Raise Taxes If It Saves Social Security, Americans Say

Democracy4Sale wrote: Pay benefits to those that need them. And if you're lucky enough to be making $1million + in your retirement years, mozel tov.

Yes... It is fair.

Why not allow everyone to have some private savings from that....so that even the "poor" can have more than the meager SS income in retirement??

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Pay benefits to those that need them. And if you're lucky enough to be making $1million + in your retirement years, mozel tov.

Yes... It is fair.

Why not allow everyone to have some private savings from that....so that even the "poor" can have more than the meager SS income in retirement??

Why would what D4S posted preclude that? Surely if you are making 1 million you would no longer be considered poor. Nothing she posted says that you can't have savings and still get your full SS.

I don't see the point of private savings for SS when anyone can set that up individually right now. Do we need the government to tell us what to do? Its not hard to set up an IRA.

Share builder for those on the cheap 4.00 per share.

LOL wrote: I don't see the point of private savings for SS when anyone can set that up individually right now. Do we need the government to tell us what to do? Its not hard to set up an IRA.

My point would be to take 2-4% or so of what goes into SS, and have it allocated to a private IRA. You could direct it into a limited # of funds. That percentage would grow slowly to 1/2 of whatever the SS tax is. The balance would continue to fund the destitute/sick/disabled as it does now. The $$ would be yours. Start weaning people off of the assumption that SS will be there, and have people own something. That way the next generation isn't funding current retirees at some point in the future.

Lefty manufactured outrage of the hour.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LOL wrote: I don't see the point of private savings for SS when anyone can set that up individually right now. Do we need the government to tell us what to do? Its not hard to set up an IRA.

My point would be to take 2-4% or so of what goes into SS, and have it allocated to a private IRA. You could direct it into a limited # of funds. That percentage would grow slowly to 1/2 of whatever the SS tax is. The balance would continue to fund the destitute/sick/disabled as it does now. The $$ would be yours. Start weaning people off of the assumption that SS will be there, and have people own something. That way the next generation isn't funding current retirees at some point in the future.

The Democrats already rejected that plan back in 2005 when Ryan proposed almost precisely that idea CJ. They called it "privatizing" Social Security even though the entire process would still be contained wholly within the control of the federal government. Ryan's plan at the time would have seen a portion of the money that was withheld from your paycheck put into an account with your name on it. That you had personal property rights to. That was inheritable by your heirs upon your death. When you were younger that account would have a growth bias, slowly changing over as you aged to one that focused on security of the asset in your name. The government representatives would still get choose which funds you were able to direct your money into, they just couldn't take the money and leave their IOU in the account like they have done with the "trust fund" since you had a personal property right to all the money in the fund.

Yes, it would change "Social Security as we know it", just as the plan that lets you choose between Medicare as it exists now and Medicare with more options for you changes Medicare "as we know it". That the programs "as we know" them have been fiscally unsustainable since their inception and are now headed for bankruptcy is irrelevant in the minds of those who are incapable of contemplating having the programs evolve over time into something better than they are "as we know" them. Evolving views regarding homosexual union/marriage GOOD, evolving Social Security and MediCare BAD. Only evolving ideas that "progressives" agree with are to be allowed CJ - you should know and understand that by now.

I wonder just how significant this loss of income for American's aged 45-54 (in particular) has on the Government's effort to close the deficit gap through taking tax reveneus? I also wonder if it's a good idea to raise taxes on the people carrying this burden? I'm personally living this "dream" right now.

OUCH! Middle-aged earners hit hardest by falling incomes

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/20 ... g-incomes/

For all those middle aged savers facing down college costs and responsibilities to aging parents, the latest research on incomes for the 45 – 54 year old demographic will turn your stomach.

His number crunching showed that that age group saw the biggest declines in income judged by real median household income declines from the recent peak income year, and, the year-over-tear change in real median household income.

The 45 – 54 year old group is important for several reasons, including the facts that it contains the largest number of taxpayers filing as head of household, and, it’s generally acknowledged to be the period of highest incomes for people.

The chart lnked to the article shows some pretty significant losses of income since 1999. A 16.9% loss is significant and serious. The 35-44 year old group took the biggest hit between 2010-2011

Downeast they call this being "caught in between a rock and a hard place." Congress would be out of its collective mind to raise taxes on these age groups right now.....these are the people carrying most of the water for the nation. They don't need anymore burdens.

Gee, since the group that is being talked about is the 2% that represents those making over $250,000, (and then only taking an extra 4.9% of the amount OVER the $250,000), somehow I don't think it is going to cause much of a burden on that population as a whole anyway.

But I can see where Grover Norquist would be having a coronary at the thought.

I see your point but if the Real Median Household Income of the groups they are talking about fell from $76,602 (1999) to $63,861 (2011) wouldn't that imply that most of these household were not Two Percenters?