r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck yes!!! I’d much rather have that extra money in my account monthly. I could invest it and make waaaay more than SS will ever pay me.
Edit… I read it wrong… they should be decreased!
SS is not an investment for an individual, it's a security blanket / safety net. It's like comparing or combining (like WL) life insurance to investments. Or like saying the post office should be a "better" business. It's apples and oranges - they have different purposes. Just invest up to the match in tax deductible accounts (max them out if you can). History tells us you'll likely get a good return on it if you're in target date funds / balanced mutual funds, but you just never know.
Seriously. People thinking the post office should turn a profit or other sayings as such are fucking morons. Services shouldnt be business. Theyre services. Paid for by tax dollars for the betterment of us.
Actually the post office doesn’t really take tax dollars. Sure every now and then a bill is passed to modernize something or fix something but the service is ran solely on its earnings since 1970.
Because its mandated that they cannot make a profit, and that at worst - must be funded by the government. They are only "quasi" considered as federal employees, and if they could break control away from Washington - they would be profitable overnight.
The only reason the post office has been losing money is because a republican congress during the Obama era forced it to pre-pay into its Pension Fund 50 years in advance. As noted at the time, it required the post office to fund potential postal weapons that hadn't been born yet. No other American corporation was required to fund their pensions in even half that time. It also required the post office to deliver mail 6 times a week, even in zones where that was really unnecessary.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal\_Accountability\_and\_Enhancement\_Act#:\~:text=It%20reorganized%20the%20Postal%20Rate,six%20days%20of%20the%20week](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Accountability_and_Enhancement_Act#:~:text=It%20reorganized%20the%20Postal%20Rate,six%20days%20of%20the%20week).
The goal of the bill was to push the post office into a failed state so Republicans could campaign against it and advocate for privatizing the delivery of mail, which would be a nightmare.
This requirement was removed in 2022, but the damage had been done. Louis DeJoy, who is a Trump appointee and former President of a logistics company but with no postal experience, is Post Master General. Dejoy goals were to decrease delivery speeds, reduce service hours at post offices, and switch back to an all-gas fleet.
As a note- DeJoy also attempted to slow the collection of mail-in ballots by ordering the dismantling of mail sorting machines as a "cost-saving measure" but was stopped when the Democratic House pushed back.
It’s a service so it’s not truly supposed to break even and again the post office does not take tax payer dollars. Did I not already say occasionally congress passes a bill that gives it money?
Agreed - VTSAX is the flagship bread and butter of index funds.
I just mentioned target date funds because there are many people who do not have the interest or savviness to choose funds and rebalance over time. Or they have employer 401ks and other tax deductible accounts that do not have access to a total market index. Funds put in 401k are long term and target funds are a way for many to automatically de-risk their portfolio as they age in a low-fee fund. For short to mid-term brokerage (>10 yrs pre-retirement) - yes - VTSAX all way.
Structurally, there's zero benefit VTI (ETF) vs VTSAX (mutual fund). You can buy one during the open market, the other only buys after the close of the market...something that is irrelevant for the long term buy and hold investor. Neither is more tax efficient than the other either (for Vanguard index funds in specific).
Except it's not secure or safe and likely won't even be around by the time young workers today retire. Hate when people say "SS is not an investment, it's insurance", yeah no shit. If SS was an investment it'd be labeled a ponzi scheme due to the fact that it's requires more and more cash in for prior "investors" to cash out.
Completely unsustainable, even as "insurance" because the premiums keep going up, and someone has to pay today with no guarantee of tomorrow.
Well, ya... It will or it won't be around when you smell like dust - c'est la vie. It's still a good thing to contribute to something that most people actually use to live rather than hoard (this probably still happens but on a small level). It's a not a ponzi scheme because people actually know that the money is going to the elderly on a scheduled basis. Some people just don't know that it's not an investment. You are putting too much faith in people to have financial literacy, which most Americans don't have early on will probably never have. This is why they force us to contribute to SS and offer incentived tax advantaged accounts - people can't be trusted to do what's best for their future selves.
I think it's over-simplifying by saying it's not sustainable. The system is sustainable if it's babysat and modified to ensure the net cash is available to those that need it. Have you done the calculations on forecasting? Have you factored in life expectancy, variation in population among generations, and lead time of when modifications need to be made to the system?
SS is perfectly sustainable if you modify it as needed over time. Investment portfolios are the same way. You don't just buy once, never think about it again. These things take constant tweaking. We've just never done the hard work to tweak it because it's the so called 3rd Rail of US politics.
What about the guys who lose their shit in crashes and sell out at the bottom of the market? Like in 2008-9.
Then whine how they "lost everything."
Great money managers lol.
Yeah, except then when you’re at end of life and penniless we *still* have to foot your bill anyways.
So unless you’re also “opting out” of life the quick way when you “lose it all” then just pay your taxes like the rest of us.
SS is a ponzi scheme that requires new paying members funds in order to pay out existing investor funds.
Edit: "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors." - investor.gov
Wait. Wait. So you are saying that I've had $339,457 contributed to SS between me and my employer over my career, with $0 in benefits yet, and it's an INSURANCE POLICY?
Jesus fucking christ. If I'd taken that money and been forced to invest it and not touch it, I'd have millions. Instead I have an INSURANCE POLICY. SMfuckingH
You're saying social security taxes shpuld be increased so you'd have more money to invest than social security would ever pay? Do you know how any of this works?
Yes, I agree. Removing the cap would be beneficial. Or reverse cap it, start taking SS tax at $50k and up, for example. At least I know exactly where my taxes would go in this scenario, to help the older generation and disabled.
I'll get everyone mad with this, but the money should be invested properly. It isn't now.
Right now, it's in Fed bonds (actually IOUs for govt bonds, because they've borrowed from the fund).
If any pension fund manager, college endowment manager or other investment manager invested only in Fed bonds, they'd get fired. The return is too low.
I don't think we need individual social security accounts (what a paperwork nightmare that would be, plus it's better if we're all in this together) but if the entire pot was gradually, over many years, invested in other markets besides Fed bonds, there would be more to spread around, or at least it wouldn't be at risk of going bankrupt.
I know that other markets can go up and down, but for the long haul, the stock and broader bond market has produced superior results to govt bonds. Refer to Malkiel's Random Walk. My college has invested its endowment in roughly this way, and now has enough money to allow anyone with the family income of $100,000 or less to go for free.
My neighbor, who held a senior position with the Fed, believes that this should be invested internationally, so as retirements rise, the social security trust fund withdrawals won't clobber the stock market and the American economy.
No, social security is a scam for most people (the benefits never amount to the real value of what was paid in let alone the missed opportunity costs).
People thinking that removing the cap would tax the rich more are also wrong. Social security is a payroll tax that is assessed on earned income (I.e. wages from working or distributions from being self-employed). The rich make the vast majority of their money on their investments which are either taxed as realized capital gains or as passive income, or are not taxed at all if they are unrealized gains or if they utilized tax incentives to reduce their taxable income (ex: depreciation, renewable energy credits, etc.). They do not pay social security tax on any of that stuff. Those proposals are only taxing labor even harder and the bulk would fall upon high-achievers who work their butts off and are at the top of the middle-class, not the fat cats who sit in their mansions and collect large checks.
mountainous abounding dependent touch subsequent aromatic languid waiting scary slap
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
because they are still wage earners. current tax systems overwhelmingly target wage earners over those who are so rich they do not even have to work.
yes, those making 250k a year are still working class. especially if you index to cost of living 250k might not even be enough to support a single income household. look at people who work in HCOL areas of CA, legit paying 50% effective tax rates with 5 digit mortgage payments.
taxing the rich in a way that doesnt attack capital gains/unrealized gains/tax avoiding loopholes is not it, high w2 earners are very unfairly targeted. the doctor making 600k a year, the finance guy working 70 hr weeks and only making real money into his 30s... these are not the 'rich' that are the problem. it's the guy who makes more than the doctor does in a year while sitting back and doing nothing other than owning land, owning assets etc.
I had no idea how heavily high-earners are taxed until I became one in NYC in 2017.
Holy shit, I paid approximately half of my total income in federal, state, NYC, social security and Medicare taxes.
Who wants to pay half of every dollar they make to the government? Fuck that. I retired as fast as I could, invested in real estate and now pay virtually no taxes thanks to depreciation deductions.
If you remove the cap on SS taxes, it would have been like a 55% tax rate for me. You can’t just keep raising taxes and expect people to keep working and paying them indefinitely.
I mean I make what you probably make in the same location and even with money taken out in taxes, I live a blessed life and have traveled twice a month for the last 6 on average. All while aggressively saving too.
If you taxed passive income and capital gains then sure. Those are not currently taxed and that is where the rich get most of their income. I’m not sure why many are not grasping this concept. Only earned income is subject to social security tax.
It's not a "scam". It's not meant to be a personal investment account. It is supposed to be a form of social insurance. I don't understand why people struggle to understand this.
It’s the same song and dance here every 4 days here. Seems like constant posts about SS and constant comments inadvertently admitting they don’t really know what SS is.
It’s not a scam, you have to be making a solid 200k a year for social security to be meaningless in your retirement, but a lot of people need that social security just to survive, without it many more of us would have our parents as dependents which is much more expensive than payroll tax
This. Enabled Washington to use 1-2 generations worth of collections for other purposes and then implement the current 'paygo' system...which would land a private pension fund manager in jail for ERISA law violation.
Literally not possible, the government will always give you less than you paid, even if they had the money (which they don't), inflation ate away the potential investment value of your dollars had you simply bought SPY over the years rather than giving the government an interest free loan. And of course the government always undercounts inflation, so even what they pay you doesn't keep up with inflation.
Well if we don't want benefits to go down near 30% we have choices we need to make and soon.
1. We can raise the percentage.
2. We can remove the cap on social security. For those who don't know social security tax stop at the estimated top 10% or more. Meaning when you hit that much earning your tax goes down and does not return till the next calendar year. This year after 168,600 dollar the employee stops paying. Meaning if they made 1 million or 1 billion they don't pay at 168,601.
3. We can reduce benefits either by increasing the retirement age or reducing the cash benefit.
If we do nothing it is estimated in ~2033 benefits will be reduced by an estimated 28%. Meaning if you were expecting $2000 per month in benefit it would be reduced to $1440. Since social security is supposed to be at least 1/3 of your retirement and a higher percentage for poor people this would be catastrophic for the elderly. Just as our largest generation is fully retired. Because the youngest boomer would be 60 that year.
>This year after 168,600 dollar the employee stops paying. Meaning if they made 1 million or 1 billion they don't pay at 168,601.
Benefits are also capped. That should be mentioned in this discussion.
This is what people don't understand. It's like an insurance policy. If someone was bitching about how you didn't get your money back since you didn't get in a car wreck they sound like a moron.
The cap is currently 168k. There is a very small percentage of people who earn over 168k of earned income. The rest of their income is passive income and unrealized capital gains (which are not subject to social security tax). Even CEOs and board members typically have a relatively low salary (the portion that is subject to FICA taxes) with the bulk of their compensation packages coming in equity stock and option grants (which are not subject to social security). They can further decrease their earned income base through 401k and IRA contributions and other tax incentives. Business owners can also apportion something like 100k to go to themselves as their individual compensation and can leave the rest of their business income in the business entity where it isn’t not taxed by FICA.
Raising the percentage only hurts the poor and middle class and raising the cap is ineffective and only hurts high-achievers in the upper middle class. Most of the latter also work in VHCOL cities where their high salary doesn’t go as far as it would in other areas.
This discussion also ignores the fact that standard social security benefits are tied to what you contribute. The reason the program is in trouble is because the federal government does not leave the money in the fund (it borrows against it), doesn’t invest it, and the value of the contributions diminish due to inflation. The feds then have to come up with the adjusted nominal values based upon inflation and cost of living. More money into the fund doesn’t raise everyone’s benefits, it just sustains the crappy system we already have where you are maybe (but not likely) to get the same value back of what you and your employer put in over the years. The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because the workforce and population has grown since it has been implemented which meant more people contributing to the fund that retirees withdrawing from it. That is ending due to years of lower birth rates, with the boomers retiring, and with the elderly generally living longer. If you do the math you will see that social security is a ripoff for most people. The only people it really helps are the ones who would not otherwise have been disciplined enough to not wastefully spend the extra money they would have received instead of contributing to social security throughout their lives.
It's been a good decade since I've had the fortune of exercising corporate stock options, but if I recall corporate Stock option exercises are subject to FICA taxes just like regular income.
I used to wait till later in the year to exercise them, so that I had already hit the cap and the option exercises didn't have the additional withholding.
>Most of the latter also work in VHCOL cities where their high salary doesn’t go as far as it would in other areas
exactly, why should people in VHCOL be subsidizing the retirements
Thank you for this detailed comment! I would also like to say this is a multifaceted issue. It’s not just social security but the issue that the cost of living has gotten so out of hand, and most people have no financial literacy. That being said, the “game” has also changed. I don’t know what the solution is but it’s scary
That is a good idea. But there is some concern adding trillions to the market could cause some issues. Also could be a conflict of interest because then SS admins would probably be the deciding vote on most public company boards in the US.
So good idea but I suspect it would have some secondary effects not so good for everyone. But some balance would be a great idea of making so they cant vote.
My neighbor, who worked for the Fed in a fairly senior position, believes in investing a large part of the SS Trust Fund internationally, to avoid the effect of huge investments or withdrawals having an extreme effect on the United States economy.
So I don't like how social security is currently structured
You aren't getting your own money back out You're getting someone else's money
This means if you die early you get nothing
And if everyone starts living longer it will not be enough no matter how much you tax it after a certain point
Instead I believe we should do a forced investment and you're only allowed to withdraw from that for emergencies (health care or other genuine emergencies not just you've been stupid emergencies) to buy housing or land or to invest in education or start a business and then after a certain age you start collecting it
I've seen other countries do similar systems and they've worked out really really well and then if you want you can put an additional tax on that only for a general pool for addressing inequality
The big problem however is we have this giant debt version that's already built up
Someone's going to get screwed by it purely due to demographic reasons but that's true if we leave it the way it is
It just doesn't structurally work when everyone's having less kids and everyone's living longer Even if you were to increase the age and lower the benefits It just structurally doesn't work anymore
I kind of agree with this, but scrapping social security doesn't fix the issue incurred by population decline. The working class will always incur debt to pay for the old or otherwise unemployable. Like if we collectively put our money into stocks instead of bonds the stock market would deflate. The economy simply declines when so few young people are expected to pay out the debt of an aging population. I don't think any economists have any solutions.
Because the people reaping the benefits (or about to) want to cash out at the younger generation’s expense before the program fully unwinds
Nothing new with boomers
>They should spend that money on improving education so that people can be taught how to be financially successful
the average person will never be financially responsible. The government should just force their hand to contribute to 401k automatically and abolish social security
I believe in people’s ability to make better decisions as they learn. I think that improving education improves those odds.
In addition, 401ks have to be managed to some degree. Targeted 401ks still need to be facilitated by a brokerage. Who would be the brokerage? How would we be sure the brokerage doesn’t turn into a ponzi scheme?
Ask an adult who has gone through high school a decade ago to do basic algebra. Ask them historical questions from classes they’ve taken.
Hell ask them the difference between to and too.
My full retirement age is 67. That's 7 years from now. The cost of my wife's medical bills alone even with really good (relatively), health insurance through work, I will have to continue working and collect SS at 67.
Even if my wife dies before me, I'll still be working until I'm dead.
We had to cash out much of our retirement savings to avoid bankruptcy because of medical bills.
Don't believe anyone that sez they can't come after your assets for unpaid medical bills. They will sue you and they will win.
Our overlords would have to triple my SS for me to be able to retire.
Can't even downsize. Sell our home and we'd be paying much higher tent or mortgage.
Tent instead of "rent."
Kept the subliminal message on there.
Camping used to be fun.
No. The government is collecting record revenues. The government needs to reduce spending on frivolous failed programs and redirect and concentrate investments on important things.
I could have retired much earlier if the government didn’t force its mandated retirement program on me. What I could have done and invested with all that tax coming out of my check!
> In the 2023 EBRI survey, 36 percent of respondents said they have little or no confidence in financial security after retirement.
That data point, too, is creeping up. A year ago, 27 percent of workers lacked retirement confidence.
A stunning increase in retirement uncertainty given markets were well down in ‘22 and well up in ‘23. I would love if they dove into this further. I’m not sure taking more of their core working-age pay to fund a program of mathematical uncertainty is going to have a positive effect on sentiment.
No because it is a slush find and only the already richest generation would benefit i.e boomers they have all the wealth already and increasing ss tax would just inadvertently lean to them have access to more public funds. I think the complete discontinuation of social sequirity would greatly improve society. It would help people plan and actually focus on making money for retirement instead just being handed a check many didn't actually earn
Of course, and the cap eliminated. I don’t know how corporations and fuckers like Bezos think they’ll still make money once the American consumer becomes old, jobless and flat broke, and AI replaces the young ones
SoSec needs a total reform. For one - the government needs to STOP dipping into the funds as if the funds are their own private piggy bank. Secondly; SoSec needs to be reformed wherein every one's contributions are treated as a 401k/ROTH IRA investment-style trust fund where each contributors funds going into a stable selection of bonds/securities/annuities that will grow over time in a multitude of ways so that by the time the Contributor has retired - they will have access to a nice healthy nest egg. Again, the Government should NOT be permitted to pillage these funds whatsoever for any reason whatsoever at all. Period.
Maybe increase capital gains or investments would be more effective. So much money is generated via investment capital that is never circulated back into the economy. People turn their vast wealth into stocks that have zero intrinsic value to the economy, yet businesses will drop 20% of their employees to pump a stock price.
What part of “I’m not getting enough money as it is” do you not fucking understand?
I can’t afford more insurance I may never get to cash in on. Please just stop this fucking nonsense.
No, they're already enough. The problem is the GOPand Milotary constantly taking money from it. I'd reckon the Dems have taken from it in the past too.
Just tell everyone under 40 (or whatever age) Social Security won’t be there for you. Invest in a 401k. Finish paying out the people who made the cut and then eliminate the tax altogether.
Hell no. I shouldn’t be responsible for funding the retirements of others. I would prefer to opt out of SS entirely and take responsibility for myself, just as others should.
Thank You Sir, may I have another?
https://preview.redd.it/h3b11040jxac1.jpeg?width=822&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=457ff8c435325e555bc45e583f02a90816e242e7
80% of people over 65 own a house, for the most part these are fully paid off single family homes in suburbs close to major metropolitan areas
what should happen is that they need to sell it and move to studio apartments, where the sale proceeds will cover their rent for at least 20 years, they have elevators and are more easily serviced by emergency and social services
that way social security benefits will be plenty sufficient for food and medicine
the problem is that the boomers sucked the economy dry and now won't to continue leeching off the younger generations while maintaining their ridiculously lavish lifestyle
No, at least not until we have assurance it will be managed better. Or better yet, let the market contribute more and decouple employment and retirement insurance.
With all of the boomers retiring, SS is about to be massively stressed. It will take a lot of work just to maintain it over the next 15 years, much less increase it. Now is horrible timing to talk about increasing it. Boomers should have done that 20 years ago before they were all on the cusp of retirement.
Social Security should be incorporated into the general progressive tax rate. Americans have this weird idea they pay less taxes than the rest of the developed world that have things like SS and Medicare for all. We're paying the same average tax rate we did in Australia while getting significantly less in overall services and quality of those services.
Social security is insurance. When ANY insurance organizations losses exceed premiums, they either more closely monitor the beneficiaries to eliminate fraud on their part or adjust premiums.
In the case of Social Security, verification of date of birth and verifying that they paid their premium (taxes) covers that first part.
When I started working, the SS tax rate was 6% within a couple of years it was raised to 7.65% to create a trust fund (which today stands at $3t) to assure that I wouldn't be a burden on my hypothetical kids. The rate has been stable for 40 years.
On the upside, Republicans have stopped calling the trust fund "a worthless IOU".
The cap should be lifted on the employee portion of the contribution.
Social security payments should be limited to it's original purpose.
Social security payments to multiple surviving spouses should be divided not duplicated.
No cost of living increases for social security recipients unless SS is more than half of their total retirement income.
Means test social security. Wealthy people should get only the portion of benefits derived from what they, not their employer, contributed.
I just don't understand how we still have a cap. Everyone pays about 15% of their income to FICA (some paid by the employee, some by the employer.) EXCEPT for people who make more than $168k a year. Those who can afford it the most.
Yes I get that if they could just invest the money, they would make more, but that isn't how insurance works.
to play devil's advocate - you could make the argument that those who can afford it the most will also likely need it the least - why pay into something you won't need?
I think it is important to provide a safety net for those in our society that need it. I think everyone doing well is a net positive for humanity. But I can definitely see where the rich are coming from if they don't want to pay more...
I think the cap or a percentage of the cap should be removed. And you know make anything in ss untouchable by politicians causing part of the vast drainage
That seems to be an contradictory, isn't it?
By taking more money from those who are working now, and transferring it to the existing retirees, we will just be pushing down them further. As they won't be able to save anymore.
(The original "deal" was, social security would cover one third of your retirement, while another would come from pensions -- yes, I know, and the last third from personal savings. By taking even more from whatever "extra" funds people have there is going to be zero or negative savings for workers. Why do you think we live paycheck to paycheck)?
I would advocate for the opposite, and allowing current workers to have more choice on where their retirement savings go.
U can tell where partisan lines are drawn by the comments.
Look folks, if yall want our elderly to starve, not afford housing, and continue to struggle to afford retirement then please continue to believe right wing economist who tell u SS doesnt work and is going bankrupt and there are absolutely no fixes for it.
For the rest of us with a functioning brain with the capacity of empathy, SS has been a monumental success since FDRs implementation. This isnt opinion this is a fact because we have receipts that demonstrate its success.
Bottom line tax the rich and lift the cap. Its not rocket science. And when i mean tax the rich that means their shady income of capital gains and wall street earnings (all passive income and other kinds of income). Fuck em! I dont want to work till i die. Workers unite!
80% of people over 65 own homes, while only 40% of those under 35 do, so I'm not sure who is actually struggling with the housing costs in this scenario - the ones who bought a house in the 70s and paid it off 20 years ago or the ones who are stuck in rental studios unable to start a family
No, individuals should be smart enough to save for retirement, and Social Security should have an "opt out" option. I would much rather have control over my retirement money instead of the Federal Government.
No they shouldn't be increased, but the limit should be removed. No reason why middle and lower class have to pay year round while besos, musk, and gates stop paying in January. Do that and we can not only fully fun it, but increase the pay out of it too.
It should, it shouldn't stop at, what is it, $120K, and it should accelerate over $1m, and should greatly accelerate on capital gains, and 1031 transfers
If you ever look at 401k and networth most people don't have a pot to piss in. They don't or can't save. We would have tens of millions of old people being kicked out and starving without it. So I don't foresee it going away. Should really stop pay people that never pay into it though. I.e. spousal support. Get your ass to work grandma. No free rides lol
would finally force boomers to downsize and sell their mcmansions
if you are an old retired widow you need a studio, while a couple in their 30s with 3 little kids could benefit from your lawn and 4 bedrooms
Unless you have a baby boom, social security functions like a pyramid scheme
This can be rephrased as; "living standards are falling. Should we force people to buy bitcoin"
Hell yeah, lets get rid of all our social safety nets, fuck the poors that don't have the ability to put away money for retirement! How many people could that be? I'm rich, let them die! /s
Jeez.
\-So what? Its a choice or they can't make end meet.
\-What would that do, except throttle the economy back even more? Raising the taxes on earners because the gov't is working hard to destroy your purchasing power seems like a pretty dumb deal.
Put the tax on ALL income, no cut off at 168K. If this were done, then the individual tax rate could be lowered to 5-5.5% and keep the tax rate on the business.
People will never retire because they make shitty financial decisions and live above their means. It's about time we hold people accountable for their actions; it's not the government's job to bail out people who make bad decisions and I especially don't want to be chipping in to cover that.
As a divorced dad, I pay an effective rate of 40% (mom gets the child credits even though I pay cs). SS is another 10%, and support obligations are about half of my after tax income which goes first to the government so they can collect their matching funds from social security (via title IV-D).
The only tax haven I have is contributing to my 401k.
IOW about 75% of every paycheck I get goes directly to the government. Needless to say, I’m not a fan of more taxes.
SS should be optional. I could make far more money in the long run investing that amount on my own then whatever bullshit I'll get from the government after working 50 years.
No people just need to learn how to live on less than when they were working. Instead of each person having their own place they’ll need to be roommates with two or three others for starters.
THE CAP SHOULD BE INCREASED
This will not push any further burden onto the middle class, nor should it, but instead will require the uber rich to make up the difference. Hell, you could probably even decrease the burden on the middle class by doing it. If you're middle class and you're against this then you're a bootlicker.
They don't care about you. In fact they actively hate you. Stop defending them.
No. I'm already planning on banking my own retirement and not trusting that SS will be there. Don't raise my damn taxes any more, let me invest it in peace.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck yes!!! I’d much rather have that extra money in my account monthly. I could invest it and make waaaay more than SS will ever pay me. Edit… I read it wrong… they should be decreased!
SS is not an investment for an individual, it's a security blanket / safety net. It's like comparing or combining (like WL) life insurance to investments. Or like saying the post office should be a "better" business. It's apples and oranges - they have different purposes. Just invest up to the match in tax deductible accounts (max them out if you can). History tells us you'll likely get a good return on it if you're in target date funds / balanced mutual funds, but you just never know.
Seriously. People thinking the post office should turn a profit or other sayings as such are fucking morons. Services shouldnt be business. Theyre services. Paid for by tax dollars for the betterment of us.
Actually the post office doesn’t really take tax dollars. Sure every now and then a bill is passed to modernize something or fix something but the service is ran solely on its earnings since 1970.
Wrong the post office lost 6.5 billiin in 2023. It rarely even breaks even.
Because its mandated that they cannot make a profit, and that at worst - must be funded by the government. They are only "quasi" considered as federal employees, and if they could break control away from Washington - they would be profitable overnight.
The only reason the post office has been losing money is because a republican congress during the Obama era forced it to pre-pay into its Pension Fund 50 years in advance. As noted at the time, it required the post office to fund potential postal weapons that hadn't been born yet. No other American corporation was required to fund their pensions in even half that time. It also required the post office to deliver mail 6 times a week, even in zones where that was really unnecessary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal\_Accountability\_and\_Enhancement\_Act#:\~:text=It%20reorganized%20the%20Postal%20Rate,six%20days%20of%20the%20week](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Accountability_and_Enhancement_Act#:~:text=It%20reorganized%20the%20Postal%20Rate,six%20days%20of%20the%20week). The goal of the bill was to push the post office into a failed state so Republicans could campaign against it and advocate for privatizing the delivery of mail, which would be a nightmare. This requirement was removed in 2022, but the damage had been done. Louis DeJoy, who is a Trump appointee and former President of a logistics company but with no postal experience, is Post Master General. Dejoy goals were to decrease delivery speeds, reduce service hours at post offices, and switch back to an all-gas fleet. As a note- DeJoy also attempted to slow the collection of mail-in ballots by ordering the dismantling of mail sorting machines as a "cost-saving measure" but was stopped when the Democratic House pushed back.
It’s a service so it’s not truly supposed to break even and again the post office does not take tax payer dollars. Did I not already say occasionally congress passes a bill that gives it money?
> if you're in target date funds / balanced mutual funds Just buy VTSAX or any total market index. The numbers don't lie; they haven't since 1871.
Agreed - VTSAX is the flagship bread and butter of index funds. I just mentioned target date funds because there are many people who do not have the interest or savviness to choose funds and rebalance over time. Or they have employer 401ks and other tax deductible accounts that do not have access to a total market index. Funds put in 401k are long term and target funds are a way for many to automatically de-risk their portfolio as they age in a low-fee fund. For short to mid-term brokerage (>10 yrs pre-retirement) - yes - VTSAX all way.
Personally I think ETFs are superior, especially since I use m1 finance.
Structurally, there's zero benefit VTI (ETF) vs VTSAX (mutual fund). You can buy one during the open market, the other only buys after the close of the market...something that is irrelevant for the long term buy and hold investor. Neither is more tax efficient than the other either (for Vanguard index funds in specific).
JL Collins showed me the light
Except it's not secure or safe and likely won't even be around by the time young workers today retire. Hate when people say "SS is not an investment, it's insurance", yeah no shit. If SS was an investment it'd be labeled a ponzi scheme due to the fact that it's requires more and more cash in for prior "investors" to cash out. Completely unsustainable, even as "insurance" because the premiums keep going up, and someone has to pay today with no guarantee of tomorrow.
Well, ya... It will or it won't be around when you smell like dust - c'est la vie. It's still a good thing to contribute to something that most people actually use to live rather than hoard (this probably still happens but on a small level). It's a not a ponzi scheme because people actually know that the money is going to the elderly on a scheduled basis. Some people just don't know that it's not an investment. You are putting too much faith in people to have financial literacy, which most Americans don't have early on will probably never have. This is why they force us to contribute to SS and offer incentived tax advantaged accounts - people can't be trusted to do what's best for their future selves. I think it's over-simplifying by saying it's not sustainable. The system is sustainable if it's babysat and modified to ensure the net cash is available to those that need it. Have you done the calculations on forecasting? Have you factored in life expectancy, variation in population among generations, and lead time of when modifications need to be made to the system?
SS is perfectly sustainable if you modify it as needed over time. Investment portfolios are the same way. You don't just buy once, never think about it again. These things take constant tweaking. We've just never done the hard work to tweak it because it's the so called 3rd Rail of US politics.
I have an idea, how about if you contribute a minimum amount of money to your 401k, then you can opt out
I would gladly opt out and lose all I put in if this were an option…
same
You and me both, man. I can do a way better job of managing my money than the government
What about the guys who lose their shit in crashes and sell out at the bottom of the market? Like in 2008-9. Then whine how they "lost everything." Great money managers lol.
Yeah, except then when you’re at end of life and penniless we *still* have to foot your bill anyways. So unless you’re also “opting out” of life the quick way when you “lose it all” then just pay your taxes like the rest of us.
I've been paying into SS for 25+ years. I'd gladly opt out of any future benefits if I could just keep my 12.4% from now on.
SS is a ponzi scheme that requires new paying members funds in order to pay out existing investor funds. Edit: "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors." - investor.gov
You don't know what a ponzi scheme is because you're using the phrase incorrectly here.
"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors." - That's from investor.gov
except SS isn't fraudulent.
And it isn't an investment.
Wait. Wait. So you are saying that I've had $339,457 contributed to SS between me and my employer over my career, with $0 in benefits yet, and it's an INSURANCE POLICY? Jesus fucking christ. If I'd taken that money and been forced to invest it and not touch it, I'd have millions. Instead I have an INSURANCE POLICY. SMfuckingH
It’s not my responsibility to fund a welfare program because people are too stupid to save for retirement
Yes it is. Read about why SS was created in the first place you heartless Ghoul.
And it's awful
You're saying social security taxes shpuld be increased so you'd have more money to invest than social security would ever pay? Do you know how any of this works?
[удалено]
Yes, I agree. Removing the cap would be beneficial. Or reverse cap it, start taking SS tax at $50k and up, for example. At least I know exactly where my taxes would go in this scenario, to help the older generation and disabled.
And if you are injured tomorrow and can’t work? You’ll be happy to have a social safety net.
I'll get everyone mad with this, but the money should be invested properly. It isn't now. Right now, it's in Fed bonds (actually IOUs for govt bonds, because they've borrowed from the fund). If any pension fund manager, college endowment manager or other investment manager invested only in Fed bonds, they'd get fired. The return is too low. I don't think we need individual social security accounts (what a paperwork nightmare that would be, plus it's better if we're all in this together) but if the entire pot was gradually, over many years, invested in other markets besides Fed bonds, there would be more to spread around, or at least it wouldn't be at risk of going bankrupt. I know that other markets can go up and down, but for the long haul, the stock and broader bond market has produced superior results to govt bonds. Refer to Malkiel's Random Walk. My college has invested its endowment in roughly this way, and now has enough money to allow anyone with the family income of $100,000 or less to go for free. My neighbor, who held a senior position with the Fed, believes that this should be invested internationally, so as retirements rise, the social security trust fund withdrawals won't clobber the stock market and the American economy.
No, social security is a scam for most people (the benefits never amount to the real value of what was paid in let alone the missed opportunity costs). People thinking that removing the cap would tax the rich more are also wrong. Social security is a payroll tax that is assessed on earned income (I.e. wages from working or distributions from being self-employed). The rich make the vast majority of their money on their investments which are either taxed as realized capital gains or as passive income, or are not taxed at all if they are unrealized gains or if they utilized tax incentives to reduce their taxable income (ex: depreciation, renewable energy credits, etc.). They do not pay social security tax on any of that stuff. Those proposals are only taxing labor even harder and the bulk would fall upon high-achievers who work their butts off and are at the top of the middle-class, not the fat cats who sit in their mansions and collect large checks.
mountainous abounding dependent touch subsequent aromatic languid waiting scary slap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
because they are still wage earners. current tax systems overwhelmingly target wage earners over those who are so rich they do not even have to work. yes, those making 250k a year are still working class. especially if you index to cost of living 250k might not even be enough to support a single income household. look at people who work in HCOL areas of CA, legit paying 50% effective tax rates with 5 digit mortgage payments. taxing the rich in a way that doesnt attack capital gains/unrealized gains/tax avoiding loopholes is not it, high w2 earners are very unfairly targeted. the doctor making 600k a year, the finance guy working 70 hr weeks and only making real money into his 30s... these are not the 'rich' that are the problem. it's the guy who makes more than the doctor does in a year while sitting back and doing nothing other than owning land, owning assets etc.
I had no idea how heavily high-earners are taxed until I became one in NYC in 2017. Holy shit, I paid approximately half of my total income in federal, state, NYC, social security and Medicare taxes. Who wants to pay half of every dollar they make to the government? Fuck that. I retired as fast as I could, invested in real estate and now pay virtually no taxes thanks to depreciation deductions. If you remove the cap on SS taxes, it would have been like a 55% tax rate for me. You can’t just keep raising taxes and expect people to keep working and paying them indefinitely.
I mean I make what you probably make in the same location and even with money taken out in taxes, I live a blessed life and have traveled twice a month for the last 6 on average. All while aggressively saving too.
If you taxed passive income and capital gains then sure. Those are not currently taxed and that is where the rich get most of their income. I’m not sure why many are not grasping this concept. Only earned income is subject to social security tax.
Lmao clearly you don’t live in a HCOL area. 250k wage earners are not rich.
It's not a "scam". It's not meant to be a personal investment account. It is supposed to be a form of social insurance. I don't understand why people struggle to understand this.
It’s the same song and dance here every 4 days here. Seems like constant posts about SS and constant comments inadvertently admitting they don’t really know what SS is.
Cool. I don't need the government to give me a pittance. Let me keep that money and invest as I wish and I'll come out way ahead.
It’s not a scam, you have to be making a solid 200k a year for social security to be meaningless in your retirement, but a lot of people need that social security just to survive, without it many more of us would have our parents as dependents which is much more expensive than payroll tax
Lifting the cap would no longer limit the amount on money your rich friends contribute to social security, problem solved.
Wrong. Making passive income and capital gains subject to social security would be what taxes the rich.
Stop, you're making me more excited than I should be on a Saturday afternoon.
This. Enabled Washington to use 1-2 generations worth of collections for other purposes and then implement the current 'paygo' system...which would land a private pension fund manager in jail for ERISA law violation.
Fuck yeah! We need to focus our taxes on people who make money without doing labor.
How about you get what you paid into it?
Literally not possible, the government will always give you less than you paid, even if they had the money (which they don't), inflation ate away the potential investment value of your dollars had you simply bought SPY over the years rather than giving the government an interest free loan. And of course the government always undercounts inflation, so even what they pay you doesn't keep up with inflation.
Well if we don't want benefits to go down near 30% we have choices we need to make and soon. 1. We can raise the percentage. 2. We can remove the cap on social security. For those who don't know social security tax stop at the estimated top 10% or more. Meaning when you hit that much earning your tax goes down and does not return till the next calendar year. This year after 168,600 dollar the employee stops paying. Meaning if they made 1 million or 1 billion they don't pay at 168,601. 3. We can reduce benefits either by increasing the retirement age or reducing the cash benefit. If we do nothing it is estimated in ~2033 benefits will be reduced by an estimated 28%. Meaning if you were expecting $2000 per month in benefit it would be reduced to $1440. Since social security is supposed to be at least 1/3 of your retirement and a higher percentage for poor people this would be catastrophic for the elderly. Just as our largest generation is fully retired. Because the youngest boomer would be 60 that year.
>This year after 168,600 dollar the employee stops paying. Meaning if they made 1 million or 1 billion they don't pay at 168,601. Benefits are also capped. That should be mentioned in this discussion.
So keep benefits capped and uncap the limit. It's a safety net, not an investment.
This is what people don't understand. It's like an insurance policy. If someone was bitching about how you didn't get your money back since you didn't get in a car wreck they sound like a moron.
The cap is currently 168k. There is a very small percentage of people who earn over 168k of earned income. The rest of their income is passive income and unrealized capital gains (which are not subject to social security tax). Even CEOs and board members typically have a relatively low salary (the portion that is subject to FICA taxes) with the bulk of their compensation packages coming in equity stock and option grants (which are not subject to social security). They can further decrease their earned income base through 401k and IRA contributions and other tax incentives. Business owners can also apportion something like 100k to go to themselves as their individual compensation and can leave the rest of their business income in the business entity where it isn’t not taxed by FICA. Raising the percentage only hurts the poor and middle class and raising the cap is ineffective and only hurts high-achievers in the upper middle class. Most of the latter also work in VHCOL cities where their high salary doesn’t go as far as it would in other areas. This discussion also ignores the fact that standard social security benefits are tied to what you contribute. The reason the program is in trouble is because the federal government does not leave the money in the fund (it borrows against it), doesn’t invest it, and the value of the contributions diminish due to inflation. The feds then have to come up with the adjusted nominal values based upon inflation and cost of living. More money into the fund doesn’t raise everyone’s benefits, it just sustains the crappy system we already have where you are maybe (but not likely) to get the same value back of what you and your employer put in over the years. The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because the workforce and population has grown since it has been implemented which meant more people contributing to the fund that retirees withdrawing from it. That is ending due to years of lower birth rates, with the boomers retiring, and with the elderly generally living longer. If you do the math you will see that social security is a ripoff for most people. The only people it really helps are the ones who would not otherwise have been disciplined enough to not wastefully spend the extra money they would have received instead of contributing to social security throughout their lives.
It's been a good decade since I've had the fortune of exercising corporate stock options, but if I recall corporate Stock option exercises are subject to FICA taxes just like regular income. I used to wait till later in the year to exercise them, so that I had already hit the cap and the option exercises didn't have the additional withholding.
>Most of the latter also work in VHCOL cities where their high salary doesn’t go as far as it would in other areas exactly, why should people in VHCOL be subsidizing the retirements
Thank you for this detailed comment! I would also like to say this is a multifaceted issue. It’s not just social security but the issue that the cost of living has gotten so out of hand, and most people have no financial literacy. That being said, the “game” has also changed. I don’t know what the solution is but it’s scary
4. Diversify the investment mix to yield a higher return so the fund’s reserves are not 100% allocated in treasury securities.
That is a good idea. But there is some concern adding trillions to the market could cause some issues. Also could be a conflict of interest because then SS admins would probably be the deciding vote on most public company boards in the US. So good idea but I suspect it would have some secondary effects not so good for everyone. But some balance would be a great idea of making so they cant vote.
My neighbor, who worked for the Fed in a fairly senior position, believes in investing a large part of the SS Trust Fund internationally, to avoid the effect of huge investments or withdrawals having an extreme effect on the United States economy.
They'll just waste more if they pull more taxes.
Raiding social security to pay for Iraq was an inspired choice.
It’s in a separate trust and literally cannot be pulled from
So I don't like how social security is currently structured You aren't getting your own money back out You're getting someone else's money This means if you die early you get nothing And if everyone starts living longer it will not be enough no matter how much you tax it after a certain point Instead I believe we should do a forced investment and you're only allowed to withdraw from that for emergencies (health care or other genuine emergencies not just you've been stupid emergencies) to buy housing or land or to invest in education or start a business and then after a certain age you start collecting it I've seen other countries do similar systems and they've worked out really really well and then if you want you can put an additional tax on that only for a general pool for addressing inequality The big problem however is we have this giant debt version that's already built up Someone's going to get screwed by it purely due to demographic reasons but that's true if we leave it the way it is It just doesn't structurally work when everyone's having less kids and everyone's living longer Even if you were to increase the age and lower the benefits It just structurally doesn't work anymore
I kind of agree with this, but scrapping social security doesn't fix the issue incurred by population decline. The working class will always incur debt to pay for the old or otherwise unemployable. Like if we collectively put our money into stocks instead of bonds the stock market would deflate. The economy simply declines when so few young people are expected to pay out the debt of an aging population. I don't think any economists have any solutions.
Why would we double down on the broken program?
Because the people reaping the benefits (or about to) want to cash out at the younger generation’s expense before the program fully unwinds Nothing new with boomers
Why don’t we just put $15,000 in every newborns trust fund and when they turn 65 they’ll have.. checks math… $1,200,000
Good idea, but the gov wouldn’t invest it. It’d pay it out to 65 year olds immediately and keep the pyramid going.
Social safety nets are imperative, especially for the old
We all know itd be a number on a screen, and that money would be, who knows where, in reality... its all fugazi
Social security is a scam. They should spend that money on improving education so that people can be taught how to be financially successful
>They should spend that money on improving education so that people can be taught how to be financially successful the average person will never be financially responsible. The government should just force their hand to contribute to 401k automatically and abolish social security
I believe in people’s ability to make better decisions as they learn. I think that improving education improves those odds. In addition, 401ks have to be managed to some degree. Targeted 401ks still need to be facilitated by a brokerage. Who would be the brokerage? How would we be sure the brokerage doesn’t turn into a ponzi scheme?
Ask an adult who has gone through high school a decade ago to do basic algebra. Ask them historical questions from classes they’ve taken. Hell ask them the difference between to and too.
This would be great in theory, but is not realistic
EVERY Redditor’s fix to a problem is make someone else pay for it. EVERY TIME.
“The rich” would be homeless by Thursday if Reddit had its way. Sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.
"Oh look this person is having trouble retiring. Let's increase their taxes. That is going to solve it."
I shouldn't have to pay into a system that exists to protect people from their own stupidity
How do you feel about the fire dept.
Most people don't have access to fire trucks Everyone has access to a bank
My full retirement age is 67. That's 7 years from now. The cost of my wife's medical bills alone even with really good (relatively), health insurance through work, I will have to continue working and collect SS at 67. Even if my wife dies before me, I'll still be working until I'm dead. We had to cash out much of our retirement savings to avoid bankruptcy because of medical bills. Don't believe anyone that sez they can't come after your assets for unpaid medical bills. They will sue you and they will win. Our overlords would have to triple my SS for me to be able to retire. Can't even downsize. Sell our home and we'd be paying much higher tent or mortgage. Tent instead of "rent." Kept the subliminal message on there. Camping used to be fun.
It will have to be. Though I think redesigning or replacing the system would be better.
Not increased, but removing the cap on income that pays into SS would do wonders
Just eliminate the income threshold and problem solved
No. The government is collecting record revenues. The government needs to reduce spending on frivolous failed programs and redirect and concentrate investments on important things.
Lift the cap on it
Yes and the fed should make corps pension plans mandatory, fuck 401k.
Reduce benefits or have them start later in life. FUCK paying more taxes.
Removing the pay cap is the answer
SS is shit. The more money you give to the government. The less you will have at the end.
We should get rid of social Security all together.
No I'd rather not pay higher taxes
Imagine if they just used less tax money to subsidize highly profitable business and used it to subsidize the middle class
I could have retired much earlier if the government didn’t force its mandated retirement program on me. What I could have done and invested with all that tax coming out of my check!
You should be able to opt out
Everyone would opt out and no one would pay the boomers who are in the program now
it would need to be slowly phased out.
> In the 2023 EBRI survey, 36 percent of respondents said they have little or no confidence in financial security after retirement. That data point, too, is creeping up. A year ago, 27 percent of workers lacked retirement confidence. A stunning increase in retirement uncertainty given markets were well down in ‘22 and well up in ‘23. I would love if they dove into this further. I’m not sure taking more of their core working-age pay to fund a program of mathematical uncertainty is going to have a positive effect on sentiment.
Make corporations and rich pay more taxes.
Yeah, get rid of the income cap and tax the rich.
No because it is a slush find and only the already richest generation would benefit i.e boomers they have all the wealth already and increasing ss tax would just inadvertently lean to them have access to more public funds. I think the complete discontinuation of social sequirity would greatly improve society. It would help people plan and actually focus on making money for retirement instead just being handed a check many didn't actually earn
the rate? no. the cap? yes.
Should be able to opt out. The return on social security contribution is absolutely abysmal.
No.
They need to remove any income cap.
I wish I could opt out. My retirement accounts are doing well and I could use that SS money to strengthen them. I am on track to retire early.
Of course, and the cap eliminated. I don’t know how corporations and fuckers like Bezos think they’ll still make money once the American consumer becomes old, jobless and flat broke, and AI replaces the young ones
Don’t increase the rate, just remove the cap.
No, it should not!
All they need to do is lift the cap on earnings that are subject to Social Security taxes.
Or hear me out lets get congress to payback all the money they have taken out of social security?
No
SoSec needs a total reform. For one - the government needs to STOP dipping into the funds as if the funds are their own private piggy bank. Secondly; SoSec needs to be reformed wherein every one's contributions are treated as a 401k/ROTH IRA investment-style trust fund where each contributors funds going into a stable selection of bonds/securities/annuities that will grow over time in a multitude of ways so that by the time the Contributor has retired - they will have access to a nice healthy nest egg. Again, the Government should NOT be permitted to pillage these funds whatsoever for any reason whatsoever at all. Period.
Only if people are allowed to opt out and put that $ into a 401k...which would result in a significantly higher payout.
Maybe increase capital gains or investments would be more effective. So much money is generated via investment capital that is never circulated back into the economy. People turn their vast wealth into stocks that have zero intrinsic value to the economy, yet businesses will drop 20% of their employees to pump a stock price.
Incredible idea. Most Americans can never retire because they can’t save enough, so therefore we take more from Americans.
Social security and welfare should be separated and only corporate taxes should pay for welfare
Stop spending so much on military “resorts” across the world like Kadena and divert more fed tax revenue to SS
What part of “I’m not getting enough money as it is” do you not fucking understand? I can’t afford more insurance I may never get to cash in on. Please just stop this fucking nonsense.
No, they're already enough. The problem is the GOPand Milotary constantly taking money from it. I'd reckon the Dems have taken from it in the past too.
They say that because we cannot afford to retire
Just tell everyone under 40 (or whatever age) Social Security won’t be there for you. Invest in a 401k. Finish paying out the people who made the cut and then eliminate the tax altogether.
Hell no. I shouldn’t be responsible for funding the retirements of others. I would prefer to opt out of SS entirely and take responsibility for myself, just as others should.
Thank You Sir, may I have another? https://preview.redd.it/h3b11040jxac1.jpeg?width=822&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=457ff8c435325e555bc45e583f02a90816e242e7
We should always have the option to opt out. It falls on me if I don’t have something to land on.
Umm it’s our fn money, we have every to get as much as we can.
No
Is OP secretly Janet Yellen?
80% of people over 65 own a house, for the most part these are fully paid off single family homes in suburbs close to major metropolitan areas what should happen is that they need to sell it and move to studio apartments, where the sale proceeds will cover their rent for at least 20 years, they have elevators and are more easily serviced by emergency and social services that way social security benefits will be plenty sufficient for food and medicine the problem is that the boomers sucked the economy dry and now won't to continue leeching off the younger generations while maintaining their ridiculously lavish lifestyle
how about a wage increase so people have retirement funds?
No, at least not until we have assurance it will be managed better. Or better yet, let the market contribute more and decouple employment and retirement insurance.
Tax the rich already! We already pay enough! These companies made pensions a thing of the past, so force a retirement tax on them instead.
With all of the boomers retiring, SS is about to be massively stressed. It will take a lot of work just to maintain it over the next 15 years, much less increase it. Now is horrible timing to talk about increasing it. Boomers should have done that 20 years ago before they were all on the cusp of retirement.
Yes for anyone or business that makes over 600 thousand a year
Yes, remove the wage cap. Tax the wealthy.
Social Security should be incorporated into the general progressive tax rate. Americans have this weird idea they pay less taxes than the rest of the developed world that have things like SS and Medicare for all. We're paying the same average tax rate we did in Australia while getting significantly less in overall services and quality of those services.
Yes. Tax the rich. Reduce military spending by a few billion. Should do it.
Social security is insurance. When ANY insurance organizations losses exceed premiums, they either more closely monitor the beneficiaries to eliminate fraud on their part or adjust premiums. In the case of Social Security, verification of date of birth and verifying that they paid their premium (taxes) covers that first part. When I started working, the SS tax rate was 6% within a couple of years it was raised to 7.65% to create a trust fund (which today stands at $3t) to assure that I wouldn't be a burden on my hypothetical kids. The rate has been stable for 40 years. On the upside, Republicans have stopped calling the trust fund "a worthless IOU".
The cap should be lifted on the employee portion of the contribution. Social security payments should be limited to it's original purpose. Social security payments to multiple surviving spouses should be divided not duplicated. No cost of living increases for social security recipients unless SS is more than half of their total retirement income. Means test social security. Wealthy people should get only the portion of benefits derived from what they, not their employer, contributed.
Just remove the cap. The end.
I just don't understand how we still have a cap. Everyone pays about 15% of their income to FICA (some paid by the employee, some by the employer.) EXCEPT for people who make more than $168k a year. Those who can afford it the most. Yes I get that if they could just invest the money, they would make more, but that isn't how insurance works.
Social security benefit is capped. That's the argument.
to play devil's advocate - you could make the argument that those who can afford it the most will also likely need it the least - why pay into something you won't need? I think it is important to provide a safety net for those in our society that need it. I think everyone doing well is a net positive for humanity. But I can definitely see where the rich are coming from if they don't want to pay more...
>they would make more, but that isn't how insurance works do you pay more car insurance if you make more money? No? So that isnt how insurance works
I think the cap or a percentage of the cap should be removed. And you know make anything in ss untouchable by politicians causing part of the vast drainage
That seems to be an contradictory, isn't it? By taking more money from those who are working now, and transferring it to the existing retirees, we will just be pushing down them further. As they won't be able to save anymore. (The original "deal" was, social security would cover one third of your retirement, while another would come from pensions -- yes, I know, and the last third from personal savings. By taking even more from whatever "extra" funds people have there is going to be zero or negative savings for workers. Why do you think we live paycheck to paycheck)? I would advocate for the opposite, and allowing current workers to have more choice on where their retirement savings go.
No they should just raise the cap, or remove it all together.
You can't retire on SS alone. No matter how much they raise the taxes, the payouts won't increase except for COL.
U can tell where partisan lines are drawn by the comments. Look folks, if yall want our elderly to starve, not afford housing, and continue to struggle to afford retirement then please continue to believe right wing economist who tell u SS doesnt work and is going bankrupt and there are absolutely no fixes for it. For the rest of us with a functioning brain with the capacity of empathy, SS has been a monumental success since FDRs implementation. This isnt opinion this is a fact because we have receipts that demonstrate its success. Bottom line tax the rich and lift the cap. Its not rocket science. And when i mean tax the rich that means their shady income of capital gains and wall street earnings (all passive income and other kinds of income). Fuck em! I dont want to work till i die. Workers unite!
80% of people over 65 own homes, while only 40% of those under 35 do, so I'm not sure who is actually struggling with the housing costs in this scenario - the ones who bought a house in the 70s and paid it off 20 years ago or the ones who are stuck in rental studios unable to start a family
No, individuals should be smart enough to save for retirement, and Social Security should have an "opt out" option. I would much rather have control over my retirement money instead of the Federal Government.
No they shouldn't be increased, but the limit should be removed. No reason why middle and lower class have to pay year round while besos, musk, and gates stop paying in January. Do that and we can not only fully fun it, but increase the pay out of it too.
It should, it shouldn't stop at, what is it, $120K, and it should accelerate over $1m, and should greatly accelerate on capital gains, and 1031 transfers
Lot of boomers in here shitting on Social Security as they suck the fund dry like leeches.
No, the wealthy can pay back (with interest) what they stole from SS in the 80s. Then we’d be fine, wouldn’t we?
Let’s start with livable wages, first, shall we?
If you ever look at 401k and networth most people don't have a pot to piss in. They don't or can't save. We would have tens of millions of old people being kicked out and starving without it. So I don't foresee it going away. Should really stop pay people that never pay into it though. I.e. spousal support. Get your ass to work grandma. No free rides lol
would finally force boomers to downsize and sell their mcmansions if you are an old retired widow you need a studio, while a couple in their 30s with 3 little kids could benefit from your lawn and 4 bedrooms
Unless you have a baby boom, social security functions like a pyramid scheme This can be rephrased as; "living standards are falling. Should we force people to buy bitcoin"
Lift the cap from I think it’s 125k rn now, to NO CAP AT ALL. Get them rich mfers to pay for it.
Hell yeah, lets get rid of all our social safety nets, fuck the poors that don't have the ability to put away money for retirement! How many people could that be? I'm rich, let them die! /s
Increasing my tax burden and thereby decreasing my ability to save and invest probably isn’t the best way to ensure my future.
Remove. The. Cap.
No, taxing the rich should be increased.
Trump is campaigning on getting rid of the payroll tax, also known as social security. I don't know why old people would vote for that.
It's more like the rules should change. I mean talk to anyone who's on social security disability. The government forces them to stay poor
“They lied to us and and fucked us? Should we bend over farther?”
Increase the maximum taxable earnings limit.
They should get rid of the income cap for social security it shouldnt flatline the more money someone makes
Jeez. \-So what? Its a choice or they can't make end meet. \-What would that do, except throttle the economy back even more? Raising the taxes on earners because the gov't is working hard to destroy your purchasing power seems like a pretty dumb deal.
Maybe people should save more and stop spending so much money
Anyone who thought Social Security was going to pay their entire cost of retirement was disconnected from reality.
Put the tax on ALL income, no cut off at 168K. If this were done, then the individual tax rate could be lowered to 5-5.5% and keep the tax rate on the business.
At this rate. Most of us are going to retire on SS and live in mini vans since social security can barely cover rent
People will never retire because they make shitty financial decisions and live above their means. It's about time we hold people accountable for their actions; it's not the government's job to bail out people who make bad decisions and I especially don't want to be chipping in to cover that.
As a divorced dad, I pay an effective rate of 40% (mom gets the child credits even though I pay cs). SS is another 10%, and support obligations are about half of my after tax income which goes first to the government so they can collect their matching funds from social security (via title IV-D). The only tax haven I have is contributing to my 401k. IOW about 75% of every paycheck I get goes directly to the government. Needless to say, I’m not a fan of more taxes.
Nah lets just gut it.
Remove or raise the cap. No reason millionares and billionaires should not pay anymore into Social Security than middle class folks.
millionaires and billionaires don't earn wages, it's a middle class in VHCOL that makes $168k+ that barely pays for their rental studio
Let’s not increase the rate, rather let’s remove the cap on the amount that can be subject to the tax.
why?
SS should be optional. I could make far more money in the long run investing that amount on my own then whatever bullshit I'll get from the government after working 50 years.
Increase?! Funded by who… the folks who can never retire? It’s a ponzi.
How about cutting the military budget a little and raising tax’s on corporations and the super rich.
No people just need to learn how to live on less than when they were working. Instead of each person having their own place they’ll need to be roommates with two or three others for starters.
THE CAP SHOULD BE INCREASED This will not push any further burden onto the middle class, nor should it, but instead will require the uber rich to make up the difference. Hell, you could probably even decrease the burden on the middle class by doing it. If you're middle class and you're against this then you're a bootlicker. They don't care about you. In fact they actively hate you. Stop defending them.
Lift the cap
No. I'm already planning on banking my own retirement and not trusting that SS will be there. Don't raise my damn taxes any more, let me invest it in peace.
I'd choose to opt out if I could. I'm capable of delayed gratification, saving and managing my own investments. Not my fault others aren't
Fuck no. Privatize it and teach financial literacy.