My Social Security fix (If you're ready to read it)?
Even though I’ve already prepared for no social indemnity benefit I categorically do NOT see it going belly up. Any required change “WILL” be made because the babe-in-arms boom social group is style too big of a voting segment. Here are three things I contemplate any will or "should" be changed. I'm sure in attendance will be some disagreements but here we dance (it’s a bit long):
1) One of the things I specifically expect to see soon is a vary within the SS charge so that here is NO hat on income subject to the export tax (currently 97.5K).
2) A .5% increase ($50 extra per $10K of annual earnings) in the rates itself to 6.7%. This, combined near #1 above, would add on slightly a bit to the fund. Ex: a being earn 197.5K would salary an extra $7,187.50. A beat about the bush fund proprietor (wall Street exec, etc) making 100,097,500.00 would retribution an other 6,700,487.50 contained by SS levy. The toll could be reduced to .5% lower than the “current” horizontal as the system gain its footing. That would tight-fisted a 5.7% SS duty. The .5% cut rate (from 6.2 to 5.7) could next be added to the Medicare export tax to fix it. The network effect would be no fine-tuning contained by the total SS/Medicare charge (it would still be a total of 7.65%)
3) Unfortunately, I deem most individuals (i.e. 70%+) would do even worse than the government historically discouraging rate of return; thus I'm against giving some of the money to individuals who, for the most segment, can't even get by what they enjoy in a minute. However, I do believe the money should be invested for greater returns within a diversified ETF portfolio something similar to this: 50% domestic/international stocks (ex's: S&P, NASDAQ, IOO, ADRA), 20% commodities related (GLD, DBA, VAW, IGE,), 20% High Quality Bonds (Gov't & Corporate), 10% Cash equivalents close to compact disc ylding > 6%.
4) Protect SS funds from “other” uses.
5) Additionally, in the interest of in your favour the system, and because I believe social surety should be more of a sanctuary network for “if” you obligation it, I submit the following thought. I suggest SS benefits should be “eliminated” for individuals next to retirement sources of income (cap gain, div’s, pension, etc) “or” assets (minus primary house & busy farmland) totaling greater than a set define that adjust for inflation. Purely as a starting point for debate: I would support a current income threshold limitation of 2.5X the average income of the city you reside in “and/or” a 3M asset hamper. For example: if your city’s avg income be 40K, and your total retired income exceeded 100K (or assets > 2M), you would not get hold of any of the SS money that you would otherwise collect (your full benefit would simply be “reduced” between 1.5-2.5X that city’s avg income). Adjusting for stipend increases, the avg income in my example would be around 100K in 30 yrs and and so you total retired income would own to be more than 250K (or assets >5M) to lose the entire benefit. My money’s where on earth my mouth is because I’m 30yrs from SS eligibility and I will enjoy ZERO problem giving up my benefits when I’m spending >250K/yr and/or own assets >5M. BTW, the stall fund mngr mentioned surrounded by #2 would achieve a nice large $2100/month (6K/month contained by 30 yrs) “if” he somehow go ruined between making 100M and retirement so he “would” know how to pinch help of the “safety net” that he have salaried into. Actually, the max benefit would hold to be increase when the 97.5K panama be abolish. I could see the beat about the bush fund guy getting the modern max benefit of 10K/month (28K/month within 30 yrs) because he put more into it. The 10K/month amount would apply to anyone who have compensated SS excise on an average income > 500K/yr every yr from age 21 (per current rules for the 2100 max payment). The 500K as of 07’ would be in synch towards the back and fwd for inflation.
Unlike some, who have an idea that SS should be phased out, I still approaching the perception of SS (even if I never benefit from mine). I see it as an encouragement for nation to cart likelihood surrounded by their lives such as entrepreneurial risks. I construe that knowing nearby is “something” to go down support on would provide at smallest a moment or two bit of encouragement to try big risks/high reward endeavors. If, however, the business risk pays stale and you create the subsequent MSFT, APPL, GOOG, CAT, etc, etc. next there’s no basis to “access” that safekeeping web.
Any opinion, thoughts, or unknown planning that aren't smartass surrounded by temperament?
Answers:
I longing that at hand be more philosophy approaching your person debate surrounded by congress. Unfortunately most of the design within Washington seem to be to be ideological and political than base on authenticity and practical experience.
I agree beside your matter, but some of it is too complicated for my savour. Also, I guess you forgot to increase the age at which you can collect SS. One of the artistic intents be to provide a sanctuary lattice for those too feeble to work anymore. In this year and age, almost anyone is physically competent to work until 70 or more.
I agree beside taxing or "taking back" some of SS from those beside other sources of sophisticated retirement incomes (Bill Gates won't really entail any SS!), but let do it through some simple rates formula.
P.S.-AARP in reality does enjoy a proposal along these lines, but they seem to be reluctant to push it, probably because abundant of their member won't resembling at least possible some details.
You are giving us something the AARP and Congress hasn't be competent to do. formulate sensible suggestions concerning the issue not making a political issue out of it.
We simply cannot salt away out head within the sand and pretend near is no problem.
My compliments!
So will this e my % of taxes taken out of my paycheck respectively month? will it stir from 25% to 15%?
I hold a home year attention to detail. If i balustrade within my patio what percent of the cost can i write past its sell-by date on my taxes?
What is taxable onb W-9?
How does federal taxes affect supply or constraint?
How much sale export tax do you payment where on earth you live?
1) One of the things I specifically expect to see soon is a vary within the SS charge so that here is NO hat on income subject to the export tax (currently 97.5K).
2) A .5% increase ($50 extra per $10K of annual earnings) in the rates itself to 6.7%. This, combined near #1 above, would add on slightly a bit to the fund. Ex: a being earn 197.5K would salary an extra $7,187.50. A beat about the bush fund proprietor (wall Street exec, etc) making 100,097,500.00 would retribution an other 6,700,487.50 contained by SS levy. The toll could be reduced to .5% lower than the “current” horizontal as the system gain its footing. That would tight-fisted a 5.7% SS duty. The .5% cut rate (from 6.2 to 5.7) could next be added to the Medicare export tax to fix it. The network effect would be no fine-tuning contained by the total SS/Medicare charge (it would still be a total of 7.65%)
3) Unfortunately, I deem most individuals (i.e. 70%+) would do even worse than the government historically discouraging rate of return; thus I'm against giving some of the money to individuals who, for the most segment, can't even get by what they enjoy in a minute. However, I do believe the money should be invested for greater returns within a diversified ETF portfolio something similar to this: 50% domestic/international stocks (ex's: S&P, NASDAQ, IOO, ADRA), 20% commodities related (GLD, DBA, VAW, IGE,), 20% High Quality Bonds (Gov't & Corporate), 10% Cash equivalents close to compact disc ylding > 6%.
4) Protect SS funds from “other” uses.
5) Additionally, in the interest of in your favour the system, and because I believe social surety should be more of a sanctuary network for “if” you obligation it, I submit the following thought. I suggest SS benefits should be “eliminated” for individuals next to retirement sources of income (cap gain, div’s, pension, etc) “or” assets (minus primary house & busy farmland) totaling greater than a set define that adjust for inflation. Purely as a starting point for debate: I would support a current income threshold limitation of 2.5X the average income of the city you reside in “and/or” a 3M asset hamper. For example: if your city’s avg income be 40K, and your total retired income exceeded 100K (or assets > 2M), you would not get hold of any of the SS money that you would otherwise collect (your full benefit would simply be “reduced” between 1.5-2.5X that city’s avg income). Adjusting for stipend increases, the avg income in my example would be around 100K in 30 yrs and and so you total retired income would own to be more than 250K (or assets >5M) to lose the entire benefit. My money’s where on earth my mouth is because I’m 30yrs from SS eligibility and I will enjoy ZERO problem giving up my benefits when I’m spending >250K/yr and/or own assets >5M. BTW, the stall fund mngr mentioned surrounded by #2 would achieve a nice large $2100/month (6K/month contained by 30 yrs) “if” he somehow go ruined between making 100M and retirement so he “would” know how to pinch help of the “safety net” that he have salaried into. Actually, the max benefit would hold to be increase when the 97.5K panama be abolish. I could see the beat about the bush fund guy getting the modern max benefit of 10K/month (28K/month within 30 yrs) because he put more into it. The 10K/month amount would apply to anyone who have compensated SS excise on an average income > 500K/yr every yr from age 21 (per current rules for the 2100 max payment). The 500K as of 07’ would be in synch towards the back and fwd for inflation.
Unlike some, who have an idea that SS should be phased out, I still approaching the perception of SS (even if I never benefit from mine). I see it as an encouragement for nation to cart likelihood surrounded by their lives such as entrepreneurial risks. I construe that knowing nearby is “something” to go down support on would provide at smallest a moment or two bit of encouragement to try big risks/high reward endeavors. If, however, the business risk pays stale and you create the subsequent MSFT, APPL, GOOG, CAT, etc, etc. next there’s no basis to “access” that safekeeping web.
Any opinion, thoughts, or unknown planning that aren't smartass surrounded by temperament?
Answers:
I longing that at hand be more philosophy approaching your person debate surrounded by congress. Unfortunately most of the design within Washington seem to be to be ideological and political than base on authenticity and practical experience.
I agree beside your matter, but some of it is too complicated for my savour. Also, I guess you forgot to increase the age at which you can collect SS. One of the artistic intents be to provide a sanctuary lattice for those too feeble to work anymore. In this year and age, almost anyone is physically competent to work until 70 or more.
I agree beside taxing or "taking back" some of SS from those beside other sources of sophisticated retirement incomes (Bill Gates won't really entail any SS!), but let do it through some simple rates formula.
P.S.-AARP in reality does enjoy a proposal along these lines, but they seem to be reluctant to push it, probably because abundant of their member won't resembling at least possible some details.
You are giving us something the AARP and Congress hasn't be competent to do. formulate sensible suggestions concerning the issue not making a political issue out of it.
We simply cannot salt away out head within the sand and pretend near is no problem.
My compliments!