Attack on the Feds independence

[406dn]

Social security payments exceed the taxes paid into them with a typical person.

Imagine how bad that math is for a dentist getting 5k a month is SS.

The math is better for him than the lower earner. He/she receives a more modest benefit, based on taxes paid in than, a low wage earner.

 

[Bonasababy]

No, I don't think it is greed.

Presently, lower income earners receive a higher percentage of income benefit. Higher earners get a lower percentage of income benefit. Higher earners are subsidizing the benefit of lower earners.

If you tax a dentist for forty years for SS, then tell him, sorry Charlie, no benefit for you, do you think they would support SS, generally?

One big reason that medicare and SS enjoy support is everyone pays in and everyone receives a benefit.

I believe there would be legal trouble if you cut benefits completely for anyone, and even if it was changed only going forward, some return to all would be necessary to get it approved in our political system, where the wealthy have an outsized role in what gets passed.

 

[406dn]

I believe there would be legal trouble if you cut benefits completely for anyone, and even if it was changed only going forward, some return to all would be necessary to get it approved in our political system, where the wealthy have an outsized role in what gets passed.

If left to the "wealthy" entirely, SS would go away. They do not need it, and have never needed it. They have tolerated it, since they get some mad money to spend during their dotage.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

No, I don't think it is greed.

Presently, lower income earners receive a higher percentage of income benefit. Higher earners get a lower percentage of income benefit. Higher earners are subsidizing the benefit of lower earners.

If you tax a dentist for forty years for SS, then tell him, sorry Charlie, no benefit for you, do you think they would support SS, generally?

One big reason that medicare and SS enjoy support is everyone pays in and everyone receives a benefit.

As someone that hits the Income cap each year, I would much rather see my SS benefit go away entirely rather than increase or remove the Earned Income limit. Not sure if I qualify as wealthy but I am doing just fine and could easily have a fine retirement without SS.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The math is better for him than the lower earner. He/she receives a more modest benefit, based on taxes paid in than, a low wage earner.

Wrong.

Someone working and making the max SS wage, paid in not even 250k (employee side only) into SS over their career assuming this was over the last 35 years. Not to mention - the dentist got the luxury of avoiding that tax on the rest of his wages.

He's going to collect that much in 6 years retired. After that - all gravy!

Someone who paid in a modest wage never earned a dollar that wasn't taxed by social security, and the payments they receive will take a lot longer to get paid back - in addition they are more likely to work longer and take their modest payments earlier.

It's very regressive.

 

[brymoore]

Social security payments exceed the taxes paid into them with a typical person.

Imagine how bad that math is for a dentist getting 5k a month is SS.

Changes it massively.

What’s the dollar amount?

 

[Forkyfinder]

What’s the dollar amount?

Dollar amount of what?

 

[Bonasababy]

As someone that hits the Income cap each year, I would much rather see my SS benefit go away entirely rather than increase or remove the Earned Income limit. Not sure if I qualify as wealthy but I am doing just fine and could easily have a fine retirement without SS.

This explains a lot of posts on this thread. You are much more fortunate than the vast majority.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You are much more fortunate than the vast majority.

Default position for the folks benefitting from a regressive and crippling tax.

 

[Marshian]

Wrong.

Someone working and making the max SS wage, paid in not even 250k (employee side only) into SS over their career assuming this was over the last 35 years. Not to mention - the dentist got the luxury of avoiding that tax on the rest of his wages.

He's going to collect that much in 6 years retired. After that - all gravy!

Someone who paid in a modest wage never earned a dollar that wasn't taxed by social security, and the payments they receive will take a lot longer to get paid back - in addition they are more likely to work longer and take their modest payments earlier.

It's very regressive.

That dentist likely paid 12.4% as he paid the employer side too probably. So he's put in well over $500k. Id be pissed too to pay that much in and then have people try and strip me of it whether I had a second house or not.

 

[brymoore]

Dollar amount of what?

You said eliminating SS payments changes the program massively? What’s the dollar amount savings with the proposed changes? It’s a $1.6T program.

 

[Forkyfinder]

That dentist likely paid 12.4% as he paid the employer side too probably. So he's put in well over $500k. Id be pissed too to pay that much in and then have people try and strip me of it whether I had a second house or not.

Oh?

Sounds like he just likes wealth redistribution flowing the right way.

As far as "employer side" - I don't believe the myth that people aren't effectively paying that tax. But even if I did - how about someone self employed who doesn't max out?

 

[Forkyfinder]

That dentist likely paid 12.4% as he paid the employer side too probably. So he's put in well over $500k. Id be pissed too to pay that much in and then have people try and strip me of it whether I had a second house or not.

Oh?

Sounds like he just likes wealth redistribution flowing the right way.

As far as "employer side" - I don't believe the myth that people aren't effectively paying that tax. But even if I did - how about someone self employed who doesn't max out?

 

[Marshian]

Oh?

Sounds like he just likes wealth redistribution flowing the right way.

As far as "employer side" - I don't believe the myth that people aren't effectively paying that tax. But even if I did - how about someone self employed who doesn't max out?

How is it wealth redistribution? He paid that money and he could've invested it. Its not greedy to expect some kind of a return on an investment. That term is being tossed around quite cavalierly here.

 

[RG300]

You are making an assumption gen z are the only ones that fit the stereotype of the second paragraph.

I've dealth with many of those types of people in various generations.

That mentality is not restricted to one generation.

Sorry, didnt mean to limit it to 1 generation.....
Yes, you are 100% correct, there are many like that...... in each generation.....including mine, lol.

 

[406dn]

Wrong.

Someone working and making the max SS wage, paid in not even 250k (employee side only) into SS over their career assuming this was over the last 35 years. Not to mention - the dentist got the luxury of avoiding that tax on the rest of his wages.

He's going to collect that much in 6 years retired. After that - all gravy!

Someone who paid in a modest wage never earned a dollar that wasn't taxed by social security, and the payments they receive will take a lot longer to get paid back - in addition they are more likely to work longer and take their modest payments earlier.

It's very regressive.

It is not regressive, in fact it is progressive. Here is a SS site that explains for low earner, SS benefits replace a higher percentage of their earnings. Higher earners receive a benefit that replaces a lower percentage of their working income.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-01.html

You'd do yourself a service, if you dug into things a bit more.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

This explains a lot of posts on this thread.

Please elaborate on those explanations?

 

[Forkyfinder]

That dentist likely paid 12.4% as he paid the employer side too probably. So he's put in well over $500k. Id be pissed too to pay that much in and then have people try and strip me of it whether I had a second house or not.

Oh?

Sounds like he just likes wealth redistribution flowing the right way.

As far as "employer side" - I don't believe the myth that people aren't effectively paying that tax. But even if I did - how about someone self employed who doesn't max out? Going to tell me he got more than the dentist?

 

[Forkyfinder]

It is not regressive, in fact it is progressive. Here is a SS site that explains for low earner, SS benefits replace a higher percentage of their earnings. Higher earners receive a benefit that replaces a lower percentage of their working income.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-01.html

You'd do yourself a service, if you dug into things a bit more.

Surface level analysis.

You didn't point out how I was wrong.

Perhaps you'd do yourself a service if you read something that expanded your view rather than reinforced it.

Why Is Social Security Regressive?

The Social Security program is funded by taxes that hit lower-income people the hardest while providing greater benefits to higher-income individuals. This is neither reasonable nor popular — and it wasn't popular when Social Security was enacted. So...

www.nationalaffairs.com

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

This explains a lot of posts on this thread. You are much more fortunate than the vast majority.

I would say the things I have seen and experienced, which you know almost nothing about, have much more to do with my thoughts than my current income.