SS needs to be addressed, not ignored, if Americans want it to continue

[Blondie]

This author is exactly right. Macron is rightly looking out for the French and Biden and Trump are both dreadfully wrong on this topic.

"Rather than talk straight with Americans about what must be done to ensure that U.S. entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare remain solvent, Biden prefers to play politics.

In the next 30 years, these programs face a $116 trillion shortfall, says Brian Riedl, senior fellow in budget, tax and economics at the Manhattan Institute. If reforms aren’t put in place now, we will hurdle toward a fiscal crisis that will spark significant tax increases (think European-style value-added taxes) for the middle class and high inflation and interest rates, among other ills."

MSN

We should have significant tax increases on the very rich.

 

[AZRWinger]

lol... That's like saying "a pension plan is not a defined benefit, because at some future date it might go bankrupt and stop paying." By your logic, defined benefit plans do not exist.

That's a straw man, something you made up that I never wrote. SS benefit amounts are not legal obligations. They can be changed or eliminated at any time. What kind of defined benefit is that? The bogus kind.

There is no maybe about SS having to slash benefits when the trust fund is empty. The trustees forecast this to happen in 10 years or less. That is a disaster.

Lemme spell this out for you. (To keep things simple, we'll ignore inflation and investment returns, which don't matter to the point I'm illustrating.) The average person contributed $275,000 to Social Security over their lifetime. If that was an IRA, and they withdraw $40,000 per year from it, how much will be left after 7 years? $0.

The only thing you are illustrating is that you can't pass a basic finance class. Pretending you can analyze IRA performance without looking at investment returns including compounding is nonsense.

The $275K lifetime contribution spread over the earning period of 25 - 67 years of age using half the stock market index rate of return since 1970 yields just over $1 million. That's 24 years at 40,000 per year in the highly unlikely event the portfolio earns nothing.

Best practice for preserving portfolio principle is to limit annual withdrawals to no more than 4%. In the example presented the person would more or less have a $1 million to pass on to heirs after receiving $40 K for life.

Now, what if that person retires at 67, collects $40,000 per year in SS, and lives to 75 years old? They still receive $40k/yr. How about 80? Yep, same benefit. 90? 100? Same, same.

That is what "defined benefit" means here. Get it?

Nope, what your describing is a guaranteed lifetime benefit commonly available in private annuity contracts. The difference is the insurance company can be sued if they don't pay the amount. The Federal government can't be sued for not paying the so-called defined benefit. Get it?

lol... I can do better than that, though 3 of these are not currently offered in the US.

1) Universal Income
2) Medicare
3) Federal student loan forgiveness
4) Government funded child support
5) Universal health care

Medicare charges higher premiums based on income.

Child support is income tested. Like food stamps.

And hello? Just yesterday, you cited a source which explicitly referred to SS as a welfare program.

So? What article?

No. It isn't.

I can't believe I have to tell you this yet again, but: Absolutely NOTHING about Social Security is any sort of "investment." The SSA never uses that term. The term "security" refers to providing financial assistance in retirement or for the disabled, not to any sort of investment; it does not refer to financial securities (such as equities or debts).

Social Security is not an individual's asset, is not inheritable, and offers survivor benefits. You don't have a private account at SS. You do not own a single freakin' dollar that is in the trust fund.

Let us know when you actually understand what SS is, kthx.

Let us know when you understand the written word.

The fact that individuals have no ownership in their SS contributions is a major disadvantage compared to private annuities. I am not the one struggling with that.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Illegals don’t pay into ss. Plus they take advantage of our schools and our hospitals. Don’t pretend illegals are anything but a burden to our country.

Total.bullshit, of course. They create wealth and contribute greatly to our economy.

First stupid point: SS. They don't collect SS. Painfully stupid.

Schools? They pay for our schools just like any other renter or homeowner. Another painfully stupid point.

Hospitals? Please. What percentage of indigent care is due to illegal aliens? It's not even a drop in the bucket. Stupid. They pay their medical bills at the same rate as everyone else.

 

[Individual]

We should have significant tax increases on the very rich.

Try initiating a discussion about changing our system of taxation.

 

[Individual]

Total.bullshit, of course. They create wealth and contribute greatly to our economy.

First stupid point: SS. They don't collect SS. Painfully stupid.

Schools? They pay for our schools just like any other renter or homeowner. Another painfully stupid point.

Hospitals? Please. What percentage of indigent care is due to illegal aliens? It's not even a drop in the bucket. Stupid. They pay their medical bills at the same rate as everyone else.

In FY2020, Federal spending was an average of about $22,326.19 per individual.
In FY2020 the bottom 500% paid an average $504 income tax.
The top 50% paid an average of $21,187 income tax.
The top 25% paid an average of $38,396 income tax.
The top 10% paid an average of $79,897 income tax.
Spending by family size:
1 person = $22,326.19
2 person = $44,652.38
3 person = $66,978.57
4 person = $89,304.76

In reality, it is the unborn future generations who are making the greatest contribution to our current and past economy.
ALL government spending and taxation needs to be addressed, and not ignored.
The reasons should be obvious, at least to those with a modicum of rational intelligence.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

In FY2020, Federal spending was an average of about $22,326.19 per individual.
In FY2020 the bottom 500% paid an average $504 income tax.
The top 50% paid an average of $21,187 income tax.
The top 25% paid an average of $38,396 income tax.
The top 10% paid an average of $79,897 income tax.
Spending by family size:
1 person = $22,326.19
2 person = $44,652.38
3 person = $66,978.57
4 person = $89,304.76

In reality, it is the unborn future generations who are making the greatest contribution to our current and past economy.
ALL government spending and taxation needs to be addressed, and not ignored.
The reasons should be obvious, at least to those with a modicum of rational intelligence.

I am a proud member of the bottom 500%. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[AZRWinger]

Meaning what? No one actually received SS benefits? No one knows they're getting taxed?

Thanks to the neat little scheme in the SS law the trust fund excesses feed into current year general revenue. Did you not know politicians spend every penny of general revenue.

People aren't just getting taxed, they are getting triple taxed by the SS scam. First payroll taxes reduce take home pay and employer taxes reduce funds available to compensate workers. Next, when the SS bonds are presented for redemption the funds are provided from taxes paid into the general fund. When the already double taxed money is doled out by a benevolent politician the recipient is taxed again. Taxes on top of taxes on top taxes, my what a wonderful system to keep the People dependent on the Federal government to give them a few scraps of their own money.

Contrary to your utterly idiotic claim:

- By law the SSA is required to plan 75 years into the future. Politicians and the public alike have known for decades that SS would start using the trust funds to close the gap between revenues and benefits.
- There are no "phony bond sales."
- Yet again!!! Every single penny of the intragovernmental loans has been repaid with interest. Show me a SINGLE INSTANCE where an intragovernmental loan was not repaid in full.

Deny if it makes you feel better but the fact is any SS reform proposal besides tax the other guy is attacked as starving grandma.

We are talking about SS bonds, not intergovernmental loans in general. We know bond redemptions are going to accelerate gobbling up more general revenue squeezing out discretionary spending prompting calls for more borrowing which spurs inflation which leads to increased SS benefits which spikes bond redemption.

Do you really not understand that the intragovernmental loans have maturity periods that are often as short as 1 year? That every single one of those loans is a matter of public record?

We are discussing SS bonds which don't mature until presented for redemption. People, including commentators on this board are unaware or refuse to acknowledge they are unsecured IOU not investments.

Hello?!? The goal of the payroll taxes isn't to create a surplus. The goal is simply to pay for the benefits. Yet again, if we tax people enough to create a surplus, then we are taxing them more than is necessary. Why do you want that?

Payroll taxes creating a surplus is free money for current politicians to spend. Even better for them, they assume no responsibility for paying off the bonds. What possessed you to make the absurd claim I want that?

Hello?!? Social Security is NOT AN INVESTMENT!

Seriously, how are you not getting this? SS is not investing your money anywhere. You don't have a private investment account at SS. Your SS is not an asset. It's not made up of stocks or bonds or securities. You do not own a single penny of what's in the trust funds.

I am the one exposing SS as a triple taxing Ponzi scheme feeding scraps of tax dollars to recepients. Where did you get the absurd notion I think it's an asset?

When you paid the payroll taxes, by design all of that money went, that same year, to current beneficiaries.

It's a welfare program. Get it straight.

That's the difference between us. You advocate for an SS scam that promotes more dependence on big government. More welfare, more control is the goal. I advocate for replacing the corrupt SS system freeing people to create their own personal wealth.

 

[Individual]

I am a proud member of the bottom 500%. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I missed that, but too late to fix. Hopefully everyone will know I meant 50%.
Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Visbek]

That's a straw man....

No, it isn't. It is utterly impossible for anyone to guarantee a defined benefit plan into perpetuity. Annuities and private pension plans can go broke; legislators can alter pension payouts.

You're also ignoring the massive pressure by seniors to protect their benefits. Just look at the latest debt ceiling nonsense -- Republican legislators, desperate to look like they're cutting costs, took SS cuts off the table immediately.

I.e. it's unlikely that an annuity will go out of business. It's even more unlikely that Congress will drastically cut SS benefits.

There is no maybe about SS having to slash benefits when the trust fund is empty.

lol... Of course there is. As I've pointed out numerous times, we can also increase revenues, or pay for SS out of general funds.

The only thing you are illustrating is that you can't pass a basic finance class. Pretending you can analyze IRA performance without looking at investment returns including compounding is nonsense.

LOL... No, I'm not saying that returns don't exist. I explicitly told you I simplified the example to illustrate the difference between individual accounts and SS.

Best practice for preserving portfolio principle is to limit annual withdrawals to no more than 4%. In the example presented the person would more or less have a $1 million to pass on to heirs after receiving $40 K for life.

Again, look at Australia's superannuation.

Many plans have high fees, which significantly reduce the total at retirement. Most people don't use that best practice. Many take out a huge chunk at retirement, often to buy something that loses value (cars, boars). At the start of the pandemic, , thus shorting their own retirements by billions more. [url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/01/younger-australians-face-working-till-they-drop-after-draining-super-accounts-industry-group-warns]Half a million young Aussies completely drained their retirement accounts in 2020.

And yes, even in normal times, Aussies do run through their individual accounts -- no surprise given that the average Super balance at age 65 is around $260,000 per person (in USD).

And of course, Super balances drop when the market falls. Who was discussing this issue in this very thread...?

Nope, what your describing is a guaranteed lifetime benefit commonly available in private annuity contracts.

And again, annuities are not magical fountains of money.

In fact, annuities are bad investments for most people. They're complex; commission fees average 7%; they have tons of other fees; they underperform the market; if it's inheritable (which will cost you extra) then there's no step-up basis; you have to pay extra to index your annuity for inflation, whereas by law SS adjusts for inflation; needless to say, if your annuity doesn't adjust for inflation, then its value erodes over time....

Medicare charges higher premiums based on income.

lol... Yet again, premiums are not benefits.

Child support is income tested. Like food stamps.

My apologies for using the wrong term, I meant parental benefits -- e.g. paid leave, free day care / pre-K).

So? What article?

lol, post 509

https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security

The fact that individuals have no ownership in their SS contributions is a major disadvantage compared to private annuities. I am not the one struggling with that.

lol... Hello? You don't have any ownership of your annuity, either. It's an insurance contract.

I mean, really. What "benefits" do you imagine here? They're illiquid; you can't transfer it or sell it. It isn't a portfolio that you can manage. You have to pay extra for anyone to inherit it (whereas SS automatically provides survivor benefits to a spouse).

 

[WorldWatcher]

First you admit SS benefits aren't obligatory then spend the rest of the comment referring to SS as providing "defined benefits". SS stopped sending out benefits statements because it made it appear the benefits defined in it were guaranteed.

Not sure where you are getting that information, I'm looking at my statement right now. They moved them online, true. They stop creating them, false.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Name another individual welfare program that doesn't have means testing. Even Democrat billionaires like Warren Buffett are eligible for SS benefits up to the maximum.

SS does have means testing. There are 3 separate impacts to SS based on income.

WW

 

[Visbek]

Thanks to the neat little scheme in the SS law the trust fund excesses feed into current year general revenue. Did you not know politicians spend every penny of general revenue.

People aren't just getting taxed, they are getting triple taxed by the SS scam....

LOL

So here you are, simultaneously characterizing Congress as "stealing" the trust funds, and then admitting that you know that those intragovernmental loans are getting repaid.

Anyway. Yes, you pay for SS out of a tax. You mean SS isn't funded by magic? OMGNOO!!!

The idea that employers would just give workers their cut of payroll taxes is utterly absurd.

As to getting taxed on SS benefits? You can thank Reagan for that, it was his 1983 "reform" that instantiated that simultaneous benefit cut/revenue increase.

Taxes on top of taxes on top taxes, my what a wonderful system to keep the People dependent on the Federal government to give them a few scraps of their own money.

lol... The reason why we have SS is because the overwhelming majority of Americans were unable or unwilling to save enough for retirement. And that was back in the day when most people were only likely to collect for a few years.

Ever look at the personal savings rate based on income quintile? For 3/5 of Americans, it is at or below zero. (That's a failure of capitalism, by the way, not government.)

Even if people could save money, most wouldn't. It's just human nature.

Deny if it makes you feel better but the fact is any SS reform proposal besides tax the other guy is attacked as starving grandma.

lol

Yet again, you're ruling out any option. You don't want to increase taxes on anyone. You don't want to cut benefits. You don't want to pay out of general funds. I guess we'll just have to watch you melt down when Congress finally implements some of those genuine fixes.

We are talking about SS bonds, not intergovernmental loans in general.

LOL... The SS bonds are intragovernmental loans. By law, those bonds can no longer be purchased by the public.

We know bond redemptions are going to accelerate gobbling up more general revenue squeezing out discretionary spending prompting calls for more borrowing which spurs inflation which leads to increased SS benefits which spikes bond redemption.

lol... omg, what an incredible burst of bullshit.

Government borrowing doesn't cause inflation. In fact, the federal deficit fell in 2022, the same year that inflation increased. Inflation is now falling, by the way.

And yet again... This whole structure just shows how segregating SS from the rest of government is just an accounting fiction.

Payroll taxes creating a surplus is free money for current politicians to spend. Even better for them, they assume no responsibility for paying off the bonds. What possessed you to make the absurd claim I want that?

Read your own posts.

I am the one exposing SS as a triple taxing Ponzi scheme feeding scraps of tax dollars to recepients. Where did you get the absurd notion I think it's an asset?

Read your own posts.

That's the difference between us. You advocate for an SS scam that promotes more dependence on big government. More welfare, more control is the goal. I advocate for replacing the corrupt SS system freeing people to create their own personal wealth.

LOL

Hello?!? Social Security is a government program! It's been in place since the 1930s. It's the most popular federal program. If you're terrified that this will somehow "promote dependence on big government," that ship sailed decades ago.

As to the replacement: Yet again, privatizing Social Security could easily cost $3 trillion dollars or more. Every dollar of payroll taxes diverted to a private account increases the already existing gap between revenues and benefits. It would also take decades for workers to accumulate enough in their accounts to even partially replace SS. Who's going to pay for that?

 

[AZRWinger]

Not sure where you are getting that information, I'm looking at my statement right now. They moved them online, true. They stop creating them, false.

WW

I wrote correctly they stopped sending them out. To view them online you have to create a profile etc. That means a lot fewer people looking at their statements.

 

[AZRWinger]

SS does have means testing. There are 3 separate impacts to SS based on income.

WW

Kindly enumerate them.

 

[iguanaman]

Wow, you bought the scam. The SS bonds aren't the same as the T-Bills the government sells at auction to finance the debt. They are literally IOU from one division of the Federal government to another. Interest earnings are just a bookkeeping illusion until the bonds are presented for payment from general revenue.

Safe haven? In Biden's America with inflation devaluing the currency and a soaring national debt threatening to undermine the dollar as the world's reserve currency unsecured debt is the opposite of safe. But don't worry, you'll be paid back in dollars worth a fraction of those you were taxed.

You live in a scam. The US dollar is the strongest currency in the world

That's a straw man, something you made up that I never wrote. SS benefit amounts are not legal obligations. They can be changed or eliminated at any time. What kind of defined benefit is that? The bogus kind.

There is no maybe about SS having to slash benefits when the trust fund is empty. The trustees forecast this to happen in 10 years or less. That is a disaster.

The only thing you are illustrating is that you can't pass a basic finance class. Pretending you can analyze IRA performance without looking at investment returns including compounding is nonsense.

The $275K lifetime contribution spread over the earning period of 25 - 67 years of age using half the stock market index rate of return since 1970 yields just over $1 million. That's 24 years at 40,000 per year in the highly unlikely event the portfolio earns nothing.

Best practice for preserving portfolio principle is to limit annual withdrawals to no more than 4%. In the example presented the person would more or less have a $1 million to pass on to heirs after receiving $40 K for life.

Nope, what your describing is a guaranteed lifetime benefit commonly available in private annuity contracts. The difference is the insurance company can be sued if they don't pay the amount. The Federal government can't be sued for not paying the so-called defined benefit. Get it?

Medicare charges higher premiums based on income.

Child support is income tested. Like food stamps.


So? What article?

Let us know when you understand the written word.

The fact that individuals have no ownership in their SS contributions is a major disadvantage compared to private annuities. I am not the one struggling with that.

SS was never meant to be a personal nest egg. It is purely what the name says SECURITY and it has given that to many millions of Americans. You are welcome to invest your income as you please if you want a nest egg. Investments go sour though so you cannot depend on it for security. That is why the trust fund does not invest in the stock market.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kindly enumerate them.

If you are single:

• 0% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are less that $25,000.
• 50% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are between $25,000 and $34,000
• 85% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are over $34,000

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wrote correctly they stopped sending them out. To view them online you have to create a profile etc. That means a lot fewer people looking at their statements.

What you said was "SS stopped sending out benefits statements because it made it appear the benefits defined in it were guaranteed."

SS Benefits statements are still available, they stopped sending out paper ones, probably, to save on overhead with paper, mailing, and handling costs for something that the vast majority of people receiving it would just put it in the burn box.

If the intent was to not appear to show a defined benefit, they would not have made them available online.

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

LOL

So here you are, simultaneously characterizing Congress as "stealing" the trust funds, and then admitting that you know that those intragovernmental loans are getting repaid.

Hello? The SS trust fund bonds are being repaid with tax revenues from the current year general fund. It's the second part of the SS triple taxation scheme. Of course you don't read what is written just repeat the same shopworn talking points and juvenile attempts at sarcasm.

Anyway. Yes, you pay for SS out of a tax. You mean SS isn't funded by magic? OMGNOO!!!

Another of your pathetic strawmen.

The idea that employers would just give workers their cut of payroll taxes is utterly absurd.

When President Trump and the Republican Congress cut taxes multiple employers responded with bonuses for employees. It also set off a wave of hiring, real low unemployment without skyrocketing inflation. Of course all you offer is childish villification of employers.

As to getting taxed on SS benefits? You can thank Reagan for that, it was his 1983 "reform" that instantiated that simultaneous benefit cut/revenue increase.

The 1983 reform passed with overwhelming bipartisan support increased the amount of taxable SS benefit to up to 50% as ordinary income for taxpayers exceeding income limits, means testing. Democrats constant whine about taxing the rich more but only if a Democrat does it.

lol... The reason why we have SS is because the overwhelming majority of Americans were unable or unwilling to save enough for retirement. And that was back in the day when most people were only likely to collect for a few years.

Life expectancy when SS was passed was less than 65. Even when factoring out childhood mortality by only looking at people after they turn 21 only 54% of men survived to 65 and 60% of women. Over the decades the SS taxes provided a nice backdoor revenue source for politicians to spend on buying votes. As an added bonus next to nothing gets paid out when an old age pensioner dies.

I'd love to see some verifiable statistics proving your claim that people were unwilling and unable to provide for their retirement in the roaring 20's.

Ever look at the personal savings rate based on income quintile? For 3/5 of Americans, it is at or below zero. (That's a failure of capitalism, by the way, not government.)

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty on the way to prosperity than any other economic system in history.

Work ethic has been replaced by claiming benefits. Programs like SS encourage reliance and dependence on government.

Even if people could save money, most wouldn't. It's just human nature.

lol

Yet again, you're ruling out any option. You don't want to increase taxes on anyone. You don't want to cut benefits. You don't want to pay out of general funds. I guess we'll just have to watch you melt down when Congress finally implements some of those genuine fixes.

None of the measures you mention are fixes, they are bandaids. SS is systemically corrupt. All they do is kick the can down the road.

Edited for length restriction.

After all these posts you still remain stubbornly ignorant of how SS works refuse to acknowledge basic financial planning concepts and continue to retreat into stawman fantasies. Rhetoric replaces reality with you.

 

[AZRWinger]

If you are single:

• 0% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are less that $25,000.
• 50% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are between $25,000 and $34,000
• 85% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are over $34,000

WW

What you show is the progressive tax for SS benefits. The benefits aren't means tested. It doesn't matter how much you earn over the limit the benefit remains the same.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What you show is the progressive tax for SS benefits. The benefits aren't means tested. It doesn't matter how much you earn over the limit the benefit remains the same.

lol, disagree.

If the government is giving you a benefit with one hand and taking it back with another and the amount they take back varies on your means…

That is means testing.

WW

 

[Visbek]

When President Trump and the Republican Congress cut taxes multiple employers responded with bonuses for employees. It also set off a wave of hiring, real low unemployment without skyrocketing inflation. Of course all you offer is childish villification of employers.

lol, no, that's all self-serving partisan nonsense. Only a handful of companies gave employees bonuses; wages barely budged. Most corporations bought back stock.

Share Buybacks Double Under Trump Tax Plan

Companies have jumped to buy back their own stock as a primary means to spend their tax savings.

www.investopedia.com

The GOP tax bill only gave workers 2 cents more per hour in bonuses

US companies got about $54 billion.

www.vox.com

YoY change to private wages, no big jump due to the tax cut:

And no, there was no "wave of hiring" because of the tax cut. U3 unemployment started improving in 2010, and continued to improve at the same rate until COVID hit:

LFPR started falling in 2000, flattened out in 2014, and barely changed until COVID.

Over the decades the SS taxes provided a nice backdoor revenue source for politicians to spend on buying votes. As an added bonus next to nothing gets paid out when an old age pensioner dies.

In the original SS act, refunds were provided to the families of workers who died before they were 65. SS now includes early retirement options and survivor benefits. Meanwhile, thanks to Medicaid, most people get far more benefits than what they paid in taxes. Even the Cato Institute admitted that.

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get

Earlier this week, we published a story and several charts showing that average government spending on each elderly pers

www.politifact.com

I'd love to see some verifiable statistics proving your claim that people were unwilling and unable to provide for their retirement in the roaring 20's.

lol... How about the fact that they didn't? The whole reason to create SS was because the vast majority of seniors were in abject poverty. 30 states had already set up pension plans.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty on the way to prosperity than any other economic system in history.

It has... But that certainly doesn't mean it is flawless. There is no question that capitalism also creates enormous inequality, and that government is the only way to correct that particular problem.

Work ethic has been replaced by claiming benefits. Programs like SS encourage reliance and dependence on government.

Yes, we definitely need to put those 75 year olds to work!!!

And no, SS has not in any way, shape or form reduced incentives to work. You don't get SS if you don't work, remember...?

None of the measures you mention are fixes, they are bandaids. SS is systemically corrupt. All they do is kick the can down the road.

It is only "corrupt" if you repeatedly get your knickers in a twist because you refuse to understand that it's a welfare program for seniors and the disabled, and has pulled tens of millions above the poverty line.

(By the way, SS's administrative costs fall almost every year, and are now down to 0.5% of expenditures. Woah so corrupt!!! )

Privatized SS will not reduce dependency either -- as government is still needed to mandate, manage, and regulate the whole program AND provide safety nets for those who burn through their savings. Or do you want 90 year olds to starve?

After all these posts you still remain stubbornly ignorant of how SS works refuse to acknowledge basic financial planning concepts and continue to retreat into stawman fantasies. Rhetoric replaces reality with you.

After all these posts, you still remain stubbornly ignorant of how SS works; how the policy you seem to advocate would be enormously expensive and just cause a whole bunch of other problems; how looking at the policies of other nations shows us exactly what those problems are; fail to understand the myriad cognitive biases and failures of capitalism that result in so few people sufficiently preparing for retirement on their own; and instead retreat into incorrect and irrelevant fantasies. Rhetoric replaces reality for you.

 

[Galactic Spin]

ALL government spending and taxation needs to be addressed, and not ignored.

I would say that's too obtuse. First revenue needs to be addressed. It's absurd to pretend we cannot pay for what we are doing. Yes, we can look at spending too, but let's be realistic. Let's start fixing the broken leg before we put a bandaid on the scraped knee.

 

[gbg3]

If you are single:

• 0% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are less that $25,000.
• 50% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are between $25,000 and $34,000
• 85% of Social Security benefits are subject to Income Tax if earnings are over $34,000

WW

And IRMAA (for both Medicare Parts B and D) is subtracted from SS benefits (at increasing levels) if the SS recipient's income is over a certain amount. Granted, that's Medicare related but the IRMAA charges reduce the SS recipient's benefit as another form of means testing.

 

[gbg3]

lol, disagree.

If the government is giving you a benefit with one hand and taking it back with another and the amount they take back varies on your means…

That is means testing.

WW

Absolutely correct!

 

[Individual]

I would say that's too obtuse. First revenue needs to be addressed. It's absurd to pretend we cannot pay for what we are doing. Yes, we can look at spending too, but let's be realistic. Let's start fixing the broken leg before we put a bandaid on the scraped knee.

Obtuse? Should I have put the word taxation before spending?
I see no difficulty in solving the revenue problem, and doing so in a way that would aid in reducing the spending problem.
Until we actually begin a discussion on how to achieve needed change all we can expect is growing deficits, debt, and inflation, aka the band aid fix.
Did you read my posts #535 addressing the revenue issue, and #605 pointing out the spending issue?