the same 45 year period, every dollar he put in would be worth more than $100 at retirement. So the Social Security "benefit" actually costs that fellow $96.40 for every dollar originally invested.

Which takes us back to the actual purpose of the program. SS is designed for but one beneficiary -- Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is a borrower who puts terms and ROI of his choosing to the lender, and requires the lender by law to participate. As such the SS ROI underperforms many other low-ROI government borrowing instruments. Here's the significance, if SS borrowed money from taxpayers and simply paid it back at 30-yr Treasury rates, SS would be solvent.

Which leaves the takeaway -- SS is the one of the cheapest, most reliable borrowing tools at the government's disposal. Washington DC, given its massive debt, will do everything it can to grow the program. That means rather than cutting """benefits""", it will increase taxes.

Yeah, ignoring TVM is awesome.

One of the better posts in this thread, tbh.

quote:

---

Where is the balance between treating Boomers fairly and treating young folks fairly?

---

The assumption is that "fairness" is a consideration. It isn't. SS is not about fairness any more than any extortion is about fairness.

Arguments among boomers, zoomers, millennials, silents, or alphas as to who's getting the "best deal" are made out of abject ignorance about SS design. No one gets a "best deal." The vast vast majority of contributors get totally screwed.