are you saying that if there isn't enough money to pay for SS then we should increase the tax for SS?

Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant.

if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better.

There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring.

ok, so you are saying that if John Q makes above $X00,000 annual, he will start receiving a smaller paycheck. and if the SS system is still around he will get more money back at retirement. money that he could have invested to much more effectively himself.

On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.

That is what Social Security is all about. Not everyone ends up better off individually than they theoretically could have, but everyone gets a no-risk guaranteed benefit, and society benefits.

if i'm the guy that sees my taxes go up so that someone who isn't responsible enough to handle his own retirement plan can have more money, i'm not real happy about it. i say that as a person who is watching my parents work through their retirement because his pension and SS don't go as far as he thought it would.

it wouldn't be right to tax high wage earners more to subsidize my father's retirement. if anyone is going to subsidize him, it should be his own family - me.

You may not like the fundamental theory of social security, but that's what it is. Not everyone has someone to fall back on in times of trouble.

we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.

So what? If you begrudge the difference between the SS benefit and the amount you might have otherwise made, would you feel better if wealthy people got nothing back?

That would be another way to deal with the (eventual) SS deficit, but I don't think you'd be too happy with that one either.

It's called entitlement, a promise from Uncle sam to pay me in return for the years I've paid him. It didn't matter if I liked the plan or not, I wasn't allowed to opt out, so as far as I'm concerned, neither is he. :eyebrow:

This is an ironic highjacking.

If you're under 50, and you believe that, I have this nice bridge to sell you...

The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.

if the government is willing to do what? tax me more to take care of people who didn't plan for their own futures? i'm sure they are willing to do that.


Bruce - i'm not talking about cutting benefits to people already in the system and dependent on the income, i'm talking about telling those that are just starting out to take care of themselves because the handouts are going to stop. it would be unfair to stop the benefits of those who have lived their whole lives counting on it, but it would be imprudent to raise future generations to be equally dependent on it.