What do you consider substantial? Also, that 62k payout is waiting until you turn 70 to receive ss. At fra, max benefit is closer to 50k.
SS Funding Solution
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
What do you consider substantial? Also, that 62k payout is waiting until you turn 70 to receive ss. At fra, max benefit is closer to 50k.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail. Casey's is hiring.
I am really good with a capital gains tax for SS that kicks in for people whose capital gains vastly exceed their wages.
We HOPE he is exaggerating to make a point. I’m not so sure though.
Yeah I’m not real sure what the optimal number is. Maybe donut hole to 400k then 2% on all income above it? I have no clue but based on this thread and a bunch of us knuckleheads coming up with some good ideas, you would think our government could work together to come up with a viable solution.
That is something I hadn’t even thought of. I would be on board with this.
Great discussion btw. A little surprised at some of the people’s responses though. If I didn’t know who was Republican and who was a Democrat, I’d have a few of you switched around.
I'd probably set a 401K threshold balance of $1M,... and even $50K is adequate for what is supposed to be a safety net program benefit.
Crazy concept but if your max skill level in life was minimum wage you may have to work until you die.
It's not always about skill, but also circumstance.
But good to know where you sit on this one.
I don't know,... The acceptance of a minimum wage circumstance over the course of an entire 40-50 year employment window would seem to demonstrate a definite lack of skill.
Yeah, that dude with Downs Syndrome who spends his career picking up tables at Culver's should have gone into software engineering.
Really reaching for the outlier there, aren't you?...
Even that guy is being taken care of,.. Perhaps not at the level you would like to see, but rather at the level he was able to create for himself.
Absolutely, the way it is now.
But privatization or single payer solution would leave that dude high and dry.
Ok, I was trying to be nice and not say this, but it is eating at me.
It is not much of a stretch, I usually think of the Downs Syndrome guy picking up trays at Culver's when I interact with Whiskey.
Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in.
And neither of those are positions that I was supporting with my comment,... I was attempting to point out just how very rare a lifetime minimum wage earner is.
Thankfully so, mainly due to the push to get food service workers off minimum wage.
But even at $15 an hour, I don't think you are making any 401k millionaires.
Of course not,.. The human condition covers a broad spectrum,.. you can't expect the extremes to comply with the average.
It’s good to know the solution to poverty and homelessness and unforeseen medical conditions, etc etc is to just get out there and get a better job and make more money.
Give me an example of how someone could make it to 65 and be in a minimum wage situation and only have been, that wouldnt also qualify for some form of disability if you dont mind.
HATE this idea. You contribute, you get the benefit. More contributions = more benefits. Period.
Penalizing people for saving responsibly outside of SS is a HORRIBLE message to send.
Not to mention, $1M isn't **** in retirement. That's $40K per year using the 4% drawdown rule.
If SS went away tomorrow we could cut roughly 14 billion a year in government administration cost.
Claude finished the response
If social security were completely dismantled today, approximatelyhow much administration cost could be cut from the United States government?
Searched the web
Searched the web
Roughly $14 billion a year, though the exact number to attribute purely to Social Security is a bit smaller than that headline figure.
Here's the breakdown:
SSA's total administrative budget (called the "Limitation on Administrative Expenses," or LAE) was $14.127 billion for FY2023.
Congress.gov
That LAE pot isn't 100% Social Security, though — it draws funding from the OASI, DI, and Medicare trust funds for their respective shares of administrative expenses, from the General Fund for the SSI program's share, and from user fees. So it also covers running the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and SSA's role administering parts of Medicare (e.g., enrollment, means-testing).
Social Security Administration
Social Security itself — the OASDI retirement/disability program — makes up the large majority of that spending, since it's by far SSA's biggest program. A reasonable estimate is that pure OASDI administration is somewhere around $9–11 billion of that $14 billion total, with the rest going to SSI and Medicare-related administrative work.
For context on scale: Social Security and SSI combined paid more than $1.4 trillion in benefit payments to nearly 71.3 million beneficiaries in FY2023. So administrative costs are only about 1% of what actually goes out the door in benefits — dismantling the program would eliminate a relatively small line item (administration) while stopping a vastly larger one (benefit payments).
Congress.gov
A few caveats worth flagging:
"Completely dismantling" the program wouldn't necessarily save the full $14 billion immediately — some wind-down costs (processing final payments, legal/records obligations, possibly severance for ~60,000 SSA employees) would persist for a period.
This is discretionary appropriated spending, distinct from the (much larger) benefit payments funded by payroll taxes.
Its a **** program and an excuse for a bloated federal government.
Claude finished the response
If social security were completely dismantled today, approximatelyhow much administration cost could be cut from the United States government?
Searched the web
Searched the web
Roughly $14 billion a year, though the exact number to attribute purely to Social Security is a bit smaller than that headline figure.
Here's the breakdown:
SSA's total administrative budget (called the "Limitation on Administrative Expenses," or LAE) was $14.127 billion for FY2023.
Congress.gov
That LAE pot isn't 100% Social Security, though — it draws funding from the OASI, DI, and Medicare trust funds for their respective shares of administrative expenses, from the General Fund for the SSI program's share, and from user fees. So it also covers running the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and SSA's role administering parts of Medicare (e.g., enrollment, means-testing).
Social Security Administration
Social Security itself — the OASDI retirement/disability program — makes up the large majority of that spending, since it's by far SSA's biggest program. A reasonable estimate is that pure OASDI administration is somewhere around $9–11 billion of that $14 billion total, with the rest going to SSI and Medicare-related administrative work.
For context on scale: Social Security and SSI combined paid more than $1.4 trillion in benefit payments to nearly 71.3 million beneficiaries in FY2023. So administrative costs are only about 1% of what actually goes out the door in benefits — dismantling the program would eliminate a relatively small line item (administration) while stopping a vastly larger one (benefit payments).
Congress.gov
A few caveats worth flagging:
"Completely dismantling" the program wouldn't necessarily save the full $14 billion immediately — some wind-down costs (processing final payments, legal/records obligations, possibly severance for ~60,000 SSA employees) would persist for a period.
This is discretionary appropriated spending, distinct from the (much larger) benefit payments funded by payroll taxes.
Its a **** program and an excuse for a bloated federal government.
Privatize it. Stop allowing government to “borrow” from it.
Most importantly, shoot all the Boomers.
Who makes $7.25 per hour for any extended period of time? Using your Culver's example, here's what they pay multi-year employees. Minimum wage is reserved for super rudimentary roles for HS kids.
I mean, I am on board with that too. Especially since it was set up so government could “borrow” from it. Does it make sense that the government is supposed to pay it back with interest, as if those interest payments are somehow separate from the American taxpayer?
It’s a terrible system that everyone knew would go to sh*t once Boomers started retiring. The fact the federal government can’t figure out how to balance a checkbook the last 50 years just exacerbates the whole f#ckery of the system.
Kill it and put it out of its misery.
F#ck ‘em.
Yes.
The f#ck would you know about it, sh*t-for-brains?
I’ll bite.
If government is the solution to poverty and homelessness and unforeseen medical conditions, then please explain California.
It's a safety net so the maximum benefit level needs to be capped,.. Nobody is being penalized for responsibly saving for their retirement outside of Social Security,... There is a reason why I used the term "threshold balance" in relation to the 401K account I was using as an example,.. and the 4% draw down rule is a fallacy given that an average return of 7% is almost automatic for a market invested account.
Raise the retirement age.
Cap benefits so there is no increase.
Stop giving tax breaks to corporations and billionaires and instead use that money to fund SS until we phase it out in 20 years. Specifically end buy, borrow, die.
Tax loans against asset
I don’t think many people 40 and under expect to see anything from SS.
This is as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. But I’d also like to see us cut about 40% of the federal workforce and put the responsibility back on the states for deciding what programs they want to fund.
Cap benefits so there is no increase.
Stop giving tax breaks to corporations and billionaires and instead use that money to fund SS until we phase it out in 20 years. Specifically end buy, borrow, die.
Tax loans against asset
I don’t think many people 40 and under expect to see anything from SS.
This is as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. But I’d also like to see us cut about 40% of the federal workforce and put the responsibility back on the states for deciding what programs they want to fund.
4% income + 3% growth to account for inflation is why the 4% rule exists with 7% returns. Along with accounting for market downturns.
They are if I read your post correctly. Person with $500K in 401K assets doesn't have their SS restricted. Person with >$1M does. That's being penalized.
And if max benefit is capped, so should the max contribution. Hence why we have the cap that we do today. You can't charge people infinitely for a finite benefit.
I just turned 43, but I better damn well get something from SS. My wife and I have both contributed the maximum since our 20s. There better be some ROI there.
You did not read my post correctly,.. I said raise or eliminate the cap, period.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
Inside the contrast in public messaging from Dabo Swinney and Chad Morris
-
02
Tiger Illustrated Football
Thursday Clemson Football Insider: Tait Reynolds, O-line issues, the portal, Belichick, scheduling & much more
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Thursday Clemson Football Recruiting Nuggets
-
04
On3 Football
UNC defensive coordinator Steve Belichick resigns
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football
A major challenge awaits Clemson's defensive front