Social Security

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Do you think COLA should be eliminated all together?

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 3 100.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes or No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    3


No, because then all there would be to drink is Mountain Dew. Mountain Dew is good but one needs a little variety now and then, and Sprite, root beer, and orange soda aren't all that great compared to Pepsi or Coke.
 


That rule of no sugar-sweetened soft drinks over 16.0 fluid ounces appears asinine at first. People will simply get more refills or buy multiple 16.0 ounce containers and get just as many calories from their sugary drinks as before. However, I betcha he realized that both of those will happen and in fact that may even be the whole point of the law. Smaller containers cost more per unit of material than larger ones and thus you will pay more in sales taxes on two smaller containers than on one larger one. New York is mired in debt from rampant overspending on entitlements like any other leftist state. Bloomberg is pretty crafty SOB in being able to sell a tax hike on already highly taxed New Yorkers as a health issue so they don't realize they are really just being taxed.
 
The Polls are confusing to setup.

I'm all for COLA when it is necessary. Not a COLA for the sake of one. What has been the COLA change in the last 5 years in reality? The question is should SS COLA be pegged against true COLA? I would agree that it should lag 1 year behind true COLA to allow money to fill the coffers before handing it out.
 
This is a serious discussion not some dumb remarks you posted to me. 55 million people are worried about this movement from Congress they are dependent on this!
 

And we will make a huge difference on this forum.....
This is for us and our wandering minds not for the 55 million people.
Calm down Marv. The humorous behavior started from you messing up the yes or no answers.
 


Geez, you can't take a joke *at all.*

On topic, Social Security is a pyramid scheme. The only way a pyramid scheme works in the long term is if you make it not a pyramid any more and instead have the current intake equal or exceed the amortized future liabilities. That would mean promise less to people than previously or ensuring that far fewer people get to draw out than are paying in. The first method is mostly a non-starter as who really wants to pay money into a scheme and get less back out than they put in? Also, Social Security covers disability and such and will pay far more out to some people than they ever paid in. We will see some of the limiting payouts with "means testing" of people who took the initiative and saved money for their own retirement rather than blowing it on eight-foot-wide TVs and cigarettes. We will also see an increase of the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes (e.g. all of it) while maximum payouts remain capped. However that will only affect a relatively small number of individuals and raise a fairly insignificant amount of money.

Decreasing payouts to people is what really has to happen as there isn't really that much left to gain from increasing Social Security taxes. Many people are very resistant to decreases in payouts, in fact, many want to see *more* money out of Social Security, hence the COLA increases being talked about. There are a few ways to accomplish that. The first is simply to phase out Social Security. That was what Romney and Ryan were talking about. People over 55 are kept in, everybody younger unfortunately has to pay taxes to give the over-55s Social Security payments but won't get any benefits. Social Security and its taxes would eventually go away as the people collecting Social Security die. That is likely the most politically palatable option as the over-65 set that votes in huge numbers will still get their checks and most people under 40 already assume they will get no Social Security as it will go bankrupt. You'd only tee off the people between 40-54 in doing that, it's not nearly as many votes. The second way is to increase the eligibility age until few enough people are still alive at the eligibility age that they can be paid for by the current workers paying into Social Security. Raising the age has been talked about as well, and met a lot of resistance even though for this method to really contain costs the age would have to go far higher than the 67 that is being proposed. The last way is to simply cut benefits for everybody enough that the amount spent on benefits does not exceed the tax revenue. This is probably the least politically palatable option so it will not happen.

 


Nope, they keep getting raises regardless. That's kind of the issue, SS is going up faster than the cost of living, so people are getting a lot more than what was intended. SS is not a sole retirement fund. It was designed to supplement your existing retirement and in doing so SS payouts have increased to become a retirement, not a supplemental income.
 
Let me correct myself that I wasn't saying that it was raised each year - that it simply was on a predetermined path to always get an increase regardless. There isn't anything tying it to a COLA based on inflation or anything.

While I would agree COLA has definetely gone up in the last 2 years, I believe SS has far outpaced COLA over the past few years. It needs a correction.

It would take ~2 people making what I make to support 1 person a month on social security getting around $1500-$1600/month. My father was going to get $1500 a month in 2008.
 
SS was drying up long before tax breaks. I would argue the last 4 years of +8% unemployment has hurt SS far more than tax breaks.

With higher unemployment you have less money going into SS and more people getting paid out SSD.

 
2.4 trillion has been siphoned from the program, I think it would be fine either way if that money had stayed within the program. The overall trend of the tax rate has been dropping since the 60's. In 1986 the top bracket was 50%.
 


You're right. Also recognize that the tax numbers stay pretty much the same instead of expanding out. In the 60s, someone making $100k was doing really well. Not so much today. I agree with Republicans that tax code reform needs to happen, not increased taxes.

The AMT is hitting way too many people. Originally it was designed to only hit the super high income earners. Now it hits a lot of people.. why doesn't that get changed? Because it generates money since the base of tax people has greatly increased. Again, tax reform would fix this.

The bigger picture is tax reform is needed, not higher taxes on a crappy outdated system. Spending cuts are a must.
 


What loopholes would you close/fix?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom