OT: Property tax relief coming for those over 65

[RUBOB72]

What is funny is those who predict the demise of Boomers ( soon) are going to be very disappointed when they are still posting here 10 years from now. Shat for brains.

 

[Kbee3]

Why not tax the richest part of the population as much as the poorest population?

You're not gonna win many elections with that attitude. 👩‍⚖️

 

[chiphi80]

My guess is you are a senior who will collect far more in SS tyhan they paid in. It's a ponzi scheme. Not hard to figure out its an abysmal program.

See my other post. Increase taxation limit for SS from $170K to truly high income. Pay SS taxes for incomes over $100M. That will pay for SS.

I guess we don't care about seniors, which you will be some day. If you can't save $10M for retirement, you may need SS too. . .

 

[retired711]

See my other post. Increase taxation limit for SS from $170K to truly high income. Pay SS taxes for incomes over $100M. That will pay for SS.

I guess we don't care about seniors, which you will be some day. If you can't save $10M for retirement, you may need SS too. . .

I'm not endorsing (or attacking) this idea, but I do want to point one thing out: it means higher benefits for the rich because one's Social Security pension is based on the amount of tax one paid. The system comes out ahead because the formula for calculating benefits is graduated; one gets more bang out of the first amount paid into the system than succeeding amounts. But still the rich will get higher benefits absent a very radical change in the system.

 

[RUBOB72]

And what is the current average 401 K account of those currently working in the USA. How many don’t have a pot to pee in? Wishful thinking of 10million at retirement? Some yes most would need that SS in the future. For those of us with a pension and 401 K and SS it certainly makes life much easier. Also having no marked debt, mortgage and student loans is a plus. We still know seniors who owe $$$$ on a student loan. People who have paid into this SS debacle should be able to recoup some of those funds.

 

[jtung230]

Yes. We worked our asses off. We saved. With the promise of social security.

Social security taxes only taxes up to about $170K in earnings. How about taxing earnings up to $20M? Or $100M. Or more? Why should only the low incomes pay for it? Have the wealthy contribute too. They benefit from older people being able to have a decent end of life?

Why not tax the richest part of the population as much as the poorest population?

That would fully fund the program.

That post was from 1 yr ago. You know if you don’t cap the earnings, you can’t cap the benefits. It might save it for the short term but in the long run, it would get crushed. The wealthy have the means to live longer.

 

[mdk01]

Yes. We worked our asses off. We saved. With the promise of social security.

Social security taxes only taxes up to about $170K in earnings. How about taxing earnings up to $20M? Or $100M. Or more? Why should only the low incomes pay for it? Have the wealthy contribute too. They benefit from older people being able to have a decent end of life?

Why not tax the richest part of the population as much as the poorest population?

That would fully fund the program.

"Why should only the low incomes pay for it?" Wealthy don't pay in? Their employers don't match that amount? Is their benefit not tied to the amount paid in and not their total income? Their is a slight bias in the benefit calculation towards lower income recipients, but the operating word is "slight".

In theory, Soc. Sec. at inception was supposed to work like a government 401 (k) for all workers. The concept was great, the execution was lousy. Congress would raise the benefit and not raise the withholding rate or the salary subject to FICA. All gain, no pain and invest the funds collected in special federal bonds with a lower than market interest rates to keep the federal deficit down. Well the shit hit the fan in the late 70s after a bill was passed adding an annual COLA increase without an equivalent increase of the SSI tax rate. And then came stagflation. And seniors who paid in 1% of $3000 (matched by the employer) essentially got the equivalent of getting a piece of the Microsoft IPO. That would likely be your grandparents. Problems for the rest of us, and both parties are responsible.

So if you want to blame the rich, include the rich congressional Democrats who were part of the problem You can exclude Tip O'Neill if you also exclude Ronald Reagan.

 

[Kbee3]

In the history of the world, I don't think anyone looks back and says "Gee, good thing I ignored those people threatening mass deportation camps/terminating the Constitution/forcing religion in public schools!" so I am OK saying something. It costs me literally nothing and their arguments are so moronic it doesn't even cost any brain power. And it's a good reminder to everyone else what the stakes are, because not everyone can afford a trip to Europe and see what a concentration camp looked like. If they could, we probably wouldn't have to have this discussion.

So, so true.

 

[retired711]

In theory, Soc. Sec. at inception was supposed to work like a government 401 (k) for all workers. The concept was great, the execution was lousy. Congress would raise the benefit and not raise the withholding rate or the salary subject to FICA. All gain, no pain and invest the funds collected in special federal bonds with a lower than market interest rates to keep the federal deficit down. Well the shit hit the fan in the late 70s after a bill was passed adding an annual COLA increase without an equivalent increase of the SSI tax rate. And then came stagflation. And seniors who paid in 1% of $3000 (matched by the employer) essentially got the equivalent of getting a piece of the Microsoft IPO. That would likely be your grandparents. Problems for the rest of us, and both parties are responsible.

So if you want to blame the rich, include the rich congressional Democrats who were part of the problem You can exclude Tip O'Neill if you also exclude Ronald Reagan.

May I disagree? Social Security was sold to the public as though it was a pension plan. But it never was in reality. After all, benefits started immediately. So the workers of the 1930s were paying for the benefits being received in the 1930s by people who had never paid a cent into the system because it hadn't existed. That pattern continues to this day; today's social security taxes go to pay today's benefits. The problem right now is that the working population is low compared to the number of beneficiaries -- baby boomers like me. That problem will get worse as the birth rate drops and people like me live longer. It's actually worse in Europe or South Korea and Japan than here because the birth rates there are even lower.

 

[retired711]

"Why should only the low incomes pay for it?" Wealthy don't pay in? Their employers don't match that amount? Is their benefit not tied to the amount paid in and not their total income? Their is a slight bias in the benefit calculation towards lower income recipients, but the operating word is "slight".

The bias toward lower income recipients isn't that slight. To determine a worker's "primary insurance amount," (the amount the worker would get at full retirement age), the Social Security Administration first calculates the worker's "average indexed monthly earnings." (AIME) It then gives the worker 90% credit for the first (roughly) $1800 per month, 32% credit for the amount of the AIME between $1800 and roughly $7000 a month, and only 15% credit for everything over that.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/social-security/benefits-formula/