Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The right says it's a catastrophe. The left says it's not a big deal. Dean Baker is a left leaning economist and here's his take. If you disagree with his synopsis explain why and please provide a link that gives the straight poop on SS…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-bake ... 86243.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no ill-will against SS, but at my age, I simply consider it a tax. All I know is that I'll probably see little, if any, benefits from SS; I plan any retirement decisions without it in mind.

Why would you ask us to substantiate a rebuttal to that when the guy who wrote it didn't substantiate a single assertion he made?

But since it was so easy I'll link something:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the "Official Social Security Website" of the US government:

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing,

Good Lord man, quit drinking the Kool Aid.

JohnStOnge wrote:But since it was so easy I'll link something:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the "Official Social Security Website" of the US government:

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing,

Good Lord man, quit drinking the Kool Aid.

Simple fix. Remove the cap on taxable income for SS. The histrionics really aren't called for, John.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:But since it was so easy I'll link something:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the "Official Social Security Website" of the US government:



Good Lord man, quit drinking the Kool Aid.

Simple fix. Remove the cap on taxable income for SS. The histrionics really aren't called for, John.

Simpler fix. Means testing.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:But since it was so easy I'll link something:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the "Official Social Security Website" of the US government:



Good Lord man, quit drinking the Kool Aid.

Simple fix. Remove the cap on taxable income for SS. The histrionics really aren't called for, John.

Because the solution is always to raise taxes on the "wealthy."

JoltinJoe wrote:

houndawg wrote:



Simple fix. Remove the cap on taxable income for SS. The histrionics really aren't called for, John.

Because the solution is always to raise taxes on the "wealthy."

Haven't SS taxes gone up for the working poor too? The wealthy seem to like the idea of a flat tax. What's wrong with a flat tax on SS?

∞∞∞ wrote:I have no ill-will against SS, but at my age, I simply consider it a tax. All I know is that I'll probably see little, if any, benefits from SS; I plan any retirement decisions without it in mind.

Same here.

JoltinJoe wrote:

houndawg wrote:



Simple fix. Remove the cap on taxable income for SS. The histrionics really aren't called for, John.

Because the solution is always to raise taxes on the "wealthy."

Why have a cap at all?


If you're going to tax somebody it makes more sense to tax somebody who has money, rather than somebody that doesn't. Seems like a no-brainer.

houndawg wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Because the solution is always to raise taxes on the "wealthy."

Why have a cap at all?


If you're going to tax somebody it makes more sense to tax somebody who has money, rather than somebody that doesn't. Seems like a no-brainer.

Raising the cap on a system where what you receive in SS upon retirement is based on what you pay in will do nothing to solve the fiscal issue. Someone who paid 10x in would receive 10x out.

BDKJMU wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Why have a cap at all?


If you're going to tax somebody it makes more sense to tax somebody who has money, rather than somebody that doesn't. Seems like a no-brainer.

Raising the cap on a system where what you receive in SS upon retirement is based on what you pay in will do nothing to solve the fiscal issue. Someone who paid 10x in would receive 10x out.

But, SS doesn't work that way.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Raising the cap on a system where what you receive in SS upon retirement is based on what you pay in will do nothing to solve the fiscal issue. Someone who paid 10x in would receive 10x out.

But, SS doesn't work that way.

What you receive monthly is calculated on what you what you paid in, on how many years you worked, and your age when you retire. Maybe the 10x isn't true, but if you pay in more, you're going to receive more, and vice versa.

BDKJMU wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
But, SS doesn't work that way.

What you receive monthly is calculated on what you what you paid in, on how many years you worked, and your age when you retire. Maybe the 10x isn't true, but if you pay in more, you're going to receive more, and vice versa.

For now...

Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQZVH9mBT8[/youtube]

JohnStOnge wrote:

Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQZVH9mBT8[/youtube]

Why not give it a try? What we're doing now sure ain't working.

Why not give it a try? What we're doing now sure ain't working.

Dude, we've been relying on the "tax the rich" strategy for a long time now. I not in the mood to go get my other computer and look up the spreadsheets I put the numbers on in the past. But the "rich" are already carrying WAY more than their "fair share" and have been for the long time. And they don't have enough money to cover the deficit between what we take in for all purposes and what we spend on all purposes on a sustained basis. It's like many have said before: You could tax the rich at 100% and you couldn't sustain the monster this entitlement State has become. If you're talking about the "top 1%" like is in vogue now there just isn't enough money there to fund passing out all the goodies.

You're ultimately going to have less $$ in your pocket, either through higher SS taxes now, a later (70) full retirement date, chained CPI, or automatic benefit cuts

Since by law the SS Trust Fund can never run a deficit, I say do nothing and just let the trust fund surplus hit its run dry date of 2033. Benefits will be cut by a projected 23%. Problem takes care of itself. You'll still receive it, just not as much. You're an idiot if you're planning on that being your primary source of retirement.

BDKJMU wrote:You're ultimately going to have less $$ in your pocket, either through higher SS taxes now, a later (70) full retirement date, chained CPI, or automatic benefit cuts

Since by law the SS Trust Fund can never run a deficit, I say do nothing and just let the trust fund surplus hit its run dry date of 2033. Benefits will be cut by a projected 23%. Problem takes care of itself. You'll still receive it, just not as much. You're an idiot if you're planning on that being your primary source of retirement.

I'd much prefer the option to invest that portion of my paycheck elsewhere.

State Department retirement is based on the "tripod" concept of pension, TSP, and SS. Those three taken together should bring you to about a 85% retirement after 25 years. I work under the assumption that the SS leg of the tripod isn't going to be there in any significant way, so I invest accordingly.

It would be nice to opt out of SS so as to put the money elsewhere. This government has proven that it cannot stand a solvent social program.

kalm wrote:The right says it's a catastrophe. The left says it's not a big deal. Dean Baker is a left leaning economist and here's his take. If you disagree with his synopsis explain why and please provide a link that gives the straight poop on SS…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-bake ... 86243.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A bunch of unsubstantiatied, unsourced assertions, followed by the predictable "rich people just say this stuff because they don't want people knowing how they got rich" populism, followed by a comments section in which the first poster is owed 20 bucks by Houndawg who ripped off his idea. (Unless that commenter was Houndawg himself lol)

I have a better idea, Klam. How about find a synopsis of the SS issues from a nonpartisan source that actually follows the rules you set down and then people will maybe read and take it more seriously?

This writer probably waited his entire lifetime to type, "People like Peter Peterson..."


Stop funding crap we don't need and Social Security would be fine.

CID1990 wrote:State Department retirement is based on the "tripod" concept of pension, TSP, and SS. Those three taken together should bring you to about a 85% retirement after 25 years. I work under the assumption that the SS leg of the tripod isn't going to be there in any significant way, so I invest accordingly.

It would be nice to opt out of SS so as to put the money elsewhere. This government has proven that it cannot stand a solvent social program.

Sometimes, one side can be right on an issue. I'll accept your challenge when I get a chance.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:You're ultimately going to have less $$ in your pocket, either through higher SS taxes now, a later (70) full retirement date, chained CPI, or automatic benefit cuts

Since by law the SS Trust Fund can never run a deficit, I say do nothing and just let the trust fund surplus hit its run dry date of 2033. Benefits will be cut by a projected 23%. Problem takes care of itself. You'll still receive it, just not as much. You're an idiot if you're planning on that being your primary source of retirement.

I'd much prefer the option to invest that portion of my paycheck elsewhere.

Same here. We should have that option.

CID1990 wrote:State Department retirement is based on the "tripod" concept of pension, TSP, and SS. Those three taken together should bring you to about a 85% retirement after 25 years. I work under the assumption that the SS leg of the tripod isn't going to be there in any significant way, so I invest accordingly.

It would be nice to opt out of SS so as to put the money elsewhere. This government has proven that it cannot stand a solvent social program.

Again ditto.