HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How many people are aware... » Reply #17

Response to WCGreen (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:18 AM

17. My argument was that people adapt

lifestyles to their take home pay and that the reduction was a bad idea at the time (I got criticized on this board about that conclusion). I knew it would be real painful to go back. Remember this is 2% of almost everyone's income. Rich folks are complaining about less than 5% on their income over $250,000.

2% is a lot of money especially for those in lower incomes. For me it represents a $1,600 hit. That is money that I will not be able to save for my children to go to college. That is an easy give up for me. Someone who made the decision for more expensive housing will have a more difficult time adjusting to this change.

It has to go back for solvency, but it should never have been adjusted downward to begin with. It set a bad precedence by taking money from the general fund to cover the shortfall. It sent the message that Social Security and General Fund taxing/spending are part of the same big pool.

I wish Obama would adopt my suggestion. Lift the cap on all income and adjust withholding rates to pay as you go. Make the income over the $105K that was not previously taxed, taxed at 2% rate lower than the income which was previously taxed. The income above $105K will not count towards calculuating future benefits (this approximately puts that higher income on an equivalency to those making over about $50K the breakpoint for calculating the lowest level of benefit). Eventually draw down the Trust Fund by not raising rates as S.S. benefit payments increase. Eventually adopt a total Pay as You Go with a 1 year buffer (like it used to be). Raise rates as necessary to continue benefits at current levels (no reduction, no later date to retire, no additional means testing). Rates should cap at 7.5%/7.5%. If funds are insufficient then reduced benefits should be paid out on a sliding scale with a formula similar to the current benefits distribution.

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
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
WCGreen Nov 2012 OP
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #1
WCGreen Nov 2012 #8
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #9
MADem Nov 2012 #2
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Nov 2012 #3
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #4
elleng Nov 2012 #5
GitRDun Nov 2012 #6
Hermes Daughter Nov 2012 #13
hobbit709 Nov 2012 #18
Hermes Daughter Nov 2012 #20
reformist2 Nov 2012 #7
Wellstone ruled Nov 2012 #10
Selatius Nov 2012 #11
WCGreen Nov 2012 #14
ecstatic Nov 2012 #12
Selatius Nov 2012 #15
aroach Nov 2012 #16
LineNew Reply My argument was that people adapt
exboyfil Nov 2012 #17
sendero Nov 2012 #19
WCGreen Nov 2012 #21
newspeak Nov 2012 #22
ismnotwasm Nov 2012 #23
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #24
Please login to view edit histories.