General Discussion

exboyfil

(18,373 posts)

40. You don't necessarily have to raise benefits

Thu Dec 25, 2014, 09:04 PM

Dec 2014

You already have three tiers for benefits based on lifetime income/contributions. Create a fourth one that zeroes out benefits. Even without that approach it still is a net positive to the system when those over an average lifetime $50K/yr contributes to the system (the numbers are approximate it has been a few years since I did the calculations). I always thought the best way to handle it was no additional benefits accrue, but your percentage of contribution is reduced after you go over the cap limit (say 60% of the current contribution amount - that would be about the same as the reduced benefit for being over $50K/yr). It is fair because those already making over $50/K are carrying the burden of the system on their income up to the cap limit.

Another thing to consider - why should only wage income be taxed for Social Security. What about dividend and capital gains?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Disabled Recipients of Social Security Fund Face Hefty Benefits Cut [View all] Omaha Steve Dec 2014 OP

this is bullshit...if we can bail out the banks, we can take care of the disabled. nt antigop Dec 2014 #1

The goverment made money on the bank bailout, it was a win win situation for the citizens Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #30

Is that true.... daleanime Dec 2014 #35

I did not address the lack of prosecution,off-shored tax profits, gutted regulations, excessive Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #44

We both agree.... daleanime Dec 2014 #48

I have a rather long post I'm working on madokie Dec 2014 #84

It's not that I'm missing the one point, I get that.... daleanime Dec 2014 #93

Only because of trillions in back-door bailouts MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #38

You know the government came out well on the bank bailouts and are smart enough understand Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #46

And in whose favor..... daleanime Dec 2014 #47

If the government made money on this deal whose favor would you think it would be? Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #59

It would hurt the country if millions more became homeless CreekDog Dec 2014 #86

It is more than figuring out who purchased homes which was out of their price range from the start. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #88

I find myself unable to make.... daleanime Dec 2014 #94

It was a win for the banks brentspeak Dec 2014 #50

Propaganda? That would be by the denial of how much money went out and how much returned. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #60

Win-win-lose Scuba Dec 2014 #65

+1 Enthusiast Dec 2014 #75

-1 Enthusiast Dec 2014 #74

+1 Enthusiast Dec 2014 #73

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2014 #61

screw the poor.. 1handclapn Dec 2014 #2

In addition to owning all that money customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #4

+100 NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #12

but..but...Obama is a wealth redistributionist,,, golfguru Dec 2014 #13

Silly! The ONLY reason Obama's socialist-marxist-nazi-commie dreams haven't come to pass... Beartracks Dec 2014 #15

The republicans are clueless. golfguru Dec 2014 #54

Pfft! Facts, nothing more!! Beartracks Dec 2014 #92

Meme? Those accusations were a well rehearsed smokescreen. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #76

SSDI is not income contingent CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #34

Scoot over CountAll... dotymed Dec 2014 #70

:( CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #81

btw ... CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #91

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2014 #62

The Social Security retirement funds customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #3

that term "Grand Bargain" - I always wondered LiberalElite Dec 2014 #5

The only thing grand about it customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #8

Ah. Thanks for explaining. nt LiberalElite Dec 2014 #11

The supposed 'fix' didn't fix a damn thing, it was just another scam. And you're misinformed; NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #19

Well, then customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #25

Doubt they can either; but who's getting all the money, since GDP per capita is larger than NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #32

Your question customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #37

you midunderstood. Real (inflation adjusted) US GDP per capita is higher than ever before in NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #41

How could you check this? aspirant Dec 2014 #56

huh? what does the fdic have to do with anything? NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #57

Sorry, made the change. aspirant Dec 2014 #58

Raise the pay-in income threshold up to $500,000.00. That should fix the problem! Tax the rich. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #52

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2014 #63

Not neccesarily lancer78 Dec 2014 #82

Here is how Candidate Obama was going to fix Social Security: bvar22 Dec 2014 #29

+100 NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #33

Cap raises customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #39

You don't necessarily have to raise benefits exboyfil Dec 2014 #40

+1 daleanime Dec 2014 #49

Ask Bernie Sanders, he has the facts. Raising the cap will raise all the revenue needed. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #53

Why is not raising the cap such a sacred cow? I don't recall ever hearing that Congress was Stardust Dec 2014 #55

Because it is a significant tax increase, and a lot of Democrats woould feel Hoyt Dec 2014 #64

It's a slight increase only appllied to the portion of income in excess of the cap at $118,500 Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #66

It's a 12 percentage point increase on amounts over the cap. We can't get any Hoyt Dec 2014 #67

FWIW....when an SSDI recipient turns 65, they are switched to regular Soc. Sec. funds. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2014 #78

Good point customerserviceguy Dec 2014 #95

I hate every piece of shit that will hold onecaliberal Dec 2014 #6

imagine 9 million more Americans fucked over Ramses Dec 2014 #9

WTF? How can that be?? We gave the rich all the money so they could create jobs and save us all! Beartracks Dec 2014 #16

For 2013 there was a $32 billion shortfall. Igel Dec 2014 #7

"pushed some marginally disabled to stop working and go on disability" NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #20

Not to mention you don't go on disability. onecaliberal Dec 2014 #43

Indeed. You have to get a lawyer or you will be denied and then the lawyer gets some of the back pay L0oniX Dec 2014 #69

Yup... My wife has emphysema, heart disease, SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #72

I've already planned for it gerogie2 Dec 2014 #10

I can see right away Cryptoad Dec 2014 #14

What, no ponies? They just don't understand how government works. Doctor_J Dec 2014 #17

the swooners have not come up with the meme to cover this yet but they will Skittles Dec 2014 #24

"swooners" - like 840high Dec 2014 #26

When it comes to GOP in Congress tooeyeten Dec 2014 #18

and you might see, if you study the matter, that a lot of the super-rich often have more than NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #21

Kicked and recced. madfloridian Dec 2014 #22

There is a fallback built into the current law madville Dec 2014 #23

The fix that will probably be agreed to is to redirect some FICA taxes from Social Security PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #51

Couldn't they just raise or scrap the cap? Alkene Dec 2014 #68

Of course they could, but it doesn't seem likely the Republicans would agree to that. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #77

Here would be a good place to print. nt abelenkpe Dec 2014 #27

I am afraid it is all a house of cards SSI, SSDI, Medicare,SS and our pensions and nobody is doing doc03 Dec 2014 #28

But they didn't say that about the money that bailed out the banking industry, did they? NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #36

Yeah. Where did that $15 billion in profit go? It sure as hell didn't go to shore up food stamps. liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #45

This will put the 2016 contenders to the test, especially the Democrats. WinkyDink Dec 2014 #31

All they have to do is say the right thing and then do the opposite when they get elected. liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #42

BS negoldie Dec 2014 #71

We are in the exact same boat CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #80

The other zinger in California: No food stamps daredtowork Dec 2014 #79

California adds money to people's SSI payments in lieu of food stamps... PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #83

The money does not make up for the cost of living daredtowork Dec 2014 #85

Your talking about SSI CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #87

That's right, I was responding to the post about SSI/SSDI recipients not being eligible PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #89

You are correct CountAllVotes Dec 2014 #90