Pretty much, assuming I'd be able to find it.
Have a link? I suspect there is a bit of funny math there. SS would be solvent if there was generous post baby boom procreation, but there wasn't, so...actually no, the math has been done.
if you lift the cap on SS, it is solvent forever.
With one of the links I posted above even Bonds (which are super low interest and which look to be lower risk than Pay-as-you-go) there is a higher return, especially for us Gen X group who are post Baby Boomer.I'm fine with the concept of investing some of SST in higher performing securities, as long as it remains guaranteed to the principal (i.e. investment not at risk)
Josh Coray
J4 Paintball
Lead Design
www.j4paintball.com
Figgen just looked it up myself.
No. Just like I thought. It kicks the can further down the line, but forever is not true, even if you tax uncapped, and provide no more benefits.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba839.pdf
Scenario One: Eliminate the taxable earnings
cap entirely, but do not provide benefit credits above
the current-law taxable maximum. According to the
Trustees:
■ Over one-half (56 percent) of the shortfall would be
eliminated after 75 years. In the long-run (infinite
horizon), the additional taxes would cover 89 percent
of the shortfall.
■ Social Security would remain solvent through
2082.
Scenario Two: Eliminate the taxable earnings
cap entirely and provide benefit credits above the
current-law taxable maximum. As a result:
■ Almost one-half (49 percent) of the funding shortfall
would be eliminated after 75 years. In the long run
(infinite horizon), the additional taxes would cover
81 percent of the shortfall.
■ Social Security would remain solvent through 2067.
Scenario Three: Tax all wages above $250,000
at the 12.4 percent rate, but do not provide benefit
credits for the additional taxes paid. This scenario is
similar to President Obama’s 2008 proposal. Earnings
between $118,500 (the current-law taxable maximum)
and $250,000 would not be taxed, but the payroll tax
would apply to wages above $250,000. As a result:
■ More than half (56 percent) of the shortfall would
be eliminated after 75 years. In the long run (infinite
horizon), the additional taxes would cover 82 percent
of the shortfall.
■ Social Security would remain solvent through 2072.Conclusion. Lifting the tax cap on earnings sounds
like a simple fix for Social Security’s funding gap. The
scenarios considered in the Trustees Report would extent
the date of insolvency, but none would close the gap. If
any were adopted, they could discourage work by the
most productive workers, resulting in less payroll tax
revenue than anticipated. Moreover, they would further
weaken the link between earnings and benefits. Other
solutions should be considered first.
Josh Coray
J4 Paintball
Lead Design
www.j4paintball.com
your not looking at this properly.
the point of social security was simple: reduce or eliminate elderly poverty. and by any measure, it worked. it worked because its a progressive tax, it is redistribution of wealth, 100%. some folks might think this evil or wrong or bad to admit, but its again, a great idea. no sense having granny die in the street because she can't get a job working anymore to remain economically viable. and again, if you want to argue that granny should die in the street because she can't get a job because shes too old and sick ... we go back to that whole republicans are fucking terrible people issue again. so go ahead, confirm my worst fears. i already think most republican policies are about forcing economically viable people to no longer exist, confirm it.
or you can agree that granny dying in the streets is a bad thing. your choice.
now, you raise the cap, or eliminate the SS cap. yes, it becomes more progressive, but you've fundamentally changed the equation. you no longer need X workers to support Y retirees, because the rich can support many more workers, and keep the program solvent. is it redistribution of wealth? sure. but condemning it as a bad thing to save granny from dying in the streets means your fine with granny dying in the streets.
and you'll say "gordon, why don't people just take responsibility for there own savings?"
well, when your living pay check to pay check to keep the heat on, you try and save for retirement. its the same foolishness as the whole taxing the poor into being richer stupidity. when your just trying to keep clothes on your kids, you can't save for retirement, telling those folks they should is ... well, we go back the whole republicans are assholes thing.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 10-26-2017 at 09:49 AM.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
In addition to the false dilemma, that was one of the most grammatically abysmal posts I've read lately.