Senator Harkin says:He seems to think that we are entering the post-Tea Party era. Sounds good to me.

Not sure I like the idea of removing the cap, but it might help keep the fund from drying up.

A person making millions a year pays a very small portion into SS. Does a person in that bracket ever really draw it when he/she retires?

I guess that's why they call this thing - Social Security

__________________
Mike Murrell
1991 300-SEL - Model 126
M103 - SOHC
"Fräulein"

The high-income person will receive Social Security whether he or she needs it or not. Advocates for Social Security generally oppose means testing because that would make it a welfare program, which it is not intended to be.

They need to do something to keep Social Security solvent. Raising the cap seems like the least bad way to do that. IMHO.

At age 70, you automatically begin to receive monthly checks without first applying for them?

__________________
Mike Murrell
1991 300-SEL - Model 126
M103 - SOHC
"Fräulein"

I would agree to double or triple the cutoff point from around 125k to 375k. That way the race to see who hits it first goes on a little longer. But I disagree with it being just another benefit to those who do not pay into it. I guess with the problems with obamacare they need to buy some more votes back. This for sure will do that. No other reason for bringing that up now, don't we have enough unfinished projects that seem to be going nowhere?

Good question. I don't know.

If I understand correctly, efforts are underway to cut Social Security. If so, then Harkin's bill seems timely. And there is no time like the present for dealing with the system's issues. I don't know what other issues we have at the moment that are more important than protecting Social Security.

Yeah no shyt, very timely bringing that up now to buy votes. The explanation will go like this, we are not going to give any of the money back to the folks that have been paying into it so we can give you more of it to you dems for a vote. No time like the present for another "present", as in gift, or price paid for that vote. As far as what other issues are more important right now, how about trying to fix the ACA before that drains another system before it even starts.

I won't argue that statement, but might add that of maybe equal importance is that the govt. not bankrupt those who've lost their health insurance due to do the enactment of the ACA.

I wonder if the democrats gave any consideration to the affect that "pre-existing conditions" would have in all of this - a huge reason why policies have increased.

Let's say that you've agreed to host a dinner party. You've been told the guest list will vary in size from 10 to 100. The final count is unknown. It's imperative that you be able to accommodate either situation. Do you buy for 10 or 100?

I'm no fan of the insurance companies, but the ACA now requires them to accept a lot of uncertainty.

__________________
Mike Murrell
1991 300-SEL - Model 126
M103 - SOHC
"Fräulein"

You are being rather casual with other people's money there. Raising the limit from the current 133.7K to 375K would impose a tax increase (and corresponding reduction in take home pay) on a $375K salary of $16,853.85. The employer is required to contribute the same amount, increasing the cost of employing that person by the same $16,853.85 per year.

Seems like a lot of money to me, even for someone earning at that level. It's a month's earnings, in round numbers.

Would you propose to increase their social security payments by a corresponding amount to the tax rise? (Under current law, you receive little SS credit for earnings north of $65K/year.)

The core SS issue is funding. johnson in '64 removed all the SS funds from the SS trust and put them into the General Fund.

What needs to happen is simple. REFUND the retirement TRUST and keep DC's hands off of it.

SS is supposed to be for retirement. ALL the rest of what has been tacked onto it needs to be removed. IF ... the other programs are proven to be needed then setup a separate program for them.

Look at all the SS disability fraud !! No wonder the retirement fund is being exhausted at the rate it is.

__________________
1985 300D 198K sold
1982 300D 202K
1989 300E 125K
1992 940T

"If you dont have time to do it safely, you dont have time to do it"

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Simple. Put more people to work paying into SS with jobs that will support families. SS works when people work instead of slaves in china.

Instead they lie about the numbers. Twenty something changes to the way the "unemployment" statistics are calculated. Virtually all of the changes result in lower numbers, why? What are they hiding?

The failure of US society was planned years ago and done for the profit of the few at the expense of the many, no magic, no mystery.

Hug your kids.

And do what with the money? They have to invest it somewhere. T Bills seem like a good place to me, at least until Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al., succeed in screwing the nation's trustworthiness.

I think the design of SS is fine as is. It just needs tweaking to account for changing demographics.Look? Look where? Do you have a link?

I think you might benefit from reading the Social Security FAQ here: Social Security History

An excerpt:

There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

And do what with the money? They have to invest it somewhere.

He invested it in Vietnam. And like all our other foreign adventures, we got nothing in return but dead bodies.

Ted Cruz, the Pauls, Mike Lee, and Justin Amash and group are trying to preserve the country's trustworthiness, not squander it.

__________________
'83 300D, 126K miles.