Vegas Free-for-All - Municipal pensions not the only ones..

Municipal pensions not the only ones..

alanleroyII

Aug 1, 2013
10:44am

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent.

Allowing workers to voluntarily invest 4% of their social security tax would have cut benefits, ruined the elderly and the indigent. Yeah, right.

Isn't it shocking that ForkushV wasn't complaining when Obama cut the Employee Side of SSI from 6.2 to 4.2%. That's over 30% for the mathematically challenged. So if a 4% reduction of SSI revenue would have such devastating effects...how about 30%?

alanleroyII

Aug 1, 2013
10:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?

If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent. And for Republicans, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

And with extra billions (trillions?) to gamble with, the Bush era equity market bubble could have grown and metastasized even longer, leading to an even greater crash, taking down part of the Social Security fund with it.

I guess you missed the part where it wasn't going to start until 1/1/2009. That was well after the bursting of any stock market bubble...

And if you had only kept the A-10 suited, you would have gotten a royal. But holding suited A-10 is (almost) always a bad move, and trusting the criminals in the equity markets, and especially the rating agencies, with Social Security funds is always a bad move; in 2013, 2009, or 2006. Suggesting it in 2006 was particularly stupid, because it was then that the criminality was coming to light.

And please admit this: if Bush & company had their druthers, the market would have started sucking on Social Security in 2004. And who knows, with all that extra Social Security money, the bubble might still be growing to this day. To Republicans, that 's not a bug, that's a feature.

I'm just talking about the real world. Not your imaginary world where the market didn't crash and the bull just kept running and Bush's Individual Retirement Plans kicked in in 2006 or 2004 or whatever year you want to make up.

I think it's always a bad move to pay current retiree's benefits with current workers taxes. It's kind of like paying off your old investors with new investor's money. There's a word for that. I blame Nixon for it, but both sides had a long time to fix it.

If a small portion of workers taxes can be redirected to help build individual wealth that's far better than the Ponzi Scheme we've got going now.

forkushV

Aug 1, 2013
11:28am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?

If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent. And for Republicans, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

And with extra billions (trillions?) to gamble with, the Bush era equity market bubble could have grown and metastasized even longer, leading to an even greater crash, taking down part of the Social Security fund with it.

I guess you missed the part where it wasn't going to start until 1/1/2009. That was well after the bursting of any stock market bubble...
And if you had only kept the A-10 suited, you would have gotten a royal. But holding suited A-10 is (almost) always a bad move, and trusting the criminals in the equity markets, and especially the rating agencies, with Social Security funds is always a bad move; in 2013, 2009, or 2006. Suggesting it in 2006 was particularly stupid, because it was then that the criminality was coming to light.

And please admit this: if Bush & company had their druthers, the market would have started sucking on Social Security in 2004. And who knows, with all that extra Social Security money, the bubble might still be growing to this day. To Republicans, that 's not a bug, that's a feature.

I'm just telling about the real world. Not your imaginary world where the market didn't crash and the bull just kept running and Bush's Individual Retirement Plans kicked in in 2006 or 2004 or whatever year you want to make up.

I think it's always a bad move to pay current retiree's benefits with current workers taxes. It's kind of like paying off your old investors with new investor's money. There's a word for that. I blame Nixon for it, but both sides had a long time to fix it.

If a small portion of workers taxes can be redirected to help build individual wealth that's far better than the Ponzi Scheme we've got going now.

Ponzi schemes don't last for 78 years. But I bet that Ponzi prediction started at least 77 years ago. How'd that work out?

And the fix for Social Security is simple. Under Reagan, about 90% of wages were taxable for SSI purposes, but because of changes in the economy, now it's only 83%. So just adjust the cap so that it taxes 90%. Just like under President Reagan. You can even call it the "Reagan fix" if it makes you feel better.

And I'd appreciate it if no one here refers to infants as "$300,000 unfunded liabilities." That one really burns me.

Roulette Man

Aug 1, 2013
11:41am

Block User

Social Security taxes have been assessed on income up to a certain dollar amount earned by the taxpayer, not a percentage of it. Under Reagan the social security tax was initially lower. The rate increased each year until it reached 7.65% and has stayed there. The amount of the income cap has consistently been raised each and every year. Some time back, there was no cap put on income for assessing Medicare tax.

Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.

forkushV

Aug 1, 2013
12:12pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
...Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.

Let's check the math:

With an increased cap, someone making $113,800 would pay an extra $7.65 in SS taxes. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" No, more like .007%

Someone making about $123,700 would pay an additional $765. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" Nope, more like 0.6% - but getting warmer!

And for someone making $1 billion in wages the increase would be - well I haven't a clue, and neither does Roulette Man. I did not say that the cap should be raised to infinity, I said that it should be raised to cover 90% of all wages. Just like under President Reagan.

And thank you for no name-calling Roulette Man.

alanleroyII

Aug 1, 2013
12:47pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushVPonzi schemes don't last for 78 years. But I bet that Ponzi prediction started at least 77 years ago. How'd that work out?
.

1. Why wouldn't you want a system with a real trust fund where current workers fund their own retirement rather than a system that depends on the next generation of workers to fund current retirees?
2. Why isn't it even better for current workers funding their own future retirement to be able to direct 4% of that funding to real assets that actually build personal wealth? ...builds the wealth of the individual, builds the wealth of nations.
3. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was founded in 1960 and ran for 48 years. 78 years is nothing for a Government that can tax, borrow and coin money. The demographics of the US workforce over the last several decades has allowed a huge baby boom middle class to fund the retirement of the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately for them, there is no bigger boom following...well there's a boom, but not a baby boom....All that while running up 16 trillion in debt and no where near the reserve necessary to fund the inevitable.
4. Yes there are real solutions that can involve more taxes, less benefits and or some level of privatization. There is also a point of no return. It may not even be in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean it won't happen if we ignore the problem or don't come up with a viable solution.
5. I just think your whole chicken little gag about a 4% of 6.2% tax that goes to a private investment account is hog wash. It was a good idea that would have been a great benefit to future generations.

Roulette Man

Aug 1, 2013
12:50pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
...Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.

Sheesh. You as usual don't understand Social Security.

Everybody with earned wages is assessed a 6.2% FICA tax and a 1.45% Medicare tax for a combined 7.65% tax rate. The employer must match that. For 2013 after reaching an income amount of $113,800, Social Security tax will cease and Medicare tax continues on every dollar earned above that amount. If we do as you propose, there will be a tax increase of 6.2% on everybody earning more than $113,800. Do you understand that? Your explanation is so wrong and so convoluted that you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.

forkushV

Aug 1, 2013
12:59pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
...Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.
Let's check the math:

With an increased cap, someone making $113,800 would pay an extra $7.65 in SS taxes. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" No, more like .007%

Someone making about $123,700 would pay an additional $765. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" Nope, more like 0.6% - but getting warmer!

And for someone making $1 billion in wages the increase would be - well I haven't a clue, and neither does Roulette Man. I did not say that the cap should be raised to infinity, I said that it should be raised to cover 90% of all wages. Just like under President Reagan.

And thank you for no name-calling Roulette Man.

Nope, it's $113,700, not $113,800. And I should have specified 6.2% not the total payroll tax.

But under what I propose, their would be an additional 6.2% tax on the MARGINAL amount over the current cap. And I don't propose an infinite cap like you imply, it should be adjusted so that it creates a Reagan-era participation of 90% of all wages, not the current 83%.

If you didn't understand it before, you should understand it now.

Roulette Man

Aug 1, 2013
1:13pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
...Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.
Let's check the math:

With an increased cap, someone making $113,800 would pay an extra $7.65 in SS taxes. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" No, more like .007%

Someone making about $123,700 would pay an additional $765. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" Nope, more like 0.6% - but getting warmer!

And for someone making $1 billion in wages the increase would be - well I haven't a clue, and neither does Roulette Man. I did not say that the cap should be raised to infinity, I said that it should be raised to cover 90% of all wages. Just like under President Reagan.

And thank you for no name-calling Roulette Man.

Sheesh. You as usual don't understand Social Security.

Everybody with earned wages is assessed a 6.2% FICA tax and a 1.45% Medicare tax for a combined 7.65% tax rate. The employer must match that. For 2013 after reaching an income amount of $113,800, Social Security tax will cease and Medicare tax continues on every dollar earned above that amount. If we do as you propose, there will be a tax increase of 6.2% on everybody earning more than $113,800. Do you understand that? Your explanation is so wrong and so convoluted that you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.

Well I had the 113,700 in my initial post to you. You still don't seem to be able to comprehend this. There was NO percentage calculation of wages when calculating the amount of social security taxes that were assessed. Under Reagan the salary caps and the initial rates were lower than today. I believe it reached the 7.65% rate near the end of his presidency. The no cap limit on Medicare taxes started under Clinton.

So under your proposal, people earning over 113,700 will have to pay 7.65% on each additional dollar they earn. Mind you this is not on people who are in the 39.6% tax bracket, but people who are in the 28% tax bracket, will now jump up to 34.2% after $113,700 of income. That is a 22% increase in taxes. That is also a tax that will have to be paid by employers. If you are self employed, you are looking at a 54.6% increase after that amount.

forkushV

Aug 1, 2013
2:00pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
...Since there will be a maximum amount that a taxpayer can collect from social security, even if he reached the maximum income threshhold, Forkie is proposing an additional 6+% tax on all taxpayers who make over 113,700 for the year.
Let's check the math:

With an increased cap, someone making $113,800 would pay an extra $7.65 in SS taxes. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" No, more like .007%

Someone making about $123,700 would pay an additional $765. Is that "an additional 6+% tax?" Nope, more like 0.6% - but getting warmer!

And for someone making $1 billion in wages the increase would be - well I haven't a clue, and neither does Roulette Man. I did not say that the cap should be raised to infinity, I said that it should be raised to cover 90% of all wages. Just like under President Reagan.

And thank you for no name-calling Roulette Man.

Sheesh. You as usual don't understand Social Security.

Everybody with earned wages is assessed a 6.2% FICA tax and a 1.45% Medicare tax for a combined 7.65% tax rate. The employer must match that. For 2013 after reaching an income amount of $113,800, Social Security tax will cease and Medicare tax continues on every dollar earned above that amount. If we do as you propose, there will be a tax increase of 6.2% on everybody earning more than $113,800. Do you understand that? Your explanation is so wrong and so convoluted that you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.
Nope, it's $113,700, not $113,800. And I should have specified 6.2% not the total payroll tax.

But under what I propose, their would be an additional 6.2% tax on the MARGINAL amount over the current cap. And I don't propose an infinite cap like you imply, it should be adjusted so that it creates a Reagan-era participation of 90% of all wages, not the current 83%.

If you didn't understand it before, you should understand it now.

Close (which for you and me is quite an accomplishment).

It's an extra 6+% tax, not on the total income, but ONLY on the amount over 113,700. And there is a cap on it, so it is ONLY a 6+% tax on the amount from $113,700 on up to...I don't know exactly. Whatever it takes to get Social Security participation back to 90% of all wages.

A lot of people think that Reagan and the Democratic Congress negotiated a pretty good way to keep Social Security solvent. But since then, because of rising income inequality, an additional 7% of the nations wages are no longer taxable. My suggestion is a way to correct that.

‹2 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now