Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Holy idiotic idea.
- Thread starter 75th
- Start date
I dont like that idea. Simply raise the FICA cap. SS is an easy fix.
being middle class it does grate me a bit thinking of d/trump collecting SS, but fuk he paid into it why shouldn't he be able to collect his own money?
Not sure, judging by your response, you understand what raising the FICA cap means.
Trump would still receive his SS (as is his right), but more of his income would pay into it.
I forget the exact number, but its around $175k I believe. If we raise the FICA cap to $175k, SS becomes solvent until way past the year 2100.
Headholio
New member
I think this addresses issues like Mitt Romney's IRA account, which had like 13 kazillion dollars in it, which seemed a little odd since there are supposed to be limits on yearly contributions etc.
But last time I researched that annoying bastard, there wasn't any thing illegal going on, at least nothing that could be proven.
But the whole IRA concept is for the benefit of middle class people, to save enough so that they don't need government assistance in their senior years. If you defer taxes on investment, then the money that would have been taxed goes into your account and grows over time.
So, some kind of limit seems appropriate, although I think the amount to fund a 205k/yr annuity is too low. 205k is not a rich guys yearly expenses, although it is shocking to see how few people have IRA's worth that much (.004%)!
The proposal saves less than a billion/yr over the next 10 yrs. I would prefer a proposal where the Koch brothers just paid that.
But last time I researched that annoying bastard, there wasn't any thing illegal going on, at least nothing that could be proven.
But the whole IRA concept is for the benefit of middle class people, to save enough so that they don't need government assistance in their senior years. If you defer taxes on investment, then the money that would have been taxed goes into your account and grows over time.
So, some kind of limit seems appropriate, although I think the amount to fund a 205k/yr annuity is too low. 205k is not a rich guys yearly expenses, although it is shocking to see how few people have IRA's worth that much (.004%)!
The proposal saves less than a billion/yr over the next 10 yrs. I would prefer a proposal where the Koch brothers just paid that.
i was just making the point bro, unrelated to a fica increase
2 weeks?
If the Mitt Romneys of the nation are a concern, close that specific loophole. Allow only publicly traded common stock to be gifted into qualified plans as opposed to private investments with questionable (fabricated) cost basis.I think this addresses issues like Mitt Romney's IRA account, which had like 13 kazillion dollars in it, which seemed a little odd since there are supposed to be limits on yearly contributions etc.
But last time I researched that annoying bastard, there wasn't any thing illegal going on, at least nothing that could be proven.
But the whole IRA concept is for the benefit of middle class people, to save enough so that they don't need government assistance in their senior years. If you defer taxes on investment, then the money that would have been taxed goes into your account and grows over time.
So, some kind of limit seems appropriate, although I think the amount to fund a 205k/yr annuity is too low. 205k is not a rich guys yearly expenses, although it is shocking to see how few people have IRA's worth that much (.004%)!
The proposal saves less than a billion/yr over the next 10 yrs. I would prefer a proposal where the Koch brothers just paid that.
Having $3m saved by the time youre 60 allows for, what, $85k in taxable income lasting until age 90? Thats a moot point as the government shouldnt determine what qualifies as an "adequate" retirement when folks like you and I are maxing out our qualified plans (+ employer match) - aka doing what the plans were specifically created to do.
youpissmeoff
Banned
I think this addresses issues like Mitt Romney's IRA account, which had like 13 kazillion dollars in it, which seemed a little odd since there are supposed to be limits on yearly contributions etc.
But last time I researched that annoying bastard, there wasn't any thing illegal going on, at least nothing that could be proven.
But the whole IRA concept is for the benefit of middle class people, to save enough so that they don't need government assistance in their senior years. If you defer taxes on investment, then the money that would have been taxed goes into your account and grows over time.
So, some kind of limit seems appropriate, although I think the amount to fund a 205k/yr annuity is too low. 205k is not a rich guys yearly expenses, although it is shocking to see how few people have IRA's worth that much (.004%)!
The proposal saves less than a billion/yr over the next 10 yrs. I would prefer a proposal where the Koch brothers just paid that.
You too are hung up on what some rich guy is getting instead of what generates the most income for the government.
mrplunkey
New member
I'd support a government or private system where a person's precise withholdings would be placed in an account specific to them.
Otherwise, some people would be subsidizing other people's retirement.
On what basis could anyone justify forcing one person to pay for another person's retirement at gunpoint? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Otherwise, some people would be subsidizing other people's retirement.
On what basis could anyone justify forcing one person to pay for another person's retirement at gunpoint? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, no one has ever proposed privatizing social security.
I don't blame you though. You probably just didn't know.
Sure, plenty people have proposed privatizing social security. You, however, are essentially proposing doing away with the concept of social security completely.
The irony of you talking about subsidization is that many economists (eg Milton Friedman) have argued that one of the main problems with SS is the fact that the poor end up subsidizing the retirement of those who are wealthier.
Nobody has brought that up to you before in the lobby of a Holiday Inn, I assume.
The irony of you talking about subsidization is that many economists (eg Milton Friedman) have argued that one of the main problems with SS is the fact that the poor end up subsidizing the retirement of those who are wealthier.
Nobody has brought that up to you before in the lobby of a Holiday Inn, I assume.
mrplunkey
New member
Who cares if it's the rich subsidizing the poor or the poor subsiding the rich? Forcing one person to pay for another person's bad decisions is wrong. And retirement planning isn't some isolated decision that is made one time -- bad retirement planning is the result of decades of bad decisions.
If an able-bodied, employed 30 year old makes a conscious decision to spend the next 30 years of his life living on the bleeding edge of consumerism instead of planning for retirement, how in the world can you (or anyone) justify forcing some other person to pay for it?
billfred
New member
I think some sort of SS is required. The only problem is the Govt spent their savings instead of the people spending it directly.
Also, the bigger risk is not some 30 yr old that is spending all her savings but the 50 yr old that decides to bet all his retirement on a hot tip can't miss stock. Either way, lot of people would be left without anything and those people end up pissed - heads end up on stakes.
mrplunkey
New member
I could see the government mandating some type of employee contribution into a plan.
I could even see the government mandating some type of match.
I could also see the government setting-up requirements that would prevent someone from betting it all that can't miss stock you mentioned.
But that's a far cry from what we do. We've created a great ponzi scheme that doesn't need more tax money -- it needs to be phased out.
billfred
New member
Tru dat - so we agree Government has to be involved somehow but hard to unravel current muck up.
This, a good advisor and accountant can go a long way.
Headholio
New member
Does your philosophy extend to the idea that all your money should only be used to benefit you?
And if your money is used to benefit your society, is that a benefit to you?
Headholio
New member
I have a solution for that. We'll make that lazy bastard pay into an account. It will be automatically deducted from his paycheck. then, when he retires, he'll have some money.
Now... we just need to think of a name for my brilliant program
mrplunkey
New member
I have a solution for that. We'll make that lazy bastard pay into an account. It will be automatically deducted from his paycheck. then, when he retires, he'll have some money.
Now... we just need to think of a name for my brilliant program
That's cool, but let me improve on the idea:
We'll pay-out more to the current beneficiaries than the program takes in from workers -- it will be a first class ponzi scheme. Then we'll spend their cash and not actually invest it. People will know the money is gone, but every time someone tries to fix it, we'll get the current beneficiaries all stirred-up and kill the would-be reformers in elections.
OMG I love this idea. I'm shocked that someone hasn't already done it already.
Ask and you shall receive.
Not ready for custom suit/pink tie yet, but we do wear the same size onesies.
Serious note: you should see my most recent new suit. Went with the double breast. Wimminz swoon.
Cute kid. Married yet? Did the kid shit on your suit yet?
Similar threads
