Obama endorses Social Security expansion

[MK]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

I agree, Its basically another tax.  I don't agree with raising the age limit.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I wish we could find a way to just get rid of the employer portion altogether, if not the employee payroll tax also.  It's got to be the worst possible tax in terms of job creation and wage increases.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The other problem with it is that the poverty line is incredibly perversely defined and not really close to an actual living income.

Then increasing it to something more realistic is a good starting point.

Can't argue with that.

The other other problem would be that making Social Security a 'poor people' entitlement as opposed to an 'everybody' entitlement--even if 'poor' was defined as broadly as 'unable to fully fund their own pension'--would mean that it would no longer be as relatively speaking insulated as it now is from the political depredations of those who hate the poor.

[Indy Texas]

I wish we could find a way to just get rid of the employer portion altogether, if not the employee payroll tax also.  It's got to be the worst possible tax in terms of job creation and wage increases.

Just replace the employee portion with a higher income tax and the employer portion with a higher capital gains tax.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I wish we could find a way to just get rid of the employer portion altogether, if not the employee payroll tax also.  It's got to be the worst possible tax in terms of job creation and wage increases.

Just replace the employee portion with a higher income tax and the employer portion with a higher capital gains tax.

Capital gains receipts by themselves would be much too small to ever replace the income from the employer portion, but yes, basically, some combination of these, if it ever becomes politically possible.  Or there is the idea of using a VAT to replace payroll and corporate taxes.

Also I agree with making it much more of a means tested program as you mentioned, though there should still be some benefits for those who manage a decent though not wealthy retirement, so that the incentive to save for retirement is not greatly diminished.

[Torie]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The idea of taxing earned income at a substantially higher rate than unearned income seems quite insane to me. If we want to turn SS into a pure social safety net for the old impecunious (a problematical idea but that is anther discussion), fund it out of general tax revenues.

Privatizing SS is the most insane idea of all. If somebody blows there retirement nest egg with bad investments, we have a moral hazard problem. Most individuals can't invest their way out of a paper bag, and the average rate of return by folks is about 2% annualized less than the market annualized return. That is a huge percentage, ending up being a huge amount of money, compounded over the decades.

Isn't it great, not having to chat about that massive ahole Trump for once? 

[Sbane]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The idea of taxing earned income at a substantially higher rate than unearned income seems quite insane to me. If we want to turn SS into a pure social safety net for the old impecunious (a problematical idea but that is anther discussion), fund it out of general tax revenues.

Privatizing SS is the most insane idea of all. If somebody blows there retirement nest egg with bad investments, we have a moral hazard problem. Most individuals can't invest their way out of a paper bag, and the average rate of return by folks is about 2% annualized less than the market annualized return. That is a huge percentage, ending up being a huge amount of money, compounded over the decades.

Isn't it great, not having to chat about that massive ahole Trump for once? 

I basically believe Social Security should just be a program to help the poor in old age, as opposed to some sort of pension system. I would be ok with some sort of mandatory retirement account though. Make it more like a 401k as opposed to what Social Security is today. If Social Security taxes are my money, I want at least some control over it. Of course, I am also not the type of person who will try to bet on individual stocks with my retirement money. I understand many people aren't like that. And yes, it is nice to not talk about Trump all the time.

[Badger]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

I wouldn't call FICA a tax, because you are (theoretically) paying premiums directly into programs that you will benefit from later.

Unadulterated horse$hit. Social Security and Medicare are fundamental bedrocks of our social safety net, not a Christmas Club deposit.

Go on and tell the people paying FICA "Oh, don't worry: It's a PREMIUM you're paying , not a TAX Doesn't losing that nearly 1/6 your paycheck (for everyone earning around $100+k/ year or less) feel better now? And isn't is nice that Donald Trump and Bill Gates pay the exact same dollar amount, let alone percentage, as you?

[Badger]

There seems to be this assumption that "the rich" have enough income to tax away to finance just about everything that might be desirable. The dirty little secret is that folks making from 125K to 300K will have to pony up more in tax payments - substantially more - to make all these dreams come true.

The real "dirty little secret", Torie, is that individuals earning $125-$300k/year, not withstanding the absence of a chauffer or butler in their households, are rich. And un-mistakenly so.

[Badger]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The problem with that is when the bottom falls out of the market as in 08-09 and the individuals retiring at that point are screwed. They need to keep working (if physically and professionally able) until the market recovers, which could take years. That happened with many people relying on Index Funds and the like during the Great Recession; now imagine that problem accelerated to covering the ENTIRE retiring population nationwide.

When talking about a multi-generational institution, stability and conservative growth is paramount over aiming towards even moderate growth.

[Torie]

There seems to be this assumption that "the rich" have enough income to tax away to finance just about everything that might be desirable. The dirty little secret is that folks making from 125K to 300K will have to pony up more in tax payments - substantially more - to make all these dreams come true.

The real "dirty little secret", Torie, is that individuals earning $125-$300k/year, not withstanding the absence of a chauffer or butler in their households, are rich. And un-mistakenly so.

Well, that is a subjective thing (Dems tend to be careful in categorizing "the rich" to use a number north of 200K to 300K since so many of their voters seem to be making 125K to 300K), and in any event, making 150K in Texarkana is very different when it comes to lifestyle, than making 150K in Manhattan.

[Sbane]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The problem with that is when the bottom falls out of the market as in 08-09 and the individuals retiring at that point are screwed. They need to keep working (if physically and professionally able) until the market recovers, which could take years. That happened with many people relying on Index Funds and the like during the Great Recession; now imagine that problem accelerated to covering the ENTIRE retiring population nationwide.

When talking about a multi-generational institution, stability and conservative growth is paramount over aiming towards even moderate growth.

If you are planning to retire within 5-10 years, your portfolio should be much more conservative compared to someone like me who has almost 40 years remaining till retirement. I understand many people don't get this and that is a shame. That's why we can't have nice things.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There seems to be this assumption that "the rich" have enough income to tax away to finance just about everything that might be desirable. The dirty little secret is that folks making from 125K to 300K will have to pony up more in tax payments - substantially more - to make all these dreams come true.

The real "dirty little secret", Torie, is that individuals earning $125-$300k/year, not withstanding the absence of a chauffer or butler in their households, are rich. And un-mistakenly so.

Well, that is a subjective thing (Dems tend to be careful in categorizing "the rich" to use a number north of 200K to 300K since so many of their voters seem to be making 125K to 300K), and in any event, making 150K in Texarkana is very different when it comes to lifestyle, than making 150K in Manhattan.

as it is if you are putting two kids through college and taking care of elderly/sick family members.

[Slander and/or Libel]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The problem with that is when the bottom falls out of the market as in 08-09 and the individuals retiring at that point are screwed. They need to keep working (if physically and professionally able) until the market recovers, which could take years. That happened with many people relying on Index Funds and the like during the Great Recession; now imagine that problem accelerated to covering the ENTIRE retiring population nationwide.

When talking about a multi-generational institution, stability and conservative growth is paramount over aiming towards even moderate growth.

If you are planning to retire within 5-10 years, your portfolio should be much more conservative compared to someone like me who has almost 40 years remaining till retirement. I understand many people don't get this and that is a shame. That's why we can't have nice things.

What do you not understand about "the bottom [fell] out of the market"? Which conservative investments did just fine during the financial crisis?

[Torie]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The problem with that is when the bottom falls out of the market as in 08-09 and the individuals retiring at that point are screwed. They need to keep working (if physically and professionally able) until the market recovers, which could take years. That happened with many people relying on Index Funds and the like during the Great Recession; now imagine that problem accelerated to covering the ENTIRE retiring population nationwide.

When talking about a multi-generational institution, stability and conservative growth is paramount over aiming towards even moderate growth.

If you are planning to retire within 5-10 years, your portfolio should be much more conservative compared to someone like me who has almost 40 years remaining till retirement. I understand many people don't get this and that is a shame. That's why we can't have nice things.

What do you not understand about "the bottom [fell] out of the market"? Which conservative investments did just fine during the financial crisis?

Treasury bonds went up in value during the 2007 meltdown. That's the ballast of any sensible portfolio, along with high quality short term corporate bonds (using a mutual fund for the latter of course for diversification purposes), although those did take something of a hit for a short period of time due to liquidity issues. Thus a mix of the two is in order.

[Slander and/or Libel]

They need to raise the age limits and get rid of the stupid ceiling and drop the percentage taken.  Is there any tax (other than maybe cig taxes) that affect the poor so much more than the rich?

Interesting proposal. I would very much be in favor of that. FICA is a very regressive tax. I still do wish ateast a portion of it, especially the employee contribution portion, should be given to the employee to invest themselves. There should be rules like no investing in individual stocks, mandated Bonds/Stocks ratios at a certain age etc. I think I could make more money just putting that in an index fund tracking the S&P 500 than I would get back as social security benefits.

The problem with that is when the bottom falls out of the market as in 08-09 and the individuals retiring at that point are screwed. They need to keep working (if physically and professionally able) until the market recovers, which could take years. That happened with many people relying on Index Funds and the like during the Great Recession; now imagine that problem accelerated to covering the ENTIRE retiring population nationwide.

When talking about a multi-generational institution, stability and conservative growth is paramount over aiming towards even moderate growth.

If you are planning to retire within 5-10 years, your portfolio should be much more conservative compared to someone like me who has almost 40 years remaining till retirement. I understand many people don't get this and that is a shame. That's why we can't have nice things.

What do you not understand about "the bottom [fell] out of the market"? Which conservative investments did just fine during the financial crisis?

Treasury bonds went up in value during the 2007 meltdown. That's the ballast of any sensible portfolio, along with high quality short term corporate bonds (using a mutual fund for the latter of course for diversification purposes), although those did take something of a hit for a short period of time due to liquidity issues. Thus a mix of the two is in order.

Yeah, that I get. Because of laziness, my own TSP fared pretty well during the financial crisis because I'd never moved anything out of the G fund. But even the super conservative L Income TSP fund suffered a 5% loss in 2008.