E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMost Americans think it’s important to preserve adequate Social Security benefits for younger generations — and they may even be willing to pay more taxes to get that assurance, a new survey finds.
The survey, released Thursday by the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, found that about eight in 10 Americans think it is critical to support Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay more in taxes. A slightly higher percentage of the 2,000 people surveyed said they think it’s critical to save Social Security even if wealthy people have to pay more.
But here’s the thing: Many Americans also want something in return.
The study found broad-based support among both younger and older Americans for a plan that would gradually increase the amount of payroll taxes everyone pays and also eliminate the cap on the amount of income that can be taxed for Social Security. In return, that plan would call for raising minimum benefits and increasing cost-of-living-adjustments.
The survey comes as many Americans are growing more worried about whether they will see any Social Security benefits at all. Under current government estimates, Social Security could face funding shortfalls in about two decades because the U.S. population is aging and generally living longer.
Experts say it’s not too surprising to find that older people are heavily in favor of retaining Social Security benefits even if it means paying more taxes, but it’s a little more surprising to find that younger Americans also seem to support it generally.
Still, after five difficult years in which many people have struggled financially, many workers may see the allure of a plan that would give them some financial certainty late in life.
“Social Security wasn’t designed to be a sole major source of retirement income, but for many people who haven’t saved enough … it certainly looks attractive,” said Alan Auerbach, director of the Robert D. Burch Center for Tax Policy and Public Finance at UC Berkeley.
Jasmine Tucker, income security research associate with the National Academy of Social Insurance, said she thinks the results show that people are willing to pay extra taxes for Social Security because they know that they will see a return on that investment later in life.
“People seem to be very resistant to raising any taxes, but I think Social Security is different,” she said.
Other studies have found support for raising taxes more narrowly on wealthy Americans to help fund Social Security. A Pew Research Center survey released in December found that 66 percent of Americans would support raising payroll taxes on high-income earners, while 55 percent would support reducing benefits for high-income seniors.
Related: Are you struggling in the suburbs? We want to hear from you.
Still, Auerbach – who was not involved in the study – noted that it’s one thing for people to say they would be willing to pay more taxes to help fund Social Security, and quite another for them to actually commit to a plan that would effectively shrink their current paycheck.
“Do people really know what this would mean in terms of their take-home pay? Have they really thought through what the implications are?” Auerbach asked.
Many Americans are seeing that real-world effect right now, because the end to the payroll tax holiday has resulted in an effective tax hike equal to about 2 percent of their wages. This survey was conducted in September, before the payroll tax holiday ended.
Critics also argue that it may not be feasible to fix Social Security’s funding woes just by raising taxes. Many other plans have called for a mix of raising taxes and reducing benefits either by curtailing cost-of-living adjustments or increasing the age at which people can get full benefits.
“There’s no attractive way to do this. There’s just a variety of less attractive ways,” said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
Biggs also argued that despite what the findings show, it would be difficult for politicians to garner support for a plan that involved raising taxes on all Americans.
“If this stuff was so popular, somebody would have proposed it by now,” he said.
It is clear that Americans are anxious for Congress and President Barack Obama to find some way to overhaul Social Security and other programs designed to help older Americans.
A Gallup poll released just days after the 2012 presidential election found that nearly nine in 10 Americans thought it was important for Obama to take major steps to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare.
Related: Yes, we can fix Social Security (but it won't be pretty)
Leave a Comment:
If it wasn't for SS ...50% of people that work and pay it in and get to old to work would starve to death because most of them don't depend on goverment hand outs like some we know do....besides they worked and paid for it...its not a handout to them.
What makes you think that the government can handle your money better than you can?
Especially since you don't wage wars, bail out banks or pay beaurocrats to retire at 55 with gold plated pensions.
They are not even saving this money for you, just spending it an replacing the money with IOUs.
I would rather opt out from this ponzi scheme and request back the money taken from me to fund it for the last 25 years and go it on my own.
Our government has used SS as a cash cow and means to frighten voters into voting to their benefit.
I want no further part of it.
peteMT:
Amen. SS is bad news for those of us who know how to invest. The return on investment for someone my age (< 30) is a HUGE opportunity lose compared to what my return would be if I simply invested in a conservative mutual fund.
Bob-1255448, you have no clue what you are talking about. Calculate how little you put into it then calculate what you would get out of it if you retire at 65 and lived until you were 75. Add in what you think you will be paying for medical insurance for you too.
notsosmart, I agree 100%. However that is the exact same reason as to why there IS a shortfall with social security. People are receiving significantly more than what they put into it which is inevitably going to run out.
People are willing to pay for Social Security. The problem is the govt steals the money for social security and blows it on robot squirrels and other govt waste. That is why SS is BANKRUPT!!!!
I'm not willing to pay an additional dime until govt is required by law to NOT be able to "borrow" (cough cough) from Social Security to fund their pet projects, Obamacare, or any other govt spending program.
Govt can not be trusted to not steal your money.
notso - here is my math:
If you begin contributing at 25 with an average income over the 42 years you worked of $50,000, you and your employer (need to count that too since you are not getting paid that money due to SS) would contribute $6,200 per year or $262,500. According to the SS administration, the average monthly income is $1,230. If I multiply that by 12, it is $14,760 per year. If I apply the 10 years in your sample, it is a total of $147,600 drawn.
SO, you would get back $114,900 LESS than what you (and your employer) contributed. Not as good of an investment as you portray.
I do not understand why people think "you take out more than you put in". My understanding is that Social Security is based on 'work credits'-what you collect is equal to what you put in. I expect to get back what I contributed-nothing more and nothing less.
I am 57 and recently took the time to do the calculations. I have all my annual incomes on my SS statement, looked up the FICA withholding rates for each of the years I had income and assumed investment earnings equal to the Treasury bond rates for all those years.
According to my calculations, the benefits they project for me at my retirement, paid out over the rest of my lifetime according to their actuarial tables works out almost perfectly with the amount they have collected from me and my employers, assuming investment earnings in line with Treasury Bonds.
This does not take into account the fact that my ex-wife is eligible to receive benefits equal to half of what I will receive, or the people on SS Disability.
Or the recent "Tax Holiday" where politicians voted to bribe me with an additional $50 per paycheck by reducing withholdings, knowing they would be long out of office and unaccountable when SS eventually goes bankrupt.
Unfortunately, polititians are experts in using your own money to bribe you into voting for them and pushing the resulting problems down the road.
How about Congress just keep their dirty hands out of it treating it like a cookie jar?
Notsosmart: perfect name BTW.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and is currently breaking down because it is unsustainable.
All of this could have been set up in a much better format. Social Security SHOULD have been set up like an insurance policy. Think about it: The "survivor" benefits are, in essence, a life insurance policy. If I die early my spouse and children get some money to (hopefully) get by. Now I plan accordingly and already have insurance but many don't. So the "survivor" portion is nothing more than like a life insurance policy that pays out "over time" (rather than lump sum).
The Social Security part is actually an "annuity". A life insurance policy pays if I DON'T live to my "average age" but an annuity protects a person if they DO!! What happens when a person lives WELL beyond their average age and "run out of money". So Social Security is SUPPOSED to work like an annuity.
End result is the government is not an insurance company and doesn't know how it works or what the cost is.
So why is the government involved? Why don't we pay in a little (A LITTLE) for the "life insurance" portion for survivor benefits. I pay in and if I die "early" Social Security survivor benefits pay out like a life insurance policy? Or, better yet, why don't I pay into SS and SS buys a "master life insurance policy" on all participants (I would prefer doing on my own, which I do, but I could get on board with a government mandated purchase of life insurance if that was an alternative to our currently failed system).
Now the SS part. What is SS? Acts like an annuity. So why don't we RUN it like an annuity? Government mandates "contribution" but is YOURS!! Goes into YOUR account!! Like a government run "401k". At younger ages you have more flexibility on investment options (mutual funds, etc.) but around 40 years old becomes more limited into conservative investment options with less risk. By 50 years even more limited. By 60 years very limited. But the account is yours. Die at age 64? Whatever is in the account goes to heirs.
But what is the "retirement age"? Up to you and depends on the income you can purchase as an annuity. At the time you decide to retire you are obligated to buy a lifetime annuity for the first, say, $300,000 in your account and whatever that monthly amount is. If you have more money above that you can either buy a larger annuity or take out a portion in lump sum. BUT IT IS YOUR MONEY!!
But what if I am 65 but my balance will not buy an annuity with a monthly amount large enough? Then guess what - you hold off retiring for another year and continue contributing. But it is YOUR MONEY so if you wait two, three, four more years to retire now there is more money in your account AND the annuity will pay out more a month because there is 3 less years to your "average" life span.
The government can't run a lemonade stand so why do we want them to continue to run a Social Security system THEY run?? Give the power and control to the people. The government can still mandate contributions (I hate that but is better than we have) but let the people control their balances to THEIR best interest, retire when THEY can afford it, and have a system that you have personal control over!!
dan42day, now instead of using actuarial rates, use the average stock growth. You'd be expecting a lot more. The actuarial rates are intentionally low, just barely over the bond market growth the last 40 years.
Bob,People know how to invest but it doesn't always work out.Wait until you reach that grand old age and can't work any longer.Besides there are those in jobs that are of service to everybody and they don't have money left over to invest.They shouldn't be thrown to the wolves in old age.
Without Social Security the U.S. would look like a Charles Dickens novel.
Jesse,
The actuarial tables I referred to give estimated life span or number of monthly payments expected to be paid out. I think you meant to suggest I use stock growth rates rather than Treasury Bond yields. I choose the bonds because the Federal government basically spent the SS surplus on the general budget as if it was revenue from selling bonds.
Social Security's problems will begin when the politicians conclude that we can't afford to pay back all the money they stole from it, not because it went broke on it's own.
You are right, the earnings and therefore benefits would have been higher if the money had earned stock market rates.
I also agree with ProBusiness and Empress.
Joe you and most of the others are right. Social Security payments are NOT a tax and that's were the trouble starts. The Administration even uses the word "tax" to refer to it, and how many of you know know how much HE has "borrowed" from our Social Security Fund.
Social Security is an Investment when we pay on it. FICA... is what it is called on our paychecks. Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act is what FICA translates to. And unlike what some of you think, we do NOT get more when we reach the age 67 (which Obama upped to 67 btw) we get ONLY what we put into it.
And the Equal Opportunity Act in the early 60s presumably "equals" us females earning power to men, but think of the females born significantly earlier. My mom was born in 1930. She is healthy for her age though age 82 is not so physically strong and she has osteoarthritis and thanks the Lord it isn't worse.
One of you suggested computing $50,000 a month was it? as a modest income. Well, of course inflation speaks.. and inflation speaks loudly to women before the 1960s.
FICA was passed to help folks who cannot work any more. We OWN that money. The Feds do NOT. And the present Administration is the first to abuse that Fund with so empirically a degree, that the first three years of his First Term he locked ... yes LOCKED the benefits folks had earned all their working lives... locked their benefits to the same amount calculated before he had even taken office.
This, during years when Cost of Living accelerated exponentially, he froze the income they had EARNED all their lives to fund FICA.
But oh my, his fourth year when campaigning for re-election, he awarded SS holders the massive amount of barely 3%... the astronomical average of a minuscule 1% if pro-rated for his first 3 years of not paying them what they'd been promised.
Previous Presidents, regardless their politics, never did that. Each year they attempted to help with the escalation of Cost of Living.
So it is obvious to me that not only ignorance inflames that oh so Democratic president we still have, but his gruelingly bad judgment. He has, however, made history.
It's sad, I voted for him, as I have been a registered Democrat most of my life. But, I do my homework, and when mom showed me the wordy letter stating she was getting no increase of the benefit that she had earned, I did the research. And I verified all of the above.
It was an education.
The decent folks who trust by submitting to a raise in the FICA, be careful what we wish for. We may be paying Mr. Obama's debt with that nice increase into the Social Security fund. HIS debt ... perhaps like his Presidential Mandates?
Check out the nonsense Mr. Obama is trying to get Congress to pass to support illegal aliens, who cheerfully leap over our borders, the mommies having as many babies as possible (thinking they get welfare that way... that is Society's error here btw).
Daddy grabs a job at not all that dirt wages... and on... and on... while unemployment of our citizens hit 14% and oh now we are better off... at only 8%? I suggest you check the figures... both are astronomical compared with any records with the past, including you will be surprised with the 1930s, when Social Security was born.
Check out the war Obama initiated, never ratified by Congress (against Constitutional law) March 21, 2011. Wars are costly.
Check the "adjustments" to Medicare, with its insurance premium which the elderly PAY for, and which coverage is less than 50% unless they buy a supplement.
And on and on....
I help my mom as best I can and so do my kids, and we are blessed with her wit and good humor. We'll make it cuz we have a wonderful asset....
We love her and she loves us.
$1100 per month (currently--less in the past) x12 months=$13,200 per year x 10 years=$132,000 after 40+ years of paying in to it, and you think people are getting over???
When SS was legislated, President Roosevelt promised the money would never be used for anything else. Fast forward to President Bush laughing in our faces while telling us that anyone who believes there is an actual SS fund is a fool.
Congress stold that money, and Congress should pay it back by working at half-wages and forgoing ANY benefits. Any who are unwilling need not run for office. They enrich themselves through the good-ole-boy network in which they take care of each other at the public's expense generation after generation, so the current and future generations of politicians can pay for the theft of the past. Maybe they won't be so quick to steal the people's money in the future.
Each and every one of them is filthy rich, voting themselves raises for working a few months in the year and giving themselves benefits and perks that hardworking Americans only dream about.
WHEN is this going to STOP? And how are WE going to make it stop, because they never will unless we force them to.
since LBJ freed up social security funds to fund his great society, every administration and congress since 1965 has taken the money for all their pet projects, the fund is totally and completely gone, all that is left is a IOU from the Treasury, which they can not pay, the interest earned and guaranteed has never been credited back since 1965, the Principal owed is well over 3 trillion plus interest for 48 years; if the money had been invested asis done in Chile, the fund would be overflowing with money, instead it is empty; Congress 3 years ago dipped into the till to fund a new computer system for Congressmen and women, original cost 23 million final cost 42 million all paid with social security money, now they must take on a task to convince the American people that Social security is nothing but welfare.
money borrowed from SS is payable by the USA. To regard it as thrown away is to not trust the gummint to be ABLE to pay it back.
That having been said - my SS payment is about 2400/month I'm still working, too (for another roughly 2 years - need to maintain the medical insurance coverage). Now, I PAID into the "insurance" (it was NOT a GIFT). Those who claim that they can make as much or more money in the stock market - be my guest (we will, of course, keep receiving your FICA taxes - NOTHING stops you from realizing your dream of "self sufficiency" - and of course, remember WHY SS was established in the first place - that little market collapse in 1929 when all of their profits suddenly went "away"
CONGRESS DIDN'T DIP INTO ANYTHING - stop getting your info from reichwingnut information sources. The world loves blubbering right wingers who have minimal information and SHOW IT, TOO
I find it interesting that these polls show that people would favor paying more into SS, in an effort to try to keep it solvent. Well, if you are being forced into it, and it's not an option, then there is probably a lot of things you can get people to agree to.
Now, give the option of being able to opt out of SS all together, and I think the dynamics of polls like this change dramatically.
one lady at the begining of SS paid in about $300 and received a little over $29,000 back from it over her lifetime. Congress has been spending from it since the 60's. The benefit payments today are paid from money collected .....today.
There should be a fund worth trillions. Instead there are IOU's from the treasury .... made out to itself.
BO made it worse by cutting payments to the fund the last couple of years.
If i did in my business with an employee 401k plan what congress did with SS i would go to jail.
no you wouldn't since you would be CONGRESS and can do pretty much whatever you WANT with gummint funds. the ISSUE is whether the fund has money - not where it comes from - in that the fund "income" is limited and without a larger source, the BENEFITS cannot be sustained beyond another 25 years or so. Remove the CAP and the system is solvent for 75 more years. it won't mean that there won't need to be some accounting in dealing with solvency after some date (due to increased demands from a larger retiree pool). You might want to get out of chicken little mode - THE SKY IS NOT FALLING
With all due respect, if it's not infinitely solvent, then there is a problem with it. Just because it may contain funding to cover most of existing payers lifetimes, that doesn't mean we should leave a problem to a children and grandchildren. Fix it, and fix it right, or give the opportunity to opt out of it. And for those who opt to stay in it, the government should repeatedly make it absolutely clear that SS is NOT a retirement fund!!!!!
The problem is for years we ran surpluses and instead of leaving it be congress paid bills with it. They put special treasury bonds into the trust fund in its place and is now just starting to get to the point of not being able to pay it back running Trillion plus deficits constatantly.
One can argue how to fix it, but you can't argue congress used the money for other things as evidenced by the treasury bonds they put in it. Hence the govt writing an IOU to itself and the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
uh - doug - it was SOLD as a retirement insurance policy - eliminate the abject poverty associated with being an old fart retiree. the MONEY is still there - they just need to cover the IOUs (and being as they are the federal gummint, they CAN for sure.)
Did we survey anybody under 40? Did we survey any 'public servants'??? These kids are gonna be pretty mad when they find out what the 'Greatest Generation' did to them.....Folks on public pensions had better watch how this all washes out...It is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme..the 1st ones in get all of the money...
actually those "kids" should be pretty mad at what the GOVERNMENT has done to them. The debt of this country is falling squarely on THEIR shoulders and their children because of very unintelligent voters.
Ned,The baby boomers are the generation that supported the Greatest Generations Social Security.the younger generation is going to be mad to find out they are paying for the boomers.
If the government would stop using the SS fund as their personal piggy bank, then there would not be a short fall in the fund !!!!!
The way around the SS tax increase is simple. Expand the tax base !!! Put our people back to work. Corporations must bring our out sourced jobs back home to do this. Far to many of our people are still unemployed or under employed. This must stop for us to move forward and get out of the financial mess we are in. Alas it will never happen. The government and their fat cat handlers are still feasting on our bones.
bob - while I agree the best way to increase the revenue is to increase people working, I disagree with your statment that outsourced jobs are "ours". A corporation has the right to chose where to conduct business and whom to hire. Businesses choose to hire overseas because the cost of doing business in the US is too high.
If legislators had the SAME program as the rest of us do, instead of the golden retirement with healthcare and full salary for life, the SS program would be fixed instantly!! They do NOT deserve a better program than the rest of us have, especially since THEY gave it to themselves and we had no say in the decision!!!
I agree Bob. I woudn't mind funding SS if our gov't could keep their grubby hands off of it. Its like putting money into a piggy bank with a hole in it. I wish there were a way to opt out of SS as I think I could do better on my own. However we all know that if that were an option everyone who would be considered money illiterate would take the option and still not have aplan for their elder years.
At 27 I am investing like it won't be there when it's my turn to collect becasue it probably won't. Unfortunately the vast majority of those my age say they will "deal with it when the time gets here".
Bookem Danno,Corporations outsource jobs overseas because they are paying slave labor wages to increase their corporate profit for their CEO's and stockholders.It is going to come at a high cost to those companies if people can't make a decent living in the U.S. and unrest or a civil war breaks out.
Why blame the corporation? It's the consumers buying the cheapest things they can find that force corporations to go offshore to produce their merchandise. There is a great furniture company that builds it's products right here in the U.S. and pays it's employees a decent wage. Hancock & Moore. Look them up, they make excellent high quality furniture that sells for 3-4 times what most people will pay for the cheap junk at Walmart.
Frivolous spending is the downfall of U.S. Cuts are needed, not SS. And Im only 34
Oh don't worry your taxes will be going up. I believe they already did rise 2% and the way Mr. Obama is spending money there will be more coming soon and Obamacare and the taxes associated with that nonsense hasn't even kicked in yet. Prepare to lose more of your income to BIG government. Oh well, four more years.
the SS tax did NOT go up 2% MORE, the tax holiday to help stimulate the economy is over, and the SS tax just went back to what it was before the holiday. Get your facts straight, will you?
Leprechaun, you are correct that it was just a tax holiday. It should have been a tax cut though. Since our gov't spends out of control as it is why keep feeding it? For instance; we funded $141k on a Chinese study on pig poop. Surely we need to cut before we keep dumping money into something that spends this way.
Leprechaun - you are technically correct, but let me ask it a different way. If the price of bread were $3.00 per loaf in 2010 and the price dropped to $2.50 a loaf between 2010 and 2012 and then went back to $3.00 per loaf in 2013, did the price per loaf go up?
Danno, so you're saying that taxes should never go up, only down?
Leprechaun...You can try to change the stripes or color of it if you like but a tax increase no matter how or where it comes from is a tax increase and it means less in your pocket. That is what taxes do take money from you for a bigger less efficient government. And now that companies are having to report your insurance to the IRS you can rest assured they will be taxing you for that as well. YEP...more taxes courtesy of this administration of misfits.
I see the reichwingnuts are out in force today. without SS the abject poverty of seniors will only get more pronounced. Just pay the bill - you won't get a CHOICE (and yes, remember that the cause of the FRENCH revolution was pronounced abject POVERTY. We are not there ...YET...but if it keeps getting worse (the rich controlling the majority of the wealth rather than a more equitable distribution), there is almost sure to BE one.
Americans do not want to pay more...they want the "rich" (anyone else) to pay more. Your poll should present the options: raise the tax rate for ALL (12.4% --> 15%); raise the cap (so high earners pay more but also will means few would collect the max since it based on the cap); or make it a graduated tax so the "rich" pretty much fund it.
eliminate the cap and tax the entire income. That will extend the "run dry" date by 75 years. BTW - it's right now 6.2 from employer and employee. I would like to see "means based" SS (and get those damned POLITICIANS to be REQUIRED to PARTICIPATE at about 1.5X the individual rate))
"eliminate the cap on the amount of income that can be taxed for Social Security"
That needs to happen right now.
J
You mean that you want the top 1/2 of the 1% to pay more. Even tho they will not need the SS checks when they retire ??? Surely you jest . You and I both know that will never happen.
J. Willard
Yes the progressive/liberals will do anything they can to make the cap go away. Then they will "means test" when you're old enough to start receiveng SS benefits. Guess what? Those who had to pay the most into SS will be deemed too rich to get any benefits. In other words, you rich people will be required by law to open a bank account and deposit to it every payday for life and you willl not be able to ever touch that money when you retire. Our elected officials will hand it out to those that need it more than you. That could only sound "fair" to a progressive/liberal.
What I want is ALL income taxed to support SS.
If we want it to continue.
And that's not JUST THE 1%.
The cap is something like $106,000 a year. Above that, no SS tax.
But seeing as the top 1% have seen something like 80-90% of all real growth in wealth and income compared to the rest of us over the last 30 years, why should their 'gamed windfalls' NOT be taxed fairly?
Unless you somehow believe that sheltering money offshore in the Caymans like Mitt truly creates jobs.
Grow up peteMT - There are plenty of good Americans who EARN every penny that they get. That BS about "gamed windfalls" applies mostly to elected officials. And I would say mostly to DEMOCRACTS. How much have Bill and Hillary earned in the private sector over their working lives? What are they worth today? And out of the goodness of their hearts they establish "trusts" to game the system to decrease taxes. How about John Kerry, he's worth over $180 million. How long has he worked in the private sector? And he hides his foreign made yacht to avoid his own states taxes. Open your eyes and you will see that elected officials, both dems and repubs, are sheltering more "gamed windfalls" than just about any private sector hard working American who has created jobs for other Americans, both of which pay plenty in taxes to support their country. and their fellow Americans. It's just too bad our elected officials don't treat our tax dollars better.
I see nothing wrong with requiring all income earners to be taxed for Social Security, including the wealthy who won't need it. I pay annual taxes on my home that go to support schools, and I am childless. What's the difference? My taxes support educating the country's children, the rich's taxes can go to support Social Security for those who do not have unlimited wealth the way they do.
What's the difference between paying to educate someone and paying to support someone? Plenty. If I pay for your education and you waste your life away having a good time while I work and continue to pay taxes to support your childs education and your local fire department, police department, local government, road maintenance, mass transit, food stamp program, mental health programs, prison system, public sector union pensions and health insurance, etc, etc... (it goes on forever)
How much is enough? Nobody will ever put a figure on exactly what they think is enough percentage to take from their fellow American to support every program that our government comes up with.
What do you think is enough?
And why can't a person who has done well enjoy what is left over without being demonized? Afterall they pay plenty during their working life.
the cap is 113,600 right now
JH - just pay the tax and "like" it - even if you DON'T like it, just pay the tax. I've got some 30k in SS "unearned income" to pay taxes on this year (not SS, though, SS doesn't tax SS payments). That's one of the necessities of the "system"
Put the social security back in the lock box and prevent Congress from robbing it again. The last 4 presidents wrote IOU's to social security to the tune of over 2 trillion dollars.
I would not agree to a SS tax increase. The govt already gets 12.4% of our income for it (6.2% from us, 6.2% from employer which I'm sure affects our salary). I'd like to be left with *something* to save for myself...you know..the whole personal responsibility thing.
Removing the cap I'd be more agreeable about just because it seems backwards to have wealthier people pay a lower % of their income. SS is about making sure the elderly aren't starving in the streets so it doesn't matter that the wealthier people probably won't get much out of SS...SS isn't a saving program.
I would be willing to pay more as long as the money could be kept out of the hands of our thieving congressional critters. Right now the Social Security trust fund is over $4 Trillion in the hole because congress has traded in the Real Money for IOUs (T-Bills and T Bonds) and then spent the money or used it to mask how high the deficit really is.
As long as congress can get their hands on the money, no matter how much we give them it will make no difference. They will continue to spend like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse and kick the can down the road.
You would need to eliminate the potential for Executive Orders as well. A billion here and there adds up. This is not a shot at any one POTUS.
Chris - So you want your SS funds to sit in a lock box drawing no interest and loosing value to inflation instead of invested in Treasury bonds drawing $120 billion a year in interest per year as it does now.
I totally agree with you Chris and couldn't have said it better!
You and Chris don't have a clue. I want the SS trustees to invest my SS funds in those treasury Bonds drawing $120,000,000,000.00 dollars a year in interest, as required by law.
By the way, when you buy Treasury Bonds the cash always goes into the General Fund
Just my thought, but Congress has assured themselves full retirement, healthcare for them and their families, more pay than most of us make for life and many other perks none of us will afford. This gives them full support without having to spend their own stolen, sorry, accumulated money which is personel millions in most cases! I think this proves the american dream can only be accomplished by becomeing a public servent in Congress, or a thief. How is this allowed by the public... If they followed the Constitution and passed laws that applied to them as well as us, this would not be a problem, but then they would be a servent, not an elite!!
Scott, unfortunately there is no loaw or amendment to the constitution that says any laws enacted by congress applies to them. Just like congressional term limits, this will never happen because politicians see government as on giant money bag.
If there was an option for HELL NO I would have picked that instead. If you are in your 30's or younger and are dumb enough to think you're gonig to get anything from SS then you deserve what you get. Take what I have already paid and keep it. Just don't dip into my pockets going forward and I will be responsible for my OWN retirement!
Nicon23,The problem is you never know what life is going to throw at you.If you became disabled due to an illness(let's say MS) or an auto accident that left you(let's say a paraplegic),what would you live on? Social Security disability will at least give you money so that you don't face the prospect of becoming homeless.What if you lost a good job after 10 years and never were to find another good paying job.Now you're 62 and too sick to work.Where is that money going to come from for you to be able to sustain yourself?You thought since you were young and had a good job that another one would appear.But it didn't happen and now you'r elderly,alone and can't earn an income.Do you think that society should throw you under the bus? I believe that Social Security should stay solvent,that it be moved out of the general fund and that the government should pay back into it what was borrowed.I also believe that the cap should be lifted to insure that all generations will receive it in old age.
After 41 years of working with a few more to go I cant wait to join the 47% Mitt was talking about!
SS was the best thing the FDR admin did for the country. This allows the elderly, especially women, to live at least a meager life. Medicare was the second best thing that our government has done for the elderly. Whether the gov. has taken the cash and paid in treasury notes or not, they owe the money to those who paid in.
I agree that the cap should be removed, or at least raised significantly. The wealthy may or may not need the SS check when the time comes. It's a lifeline for everyone. Whether someone needs it depends on how they fare throughout their life. Some will lose all their wealth and need it, some won't.
Couldn't agree more, Debengr. Before SS and Medicare, many seniors in this country lived out their lives in poverty. These programs literally meant life over death for many - Ayn Rand included.
I am willing to pay...but I shouldn't have to...I have already payed my entire working life...50 years....
For years congress has been using the Social Security TRUST FUND as their personal piggy bank and leaving nothing but IOUs. Now its time to pay the piper. I am not willing to sacrifice further for something I already paid for. Why are these politicians not in JAIL?
Those IOUs are called U.S. Treasuries. If you invest in a bond fund you are buying U.S. Treasuries. Without all the interest over the years, the SS Trust Fund would be much smaller than it is today. If U.S. Treasuries are not considered to be a safe investment, we have far bigger problems than the solvency of the SS System.
Quit giving my money away that I put into the system from the age of 16 to 65 and I wouldn't need to worry about retirement. Better yet quit giving my money away to the people who haven't put a penny into the system because they are too lazy to work and I wouldn't have to worry about retirement.
I have no problem paying slightly more for SS....Just implement a rule that the government can not touch that money for other wasteful spending. It is for SS and only for SS!!A complete isolated fund that congress can not touch for anything!!
All the excess payroll taxes collected over the years make up the SS Trust Fund. Every nickel is still there. It is invested in U.S. Treasuries to ensure that the funds get interest. As of 9/30/2012 the SS Trust Fund stood at $2.573 trillion.
Peter - how about this?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction
Yeah, right.
No we don't.
If we DID, then we'd DEMAND that ALL INCOME, not just the first $106,000, was taxed to support SS.
What's that? You didn't know that?
That's right. You're scot-free after that amount; imagine the laughter in CEO board rooms.
We WANT a Great Society.
Nobody wants to pay for it anymore.
if you make $106.000 dollars a year your whole life or most of it you will get $3600.00 dollars a month social security at age 66. that's $25.00 an hour with no taxes. what country has that for its average citizen. paying your social security is like money in the bank and your made to do it. all as they have to do is run it right. and they can.