General Discussion

FogerRox

(13,211 posts)

6. The size of the SS shortfall, so called....

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 07:07 PM

Nov 2013

As scored by the CBO, .6% of GDP. 90 billion a year.

We can add 89.2 billion in FICA if we create 20 million jobs at 36k.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Social Security is Wage Insurance, for wage earners, not people who earn from capital [View all] FogerRox Nov 2013 OP

It is worth "insuring" those income streams to have them in the "pool". TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #1

Re: the income cap- It is worth "insuring" those income streams ? No FogerRox Nov 2013 #4

Why not? Your argument that a too miserly COLA could be paid for a smaller increase changes nothing. TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #11

Yep. People earning millions are generally OK with Social Security. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #2

The SS benefit formula (AIME) goes up as the income cap goes up FogerRox Nov 2013 #5

I think a lot of DUers want the law to be changed, so that Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #7

And thats unfortunate. Capping benefits forever changes SS FogerRox Nov 2013 #9

They won't be 'capped forever' if the COLA increase is done correctly rather than cheating sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #39

Eliminating the income cap or raising it? FogerRox Nov 2013 #41

The logical solution is to change the benefit formula slightly Silver Swan Dec 2013 #51

Correct, you have just spelled out SS bend points. Are you aware FogerRox Dec 2013 #54

Of course. I generally agree with you. Silver Swan Dec 2013 #65

No, the maximum benefit could go up as well or even be eliminated as long as the right TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #12

Using a means test to cap benefits legally makes SS into a welafre program FogerRox Nov 2013 #33

And I don't suggest one now and I don't get why you are pretending I am. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #45

They can be given a return on their additional investment and still benefit the fund too. TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #10

CBS pays their president maybe 20 million a year. FogerRox Nov 2013 #13

Of course there will be considerable resistance, sure indicator of something needing doing. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #44

As much as I want SS to survive, raising the cap substantially will earmark Hoyt Nov 2013 #3

The size of the SS shortfall, so called.... FogerRox Nov 2013 #6

I agree, I've taken some heat here opposing just raising the cap. But if Hoyt Nov 2013 #8

No it won't. The rich don't pay a general fund tax *instead* of SS. They just aren't taxed for SS Romulox Nov 2013 #15

Yes it will. It's a 13% tax increase, that should be applied to other things. Hoyt Nov 2013 #22

Perhaps a leprechaun should provide a pot of gold? It's just as logically related. Romulox Nov 2013 #23

You still don't get it. If we are going to impose a 13% tax increase on upper income, Hoyt Nov 2013 #24

Agreed. A suggestion. FogerRox Nov 2013 #32

Nobody with the power to do so is proposing that. So it's a straw man argument you make, to suggest Romulox Dec 2013 #50

Think of it as ending an undeserved 13% tax break. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #35

SO you want to eliminate the SS income cap? FogerRox Nov 2013 #40

Good, they will have paid in significantly. They are entitled to their payout. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #46

Legally - if you cap benefits, thats a means test. A means test turns SS into welfare. FogerRox Dec 2013 #64

I don't see how we are going to be on the same page as i don't favor a cap on benefits. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #67

SS is not welfare because benefits are not capped, income is capped FogerRox Dec 2013 #68

Yeah, I'm leaning mumbo jumbo or at least toward distinction without a difference. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #71

Well first of all, you obviously haven't been Ferrari shopping lately. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #47

I'm collecting unemployment thru Feb. FogerRox Dec 2013 #59

Yes, the rich shouldn't be asked to contribute a *penny* more. Wouldn't be "fair". Romulox Nov 2013 #14

Make your case, that the income tax is not the way to go about that. FogerRox Nov 2013 #16

SS isn't solvent as to my generation. It must be made so. Income tax won't do that. nt Romulox Nov 2013 #17

Thats not what I asked, you commented about the rich paying their fair share FogerRox Nov 2013 #28

No. SS funds should be used to shore up SS's solvency, by definition. There is no mechanism Romulox Nov 2013 #36

Again, I didnt ask that. FogerRox Nov 2013 #37

You want your nonsense point to be relevant, but it simply is not. Sorry. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #48

It IS solvent. Those projections are based on phony baloney numbers. n/t duffyduff Dec 2013 #69

Social Security is Social Security gulliver Nov 2013 #18

"removing the cap" doesn't make capital gains subject to SS taxation. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #19

Except that if you raise SS taxes on people geek tragedy Nov 2013 #21

Because the formula is progressive... lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #25

Please understand, raising the SS income cap automatically raises benefits. See AIME formula. FogerRox Nov 2013 #29

It is a form of inter generational welfare. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #20

There's $2.7 trillion in the trust fund. So is it prepaid welfare? n/t lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #26

If there's a gap between assets plus projected income geek tragedy Nov 2013 #27

In the Intermediate scenario, yes there is a gap FogerRox Nov 2013 #31

Weak job creation and no wage growth geek tragedy Nov 2013 #34

If the last 40 years were the model, there would not be an issue with SS Solvency FogerRox Nov 2013 #38

That economic growth was driven by bubbles geek tragedy Nov 2013 #42

Ah right- intelligent, they dont count interest when they say cash negative FogerRox Dec 2013 #57

Horse hockey. SS taxes on your generation do not have to go up to sustain current benefit levels FogerRox Nov 2013 #30

Our economy is in permanent malaise. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #43

That's not what the Congressional Budget Office says. 2038 is in the lives of *CURRENT WORKERS*. Romulox Dec 2013 #49

Read the fine print, this is based on the SST intermediate cost scenario. FogerRox Dec 2013 #53

Ever notice how the only time 1%ers and their Apologists.. 99Forever Dec 2013 #52

IS paying an uber rich senior retiree enough SS to buy a new Italian sports car each year... fair? FogerRox Dec 2013 #55

Take the cap OFF contributions taken from INCOME... 99Forever Dec 2013 #56

Thats a means test. You just made SS a welfare program. FogerRox Dec 2013 #58

Bullshit. 99Forever Dec 2013 #60

A cap on the pay out is a means test. Dictionaries are online these days FogerRox Dec 2013 #62

No. A cap on the pay out is a cap on the pay out. 99Forever Dec 2013 #66

But they only way to insure its survival is to raise the cap. alarimer Dec 2013 #61

Only way, hardly. Create jobs adds more FICA, increase min wage adds more FICA FogerRox Dec 2013 #63

It would survive without raising the cap. There isn't any problem with SS, duffyduff Dec 2013 #70

knr nt slipslidingaway Dec 2013 #72

Evidently, SS is a piggy bank used by the govt. Rex Dec 2013 #73

Here's your 7th K&R Why do recommendations for this OP keep disappearing? Jeffersons Ghost Dec 2013 #74