1. Social Security & Medicare -- What Should We Do With Them?

[WDDT]

I have paid about $250k over my lifetime, matched by my employers, for a total of about $500k. And a lot of that income was from self-employment, so the employer half was paid by me.

So...at 70 years old you propose my benefits just stop?

No. They need to find a way to pay what they can and make it fair and kill it. Extending it is only going to make that pitfall worse.

 

[firegiver]

Ah yes. The exceptionally logical take that billionaire wealth inequality should be addressed via FICA taxes.

You are so filled with bitterness that it’s impossible to have a logical discussion with you on this topic.

You are the one trying to raise taxes on those making less than you. Hows that not completely lacking empathy? You don't have emotional intelligence, nor does it make sense. You are stuck on trickle down, and trickle down doesn't work.

 

[ArtRadley]

ChatGPT said the 2025 shortfall was $160M and raising from 12.4% to 14% would raise $175M based on 2025 wages.

I had a separate post going into more detail. In that, I acknowledged that wasn't sufficient to solve long term solvency. For that, I recommended adjustments to benefit amounts and eligibility ages with plenty of lead time and no impact to current beneficiaries.

Not sure I'm following you on #1. I'm 100% against anything that raises the contribution cap though. It's not necessary if everyone chips in a bit more and we adjust ages and benefit amounts slightly.

In #1 my suggestion, let me try again.

Require workers and employers to pay Social Security taxes on all earnings. Workers would earn additional retirement benefits for earnings above the former limit, but at a reduced rate.

For earnings during the first ten years after implementing this, they would receive 80% of the additional benefit the regular formula would provide. That would fall to 60% for earnings during the next ten years and 50% thereafter.

So, let's say the cap were $200,000. And benefits for someone making wages right up to the cap come to $6,000 per month. And let's say that if we removed the cap someone making $300,000 per year would project to benefits of $9,000 per month ($6,000 plus $3000 because there is no longer a cap)

Under my idea, For the ten years after implementation, their calculated benefit would be $6,000 + (80% of $3,000), or $8400. For the next ten years it would be $6,000 + (60% of $3000), of $7800. After twenty years the permanent calculation would be $6,000 + (50% of $3,000) or $7500.

Essentially it is a compromise between remove the cap on contributions but don't remember the cap on benefits (patentably unfair) and removing the cap on both contributions and benefits. With a 20 year phase-in to lessen the pain.

 

[ArtRadley]

No. They need to find a way to pay what they can and make it fair and kill it. Extending it is only going to make that pitfall worse.

I'd love to hear the details about how they will continue to pay benefits for those who have paid into it without forcing people who will never see a dime to continue to pay into it for decades. This sounds more like a visceral reaction than a plan; which I thought the OP was specifically trying to avoid.

 

[WDDT]

I'd love to hear the details about how they will continue to pay benefits for those who have paid into it without forcing people who will never see a dime to continue to pay into it for decades. This sounds more like a visceral reaction than a plan; which I thought the OP was specifically trying to avoid.

There will be no continued pay. The government should pay the money owed to people, as any entitity would be required, and the program should be shut down. Saying they cant afford to pay it out is part of the reason it should be destroyed.


Quit throwing money at a terrible investment. Realize it was a ****** plan and move forward.

 

[ArtRadley]

There will be no continued pay. The government should pay the money owed to people, as any entitity would be required, and the program should be shut down. Saying they cant afford to pay it out is part of the reason it should be destroyed.


Quit throwing money at a terrible investment. Realize it was a ****** plan and move forward.

What would they pay the outstanding benefits with? What age would the cutoff be for people to not receive any benefits? I asked ChatGPT to run the numbers, and they say our existing reserves would only pay about 5% of benefits.

So my $5000/month benefit would become $250. Is that your plan?

 

[WDDT]

What would they pay the outstanding benefits with? What age would the cutoff be for people to not receive any benefits? I asked ChatGPT to run the numbers, and they say our existing reserves would only pay about 5% of benefits.

So my $5000/month benefit would become $250. Is that your plan?

Lolz, you think the United States of america should keep a ****** product because you cant accept FDR was a ******* con man. Classic boom

 

[Aardvark86]

Lolz, you think the United States of america should keep a ****** product because you cant accept FDR was a ******* con man. Classic boom

Easy there whiskey, remember this is the civil thread

 

[WDDT]

Easy there whiskey, remember this is the civil thread

Touche

 

[Aardvark86]

Touche

How’s fatherhood treating you?

 

[scotchtiger]

You are the one trying to raise taxes on those making less than you. Hows that not completely lacking empathy? You don't have emotional intelligence, nor does it make sense. You are stuck on trickle down, and trickle down doesn't work.

Jesus dude. Empathy? Trickle down? Do you know how much people actually pay in taxes? Here’s a quick comparison between a $1M household and a $100K household, both families of four. ChatGPT:


… So the key number is about $10,900 in total federal taxes, or 10.9% of gross household income.

That makes for an interesting comparison with a $1M household:

$100K family: ~10.9% effective federal rate
$1M family: ~32.5% effective federal rate

So the $1M family earns 10× as much, but pays roughly 30× as much federal tax (~$324,500 vs. ~$10,900).


So despite paying $314K more in taxes, you’re telling me a high earning (and high tax paying) family lacks empathy by suggesting a family that makes $100k should pay a mere $800 in SS tax to save a system that they will depend on? And instead, you think the higher earning family should pay an additional $40K for a total of $365K vs $11K? Seriously?

 

[WDDT]

How’s fatherhood treating you?

Best thing that has ever happened to me.

 

[Jonathan Assbutt Jr.]

1. Forced savings are functionally probably doing good for more people than not -- lots of people stink at this.

2. Elimination of social security could be a boon to family structure/life.

 

[fsu1jreed]

 

[ArtRadley]

Lolz, you think the United States of america should keep a ****** product because you cant accept FDR was a ******* con man. Classic boom

You are just ranting. You are making suggestions without actually thinking about it. Your responses are based on emotion, and nothing else.

 

[firegiver]

Jesus dude. Empathy? Trickle down? Do you know how much people actually pay in taxes? Here’s a quick comparison between a $1M household and a $100K household, both families of four. ChatGPT:


… So the key number is about $10,900 in total federal taxes, or 10.9% of gross household income.

That makes for an interesting comparison with a $1M household:

$100K family: ~10.9% effective federal rate
$1M family: ~32.5% effective federal rate

So the $1M family earns 10× as much, but pays roughly 30× as much federal tax (~$324,500 vs. ~$10,900).


So despite paying $314K more in taxes, you’re telling me a high earning (and high tax paying) family lacks empathy by suggesting a family that makes $100k should pay a mere $800 in SS tax to save a system that they will depend on? And instead, you think the higher earning family should pay an additional $40K for a total of $365K vs $11K? Seriously?

You've left the discussion. You are off in left field chasing butterflies. Get back to the discussion

We don't need to raise the ss tax on those making less than 180k a year. We need to simply raise the cap to 500k and we solve the whole problem.

Just to poke you a bit more. The debt just hit the size of our GDP. The last time that happened was 1946. You know how we fixed it? We raised the taxes on those making more than a million dollars and we then entered the greatest decade of wealth this country has ever seen.
The middle class made this country great. You don't like the middle class because you'd rather be the upper class and you'd like to get there by pushing them down. Cool. But if the middle class wakes up to your bs, you will get taxed again like in 1946. And guess what, we may not have a choice.

 

[scotchtiger]

You've left the discussion. You are off in left field chasing butterflies. Get back to the discussion

We don't need to raise the ss tax on those making less than 180k a year. We need to simply raise the cap to 500k and we solve the whole problem.

Just to poke you a bit more. The debt just hit the size of our GDP. The last time that happened was 1946. You know how we fixed it? We raised the taxes on those making more than a million dollars and we then entered the greatest decade of wealth this country has ever seen.
The middle class made this country great. You don't like the middle class because you'd rather be the upper class and you'd like to get there by pushing them down. Cool. But if the middle class wakes up to your bs, you will get taxed again like in 1946. And guess what, we may not have a choice.

I'm not in left field. I'm showing you real numbers. Real taxes paid by people you think should bear the brunt of fixing this broken and antiquated social entitlement program.

You seem to think that high earners don't pay enough. I'm showing you what a high-earning family actually pays relative to a middle class family of 4. These are real numbers and facts.

You are lost in your feelings and want to ignore the numbers. You "feel" like high earners don't pay enough. You "feel" like the people earning >$185K need to solve this problem for you. You are ignoring how much they actually pay to support the federal government under the present progressive tax system. That same top 5% pays ~60% of all federal income taxes. They are mostly paying their fair share.

The middle class is great and I'm not doing anything to push them down. Paying $30 more per biweekly paycheck isn't pushing them down. Everyone pitching in to solve the problem isn't pushing anyone down. It's fair. It's reasonable. It doesn't place an undue burden on anyone, unlike targeting a small % of people. I'm not even proposing a reduction in other taxes - which as I showed in my example - creeps into the hundreds of thousands more for high earners compared to middle class families.

Again, you are bitter and lost in your feelings. I'm focused on the numbers. My numbers make sense. My numbers are based on real tax returns, not some imaginary assumption of what high earners pay in taxes.

 

[WDDT]

You are just ranting. You are making suggestions without actually thinking about it. Your responses are based on emotion, and nothing else.

No, they are built entirely in dollars and cents. Its an untenable product.

The whole thing was sold as a forced program so that people had savings. Yes, the government was going to get a cut by running it but you were going to get your money......now they have bankrupt the program after giving themselves a free piggy bank and **people** want to throw more money at it.


Its a crap program nobody would enroll in if it were on the open market and not a forced government subsidy.

 

[Rifler]

Step one needs to be a return to viewing a Social Security benefit as the backup safety net it was always intended to be,... Failure will be guaranteed if payouts are expected to accomplish anymore than that.

 

[FLaw47]

I'm not in left field. I'm showing you real numbers. Real taxes paid by people you think should bear the brunt of fixing this broken and antiquated social entitlement program.

You seem to think that high earners don't pay enough. I'm showing you what a high-earning family actually pays relative to a middle class family of 4. These are real numbers and facts.

You are lost in your feelings and want to ignore the numbers. You "feel" like high earners don't pay enough. You "feel" like the people earning >$185K need to solve this problem for you. You are ignoring how much they actually pay to support the federal government under the present progressive tax system. That same top 5% pays ~60% of all federal income taxes. They are mostly paying their fair share.

The middle class is great and I'm not doing anything to push them down. Paying $30 more per biweekly paycheck isn't pushing them down. Everyone pitching in to solve the problem isn't pushing anyone down. It's fair. It's reasonable. It doesn't place an undue burden on anyone, unlike targeting a small % of people. I'm not even proposing a reduction in other taxes - which as I showed in my example - creeps into the hundreds of thousands more for high earners compared to middle class families.

Again, you are bitter and lost in your feelings. I'm focused on the numbers. My numbers make sense. My numbers are based on real tax returns, not some imaginary assumption of what high earners pay in taxes.

Where's the part where you're not proposing to raise taxes on people poorer than you? I see in your post that you want to raise their taxes.

 

[scotchtiger]

Where's the part where you're not proposing to raise taxes on people poorer than you? I see in your post that you want to raise their taxes.

A program that supports everyone is failing. Everyone needs to be part of the solution.

 

[WDDT]

A program that supports everyone is failing. Everyone needs to be part of the solution.

It does not support everyone sir, its a fallacy and a failing pyramid. The only people who have ever actually benefited from social security are the administrators who got a paycheck pushing papers all day.

 

[FLaw47]

A program that supports everyone is failing. Everyone needs to be part of the solution.

So you want to raise taxes on people poorer than you?

 

[Rifler]

A program that supports everyone is failing. Everyone needs to be part of the solution.

Some people are supported by Social Security,.. Some people use Social Security to entertain their grandchildren.

 

[scotchtiger]

So you want to raise taxes on people poorer than you?

Not really. I would rather just reduce SS benefits to the point that the program is solvent.

But that isn't going to fly, so everyone needs to pitch in a bit more.

"People poorer than me" is relative. That's 99% of the country. We can't support everything you want from the government if <1% of the country pays more. Especially when a major chunk of that 1% is already paying an extremely high amount of taxes.

 

[FLaw47]

Not really. I would rather just reduce SS benefits to the point that the program is solvent.

But that isn't going to fly, so everyone needs to pitch in a bit more.

"People poorer than me" is relative. That's 99% of the country. We can't support everything you want from the government if <1% of the country pays more. Especially when a major chunk of that 1% is already paying an extremely high amount of taxes.

I feel like you should just be able to say it. I may have missed it, but I don't remember you saying that you'd "pitch in" to solve the problem; you've exclusively talked about making things worse for people worse off than you (again, I could have missed you having said this).

 

[scotchtiger]

I feel like you should just be able to say it. I may have missed it, but I don't remember you saying that you'd "pitch in" to solve the problem; you've exclusively talked about making things worse for people worse off than you (again, I could have missed you having said this).

Raising the individual portion of the SS tax by 0.8% (my proposal) would cost my family ~$3K. The hypothetical family making $100K would contribute $800. Very, very fair. Everyone pitches in.

 

[FLaw47]

Raising the individual portion of the SS tax by 0.8% (my proposal) would cost my family ~$3K. The hypothetical family making $100K would contribute $800. Very, very fair. Everyone pitches in.

Ah, I missed where you'd said that you'd raise the tax on everyone. My apologies.

 

[ArtRadley]

No, they are built entirely in dollars and cents. Its an untenable product.

The whole thing was sold as a forced program so that people had savings. Yes, the government was going to get a cut by running it but you were going to get your money......now they have bankrupt the program after giving themselves a free piggy bank and **people** want to throw more money at it.


Its a crap program nobody would enroll in if it were on the open market and not a forced government subsidy.

My conversation to you has not been about whether or not the program should be abolished. You started with "burn it down."

I have tried to steer you towards dollars and cents by asking you how you would propose ending the program, and you have not made any attempt to explain yourself.

 

[scotchtiger]

Ah, I missed where you'd said that you'd raise the tax on everyone. My apologies.

I had a different thread about it, so not sure what I posted here vs there. TL;DR - Raise SS tax from 12.4% to 14%. Shortfall in 2025 was $160B. This raises $175B based on 2025 numbers. Then modestly adjust ages and benefit amounts in out years for future beneficiaries to balance any remaining solvency issues.

Problem solved. Everyone pitches in.

 

[WDDT]

My conversation to you has not been about whether or not the program should be abolished. You started with "burn it down."

I have tried to steer you towards dollars and cents by asking you how you would propose ending the program, and you have not made any attempt to explain yourself.

I did sir. They need to pay out all expected pay outs, as any business entity would be expected to do, and then shut it down. If it is insolvent, they will need to find the funds. They had no issue using it as a piggy bank when they desired.

 

[FLaw47]

I had a different thread about it, so not sure what I posted here vs there. TL;DR - Raise SS tax from 12.4% to 14%. Shortfall in 2025 was $160B. This raises $175B based on 2025 numbers. Then modestly adjust ages and benefit amounts in out years for future beneficiaries to balance any remaining solvency issues.

Problem solved. Everyone pitches in.

While I can't say I would vote for that proposal if it were something I was able to do, it's far better than a lot of the things that I've read.

 

[FLaw47]

I did sir. They need to pay out all expected pay outs, as any business entity would be expected to do, and then shut it down. If it is insolvent, they will need to find the funds. They had no issue using it as a piggy bank when they desired.

So all you have to do is continue paying for all the people who are actively on the benefits and then somehow manage to pay out everything the people who are currently contributing but aren't receiving benefits have contributed. Simple!

 

[WDDT]

So all you have to do is continue paying for all the people who are actively on the benefits and then somehow manage to pay out everything the people who are currently contributing but aren't receiving benefits have contributed. Simple!

There is, was, and has been, enough money put in to pay out people benefits owed. The benefit paid is a fraction of what that money could have been if invested properly but instead the people you want to keep giving money to have ran it into the ground while paying out pennies on the dollar. Its a terrible system, quit feeding it. Cut the loss and move in another direction.

 

[FLaw47]

There is, was, and has been, enough money put in to pay out people benefits owed. The benefit paid is a fraction of what that money could have been if invested properly but instead the people you want to keep giving money to have ran it into the ground while paying out pennies on the dollar. Its a terrible system, quit feeding it. Cut the loss and move in another direction.

If that was true, we wouldn't have an insolvency problem.

 

[ArtRadley]

I did sir. They need to pay out all expected pay outs, as any business entity would be expected to do, and then shut it down. If it is insolvent, they will need to find the funds. They had no issue using it as a piggy bank when they desired.

As I mentioned, there is only enough money to pay 5% of the expected payouts. "Find the funds" is not a plan.

 

[WDDT]

As I mentioned, there is only enough money to pay 5% of the expected payouts. "Find the funds" is not a plan.

Seems like we may need to hold some people accountable as part of the process. Pay the people what they have put in. If they lost it, hang them.


Nothing you are saying would make an intelligent person want to continue to feed that system.

 

[ArtRadley]

Seems like we may need to hold some people accountable as part of the process. Pay the people what they have put in. If they lost it, hang them.


Nothing you are saying would make an intelligent person want to continue to feed that system.

I am bypassing the question of whether or not we should keep the system. I am asking you to explain how the system could be eliminated.

There is not enough money to pay everyone back.

 

[WDDT]

I am bypassing the question of whether or not we should keep the system. I am asking you to explain how the system could be eliminated.

There is not enough money to pay everyone back.

Pay everyone what they have put in.

If the government cannot account for money that has been given to them, start hanging people.

 

[firegiver]

I feel like you should just be able to say it. I may have missed it, but I don't remember you saying that you'd "pitch in" to solve the problem; you've exclusively talked about making things worse for people worse off than you (again, I could have missed you having said this).

He's projecting his own emotions on others in here and not answering questions on purpose. Yes he's proposing to raise taxes on those lower than him in order to avoid paying more himself .