Jump to content

social security , bye?


Recommended Posts

(CNN)Donald Trump once claimed that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City and not lose any voters. He's now seeing whether the same is true if he kills Social Security.

His unilateral, unprecedented step of deferring the collection of payroll taxes, the backbone of Social Security, is the murder weapon he would use.Trump has already ordered the Treasury Department to stop collecting Social Security's dedicated payroll contributions for the next four months pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, which permits deferrals of taxes when a disaster is declared. Once re-elected, if he keeps deferring those taxes, all benefits will come to a screeching halt, with no Congressional involvement whatsoever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

(CNN)Donald Trump once claimed that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City and not lose any voters. He's now seeing whether the same is true if he kills Social Security.

His unilateral, unprecedented step of deferring the collection of payroll taxes, the backbone of Social Security, is the murder weapon he would use.Trump has already ordered the Treasury Department to stop collecting Social Security's dedicated payroll contributions for the next four months pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, which permits deferrals of taxes when a disaster is declared. Once re-elected, if he keeps deferring those taxes, all benefits will come to a screeching halt, with no Congressional involvement whatsoever.

It's easier said than done, but when those folks find out they will have to repay those taxes, there will be hell to pay. If somehow Trump were able to keep that scam going, Social Security disability will be gone by next June, and the general fund would be depleted by 2023.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been reading in places like the NYT, WSJ, Chicago Tribune that a significant number of CPA firms, financial advisors, etc. are recommending to their business clients that they not stop the withholding.  The paperwork requirements alone, they say, are onerous, confusing, and could leave employers liable for collecting back taxes. 
Here is one such story: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-cb-payroll-tax-deferral-chicago-20200901-4xvuiwgpwncjtbe3asqpfgabuq-story.html

A typical Trump FUBAR

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bhyde said:

It only has to be believable by the elk until November.

And where is that 10% tax cut Trump promised back in 2018 right before the midterms? Uh.

You didn’t get yours? Damn, I got a nice carbon mainsail with mine!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

//sarscasm on// Can't wait to start getting that increase, it's almost 14% if you include the employer contribution. Those current retirees are just leaching off the system. //sarcasm off//

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Hey where is the local Reich ? 

Shouldn't they be defending this ? 

SoreAss will be along shortly to say Trump's just joking, and would never take his SS money, as he's entitled to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been paying into Social Security since I've been 14 years old. Member of Gen-X, I've long suspected that there will be zero benefits for me when the Baby Boomers deplete the funds, Gen-X is sufficiently small that it will be easier to burn it down during our old age than the Boomer's children's era, the coming age of the Millennials in retirement.

And then right about the the time the Millennials are ready for their goodies, the system will be reincarnated in some way, likely build on the skeletonized remains of the Gen-X and our kids', Gen-Z. It's much easier to shit on the smaller generations than the bigger ones.

The Boomers will continue to get their money, until most of them have died off.

And there is little chance for any of us Xers to see any of the money that we paid into the system, when the Boomers draw far more out with Medicare than they ever paid in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent article in today's NYT on 'food insecurity':

A shadow of hunger looms over the United States. In the pandemic economy, nearly one in eight households doesn’t have enough to eat. The lockdown, with its epic lines at food banks, has revealed what was hidden in plain sight: that the struggle to make food last long enough, and to get food that’s healthful — what experts call ‘food insecurity’ — is a persistent one for millions of Americans.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/02/magazine/food-insecurity-hunger-us.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

What do the Trumpeters think about that?  Where will these people be with no social security?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Blowing up social security will also be blowing up SS disability payments, 

which now represent about one third of all SS spending. 

Unimaginable suffering . . 

And the Reich is salivating at the prospect.  @BravoBravo  @The Joker @Dog 

Where the fuck is @Saorsa, our resident socialist?  He's been the biggest "fuck you, I paid in, you owe me" guy on the board. Wonder what he thinks of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Blowing up social security will also be blowing up SS disability payments, 

which now represent about one third of all SS spending. 

Unimaginable suffering . . 

And the Reich is salivating at the prospect.  @BravoBravo  @The Joker @Dog 

lol.. I get regular SS and nothing more from them.. I get VA disability however 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

taker

Just taking back what they took from me ... I’d be better off if they never took it and didn’t have to give it back ... sorry if it is all used up before your turn, but that is the way Ponzi schemes end 

the takers are the loinfomo’s and illegal aliens both the DNC coddle giving free shit in exchange for votes 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Not for nothing said:

(CNN)Donald Trump once claimed that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City and not lose any voters. He's now seeing whether the same is true if he kills Social Security.

His unilateral, unprecedented step of deferring the collection of payroll taxes, the backbone of Social Security, is the murder weapon he would use.Trump has already ordered the Treasury Department to stop collecting Social Security's dedicated payroll contributions for the next four months pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, which permits deferrals of taxes when a disaster is declared. Once re-elected, if he keeps deferring those taxes, all benefits will come to a screeching halt, with no Congressional involvement whatsoever.

NO! Thats NOT POSSIBLE....er....ehm...Trump is PRO ECONOMY...whatever that means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Socialist

Oh hell no! Grinning taker lucky enough to make it to the collection end... unlike the millions that pay in only to die before collecting a dime of only collecting a short time before dying.. good thing I’m in good health with good genes, pop made it to 93

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

lol.. I get regular SS and nothing more from them.. I get VA disability however 

Stunning dumb-assedness from you as usual - 

the GOPPER Reich and Drumph also are trying their best to blow up REGULAR SOCIAL SECURITY !! 

You know the kind you get - "lol" indeed ya total idjit 

And there you go with the total absence of empathy thing again. For anyone to lose their SS disability is for you just a big 

LOL !!  Despicable, I calls it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Stunning dumb-assedness from you as usual - 

the GOPPER Reich and Drumph also are trying their best to blow up REGULAR SOCIAL SECURITY !! 

You know the kind you get - "lol" indeed ya total idjit 

And there you go with the total absence of empathy thing again. For anyone to lose their SS disability is for you just a big 

LOL !!  Despicable, I calls it. 

What is empathy? Some kind of soy boy vegetable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Just taking back what they took from me ... I’d be better off if they never took it and didn’t have to give it back ... sorry if it is all used up before your turn, but that is the way Ponzi schemes end 

Wrong twice

You -might- be better off, depending on what you invested in, and whether or not there was a CRASH! right before or right after you retired.

(note- all the market crashes of my lifetime have been brought on by Republican administrations)

And Ponzi neither created bonds nor could he legally print money, so SocSec is totally different from a Ponzi scheme

In any event, if Trump succeeds, you will not a get a penny more Social Security no matter how much you paid in.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wrong twice

You -might- be better off, depending on what you invested in, and whether or not there was a CRASH! right before or right after you retired.

(note- all the market crashes of my lifetime have been brought on by Republican administrations)

And Ponzi neither created bonds nor could he legally print money, so SocSec is totally different from a Ponzi scheme

In any event, if Trump succeeds, you will not a get a penny more Social Security no matter how much you paid in.

- DSK

These dumbasses will vote for him anyway 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wrong twice

You -might- be better off, depending on what you invested in, and whether or not there was a CRASH! right before or right after you retired.

(note- all the market crashes of my lifetime have been brought on by Republican administrations)

And Ponzi neither created bonds nor could he legally print money, so SocSec is totally different from a Ponzi scheme

In any event, if Trump succeeds, you will not a get a penny more Social Security no matter how much you paid in.

- DSK

Who knows, but I’ll take it hand over fist as long as you keep seeing it deducted from your paychecks..I call it filler money.. fills in around my investment incomes 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BravoBravo said:

Who knows, but I’ll take it hand over fist as long as you keep seeing it deducted from your paychecks..I call it filler money.. fills in around my investment incomes 

I have not had SocSec deducted from a paycheck in about 25 years.

Glad to hear you have separate income, I would not like to think of you sleeping under bridges and riffling thru trash cans for food in your declining years.

 

1 minute ago, BravoBravo said:
3 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Socialism!

Nope... far from it !

 

Speak English much? Why do you think they call it that?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I have not had SocSec deducted from a paycheck in about 25 years.

Glad to hear you have separate income, I would not like to think of you sleeping under bridges and riffling thru trash cans for food in your declining years.

 

 

Speak English much? Why do you think they call it that?

- DSK

I don’t know it never occurred to me, I guess they had to come up with a warm and fuzzy name in order for the government to get their hands into the fruits of my labor ... whatever... it keeps showing up like magic in my bank account 

think of me when you see that deduction on your paycheck 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Social Security is for useless old people that should be dead anyway :rolleyes:

COVID could balance out the SS payment/income mis-match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Social Security is for useless old people that should be dead anyway :rolleyes:

Yep.. pretty much useless these days 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

think of me when you see that deduction on your paycheck 

Well, actually I'll think about the 40% of elderly that have no income other than SS. 

Without it, 21 millions of Americans would be poor. 

And you would be just fine with that, Mr. Reichista 

Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state, and they lift more Americans above the poverty line than any other program. Without Social Security, 21.7 million more Americans would be poor, according to analysis using the March 2019 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, 6.9 million are under age 65

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I have not had SocSec deducted from a paycheck in about 25 years.

.....    ....

 

....    ...

think of me when you see that deduction on your paycheck 

Memory problems already?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, actually I'll think about the 40% of elderly that have no income other than SS. 

Without it, 21 millions of Americans would be poor. 

And you would be just fine with that, Mr. Reichista 

Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state, and they lift more Americans above the poverty line than any other program. Without Social Security, 21.7 million more Americans would be poor, according to analysis using the March 2019 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, 6.9 million are under age 65

Without Social Security that's an awful lot of people no longer contributing to the economy, and a horrific burden to society trying to keep them from homelessness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Without Social Security that's an awful lot of people no longer contributing to the economy, and a horrific burden to society trying to keep them from homelessness.

Do you think that @BravoBravo and the Reich care a whit? 

They just live for the pungent odor of suffering in the morning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Do you think that @BravoBravo and the Reich care a whit? 

They just live for the pungent odor of suffering in the morning. 

Why are you so concerned about others ?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

Do you think that @BravoBravo and the Reich care a whit? 

They just live for the pungent odor of suffering in the morning. 

Probably not, what they will hate is the increased taxes for the sheltering, feeding, and medically caring for the newly homeless. They will put up with it for a few years, and then they will create the Logan's Run Registry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Probably not, what they will hate is the increased taxes for the sheltering, feeding, and medically caring for the newly homeless. They will put up with it for a few years, and then they will create the Logan's Run Registry.

The homeless people have much bigger problems than not having money, problems that money only makes worse.. life can be cruel 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

The homeless people have much bigger problems than not having money, problems that money only makes worse.. life can be cruel 

Homeless seniors are not the same as the 'homeless' Maybe in time, they will develop those same problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

If you are living on SS solely you are poor already... not poor because all you have to live on is SS 

Yah. That sounds like a good reason to take it away.

#fuckyouIgotmine

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Yah. That sounds like a good reason to take it away.

#

Lol... gullible liberals.. 2020 remake of pushing granny’s wheelchair off the cliff..

fuckyouIgotmine 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lefty / righty , why do we also have to be name calling and labeling?

Also Social security is a tax that you've been paying into for the last 50, 60 70 years on the promise the government would PAY you back when your retire, probably if you did the math and had invested in the market or bonds you would be way ahead of what their giving you!

One thought if we' the greatest country in the world, why is old education system 10th , health care with highest price but below average , (unless your rich on some socialist program like Medicare, )#1 with prisoned people , #1 in Infant Deaths, high rate of hunger and homeless, #1 polluter per cap'd  and we give CEO ? companies millions is that ...........?

wasn't Christ a Socialist !

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I've some questions.

Does the recipient receive a fixed amount? Is it dependant on what you've paid in?

Its a complicated but generally yes.  You get a fixed amount per month based on how much you've paid in, but is a sliding scale, based on (I think currently) the top 40 years of earnings, and indexed to inflation.

Social security is funded by a tax that's paid by employers and employees up to a cap (of like 150k?) or something close (I would have to google the details).   Money over that isn't counted toward SS nor is it taxed.  So if you make 250K / year, or 20 mil / year, your SS tax is the same and the benefit you'd get at retirement is the same.  Yes, Bill Gates will get his $3000-sh monthly check from the government for the SS taxes he paid in while he was getting a salary.

Social Security isn't now nor was it ever structured to be a retirement account.   You get the amount for as long as your alive.

Social security can't actually 'go away' on its own.  At some point between now and 2032, Social security will cross a Rubicon where the total money in becomes less than the total money out.  At that point, the program reverts to a paygo style program where the tax receipts today pay for the recipients today - the trust fund is empty.  In practice that will mean about a 30% reduction to all people currently receiving social security benefits.

As an aside, that was one of the long term implication of 'zero interest rate' policy.  The SS trust fund isrequired to buy 10 year Treasury Bills so if the yield is 1%, that's the trust fund's ROI.  Yes, for the last decade, we've been borrowing yield against the future value of SS.  That's one of the many reasons why the fund can actually 'go broke' NEXT year, and not in 2032 or 2029 or blah blah  like the projections from years back.

The proposed solution to the shortfall is to (a) continue to 'index' out the payments based on when you start receiving them to reflect increased life expectancy (b) tax above the threshold without accumulating benefits.  Both are expected to easily pass, regardless of administration.

In the mean time, the government will continue to fuck around with the number of years counted and the CPI so that the official growth rate lags the real inflation rate to keep sliding the goal posts.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Its a complicated but generally yes.  You get a fixed amount per month based on how much you've paid in, but is a sliding scale, based on (I think currently) the top 40 years of earnings, and indexed to inflation.

Social security is funded by a tax that's paid by employers and employees up to a cap (of like 150k?) or something close (I would have to google the details).   Money over that isn't counted toward SS nor is it taxed.  So if you make 250K / year, or 20 mil / year, your SS tax is the same and the benefit you'd get at retirement is the same.  Yes, Bill Gates will get his $3000-sh monthly check from the government for the SS taxes he paid in while he was getting a salary.

Social Security isn't now nor was it ever structured to be a retirement account.   You get the amount for as long as your alive.

Social security can't actually 'go away' on its own.  At some point between now and 2032, Social security will cross a Rubicon where the total money in becomes less than the total money out.  At that point, the program reverts to a paygo style program where the tax receipts today pay for the recipients today - the trust fund is empty.  In practice that will mean about a 30% reduction to all people currently receiving social security benefits.

As an aside, that was one of the long term implication of 'zero interest rate' policy.  The SS trust fund isrequired to buy 10 year Treasury Bills so if the yield is 1%, that's the trust fund's ROI.  Yes, for the last decade, we've been borrowing yield against the future value of SS.  That's one of the many reasons why the fund can actually 'go broke' NEXT year, and not in 2032 or 2029 or blah blah  like the projections from years back.

The proposed solution to the shortfall is to (a) continue to 'index' out the payments based on when you start receiving them to reflect increased life expectancy (b) tax above the threshold without accumulating benefits.  Both are expected to easily pass, regardless of administration.

In the mean time, the government will continue to fuck around with the number of years counted and the CPI so that the official growth rate lags the real inflation rate to keep sliding the goal posts.

 

interesting.

 

i remember alan greenspan saying social security couldn't go bankrupt because you can just print more money.

 

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/07/20/2016/social-security-if-it-aint-broke-...-and-it-aint-and-it-never-will-be

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Its a complicated but generally yes.  You get a fixed amount per month based on how much you've paid in, but is a sliding scale, based on (I think currently) the top 40 years of earnings, and indexed to inflation.

Social security is funded by a tax that's paid by employers and employees up to a cap (of like 150k?) or something close (I would have to google the details).   Money over that isn't counted toward SS nor is it taxed.  So if you make 250K / year, or 20 mil / year, your SS tax is the same and the benefit you'd get at retirement is the same.  Yes, Bill Gates will get his $3000-sh monthly check from the government for the SS taxes he paid in while he was getting a salary.

Social Security isn't now nor was it ever structured to be a retirement account.   You get the amount for as long as your alive.

Social security can't actually 'go away' on its own.  At some point between now and 2032, Social security will cross a Rubicon where the total money in becomes less than the total money out.  At that point, the program reverts to a paygo style program where the tax receipts today pay for the recipients today - the trust fund is empty.  In practice that will mean about a 30% reduction to all people currently receiving social security benefits.

As an aside, that was one of the long term implication of 'zero interest rate' policy.  The SS trust fund isrequired to buy 10 year Treasury Bills so if the yield is 1%, that's the trust fund's ROI.  Yes, for the last decade, we've been borrowing yield against the future value of SS.  That's one of the many reasons why the fund can actually 'go broke' NEXT year, and not in 2032 or 2029 or blah blah  like the projections from years back.

The proposed solution to the shortfall is to (a) continue to 'index' out the payments based on when you start receiving them to reflect increased life expectancy (b) tax above the threshold without accumulating benefits.  Both are expected to easily pass, regardless of administration.

In the mean time, the government will continue to fuck around with the number of years counted and the CPI so that the official growth rate lags the real inflation rate to keep sliding the goal posts.

 

The above cannot be true. @Saorsasays the govt owes him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:
11 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Does the recipient receive a fixed amount? Is it dependant on what you've paid in?

Its a complicated but generally yes.  You get a fixed amount per month based on how much you've paid in, but is a sliding scale, based on (I think currently) the top 40 years of earnings, and indexed to inflation.

Social security is funded by a tax that's paid by employers and employees up to a cap (of like 150k?) or something close (I would have to google the details).   Money over that isn't counted toward SS nor is it taxed.  So if you make 250K / year, or 20 mil / year, your SS tax is the same and the benefit you'd get at retirement is the same.  Yes, Bill Gates will get his $3000-sh monthly check from the government for the SS taxes he paid in while he was getting a salary.

Social Security isn't now nor was it ever structured to be a retirement account.   You get the amount for as long as your alive.

Social security can't actually 'go away' on its own.  At some point between now and 2032, Social security will cross a Rubicon where the total money in becomes less than the total money out.  At that point, the program reverts to a paygo style program where the tax receipts today pay for the recipients today - the trust fund is empty.  In practice that will mean about a 30% reduction to all people currently receiving social security benefits.

As an aside, that was one of the long term implication of 'zero interest rate' policy.  The SS trust fund isrequired to buy 10 year Treasury Bills so if the yield is 1%, that's the trust fund's ROI.  Yes, for the last decade, we've been borrowing yield against the future value of SS.  That's one of the many reasons why the fund can actually 'go broke' NEXT year, and not in 2032 or 2029 or blah blah  like the projections from years back.

The proposed solution to the shortfall is to (a) continue to 'index' out the payments based on when you start receiving them to reflect increased life expectancy (b) tax above the threshold without accumulating benefits.  Both are expected to easily pass, regardless of administration.

In the mean time, the government will continue to fuck around with the number of years counted and the CPI so that the official growth rate lags the real inflation rate to keep sliding the goal posts.

Above quoted in full, because it's excellent (and true).

Also noted that the gov't can keep Social Security going by simply printing more money. This is true of ALL of Uncle Sam's many many financial obligations.

Social Security can not just "go away" but the payouts can be jiggered or minimized a bunch of different ways that Congress does not actually control, and that may be subject to the President's whims (since he more or less controls hiring and firing).

One of the biggest problems with SocSec's long term viability is that approximately half of all their payouts are made to people who never paid in a penny.

Last, I'd like to comment that Social Security has been severely abused, it's been under attack by righties since it's inception, and it's been ballooned into a band-aid for middle class retirement. This is not a sustainable model.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

It is very easy to get answers to those questions. 

Why should I (or anyone) do your homework for you? 

as an australian, i have no idea about your system or where to go for answers.

as a teacher, surely you must understand even the basic tenets of coaching and guiding?

you seem to have the arrogant american side of things down pat.

 

take a leaf out of the book of the more helpful americans here. their work here has been most appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also ought to point out that the Reich has had SS lined up for years, and just like the USPS they screw with it every chance they get. 

One of those is to keep raising the retirement age for full benefits - now at 67 years of age. Lower it. 

The income cap now is $ 137,700 - meaning that income over that is not taxed. Dump the cap. 

I'm with AOC, Bernie and the progressives - expand Social Security 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

as an australian, i have no idea about your system or where to go for answers.

as a teacher, surely you must understand even the basic tenets of coaching and guiding?

you seem to have the arrogant american side of things down pat.

take a leaf out of the book of the more helpful americans here. their work here has been most appreciated.

Since one can learn about the Austrailain retirement system by googling this simple phrase . . 

"how Australian retirement works" 

I thought you could use a similar approach to learn about the US. 

Suggest you try "How US retirement works" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Since one can learn about the Austrailain retirement system by googling this simple phrase . . 

"how Australian retirement works" 

I thought you could use a similar approach to learn about the US. 

Suggest you try "How US retirement works" 

the wikipedia page on 'social security in america' was helpful.

you, not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Its a complicated but generally yes.  You get a fixed amount per month based on how much you've paid in, but is a sliding scale, based on (I think currently) the top 40 years of earnings, and indexed to inflation.

Social security is funded by a tax that's paid by employers and employees up to a cap (of like 150k?) or something close (I would have to google the details).   Money over that isn't counted toward SS nor is it taxed.  So if you make 250K / year, or 20 mil / year, your SS tax is the same and the benefit you'd get at retirement is the same.  Yes, Bill Gates will get his $3000-sh monthly check from the government for the SS taxes he paid in while he was getting a salary.

Social Security isn't now nor was it ever structured to be a retirement account.   You get the amount for as long as your alive.

Social security can't actually 'go away' on its own.  At some point between now and 2032, Social security will cross a Rubicon where the total money in becomes less than the total money out.  At that point, the program reverts to a paygo style program where the tax receipts today pay for the recipients today - the trust fund is empty.  In practice that will mean about a 30% reduction to all people currently receiving social security benefits.

As an aside, that was one of the long term implication of 'zero interest rate' policy.  The SS trust fund isrequired to buy 10 year Treasury Bills so if the yield is 1%, that's the trust fund's ROI.  Yes, for the last decade, we've been borrowing yield against the future value of SS.  That's one of the many reasons why the fund can actually 'go broke' NEXT year, and not in 2032 or 2029 or blah blah  like the projections from years back.

The proposed solution to the shortfall is to (a) continue to 'index' out the payments based on when you start receiving them to reflect increased life expectancy (b) tax above the threshold without accumulating benefits.  Both are expected to easily pass, regardless of administration.

In the mean time, the government will continue to fuck around with the number of years counted and the CPI so that the official growth rate lags the real inflation rate to keep sliding the goal posts.

 

Minor additional details.  SS payout also depends on whether you take it "early" at age 62, "at full retirement age" at 65,66,67 depending on the year you were born or late at age 70.  Flat 8% annual increase for each year delayed until age 70 keeps it neutral from an actuarial sense.  If you take it early and still have taxable income above a low level, there is an offset up to 50%. Based on overall income, SS payouts are taxable at the federal level and varies by state.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

interesting.

 

i remember alan greenspan saying social security couldn't go bankrupt because you can just print more money.

 

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/07/20/2016/social-security-if-it-aint-broke-...-and-it-aint-and-it-never-will-be

That is true of anything any government with its own currency does. The downside is your $2000 check might end up buying dinner for two and the gas to go drive to the restaurant and that's it :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Minor additional details.  SS payout also depends on whether you take it "early" at age 62, "at full retirement age" at 65,66,67 depending on the year you were born or late at age 70.  Flat 8% annual increase for each year delayed until age 70 keeps it neutral from an actuarial sense.  If you take it early and still have taxable income above a low level, there is an offset up to 50%. Based on overall income, SS payouts are taxable at the federal level and varies by state.  

 

take it as early as possible, then if you don't need it put it in a tax free muni bond, so when you need it no taxes,

or wait and get a higher amount SS  which equals higher taxes .also waiting you get hit with higher taxes on the sum of the SS + RMD + pensions, That RMD is not tax as capital gains but the higher amount of regular income , 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:
1 hour ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Minor additional details.  SS payout also depends on whether you take it "early" at age 62, "at full retirement age" at 65,66,67 depending on the year you were born or late at age 70.  Flat 8% annual increase for each year delayed until age 70 keeps it neutral from an actuarial sense.  If you take it early and still have taxable income above a low level, there is an offset up to 50%. Based on overall income, SS payouts are taxable at the federal level and varies by state.  

 

take it as early as possible, then if you don't need it put it in a tax free muni bond, so when you need it no taxes,

or wait and get a higher amount SS  which equals higher taxes .also waiting you get hit with higher taxes on the sum of the SS + RMD + pensions, That RMD is not tax as capital gains but the higher amount of regular income , 

Not worth arguing about but each person's decision is different.  Taking it early is a permanent reduction with a big offset for 4-5 years if you are still working.  The difference between "full" and expanded at 70 is a tougher choice. Takes several years to make waiting worthwhile unless your doing it for other reasons.  One size doesn't fit all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Not worth arguing about but each person's decision is different.  Taking it early is a permanent reduction with a big offset for 4-5 years if you are still working.  The difference between "full" and expanded at 70 is a tougher choice. Takes several years to make waiting worthwhile unless your doing it for other reasons.  One size doesn't fit all.  

agree I should have added  "DO YOUR OWN MATH"

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rockb said:

Since biology doesn't seem to matter anymore can I start drawing social security if I identify as a 67 year old human?

Sure.

Benefits begin accruing 30 days post surgery, or your birthday if it falls after your surgery in the calendar year of your 67-year-old-oplasty.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 4:17 PM, Not for nothing said:

(CNN)Donald Trump once claimed that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City and not lose any voters. He's now seeing whether the same is true if he kills Social Security.

His unilateral, unprecedented step of deferring the collection of payroll taxes, the backbone of Social Security, is the murder weapon he would use.Trump has already ordered the Treasury Department to stop collecting Social Security's dedicated payroll contributions for the next four months pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, which permits deferrals of taxes when a disaster is declared. Once re-elected, if he keeps deferring those taxes, all benefits will come to a screeching halt, with no Congressional involvement whatsoever.

Don't worry overmuch. As soon as a Democrat is back in office the streets will be filled by tea-bagging fiscally responsible patriots once again, MOA for the last 3 1/2 years though they be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

agree I should have added  "DO YOUR OWN MATH"

Yup, ferzample: I took my SS on the earliest date so I could leave retirement cash in the IRA where I have historically gotten huge tax-deferred returns. I think it is going to work out swell. That was my reasoning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got at least another 10-15 years before I can seriously consider collecting anyway.  I AM the rich relative (which is pretty funny) - whatever the misses and I make is all there's every going to be till we die.  I'm assuming SS will be here in some form (even 30% reduced benefits) but I'm not counting on it.  The Millennials will decide that when they take over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

I got at least another 10-15 years before I can seriously consider collecting anyway.  I AM the rich relative (which is pretty funny) - whatever the misses and I make is all there's every going to be till we die.  I'm assuming SS will be here in some form (even 30% reduced benefits) but I'm not counting on it.  The Millennials will decide that when they take over.

The Millennials better keep the ponzi going or their parents will use up all their children’s inheritance in their retirements 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Yup, ferzample: I took my SS on the earliest date so I could leave retirement cash in the IRA where I have historically gotten huge tax-deferred returns. I think it is going to work out swell. That was my reasoning...

Tax deferred returns... oh my those evil taxes 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I got at least another 10-15 years before I can seriously consider collecting anyway.  I AM the rich relative (which is pretty funny) - whatever the misses and I make is all there's every going to be till we die.  I'm assuming SS will be here in some form (even 30% reduced benefits) but I'm not counting on it.  The Millennials will decide that when they take over.

The only way you can not have soc sec in ten years is if 

you and the rest of us allow the oligarchy to steal it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The only way you can not have soc sec in ten years is if 

you and the rest of us allow the oligarchy to steal it. 

Too late.. it is all just made up numbers on paper paid for with more made up numbers on paper 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Too late.. it is all just made up numbers on paper paid for with more made up numbers on paper 

You dunno Jack Squat - and even on the rare occasions that you do, you lie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You dunno Jack Squat - and even on the rare occasions that you do, you lie. 

Lol.. hope you paid into SS during your professor days, many didn’t/don’t in exchange for university retirement plan.. perhaps you got stiffed explaining why you are so biter.. or maybe you are just a biter old man musing over what a good life must have been like 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Too late.. it is all just made up numbers on paper paid for with more made up numbers on paper 

Well, no, it’s charge-no charge on silicon or on a disk somewhere. But who gives a shit as long as someone will trade goods/services for those little bytes?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Well, no, it’s charge-no charge on silicon or on a disk somewhere. But who gives a shit as long as someone will trade goods/services for those little bytes?

It is quite a study in human psychology.. some get a few bytes and others, the unseen class, more bytes than they can turn into material goods.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites