Reply #54

In the discussion thread: The Savings to Social Security from Means Testing = Higher Costs [View all]

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:43 PM

54. Your figure is old news

Even the Social Security Trustees say that full benefits will only last until 2033:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

That's only twenty years away.

But, we don't need a recession, all we need is a decreasing number of people paying in (at lowered wages) and an increasing number of recipients as the baby boom hits the system heavily over the next couple of decades, and it will effectively be a recession as far as FICA taxes are concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

67 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Savings to Social Security from Means Testing = Higher Costs [View all]	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	OP
Means-testing is just a cynical ploy to undermine political support for the program ...	dawg	Nov 2012	#1
I agree. Disturbing to see so many democrats here at DU pushing it.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#2
Maybe too many Democrats and	RC	Nov 2012	#4
So if I'm sitting on a multi-million dollar investment portfolio	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#12
only wage income gives you social security eligibility, not capital income. so your	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#19
Not correct...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#31
Only wage income is subject to SS tax. If donald trump pays himself a wage, it's	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#39
We might be talking about two different things.	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#57
only if trump has himself as employee of that llc and is paying social security tax	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#59
LLC's are typically treated as sole proprietors (Schedule C)	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#60
because it's a universal system, and as such, was not designed only to keep	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#62
From FDR's signing statement...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#63
It clearly was set up to provide payments to all persons who paid in, because that	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#64
HiPoint is talking about FICA	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#40
Yes.	StatGirl	Nov 2012	#30
I look at it a different way...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#33
If you purchase retirement insurance, when you retire you get a benefit payment	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#42
It's not insurance against retirement, it's insurance against been POOR in retirement...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#56
Yes. Very disturbing.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#50
FDR would go ballistic over this.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#49
I disagree. I'm taking the fact that people are seriously suggesting means-testing...	JVS	Nov 2012	#61
Frankly,	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#3
the corporate contribution is figured as part of total employee compensation &	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#5
A short term fix at best....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#7
of course i do. but it has little to do with social security per se.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#8
It has everything to do with social security....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#13
i agree that the problem is wages. i disagree that social security avoidance is the primary	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#14
Never said it was primary....just one more excuse	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#18
it's an insignificant distraction	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#20
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#27
raising the cap to its original/traditional 90% is fine by me.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#35
90% was not the original cap, btw.	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#37
actually, it was.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#38
Except it didnt	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#47
Who pays 15.3%, there are deductions for that silly, get with the program	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#48
I think Forbes is behind the times on this.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#10
Of course they do....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#24
Why not remove the cap from the employer's side of FICA?	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#55
If a corporation can't afford its employees	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#6
They can afford it, that is not the issue.	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#9
Corporations do so at their own risk.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#11
They've been doing it for years....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#17
That is my point. He didn't really choose to become an independent contractor	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#22
For whom he votes is not the discussion....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#25
all those things you mention are tax deductions to employers.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#16
I'm not sure screwing up your business is really worth a tax deduction.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#23
With all those wonderful	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#26
Yep.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#52
You hit the nail on the head	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#43
DURec	leftstreet	Nov 2012	#15
Means testing will only make those of means complain that they aren't	Cleita	Nov 2012	#21
What is notable is the constant need to refute	woo me with science	Nov 2012	#28
Fix the economy, create jobs. Fixes SS.	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#44
I've been saying this for years	Hamlette	Nov 2012	#29
to believe SS will go broke in 2037 you have to believe	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#46
Your figure is old news	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#54
That is one of 4 scenarios the Trustees publish each year	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#65
Which makes my point	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#67
eliminate the top limit to fica tax.	pansypoo53219	Nov 2012	#32
Adjust back to 90%, no reason to eliminate the income CAP	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#45
There you go using math and reason again! nt	SunSeeker	Nov 2012	#34
Means Testing is to SS what Tort Reform is to Health Care costs.	eyewall	Nov 2012	#36
+1. (though it offers a solution to something for corporations)	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#41
Excellent fact filled article, with top flight citations	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#51
You're right in that means testing is expensive	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#53
Those above a certain income will just get taxed on it	mainer	Nov 2012	#58
means testing is a BAD idea:	amborin	Nov 2012	#66

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.