Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
"Congress Proposes Three Changes To Social Security That Make Sense"
There is a Reason they are "wealthy", giving money to the government welfare programs is NOT one of them. That's less than 20 words, a perfect blog site post.
Sounds like you're agreeing with Max and David, that the wealthy don't need to get any extra benefits if they pay a SS surtax on higher earnings, because SS is not what's making them wealthy. (35 words)
The PIA formula says what percentage of average earnings are paid out in benefits. Paying out no extra benefits on uncapped earnings creates a third bend point at 0% (0% extra is paid out for those extra dollars earned & taxed).
I had figured that instead of giving 0%, some low but nonzero rate could be offered instead (say 1%; the current payout rate on higher earnings is 15%). Then SS could still be presented as a benefit program (the more you pay in, the more you get out of it). For every dollar of extra wages/month taxed, the beneficiary would still get a penny/month back.
If holding onto every last penny is worth giving up that qualitative marketing feature, have at it.
John, the current (2015) cap on payroll taxes is $115,800. I've been calling that "high wage earners", because it is a figure pertaining to earnings, not assets. Also "wealthy" is a judgment call; "high" is a bit more objective - "over $115,800" is obviously higher than "less than $115,800".
Thanks for that @msf. I would bet that most people making $115,800. don't consider themselves wealthy. Then again it was AlGore who said a millionaire is someone who makes $250k a year because 250k X 4 = 1million.
Then again I could say that a millionaire is someone who makes a penny a day and doubles it each day. They will have one million dollars in less than a month.
I would never deny SS or Medicare bens to the very wealthy just for reasons of perception, on the grounds of fairness/unfairness and the appearance of fairness. Bald redistribution is guaranteed to worsen things. Any way in this country these days to promote the 'all in this together', which there is so very little of, is to the good, not the 'I've got mine, screw you' popular mood now, nor the 'You're rich, so hand it over'.
One item none of us had mentioned, I don't think, not only about SS but income and wealth in a general way: the GREED factor is simply taken for granted, like a pass-through, an assumption that we cannot dare examine. Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good." He was a fictional character, but even so, he was an asshole. Michael Douglas played him well. Gotta have talent to behave like such a skunk. ... It IS possible to examine and put limits on the Greed Factor. Scandinavia. Look at Denmark. You make more than the equivalent of approx. $300,000.00 and no one will stop you. Go for it. But the lion's share, over $300,000.00 will go toward paying taxes to fund the Common Good. Schools, roads, hospitals, and the rest of it. Of course, in Denmark, with an actual universal Health Plan and an actual subsidy (stipend) paid to students in higher education , life is a lot more civilized already. So then, $300,000.00 would take you further there than here in The States. (And of course--- stealing from that other active thread--- "the world needs ditch diggers, too!")
@Tampabay: that's your latest "contribution?" Talking right past my point. Guess you've got nothing of value to add. Go ahead, then: get on a plane to Denmark and quit being such a pain in the ass here on this message board.
Hey now, Tb has added to some of the discussions, as has MxB, so let us not banish anyone, please.
That said, the idea of serious spending on an agreed domestic 'common good' sure seems quaint these days. To put it most nicely. (More like many things are a sociopathic squatter moocher like Cliven Bundy now.)
"Hey now, Tb has added to some of the discussions"
More like subtracted. I wonder if he'll ever get to the point that he can write a simple sentence in the English language? Seven words in that last one and he only got six of them right. A couple of capital letters used in the correct places, though, so maybe there's some hope.
"Hey now, Tb has added to some of the discussions"
More like subtracted. I wonder if he'll ever get to the point that he can write a simple sentence in the English language? Seven words in that last one and he only got six of them right. A couple of capital letters used in the correct places, though, so maybe there's some hope.
Hi Old_Joe,
The answer to your question is no. And forget the grammar for a moment; I complement you on understanding him.
I understand him only too well, I'm afraid. The dumbing-down of America, personified. Let's reduce MFO to snippets of 40-80 words, because he gets bored easily.
Oh, please, you are being disingenuous in asking such a rhetorical question. *You wrote that Tb personifies the dumbing-down of America.*
Period.
That's personal by anyone's definition.
Okay, I say you yourself are a rude moron (and probably ugly to boot, not to mention a pet-beater) to write such a thing about someone asking for brevity.
There, see how that feels, how it does not advance anything, is gratuitous?
So stay on substance, please. Not publicly letting us know you think others are stupid.
Tb's comment with respect to limiting the length of all MFO posts to 80 words, because he finds anything more to be boring, would appear to be a good example of the dumbing-down of America which is ever-increasingly evident.
That observation may be gratuitous, but I take great exception to someone attempting to impose lowest-common denominator standards on the rest of us. If he finds more than 80 words to be boring, perhaps he should find a forum more closely matched to his preferences.
Triangular arrangements. Dysfunction. Political Correctness. Let's protect each other from each other, for each other's sake. Jesus.
Genuine interaction--- including annoyance---even when justified and to be expected, given the way this conversation has been twisted by Tampabay--- is not to be allowed? Along with political robocalls, that is what is wrong with the world today. People do and say things to make you angry, and you're not permitted to be angry. That's the new politically correct Code of Conduct. It's a screwed-up world. I find that a sense of humor is not permitted, either, these days. What a pity. Social Security's a good topic. Tampabay comes across as an immature, insufferable prig. Which is not to say he doesn't have the right to post what he wants to, here. It's not OK to respond in a way that his baiting would naturally emit from the rest of us? I got news for someone.....
Charging excessive PCness re this instance seems wack. I am all for sharpness and wit (attempted wit) alike, and assume my postings sometimes so reflect. But I would put it as OJ just did, rather than his first way, that's all.
I guess I have to go reread Tb's work, to see what was so extremely riling, insufferable prig and all. Or not.
JC, yeah, if Bundy or someone like him were posting here, I would have real trouble not getting seriously, seriously personal.
So I got my "guess what old lady you will soon be 66" form love letter from the local SSA office today. Instead of inviting me in for a celebration or for a human face signup they reminded me that I can do it on line.
Now should I grab the money and run before the new world Washington order take back people's age 70 8%s?
If I continue to see post over 40 words, some privileges are going to be lost.. ( last warning) Anna grab YOUR money and run or walk..but get it while you can its yours...
Anna, don't pay the slightest bit of attention to Tampabay, unless you prefer to take advice from kids.
There will be, among the many possible variants, some combination which will be of maximum benefit to you, depending upon a whole host of factors. This is an important decision, and you should absolutely consult with someone before making an irrevocable choice at this point.
If for some reason you cannot use the services of a professional, you might consider posting your question here on MFO, as there are usually a fair number of people here with good experience or information in this area. To get decent results though you would have to be prepared to provide some personal information as to assets, other income, dependents, and a number of other factors, which you might prefer not to post here.
Anna, unless you reasonably expect to die soonish, meaning short of the norm for 66yo female, delay as long as you can (ideally till 70) if you can afford to live till then using other resources. Study the graph here:
If otoh you have a condition or situation or family history where no one including women live much past say 80-83, then yeah, go for it now. It is all prudent 'gambling' decisionmaking. But if you are like most women in your cohort, you will live well past 83, so live on other means now insofar as feasible, for 4 more years. Heirs and spouses if any can be taken into consideration. Many people will do this sort of analysis for you for a fee, of course.
davidmoran is quite correct with respect to foreseeable changes in SS.
Tb's comment with respect to "grab YOUR money and run or walk..but get it while you can its yours..." would appear to be another example of the dumbing-down of America which is ever-increasingly evident.
I use this specific construction to satisfy davidmoran's guidelines, above, and I hope that this meets the test of staying on substance and not publicly letting anyone know that I think that particular remark was stupid.
Comments
That's less than 20 words, a perfect blog site post.
The PIA formula says what percentage of average earnings are paid out in benefits. Paying out no extra benefits on uncapped earnings creates a third bend point at 0% (0% extra is paid out for those extra dollars earned & taxed).
I had figured that instead of giving 0%, some low but nonzero rate could be offered instead (say 1%; the current payout rate on higher earnings is 15%). Then SS could still be presented as a benefit program (the more you pay in, the more you get out of it). For every dollar of extra wages/month taxed, the beneficiary would still get a penny/month back.
If holding onto every last penny is worth giving up that qualitative marketing feature, have at it.
John, the current (2015) cap on payroll taxes is $115,800. I've been calling that "high wage earners", because it is a figure pertaining to earnings, not assets. Also "wealthy" is a judgment call; "high" is a bit more objective - "over $115,800" is obviously higher than "less than $115,800".
Then again I could say that a millionaire is someone who makes a penny a day and doubles it each day. They will have one million dollars in less than a month.
That said, the idea of serious spending on an agreed domestic 'common good' sure seems quaint these days. To put it most nicely. (More like many things are a sociopathic squatter moocher like Cliven Bundy now.)
thought for a second you were emailing with the moocher Bundy
More like subtracted. I wonder if he'll ever get to the point that he can write a simple sentence in the English language? Seven words in that last one and he only got six of them right. A couple of capital letters used in the correct places, though, so maybe there's some hope.
Hi Old_Joe,
The answer to your question is no. And forget the grammar for a moment; I complement you on understanding him.
Mona
""Can we put a limit on posts...like 45-80 words or whoever can put me in La La land first. I would say put me to "sleep"..."
ad hominem: "• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain"
Now that sounds pretty much like "the policy or position they maintain" to me. What, exactly, is ad hominem, or untrue?
Period.
That's personal by anyone's definition.
Okay, I say you yourself are a rude moron (and probably ugly to boot, not to mention a pet-beater) to write such a thing about someone asking for brevity.
There, see how that feels, how it does not advance anything, is gratuitous?
So stay on substance, please. Not publicly letting us know you think others are stupid.
Tb's comment with respect to limiting the length of all MFO posts to 80 words, because he finds anything more to be boring, would appear to be a good example of the dumbing-down of America which is ever-increasingly evident.
That observation may be gratuitous, but I take great exception to someone attempting to impose lowest-common denominator standards on the rest of us. If he finds more than 80 words to be boring, perhaps he should find a forum more closely matched to his preferences.
Genuine interaction--- including annoyance---even when justified and to be expected, given the way this conversation has been twisted by Tampabay--- is not to be allowed? Along with political robocalls, that is what is wrong with the world today. People do and say things to make you angry, and you're not permitted to be angry. That's the new politically correct Code of Conduct. It's a screwed-up world. I find that a sense of humor is not permitted, either, these days. What a pity. Social Security's a good topic. Tampabay comes across as an immature, insufferable prig. Which is not to say he doesn't have the right to post what he wants to, here. It's not OK to respond in a way that his baiting would naturally emit from the rest of us? I got news for someone.....
I guess I have to go reread Tb's work, to see what was so extremely riling, insufferable prig and all. Or not.
JC, yeah, if Bundy or someone like him were posting here, I would have real trouble not getting seriously, seriously personal.
Now should I grab the money and run before the new
worldWashington order take back people's age 70 8%s?P.S. Once I sign up it becomes personal.
( last warning)
Anna grab YOUR money and run or walk..but get it while you can its yours...
There will be, among the many possible variants, some combination which will be of maximum benefit to you, depending upon a whole host of factors. This is an important decision, and you should absolutely consult with someone before making an irrevocable choice at this point.
If for some reason you cannot use the services of a professional, you might consider posting your question here on MFO, as there are usually a fair number of people here with good experience or information in this area. To get decent results though you would have to be prepared to provide some personal information as to assets, other income, dependents, and a number of other factors, which you might prefer not to post here.
www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
If otoh you have a condition or situation or family history where no one including women live much past say 80-83, then yeah, go for it now. It is all prudent 'gambling' decisionmaking. But if you are like most women in your cohort, you will live well past 83, so live on other means now insofar as feasible, for 4 more years. Heirs and spouses if any can be taken into consideration. Many people will do this sort of analysis for you for a fee, of course.
Tb's comment with respect to "grab YOUR money and run or walk..but get it while you can its yours..." would appear to be another example of the dumbing-down of America which is ever-increasingly evident.
I use this specific construction to satisfy davidmoran's guidelines, above, and I hope that this meets the test of staying on substance and not publicly letting anyone know that I think that particular remark was stupid.
OJ