77%

[woodchip]

By 2033 the feds are saying there will only be enough money to pay for 77% of what social security recipients are receiving now. It will be fun to watch the fallout when the reduced checks hit the retiree's. It is amazing how govt., whether state or local, plan on paying benefits based on what taxes are being paid in at the time, instead of actually setting the money aside in some sort of defined benefit plan. So why is it that corporations and unions have to put money into their retirement accts. but not govts.?

[callmeslick]

an age-old pack of BS. The fix is simple: raise the maximum wage taxed by around $75-100,000 over the present ceiling. Problem solved. Why the gloom and doom?

[vision]

I remember hearing this same crap from my grandfather when I was a little kid, getting close to 50 years ago. So far there hasn't been any problems with anyone I know collecting their social security.

[Tunnelcat]

Heaven forbid slick that we raise taxes on higher income earners to fix a shortfall like this.

As for corporate pension plans woody, they've almost gone the way of the Dodo. It's now the individual employees responsibility to save for retirement by putting their savings in the Stock Market, thanks to Reagan. One big market hiccup and retirees are penniless in a flash.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on- ... ion-system

Oh and since union numbers and memberships are dwindling, they are having their own issues with pension solvency.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... e-by-2017/

See a common thread here woody?

[Herculosis]

...raise the maximum wage taxed by around $75-100,000 over the present ceiling. Problem solved. Why the gloom and doom?

By 100 would almost double the SS tax burden on lots of people AND their companies, a convenient suggestion from you now that you wouldn't be affected by it.

A BETTER idea, at least a first start, would be to eliminate ACA subsidies for those with more money than the rest of us that still currently qualify because their taxable income is low enough. Frankly, folks like that should feel ashamed that they're taking a handout from the rest of us with less. Granted, the total raised here wouldn't be enough, but it would be a start. Let's do that FIRST, and THEN see how much shortfall needs to be covered from other sources.

[callmeslick]

...raise the maximum wage taxed by around $75-100,000 over the present ceiling. Problem solved. Why the gloom and doom?

By 100 would almost double the SS tax burden on lots of people AND their companies, a convenient suggestion from you now that you wouldn't be affected by it.

A BETTER idea, at least a first start, would be to eliminate ACA subsidies for those with more money than the rest of us that still currently qualify because their taxable income is low enough. Frankly, folks like that should feel ashamed that they're taking a handout from the rest of us with less. Granted, the total raised here wouldn't be enough, but it would be a start. Let's do that FIRST, and THEN see how much shortfall needs to be covered from other sources.

why the hell should the top end NOT have been raised? That ceiling dates to what, 1982? Are you suggesting that it is somehow unfair to at least track both the benefits and the wage ceilings to the inflation rate? That makes no sense. Why does tinkering with the ACA subsidies(which position I sort of agree with) have ANYTHING to do with Social Security? That is half the issue with SS, insofar as the funds get comingled with Medicare, Medicaid, general funds, etc. That is NOT how it was designed to work, as I've always understood it.

[Herculosis]

What are you talking about NOT being raised since 1982???

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybr ... 11-02.html

It goes up every year, and has MORE THAN TRIPLED since 1982.

[Herculosis]

Why does tinkering with the ACA subsidies(which position I sort of agree with) have ANYTHING to do with Social Security? That is half the issue with SS, insofar as the funds get comingled with Medicare, Medicaid, general funds, etc.

It doesn't directly, but as you say, the funds are comingled. The government shouldn't be spending money on THOSE particular subsidies. And, sorry, but it always kind of irks me when I hear a person that's taking an undeserved handout off the backs of his fellow citizens saying that someone ELSE needs to pay more.

[callmeslick]

What are you talking about NOT being raised since 1982???

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybr ... 11-02.html

It goes up every year, and has MORE THAN TRIPLED since 1982.

my mistake, good catch. The part unchanged from 1984 was relative value. Still, a 106K cap is ludicrous, given that we pay out for disability, and benefits to kids that were not in the original design. I see no issue raising the max to $200K and continuing indexing from there.

[callmeslick]

Why does tinkering with the ACA subsidies(which position I sort of agree with) have ANYTHING to do with Social Security? That is half the issue with SS, insofar as the funds get comingled with Medicare, Medicaid, general funds, etc.

It doesn't directly, but as you say, the funds are comingled. The government shouldn't be spending money on THOSE particular subsidies. And, sorry, but it always kind of irks me when I hear a person that's taking an undeserved handout off the backs of his fellow citizens saying that someone ELSE needs to pay more.

I guess that is every individual's call. Personally, I don't take the amount of tax credit they wish to give me to compensate for being guardian of 3 grandkids, but I could(it would total $1000 per month). I can understand others taking the money as stipulated in the law, as foregoing it just blows the minds of the pencil pushers at the Healthcare.gov site. Trust me, I've been going back and forth on this for two years now. Frankly, there are far greater underserved handouts being doled out to the wealthy, but that will wait for another thread. I do NOT feel that raising the max is an undue burden given the greater societal good generated. That is how a society operates.