Author Topic: SS calculator (Read 1881 times)

Nash · « **Reply #45 on:** March 07, 2005, 07:50:00 PM »

Does anyone think that this attempt to overhaul (or whatever you choose to call it) SS is going to succeed?

From what I understand, there's enough money right now that they can already pay everyone just fine right up until 2040, and that the (speculated) trouble doesn't actually start until 2050. By that time... who knows what the deal is gonna be?

Strikes me as an ideological fight, nothing more... and every indication is that this fight won't get sanctioned. Honduras won't even touch it.

Anyways, if one were prone to believe Bush, it would seem that there are other, more important things to worry about at the moment. Hitting 60 cities in 60 days on his Bamboozlepalooza tour... yeah, that's gonna help.

Shamus · « **Reply #46 on:** March 07, 2005, 07:53:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry. change "you" for "oboe" and the point still stands.

Well I dont know, I think someone under the current system who pays more does "use" more, so it stands to reason that if the tax is levied on a guy making 300k he would use more than a guy making 30k dont you think?

shamus

Martlet · « **Reply #47 on:** March 07, 2005, 07:55:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
Well I dont know, I think someone under the current system who pays more does "use" more, so it stands to reason that if the tax is levied on a guy making 300k he would use more than a guy making 30k dont you think?

shamus

No, I don't agree.

Explain.

Shamus · « **Reply #48 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:00:57 PM »

Well if you pay ss taxes on a 30k wage for 30 years are your ss payments the same as they would be if the wage were 60k for 30 years?

shamus

Martlet · « **Reply #49 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:12:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
Well if you pay ss taxes on a 30k wage for 30 years are your ss payments the same as they would be if the wage were 60k for 30 years?

shamus

That's why they have wage indexing.

Again, irrelevant though, since the example I was responding to also called for lowering the benefit for higher wage earners.

Shamus · « **Reply #50 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:17:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
A person earning 300k isn't going to use more, why should he pay more?

This is what I was responding to, this statment is incorrect as stated by you.

shamus

Martlet · « **Reply #51 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:24:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
This is what I was responding to, this statment is incorrect as stated by you.

shamus

And I responded.

Next?

Shamus · « **Reply #52 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:31:30 PM »

LoL ok you responded

shamus

oboe · « **Reply #53 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:01:40 PM »

You asked for a plan so I listed several things we could do right off the top off my head that will:

- go a long way toward "fixing" SS
- not cost several trillion dollars to implement

Just starting points for discussion.

There's no getting around the demagraphic of fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees. More money needs to come into SS, and less per person needs to be paid out.

If we cut back on everybody's benefits equally, the lower end people may be driven into poverty, and staying out of poverty in your old age is kind of the reason for existence of the program, is it not?

At any rate I think we are getting farther here than our representatives in Congress.

Martlet · « **Reply #54 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:05:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
You asked for a plan so I listed several things we could do right off the top off my head that will:

- go a long way toward "fixing" SS
- not cost several trillion dollars to implement

Just starting points for discussion.

There's no getting around the demagraphic of fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees. More money needs to come into SS, and less per person needs to be paid out.

If we cut back on everybody's benefits equally, the lower end people may be driven into poverty, and staying out of poverty in your old age is kind of the reason for existence of the program, is it not?

At any rate I think we are getting farther here than our representatives in Congress.

I agree. However, I disagree that pumping more money into a failing system is a good fix. That's only temporary.

Most people admit that there is a problem. No one wants to deal with it, though. Why? It's a hot issue, and political careers will be broken over it.

Nash · « **Reply #55 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:30:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
It's a hot issue, and political careers will be broken over it.

It's a hot issue? Why is it hot all of a sudden? Did it just become hot all by itself? Were people really all that psyched about it?

Heck, on this very BBS, folks have their ear to the ground and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of prodding to get them to post about whatever crazy arsed thing that strikes them....

Yet we haven't seen any posts about Social Security. Until now.

So...

There was no "problem" until recently, and it turns out that the "problem" won't come knockin' for another 50 years.

Mmmkay. What is this really about?

Maverick · « **Reply #56 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:42:40 PM »

Oboe,

The lower end people are already in poverty. I've met several who are in their late 60's and still having to work because all they had was SS and there isn't enough to live on. I know I couldn't make it on 800 to 900 a month. Some of those folks are having a real tough time.

You can't argue with the population shift. There are more folks getting the age to start drawing on it than there will be in the near future to pay for it given it's current situation. Something's got to be done if the pay out will continue at it's current levels even without adjustments for inflation.

oboe · « **Reply #57 on:** March 08, 2005, 07:22:08 AM »

I agree Mav, and its too bad. And if we cut benefits across the board the number of those lower end people will grow. That's why I'd rather target cuts toward people who are best able to weather it. Some people are not going to agree with that, but that's the nature of politics.

I don't see it as a 'crisis' yet - more of a growing concern. The sooner we act to shore up the system, the better off we will be. But I tend to agree with the AARP on this one - you don't shore up a system by taking even more money out of it. I'd rather see cheap, easy to implement, and effective changes coupled with expanded support for existing retirement vehicles like IRAs and 401Ks - these are essentially 'private accounts' outside SS now.

Nash - I think its a hot issue because Bush is making it one.

Martlet · « **Reply #58 on:** March 08, 2005, 07:27:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
It's a hot issue? Why is it hot all of a sudden? Did it just become hot all by itself? Were people really all that psyched about it?

Heck, on this very BBS, folks have their ear to the ground and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of prodding to get them to post about whatever crazy arsed thing that strikes them....

Yet we haven't seen any posts about Social Security. Until now.

So...

There was no "problem" until recently, and it turns out that the "problem" won't come knockin' for another 50 years.

Mmmkay. What is this really about?

You just now learn to read and you think it's new news? Reagan was talking about it 20 years ago. Clinton was talking about it 10 years ago. Just because you finally hear about it doesn't mean it just popped up.

The difference being now someone is doing something about it so it gets press. Old news. Keep reading, though. You'll catch up eventually.

lazs2 · « **Reply #59 on:** March 08, 2005, 08:25:37 AM »

Is there anyone stupid enough to think that they can retire comfortably on SS benifiets?

lazs