Romney's plans...

[toxigal]

i really am trying to make sure i'm fully informed and I am reviewing this document:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/defa...rowth-Full.pdf

I'm sure I will have a lot of questions as i read it in detail, but I'm a bit lazy and hope some of you will help me out.

let's start with this:

"With respect to Social Security, there are a number of options that can be
pursued to keep the system solvent—from raising the eligibility age to changing
the way benefits are indexed to inflation for high-income retirees. One option
that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base
of income to which the tax is applied."

is there anywhere i can find out what the actual options are that Romney would pursue?

I really really don't want this to turn into a "bashing" thread. I am trying to educate myself.

Thanks.

[Litter Box]

i really am trying to make sure i'm fully informed and I am reviewing this document:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/defa...rowth-Full.pdf

I'm sure I will have a lot of questions as i read it in detail, but I'm a bit lazy and hope some of you will help me out.

let's start with this:

"With respect to Social Security, there are a number of options that can be
pursued to keep the system solvent—from raising the eligibility age to changing
the way benefits are indexed to inflation for high-income retirees. One option
that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base
of income to which the tax is applied."

is there anywhere i can find out what the actual options are that Romney would pursue?

I really really don't want this to turn into a "bashing" thread. I am trying to educate myself.

Thanks.

Raising the eligibility age is already in effect, here is a link.

Retirement Planner: Benefits By Year Of Birth

[FKD19124]

the age limit is already raised I believe. I can't retire until I think 70.
What needs to happen is to stop the raiding of the SS fund for other projects and that is
why I am in favor of privatizing it.

i really am trying to make sure i'm fully informed and I am reviewing this document:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/defa...rowth-Full.pdf

I'm sure I will have a lot of questions as i read it in detail, but I'm a bit lazy and hope some of you will help me out.

let's start with this:

"With respect to Social Security, there are a number of options that can be
pursued to keep the system solvent—from raising the eligibility age to changing
the way benefits are indexed to inflation for high-income retirees. One option
that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base
of income to which the tax is applied."

is there anywhere i can find out what the actual options are that Romney would pursue?

I really really don't want this to turn into a "bashing" thread. I am trying to educate myself.

Thanks.

[toxigal]

the age limit is already raised I believe. I can't retire until I think 70.
What needs to happen is to stop the raiding of the SS fund for other projects and that is
why I am in favor of privatizing it.

no raiding is going on.

The Myth of the Social Security Trust Fund | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Understanding the Social Security Trust Funds — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Social Security - Just Facts

[phillycat]

The upper limit for retirement is at 67, so no, you don't have to wait until you are 70.

Leaving "expanding the base of income" off the table is (yet another) pander to high-income earners -- currently you only pay the payroll tax on income up to I think around 100k. So if you earn more than that you don't have to pay any more into the system.

Which means that low-income people are paying social security tax on ALL of their income, while high-income people don't pay on whatever they make over $100k. That's another nice deal for wealthier people. Now, there is an argument that you can only collect so much in social security, so it would not be entirely fair to say, apply the payroll tax to 100% of wage income above $100k. Still, the cap has not been raised for a very long time. Raising it to say $150k would go a long way towards making up any future SS shortfalls in the system.

On the other hand, people who make more money tend to live longer (better nutrition, healthcare, etc), so they are probably going to collect more social security than poorer people. I heard an argument recently that said that since African-American men tend to have the shortest life expectancy of all ethnic groups, and therefore collect the least social security, even though they pay into the system African-American men are "paying for" the retirement of white people.

Although I don't think this argument really holds water (you might as well say men are subsidizing social security for women, since women live significantly longer), it's a version of the "those socialists are stealing MY money to give to other people" that I hadn't heard yet.

[toxigal]

The upper limit for retirement is at 67, so no, you don't have to wait until you are 70.

Leaving "expanding the base of income" off the table is (yet another) pander to high-income earners -- currently you only pay the payroll tax on income up to I think around 100k. So if you earn more than that you don't have to pay any more into the system.

you could have knocked me over with a feather when my "democrats just want to raise everyone's taxes and make everyone poor" father said he thought it was ridiculous that every June he stops having to pay into SS. now, he officialy "retired" in 2000 after he put in 25 years and has been contracting ever since and it is only as a contractor that he has made over 100K.

[raider.adam]

.....

[Juan]

Sounds like he's talking about 2 things basically.

1 - pushing out the eligibility age. To me for those born in 1960 or later age 70 should be the earliest age to get full benefits. If your born in 1970 or later - maybe 73 or 75.
2 - He also seems to mention that for those earning a lot in retirement maybe some of the inflationary increases would be reduced or eliminated.

Either way the whole thing CAN be fixed by either party. It's a simple math problem. Who has the political will and votes to get it though is another issue.

[govtstatistic]

This is what THEY Want to do
this is what has already been done

The article Newsweek gutted–proof of FBI corruption

This [plus millions more missing
Dont look over here

[jdhill]

Which means that low-income people are paying social security tax on ALL of their income, while high-income people don't pay on whatever they make over $100k. That's another nice deal for wealthier people. Now, there is an argument that you can only collect so much in social security, so it would not be entirely fair to say, apply the payroll tax to 100% of wage income above $100k. Still, the cap has not been raised for a very long time. Raising it to say $150k would go a long way towards making up any future SS shortfalls in the system.

On the other hand, people who make more money tend to live longer (better nutrition, healthcare, etc), so they are probably going to collect more social security than poorer people.

There is so much factually wrong here:

First, the FICA taxable income limit has been raised 37 times in the past 40 years including in 2012. And it has been raised significantly:
Here's a sample of the maximum taxable earnings for recent years.

1970 - $7800
1980 - $25,900
1990 - $51,300
2000 - $76,200
2005 - $90,000
2012 - $110,100

Second, the Social Security benefit determination formula ensures that higher income earners receive a FAR LOWER percentage of what they contribute in FICA taxes back as benefit than do lower income earners.

Lastly, the income limitation on the Medicare portion of Social Security was removed in 1994, and in 2013 it will increase from 1.45% to 2.35% for couples $250K and up as part of the ACA.

You're clearly not paying attention.

[phillycat]

[QUOTE=jdhill;530783]There is so much factually wrong here:

First, the FICA taxable income limit has been raised 37 times in the past 40 years including in 2012. And it has been raised significantly:
Here's a sample of the maximum taxable earnings for recent years.

1970 - $7800
1980 - $25,900
1990 - $51,300
2000 - $76,200
2005 - $90,000
2012 - $110,100

I do believe I said the maximum was around $100K. Unless you want to compare this to inflation it is meaningless.

Second, the Social Security benefit determination formula ensures that higher income earners receive a FAR LOWER percentage of what they contribute in FICA taxes back as benefit than do lower income earners.

Only if you assume that both low- and high-income earners collect benefits for exactly the same amount of time. Yes, your SS benefits are capped no matter how much you put in the system. But if you are putting that much into the system you probably are not relying on it as your only income in your golden years.

Lastly, the income limitation on the Medicare portion of Social Security was removed in 1994, and in 2013 it will increase from 1.45% to 2.35% for couples $250K and up as part of the ACA.

Medicare and social security are different things. Nobody said the medicare taxes weren't going up. We were talking specifically about changes to Social Security.

You're clearly not paying attention.

You're clearly bringing up irrelevant information in order to support your worldview.

[2happy4u]

from MSMBC.... to oppress minority, Make the rich richer, tax the working class and cut tax for the very rich, send ALL jobs overseas, and deprive WOMAN of health care.

[toxigal]

from MSMBC.... to oppress minority, Make the rich richer, tax the working class and cut tax for the very rich, send ALL jobs overseas, and deprive WOMAN of health care.

so, you also have no idea what comprises Romney's plan for social security?

[jdhill]

I do believe I said the maximum was around $100K. Unless you want to compare this to inflation it is meaningless.

Just how much do you think inflation is since 1970? I'll help you out, it's averaged 4.35%. Compounding it annually would raise the 1970 limit of 7800 all the way up to 46000. So the tax has increased 139% above and beyond inflation. The shear increase from 7800 to 110,100 should have been intuitively recognized to exceed inflation.

Only if you assume that both low- and high-income earners collect benefits for exactly the same amount of time. Yes, your SS benefits are capped no matter how much you put in the system. But if you are putting that much into the system you probably are not relying on it as your only income in your golden years.

Wrong. The benefit determination schedule ensures that a low income beneficiary's payments equal his contributions in just over 3 years vs 10 for a max earner.

Medicare and social security are different things. Nobody said the medicare taxes weren't going up. We were talking specifically about changes to Social Security.

OASDI and Medicare are both part of the Social Security system. If you can make the assinine assertion that the Social Security income cap has not been raised in "a very long time", I can add this very relevant and at minimum, accurate point.

[StrangeTanks]

I think we should privatize it.

Not only that, I think I should be the one to personally oversee this investment. In the interest of the public good of course.

You see, the average rate of return on SSI is about 1.25%. I can promise, that if you give me all your SSI money, I will get you a rate of at least 1.5%. I will also make sure that your money does not go to waste. I promise to make it as difficult as possible to ever draw that money, come disease, financial disaster or old age, you can rest assured that no one will have access to your hard earned investment.

This will benefit the nation at large because not only will I give you (the public) a giant pamphlet of possible investment choices where you can invest in various companies owned by my friends, but I will earn such a giant pile of money that I can single handedly purchase 37 state representatives and 10 senators to continue to represent your financial interests in a responsible manner.

Thank you for your time and I will look forward to receiving a good portion of your paycheck.

[raider.adam]

I promise to make it as difficult as possible to ever draw that money, come disease, financial disaster or old age, you can rest assured that no one will have access to your hard earned investment.

That is different from now, how?

[Gio7707]

yeahh Romneys plans ...my butt...


Who would be left out of Romney’s preexisting conditions plan? About 89 million Americans. | Wonkblog

Is Paul Ryan On The Marijuana?

[phillycat]

Just how much do you think inflation is since 1970? I'll help you out, it's averaged 4.35%. Compounding it annually would raise the 1970 limit of 7800 all the way up to 46000. So the tax has increased 139% above and beyond inflation. The shear increase from 7800 to 110,100 should have been intuitively recognized to exceed inflation.

Since you like to pretend to be an expert:

The cap is adjusted annually to reflect average wages. However, because of growing income inequality higher earners have a greater share of income above the cap. In 1982 the share of income above the cap was 10%. In 2006 it was 16%.

SS was designed for individuals to contribute on 90% of their income. Today the top 1% of earners contribute on only 1.5%. And they pay SS only on wages - no contributions from non-wage income, which as everyone knows, is a higher percentage of the income of high earners than low earners.

If you want to drag Medicare into it, yes, they eliminated the cap for Medicare in 1993 and the world did not end, and I have never heard a rich senior complain that they paid too much into Medicare.

Wrong. The benefit determination schedule ensures that a low income beneficiary's payments equal his contributions in just over 3 years vs 10 for a max earner

.

Again, assuming that low income beneficiary lives long enough to collect.

I am not saying that taxing all income is necessarily the solution -- but it would go a long way to making the program solvent for much longer. And the point was that Romney taking it off the table is a sop to high-income earners.

Not that it matters what his plans are, he has about as much chance of being elected as Newt Gingrich.

[phillycat]

And I think you mean "sheer" not "shear."

[jdhill]

Since you like to pretend to be an expert:

No, I'm not pretending to be an expert. But I am intellectually honest enough to go to The United States Social Security Administration to read and understand how oasdi taxes are adjusted and how benefits are calculated before forming an opinion. Obviously you form your opinion first, then try to build your argument in support of it, which is a what leads you to make absurd claims such as suggesting that "the cap has not been raised for a very long time", despite the facts that it was raised 37 times in 40 years, and most recently in the 2012.