RE: History calls

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: History calls

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: History calls

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: History calls - 11/25/2009 4:08:24 PM

switch2please

Posts: 494
Joined: 12/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

false: Social Security was not intended to be permanent, and yet it's still in effect.

false: Raising the minimum age for benefits would be ideal...and can you imagine the outrage?

FYP.

Raising the minimum age has been done before, without "outrage", and is entirely consistent with economic and population trends.

*edited to fix a typo :) my bad*

True, but if a large portion of the voting population is affected by this and has to put off their retirement by 5-10 years (hypothetically, until I can do some fact-checking; I'm not sure what actual percentage of the population is over 65 - but it is a matter of public record that AARP is one of the most influential lobbyist groups in DC), do you really think any amendment like that will pass? We have more healthy seniors now than ever before, and with all the advances in health and medicine, people will just keep aging better. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, but if you had the option between pulling another decade behind a desk or practicing your long putt on the green, what would you do?

It is also a matter of public record that Social Security was meant to be a temporary institution - would you like to do your own research, or shall I spoon-feed you a site?

< Message edited by switch2please -- 11/25/2009 4:14:29 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: History calls - 11/25/2009 5:31:57 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range. No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles. The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80. It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years. Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time. My brother and my father are one example. Who could have predicted that?

The IRS has been looking closely at these figures. The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill. Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base. It really is the best answer. Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent. I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65.

Kill the cap on SS withdrawals and you'd fund it to about 95%.

Right now you pay SS taxes on income up to about $90k nowadays (single). After that point, you pay no SS taxes. So the guys hauling down hundreds of thousands pay the same SS taxes as the ones earning $90k.

And the benefits that are paid are only based on income that was taxed under SS. It is already a progressive system because the benefit formula is frontloaded for lower salaries but taxes are flat. Uncapping the tax would be another huge redistribution o.f wealth

(in reply to thornhappy)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: History calls - 11/25/2009 10:00:02 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

It is also a matter of public record that Social Security was meant to be a temporary institution - would you like to do your own research, or shall I spoon-feed you a site?

i know this was not directed at me, but i would like to see that site please.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to switch2please)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: History calls - 11/25/2009 10:01:15 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range. No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles. The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80. It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years. Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time. My brother and my father are one example. Who could have predicted that?

The IRS has been looking closely at these figures. The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill. Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base. It really is the best answer. Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent. I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65.

Kill the cap on SS withdrawals and you'd fund it to about 95%.

Right now you pay SS taxes on income up to about $90k nowadays (single). After that point, you pay no SS taxes. So the guys hauling down hundreds of thousands pay the same SS taxes as the ones earning $90k.

And the benefits that are paid are only based on income that was taxed under SS. It is already a progressive system because the benefit formula is frontloaded for lower salaries but taxes are flat. Uncapping the tax would be another huge redistribution o.f wealth

Why is there a cap on this? There isnt on fed or state taxes you pay.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: History calls - 11/25/2009 10:16:48 PM

MzMia

Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It is also a matter of public record that Social Security was meant to be a temporary institution - would you like to do your own research, or shall I spoon-feed you a site?

i know this was not directed at me, but i would like to see that site please.

Hiya tazzygirl!
I can tell you that the fact, that they keep raising the age for when you can collect full social security {for able bodied people}, it must be a temporary institution.

By raising the age requirements to be qualifed for full benefits, I think they are hoping many of us don't live long enough after we retire to collect it, or can only collect it for a few years.

For those of us born after 1960 (I feel so young) lol, we have to wait until we are 67 to get full benefits, if we are not disabled.
Then we will get that great big, fat social security check we have been contributing to for 40 years.

How many people in general {percentage wise} make it to 68?

Retirement benefits by year of birth

< Message edited by MzMia -- 11/25/2009 10:31:07 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain

What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: History calls - 11/26/2009 3:31:01 AM

eyesopened

Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

Of course there is a difference between life expectancy, which looks at averages from birth, and longevity. Once a person reaches age 65 we can rule out some illnesses, accidents, and other factors that tend to shorten the life of younger people. The following link was prepared to calculate annuity payments, but show very real data regarding how many years a person could collect benefits. There are many other actuarial studies if one cares to investigate. But I warn you, my definition of an actuary is someone way too boring to be an accountant. (a little humor)

http://www.rrb.gov/pdf/act/longevity.pdf

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to MzMia)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: History calls - 11/26/2009 1:42:20 PM

eyesopened

Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia
How many people in general {percentage wise} make it to 68?

Retirement benefits by year of birth

Evidently, a lot of people make it to age 68 and beyond
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to MzMia)

Profile

Post #: 47