Comments on: Ten For Tuesday, July 12, 2010

By: Stacey

Stacey — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:53:31 +0000

Costa Rica here I come!

By: The Digerati Life

The Digerati Life — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:38:20 +0000

Hard to grow old here in America. I’ve got my other plan to just skip out to a tropical island where I hope not to worry about SS and Medicare so much.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:11:32 +0000

Are you going to remove the PAYMENT cap, too?

Here’s a simpler solution to SS and Medicare — index the retirement age to the population distribution.

Right now, the retirement age is 65. Now, in 2000, those over 65 accounted for 12.4% of the population. That percentage needs to be frozen (or nearly so). If the oldest 12.4% in the 2010 Census is 67, then over the next 10 years we slowly ramp up the retirement age to 67 by 2020. If the 2020 Census says that the oldest 12.4% are 70 and above, then we ramp up the retirement age to 70 by 2030, and so on.

This way, we will essentially lock down the worker:retiree ratio.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:17:35 +0000

You said on item #3, “That last suggestion makes me sick to my stomach” – I took that in reference to the suggestion about making all earnings subject to Social Security taxes. But unless you are making significantly over the current income cap, the 2% increase in payroll tax affects your bottom line more.

By: JLP

JLP — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:51:54 +0000

Courtney,

I read your comment a couple of times. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:06:47 +0000

I guess I just wondered why only removing the cap churned your stomach. You’d have to individually be making over $30K above the cap before the amount of additional SS tax would exceed a 2% increase below the current cap.

By: JLP

JLP — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:46:30 +0000

Because I feel that my wife and I already pay in enough as it is. I’m also offended by the fact that OUR generation is having to foot the bill for previous generation’s bs.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:43:34 +0000

I know, I know – you and I disagree on the definition of ‘regressive’ so let’s not get into that again Why does that suggestion make you sick to your stomach?

By: JLP

JLP — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:35:36 +0000

I have always argued that because those at lower incomes receive higher benefits as a percentage of their income, social security is not regressive.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:20:36 +0000

I’m perfectly fine with the second suggestion of cutting benefits for all new recipients by 15 percent, since this is more than the 70% they’re projected to be able to fund by the time I retire in 2045-2050. I like the idea of increasing the payroll tax less, but I’d probably be okay with it if THAT PORTION was combined with the option of private accounts.

The issue I have with making all earnings subject to Social Security taxes is that currently, the taxed income is capped because benefits are also capped. I understand that it’s a regressive tax, and that a lot of the people who would be subject to FICA above the current income limit probably don’t need extra social security payments anyways, but it still feels like forced charity to me.