Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

I disagree, time to remove the caps for the rich or at the very least raise them.....

.

 

Yes, the government has pillaged former overages to fund unconstitutional government. This does not change the fact that Fico taxes have had to be increased and each additional generation has had to endure higher taxes and public debt as a result of excessive inept government programs.

 

The fact people are living longer than initially anticipated is not an inept government program.

 

The fact that you want the caps removed is irrelevant. Doing so should involve passage by both houses, the presidents signiture and review by the SCOTUS.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the fact that they are massively underfunded and proper funding of them would lead to revolution does.

 

That's because people are living longer. How is the fact people are living longer than initially anticipated an inept government program?

 

People are not living that much longer to constitute the tax rising as much as it has since it's inception. Secondly, allowing the government to access its funds is an additional problem which has caused its massive failure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

From 1940-1990 life expectancy for men has increased less than 3 years and 5 for women, yet rates have risen from 2% to 12.4%. This does not reflect a viable program.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Clearly, having the government manage the funds is a massive failure. Privatization would eliminate the massive government failures. If these programs were treated this way in the private sector, they would be shutdown and people hung.

 

When SS was passed in 1934, average life expectancy was about 60 years. Most people weren't even expected to live long enough to receive SS benefits.

The average life expectancy today is about 79 years. That means the average person will be on SS for about 14 years.

That would make a bit of difference in the obligations, doncha think?

 

Your source does not reflect reality. Mine reflects those 21 and older, which would pay the taxes. Excussing poor mortality rates of the past makes for a fairer comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

Your source does not reflect reality. Mine reflects those 21 and older, which would pay the taxes. Excussing poor mortality rates of the past makes for a fairer comparison.

 

You're not giving the entire story, even from your article.

As your article points out, in 1940 (6 years after SS was passed), about 57% (average male and female) of 21 year olds made it to 65 to get benefits.

By 1990 (the latest date available from your source) that percentage had increased to 78%. 21% more of the population was reaching 65 and collecting benefits. That is a huge number.

In 1940, those who reached age 65 could expect to live another 13 years (averaging M/F). As of 2010, 65 year olds can expect to live another 19 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf

So we see both a huge increase in the number of people making it to age 65 and a significant increase in life expectancy at 65 driving up SS costs.

 

It you force a few people to pay all the taxes, then you must allow those same few people to have all the wealth...and somehow you see this as the best path to take?

For you it's always regressive and progressive which are nothing but politically subjective words and have nothing to do with who should pay taxes and how much they should pay?

It remains interesting that you and others are not demanding the federal government spending to be reduced? Your 90% or whatever percentage you call them today refuse to pay taxes even when it means adding $500+ billion to debt every single year. They refuse to reduce the spending and refuse to pay the taxes and the problem is solved by mounting debt.

Regarding SS, your answer again is extract more from the wealthy 10% while demanding no more from your 90%? Like it or not, as long as you demand a government of certain policy and cost, every citizen should be funding that government to the extent which seems 'fair'. And IMO fair does not mean zero! We can't have 90% of the citizens taking while giving nothing! Further you refuse to acknowledge the law of diminishing returns? The more you try to extract from the few, the more those few will find ways to avoid paying taxes...this is a fact!

Tell you what, if your 10% must fund the nation, then let the 10% own the government. Let them convert all public roads to toll roads! Let them charge you for sending your kids to school. Let them charge you a handsome fee to use their airports and trains. Great plan you have...

 

How does that possible follow? No sequitur.

If you don't understand the difference between progressive and regressive taxes google it.

We've already cut spending faster than any time since WWII. We don't need to cut that much more. But I'm willing to compromise by cutting spending (relative to GDP) in exchange for more progressive taxes and elimation of things like special low investment tax rates and special exemptions of SS taxes the wealthy get.

Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the middle and lower classes have been gutted. The wealthiest 1% now are getting 20% of the nation's income and have about 40% of the nations wealth, doubled since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

Just how much more of the national income and wealth do you want the richest to have?

 

I think about 40 million Americans collecting SS are at the retirement age while about 22 million are collecting disability. I'm guessing the cost of disability claims at the ratio they are today was not in the original plan...1/3rd of the claims are disability!

The root problem here is that the government cannot have an investment fund, earning interest, and accruing trillion$ in cash. If a person truly invests then receives a payout based on their investment, many people might get little to nothing at retirement so who would make up the difference? IMO it's not possible to place trillion$ of SS cash into private investment accounts both for the risks and the impacts on the economy and equities. So, from my perspective, the current system is fairly reasonable considering the complexity and risks of the alternatives.

But I have three problems with current SS;

1. Stop funding disability with SS dollars which would give each SS recipient more income.
2. Adjust FICA withholding every year to achieve no deficits and no surpluses.
3. Stop requiring business to fund over 1/2 of FICA funding.

 

Of course. That way, business owners can pay less, and get more of the nation's income and wealth.

Because for heaven's sake, the richest 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from just 35 years ago, just isn't enough for you, is it?

For some, or many, more is never enough.

 

You and others complain about a slow economy, unemployment, low wages, etc. but refuse to consider ways to remove some of the cost burdens from business? Or do you believe burdening business with higher costs will help solve all the problems?

All you can think about is politics and your evil 1% instead of taking calculated steps to change and improve things. Your appear jealous of corporations earning profits yet they are the fuel of our economy...the higher the profits the more that everyone benefits...even your lowly 99%...

 

If you allow a few people to fund the government, then those people own the government, they make the rules, they make the laws, then they rule everyone...you can understand this.

Cutting spending is a joke...you have minimum $500 BILLION deficits for years to come. But maybe the wealthy will give you all of their profits and investment earnings and sell all their assets to solve your problems.

 

I think you are confusing allowing a few people to fund the government (when only a few people get the vast bulk of the nation's income) with allowing a few people to legally bribe politicians. They are not the same.

If we collected the same tax revenue proportionate to GDP as we did in 2000, the deficit would fall to very little. We could cut a half a percent or percent off of GDP in spending an have a surplus budget or close to it. Then the debt would start shrinking relative to GDP. We are actually pretty close to the break even point now.

 

The problem isn't "cost burdens" on businesses.

The problem is there is not enough spending in the economy creating demand for their products and services.

Compare:


Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

Spending growth is roughly half of what it was in the early 80s.

We've gutted middle class incomes with "trickle down" economics, wiped out their equity in the housing crash, and stunted the Govt's traditional role of making up the difference with austerity.

Businesses don't grow if folks don't have money to buy their products.

All you can think about is how to screw the evil poor and middle classes so that the rich can get more and more of the nation's income and wealth. You appear insatiable in greed. No wonder you keep dodging the question: Just how much more of the national income and wealth do you want the richest to have?

 

never said it should not, so lets just raise the caps, double them... should be good

 

So, you are claiming that the wealthy can have legitimate wealth, but that typical Americans need a government Ponzi scheme. This is what you are saying.

Additionally, a system that continually requires higher taxes is not working. At this point, most earning under 100k per year are trapped in the government forced PS and cannot afford personal wealth growth. The SS tax has risen from 2% to 12.4%. To become viable from here they will need drastic increases. Does this really reflect a fair system from one generation to the next? You are advocating a slow socialistic death of America.

Essentially, the government is squandering the average Americans wealth. Eriemon cannot grasp this because he is consumed with government as a God.

 

Market wise, businesses would just apply the reduction to wages. If the government switched the obligation to just the employee it would change nothing. As an employer, I would just adjust wages to compensate my reduction so the employee would not be affected.

 

If you can cut their salaries so easily why don't you just cut their salaries now and make more profit?

 

Who said anything about cutting wages? I said that if the government stopped forcing me to contribute half the Fico taxes, I would apply those funds to higher wages. It would be a normal market pressure.

BTW, you do know that the split system is an illusion for a dumbed down society. The government does not want the citizen to grasp just how much they are taxed so they make it appear that the boogie man employer is paying half of it.

 

I misunderstood you.

Why would you pay them higher wages if you could simply pocket the extra money yourself?

That is the issue behind my question.

 

I'm not confusing anything...you want a few wealthy people to 100% fund the government which in my book means they own the government, make the rules, make the laws, etc.

Fact is you have $500 billion deficits for years to come and those deficits are projected to increase! This is not fiscal responsibility...it is arrogance and self-entitlement.

Social Security, just like the rest of government, is ill-managed! Presidents and Congress are spineless self-serving people. This nation has at least 20% government waste yet we can't even deal with this because voters won't allow it. There is federal government crap and spending everywhere we look...including at the City, County and State levels. Military spending in every state and around the world!

The root problem is the current US economy simply cannot support all US citizens in the fashion they 'desire'. And there is no impetus IMO that will change this for years to come. So the answer is just keep spending, create more debt, and let our kids and great great great great grandkids pay for our self-serving behavior...

 

No, I've never said that.

Write your GOP reps and tell them to quit pampering the richest and compromise with a tax increase.

It's managed very efficiently.

No kidding. The wealthiest are gutting this country and they bend over themselves as to how they can help them do it more.

The economy has been doing fine overall. It's had pretty good growth overall the past 35 years. But uit cannot support the bottom 90% having a better living when "trickle down" policies have distributed virtually all that growth to the top 10% and mostly top 1% and top 0.1%.