Please explain the discontinuity in the Social Security Administrations table on income. On table VI.A.1 to VI.B.5, pages 93 through 118 it shows the relative importance of different types of income (excludes capital gains). What is very interesting to me is there is a large % of those with incomes under $15,000 who do not state pensions, Social Security or anything else is their most important source of income. How come? Could it be that a large % (like my dad, mom and others) show up as poor becuase their most important source of income is capital gains?
Yes there are poot people. However, why are they poor? How many are there? Yes it is difficult to calculate how long something will last. Why should we not make sure someone is truly needy before we give them a handout greater than what they gave others? If all thought this way, we would have a small fraction of the american population who would need an helping hand. There is reverse mortgages which an help. We are trying to support a group of people better than we support children.
Keep in mind OASI benefits have increased faster than inflation and will continue to do so. What is wrong with this picture? While trying to help everyone, we are destroying the future.
We just keep trying to pass the "bill" onto the next generation. At some point the next generation will refuse to accept the burden. I think that generation is fast approaching if not already here.
As I presented earlier, had the current retirees paid the same FICA rate, the so called Trust fund would have over $6 trillion in it. This in essance means the generation now retired would have $6 trillion less. Should we tax those over 65 $6 trillion and recoup their underpayment? It seems to me they want me to work till 70 or longer to pay for their underpayment?
If 70 is now a good age to set retiement at, why not send all those under 70 back to work now? If it is good enough for me in the next 15 to 20 years, then it is good enough for current retirees! That could help a lot now why wait?
After 25 years of hearing how bad off seniors are and seeing the effect of paying high FICA taxes on workers, it is time to say "Enough is Enough!"
There is not enough money in the United States to pay the transition cost of $10 Trillion this year and if we do not pay it this year it goes to $10.7 Trillion next year and if we do not pay it next year it goes to $11.42 Trillion the following year and so on. The liability grows faster than the revenues and always will. That is why taxes were raised over 100% in 1976 and again in 1983. The solution to the problem is not raising taxes, retirement age, but cutting benefits. Raising the retirement age and taxes or cutting future benefits does nothing except treat the symptom and not the problem. The underlining problem is previous generations did not pay their bill.
The evidence is in the history of Social Security. Every time it went cash negative, they recruited more payers, raised the taxes, raised the base and/or increased the retirement age. This would have never been required had they paid their fair share?
Also, no one has paid enough OASI tax to pay two benefits. That will not happen for a few more years. If you add in a non working spousal benefit, it takes even longer. (based on US treasury rates at time of OASI payment) In fact there are only a few who "might" have paid enough medicare tax to pay for their medicare in retirement. It takes an income exceeding $300,000 for a family with non-working spouse. Remember this is wage income (earned income, not interest, capital gains, dividends, etc)
