Forum Post: Social Security does not need to be in Jeoparyd if the 1% paid theri share.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 9:32 a.m. EST by uhandleit
(43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Eliz. Holtzman fmr. Crogresswoman. " If the SS tax was made progressive like Income Tax it would always be solvent" It now stops at 100K Imagine if the 1% paid a fair share after the 100K....SS would last forever....Nice try Republicans in Congress
Very true for anyone working and getting paid a large salary. The ultra rich that have the bulk of wealth get their living from investments not a salary though. I'd like to know where Holtaman is getting her numbers.
It's not JUST the rich .......... it's the corporations too!! Read this and really get PISSED OFF!!
REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1du0M3vcl
The 2011 SS Trustees report indicates in the low cost scenario that job creation and wage growth increase FICA to the point where SS never goes broke. Fix the economy, and you fix SS.
Social Security was solvent before 1996 when Goldman and Sachs raided the till. According to an accountant in the St. Pete Times news paper Social Security was solvent until the year 3000!!! Needless to say this gives you an idea just how much was robbed from the till. Why should Seniors and the Disabled be killed because Goldman and Sachs robs the till. If police enforced the laws already on the books these guys would be in a nice warm prison cell and ordered to make restitution.
I'm all ears. Please explain how Goldman and Sachs raided the Social Security trust fund. I really want to know.
Simple when Goldman and Sachs asked the federal government back then for a "Bail Out" before most Americans were paying attention, The government quietly complied. There are sources from both sides of the isle to confirm this. The right wing source is The Libertarian party and the then Representative Dan Miller of Sarasota Florida. The left wing sources are the St. Pete Times and the Deleonists. So both sides admit this. Goldman and Sachs did in Fact take from the Social Security till.
So, you're saying that money was actually taken from the trust fund to bail out Goldman Sachs? Can you provide a link? This just doesn't sound right.
I can not provide a link because I did not get the information on line. You would have to get an old copy of the Libertarian News paper from 1996. I was actually there at the open house meeting where Representative Dan Miller said that was true. So how can I link a past event that was a meeting for constituents? Same is true of the St. Pete Times because I had the News paper in paper form not on line form. The paper called "The People" would be the Deleonist source. Sorry I can not give you a link but I am not computer savvy. and these were all real paper sources and one eye witnessed source. Why does it not sound right? Back then even Republicans were talking about them raiding the till.
I couldn't find any reference to this on-line and wanted to understand the mechanism that was used to extract the money. As I understand it, the trust fund does not actually have any money in it, jut a bunch of IOU's and benefits are paid from current revenues. The solvency is really just a paper game since there isn't really any money or negotiable instruments in the "lockbox." That's why I was looking for more info on how this could have happened.
My understanding the Social Security till was full of money until 1996 when The congress and even Clinton allowed Goldman and Sachs to take that money. From then on you are correct that it is a bunch of IOU's. But because both the Congress and the President allowed the theft to take place than they were guilty of "Aiding Abetting" theft of the Social Security funds. Goldman and Sachs are guilty of direct theft of the Social Security funds. Either way I have seen No one serve any jail time for this or be forced to make restitution but Seniors are expected to die for Their theft. That is simply not right. As to the Mechanism used, I am not an accountant so I can not tell you that but because I was actually there when Dan Miller admitted the theft to be real, I see that as "open shut" since by Dan miller's face he did not like to admit it. Why? because Sarasota is a Very republican town and Dan Miller got a lot of flack for that by the average American Republican.
Well, since I am unable to corroborate any of this and knowing that the Social Security trust fund has been stuffed with IOU's in perpetuity, it's inconceivable to me that Goldman Sachs somehow got their hands on enough of the SS trust fund to make it insolvent and there be no easily obtainable source for that information. If this was true, there would be unlimited info to back this up. In fact, I can't even find an article that states that Goldman Sachs even received a bailout in 1996, irrespective of where the money came from.
So, I guess, I'll remain skeptical and you will remain convinced.
There you are right because when someone is an eye witness of course they believe what happened right in front of their face. I can only suggest you try to get that footage from Channel 57, I think if memory serves. It was filmed that day. Even my Libertarian friend saw it on TV that day.
thats simply not true. Simple demographics would tell you that.
Ever heard of the SS act of 1983? W/ Reagan and Tip O'nel. I wasn't even born then. You need to learn a little history.
SS was almost insolvent during Reagan's time.
I disagree. It is true since I was living in Sarasota Florida and attended the city meeting where Representative Dan Miller was taking questions and complaints of the people in his district. I then was a constituent in his district. So I heard Rep. Dan Miller admit it from his own mouth with my own ears. That makes it pretty "open shut" to me.
I agree. But it is in jeopardy anyway because Congress is not listening to us. The question is how to get them to listen. Also, it seems like many young people associated with Occupy do not really feel motivated to see this as an important issue. Perhaps in part because of the negative propaganda focused on babyboomers. Like we are all supposed to be rich.
We need to OCCUPY CONGRESS especially House of Reps.
uhandeit, You are so right. I agree 100%. If the 1% only paid their share.
Actually if we did three things, no social program would be in danger at all, and we could get rid of all income taxes.
First thing we need to do, for our fiscal flourishing is, to pass a law that separates the deposit side of banking institutions, from the investment side. We also change the current laws and make the deposited money no longer belongs to the bank. This would get rid of the FDIC insurance needs and Banks would never need Bailout ever again no matter what.
Next we give the united states treasury the power to print American money US Dollars with the need of the federal reserve notes and treasury Bonds issuance.
We then end the fractional reserve banking process ending the ability for private banks to create money through credit.
Then Using our new Treasury US Dollar we pay off all foreign debt, and we pay off Federal Reserve Debt. Our Nation Becomes debt free and our dollars get put to use in our country with out the need for interest to be paid back and therefore we will have no debt and no income taxes the only tax needed will be transactional taxes in order to monitor inflation.
Funny how I hear that the 1% is not the 99% ATM, hmmm...let me just think back on years that I worked, and my observation of the so called 1% witihin the office politics......seems the 1% has taken much from the 99%, and used us as their ATM's, through lies, deceit and greed. I could tell many a story, and so could my fellow employee's, but that would be Whistle Blowing....
Poor YOU
SS would last forever if it were not used as a personal piggy bank by the government but instead was used only for its intended purpose.
Has there been a study (I looked but could not find) investigating the % of people who actually use SS when they retire as opposed to just living off their investments and not collecting a SS pension even if they qualify. Does my question make sense?
Everyone that pays in probably signs up for it. Pay out is based on the amount you earned over time and the years worked. Average check for 2012 according to AARP will be just a touch over $1200 a month per retiree.
I was wondering if a person who does qualify for the maximum SS payment each month declines the SS payment because they are already getting more then enough from their retirement pension, investments, etc.
I was wondering if a study has ever been conducted on this matter.
Not sure if any study has been done, but I do know if you don't go in and sign up they don't send the checks. Same with Medicare, you have to sign up for it when you reach the right age. Most do even if they have good insurance from their retirement.
I'm curious about that as well.
I do know that during the Presidential campaign both sides were fingerpointing at the other's millionaire social security recipients - John McCain and Joe Biden.
I've heard of quite a few wealthy SS recipients but of course anecdotes are not the same as actual statistics.
Not sure it matters, they paid in and have every right to get payments according to the rules they were given by the government. Best thing to do it to alter the rules for those 15 years (or more, this would obviously need study) from retirement. One of the few retirement systems for teachers does that type of thing. New York State Teacher's Retirement System has several tiers. Most of the first two are now retired, they never contributed to their retirement fund. Later tiers do and have different amounts of time they must teach in order to collect. Might be a way to go for Social Security.
"fair share" What is a fair share?
To be honest, I've already paid off FICA this year. Despite that, the taxes I paid in my last paycheck, $2335, doesn't include local property taxes. I worked twelve 12 hour night shifts over two weeks to earn that tax bill.
So what is my "fair share"?
One third of my income isn't fair enough. Basically - stop calling it a fair share. A "fair share" would be if the total bill were divided by the number of workers and everybody paid that amount. For example: 3.5 trillion federal budget divided by lets say 200 million american workers would equal $17,500. That's fair! But lets face it, fair is really impossible, because some people will never have the capacity to pay their "fair share". They are known as "parasites". Parasites live a better life than they could provide for themselves thanks to the extra contributions of hosts.
I'm already paying the full "fair share" of taxes for several parasites, and I understand the parasites need us hosts to pay even more. I'm OK with that, but please call it what it is.
I'll go so far as to say that a set percent is fair, provided that same percent is paid by everyone and isn't something progressive.
Why thank you for calling our senior citizens parasites, I'm sure they'd be pleased with that designation.
Oh and those who have paid in over their working careers, who are now disabled, I'm sure they appreciate that designation also.
The handicapped? The mentally disabled? All parasites?
You, like everyone else, have a right to rant, but to be insulting? C'mon now.
If you disagree with my choice of words then please tell me... What is the definition of a parasite and a host? It's very likely that a senior citizen has paid in far more than they will ever receive from the ponzi scheme. But YES, the fact is if someone is mentally disabled and they require others to provide for them they are living a parasitic life. I'm not stating that to be mean, it's just a fact. In a modern civilized world we should take care of the week and incapable. I'm even OK with a progressive tax system within limits. Lets just be honest about what is "fair" and what is parasitic.
I find your choice of descriptive wording to be insulting to seniors, disabled vets among others.
Mentally disabled covers many who have suffered PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injuries etc, most of whom where productive until the event that rendered the injury or disorder. Also many of the mentally disabled DO work some in programs such as sheltered workshops some in the general population.
You also mentioned that you worked 12 hour days for two weeks, I worked 12-14 hour days for years. I'm not the one complaining.
12-14 hour days for years... hey you really were in the military! So was I, so yes, I know the work conditions. No - I don't consider wounded vets to be parasites... lets face it... that's some serious sacrifice for the country. I'm not complaining about the work I've done... Iv'e been on 12 night shifts, four on one off, for over two months. I'm just making the point that I pay a lot in taxes and I do in fact earn my pay check. So how much is enough in taxes? When has someone payed enough? There comes a point when my job simply isn't worth doing for the pay I get to keep. My wife doesn't work, because her pay is taxed at my rate it's not worth her working.
Actually I was not in the military, I was an owner operator truck driver who owned at one time 10 trucks and trailers. I know many think trucking is an easy job, hold the wheel and let the truck do the work, they don't know about roads that jar your teeth, loads that have to get there no matter the weather, weeks away from home, NO mail...LOL and always someone who must, absolutely must work for some company that trains them to cut trucks off and nearly cause accidents. (I should have such a job, I've learned all the tricks).
Point is in trucking the hours of service are a joke. Truckers get paid by the mile, those that don't get paid percentage, and the rates are always figured by the mile. Got to put those miles on to make the grade. After the driving hours, there are hours spent loading, unloading, doing paperwork, keeping records for state and federal agencies, manifests, bills of lading...
Just try driving 800 miles in a day, then to a couple hours worth of paperwork, then get up and do it all over again.
It's a great job for some but it's not an easy job. A day is an subjective term.
Yup... never been a trucker, but I have a friend that is... it's a bitch! I'd go back to logging before I'd try trucking!
Did some of that too, back in the day...LOL
I don't think most of us are that worried about taking care of those who aren't able to care for themselves and the money it costs us, what we care about is that the money we get to keep does less and less for us.
It seems that we've been conditioned to believe everything 'bad' is the fault of our social programs, up to and including services and that is always were the cuts seem to be made.
Tell you what, if you want to see Americas, and parts of Canada and get paid while doing it, go for trucking...you'll get to see a lot, and I mean a LOT of great white dotted lines.
Thank you for that post. From someone that pays 38% of everything I make just in income tax, I think I pay more than my fair share!
Yea, I don't mind paying my taxes, but when some no-load claims I need to pay more because I'm not paying my "fair share" I find that a bit offensive.
Are you for real....??? Sure wish I paid $ 20K a year in tax....think what I would have made...would love to help my Country and people less fortunate.
I pay over $40K per year. My point is the term "fair share" is as offesive to me as me saying people who pay less than $17K are "parasites". If you'd really like to pay over $20K in taxes then sew the same seeds.
Step 1 get a associates in nuclear power or go through the Navy nuclear power program.
Step 2 get a job as a nuclear systems operator, aka plant equipment operator.
Step 3 work really hard so you can get a NRC license to operate a nuclear reactor.
By then you'll be earning over $100K, but paying far more than $20K in taxes.
BTW - you'll need to submit to random drug testing, get periodic psychological exams, get periodic FBI background checks, work rotating shift work, receive occupational radiation exposure, and be willing to be examined in school every 5 to 6 weeks for your entire career. Oh yea, if you screw up you can be held legally responsible. To top that off there will be folks that think you don't deserve the money you earn, they will always want you to pay more and more and more untill you are paying what they think is your "fair share".
I did pay that and more and I never complained, I wasn't what, today, is termed a 1%er, but I made enough to support my family and even my extended family (parents etc), which in retrospect might not have been in my own best interests, but at the time it was the right thing to do.
No offense but it sounds to me like you are being lazy by letting the government handle your charity work for you.
None taken, but since the FICA tax was/is mandatory I didn't have much choice in the matter.
That might be true but we do have a choice to prevent further intrusions. How about supporting the repeal of Obama care for example.
I don't appreciate you placing me in this position. I post here to read the ideas of others and from time to time contribute to those ideas, not to push a political agenda.
I respectfully decline to participate in your agenda.
I am not trying to push an agenda any more than you or anyone else on this forum. I am mearly responding to these posts just like you. This entire forum is a political agenda. Are you so thin skinned that you can't handle it when someone disagrees with you?
I have many people disagree with me from time to time, however they don't ask me to promote their particular agenda as you did.
I am not promoting an agenda. My comment about Obama care was an example of how we can prevent future intrusions into or personal liberties. If it were up to me we would roll back all of these kind of programs. Since that will never happen, I am determined to do my part in preventing any new ones. When is enough going to be enough for you people? How about if we tax everyone at 100%, would that make you happy?
i actually believe anyone else's fair share of my retirement money is zero.
[Removed]
[Removed]
All you have to do is end the perpetual "war" on drugs terror scam.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=cEXtNM7Lf0o
[Removed]
Privatize Social Security
[Removed]
If you added up all the tax that OWS says the rich should be paying, it's well over 100%. Give it a rest already. People making considerably less than the 1% already pay in the full amount allowed every year. The 1% is not your ATM. Geeze.
Hmmm, let's see if the taxes that the OWS has said the rich should be paying...the OWS didn't announce any percentages, although I have heard the the percentage of 1% more and now this the 12% for self employed or the 4% for the otherwise employed bandied about.
Or we could go with the Social Security Trust Fund being reimbursed the interest that has been redirected to the general fund, the governmental IOUs to be paid in full, I'm pretty sure that would work pretty well. Or, how about, just including non-earned income specifically defined?
Social Security was never meant to be a governmental ATM but it's been used as one.
And that's what needs to be fixed, not simply taxing more so more can be misused.
Have you ever heard of a start up bargaining point? The place you start, name an amount and wait for a response? If no one offers a starting point there can be no bargaining, so 'I'll start at my top dollar and you'll start with your bottom dollar' and then we'll meet some place near the middle, even bottom dollar can usually be lowered just a bit and max output can be raised just a bit. Horse trading.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. The original poster says the 1% aren't paying their share. SSC comes right off the top and it's capped. Enough goes in to pay for SSC, but like you said those coffers are being misused by the government. No changes in SSC taxation rates need to occur. No bargaining is necessary. Instead, fix the misuse of the funds at the governmental level and SSC will be back on track again.
I'm merely debating potential bargaining points. So yes it's still the same thing.
When FICA taxes are deducted on the entire yearly earnings of those who earn under $106,800.00 it does look as though those earning more do not pay a fair share, dividend income is not taxed for FICA, as are annuities and several other forms of unearned income.
Look at it this way, earnings of $106,800.00 result in approximately $15,000.00 in yearly FICA deductions at the self employment rate, yet if the earnings exceed that amount, the total percentage is reduced over all. Double the income and the tax appears to be reduced by 50%.
On the surface it creates an inequality.
If the cap was raised and SS returned to it's original state, with the interest earned being returned to the trust, SS would remain solvent indefinitely, and possibly even be adapted to fund other social service agendas within a relatively short period of time.
The possibility of a raise in the cap would not reduce the obligation of those earning less as they would still be contributing from their total earnings vs having a portion (large or small) exempt.
In the Trustees report low cost scenario SS stays solvent past 2085. You also dont mention the Earned Income tax credit, whose purpose is to address the regressive nature of FICA.
We were addressing a cap vs no cap on the FICA withholdings not the attending issues which may or may not apply to the topic.
But since the Earned Income Tax Credit does not apply to those who's income exceeds a certain amount it becomes a moot point in relation to the central issue.
Ok, according to the CBO, raising the cap to 250k with no increase in benefits will increase revenue by .5% of GDP. the projected shortfall of 75 years is .6% of GDP. But by capping benefits, a means test is introduced. I would choose to avoid this.
Suggestion then?
Fix the economy. In the 2011 Trustees report, the low cost scenario assumes widespread job creation and wage growth- once we Boomers are dead- 2065- assets grow quickly and SS is good thru 2085. TO be fair this is an optimistic scenario, and requires many things to go our way.
I advocate doing nothing to SS for 10-12 years, see how the job creation and wage growth numbers evolve over that period, and then consider a tweak.
Heres the CBO worksheet, you can visualize different fixes and see the impact: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fjW71B3WLTQ/TC3Bs2undtI/AAAAAAAAAYI/PQiTSfBitWo/s1600/CBO-SS+options+Fig+1.jpg
Here's the problem. You (not personally but rather generically) can plan and do worksheets and things look good, but it has to go 'just so' or it won't work. Things rarely go 'just so'.
The alternative is to look at a worst case scenario and do a comparison between it and the optimum scenario and then try to come up with something that's close to the middle and most of all workable.
Worst case is the economy stagnates as is or continues to decline. Optimal is what you are looking at.
So what is close to the middle?
Interest the trust earns is put back into the trust, not into the general fund. Interest at the very least on the IOUs owed by the government into the fund this should result in a very large trust revenue boost.
Our current FICA tax is lower than previously at 4.2% for employees and 6.2%, return to the 7.5% for the wage earner with matching amounts for the employer, return to the 15.3% that was paid by the self employed (I paid 15.3% for the majority of my life). This would be a maximum of $17,088 for self employed, $8010 for the employee and $8010 for the employer.
No more IOUs.
Unearned income earned by retirees. We have a significant number of retirees who have more than adequate incomes who are also drawing SS (I know, I'm related to several), set a bar at which above the amount, either tax or refuse/reduce benefits. Short term program.
Excellent comment. After dinner I'll be back.
Thank you.
Since benefits are capped on the payout end, contributions should be capped as well. Again, SSC is properly funded, it's just that the coffers are being looted.
A debate isn't a decision making process on an open forum, I merely point out another view (not necessarily my own).
I do believe I am the one who pointed out that the Trust was raped of the interest and the coffers filled with IOUs and you agreed.