Trump Announcement on Social Security

Status
Not open for further replies.
dilettante

dilettante

Well-known Member
Location
Michigan
Social Security UPDATE | Trump Makes MAJOR Announcement

This should be reassuring. Of course he has little say in anything done before January 20th.
 

Hmm... regardless of who/whom is in power...
  • The fund is slated to hit zero, circa 2033, with funds only available to pay about 75%.
  • Cutting out the tax on S.S., brings it forward to about 2030.
  • It would take an added inflow of about $300B per year to move that 75% to 100%
  • The current deficits going forward, appear to be in the $2T range.
Dramatic changes are almost necessary, which will make a lot of people very unhappy, but they will ignore the situation and blindly blame each other. I would add imho, but consider it more of a fact... rather than opinion.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Politics arenā€™t allowed.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the video as being political. I found it informative.

If members can refrain from introducing party politics into the discussion, there should be no problem.

From my point of view, social security and the Australian system of compulsory (employer paid) superannuation scheme have some parallels but in our super scheme there are no defined benefits and neither the fund managers nor the federal government incur any debt. Superannuation for all wage earners was designed to take the pressure of the aged pension system that was facing the same future debt problem as US social security.
 
What the video didn't discuss is T is leaning towards eliminating tax on SS income, something I would welcome since I'm at the high end of benefits, well above the threshold. I was supposed to send in an IRS return in this year but did not because they haven't bothered me yet, I dislike that double tax that began during the R years 4 decades ago, and the late penalty is chump change. T will of course get push back from Wall Street because eliminating that SS tax will mean that revenue will need to come from either increasing the national debt printing money or taxing corporations more or raising the upper threshold on maximum individual taxes (my preference).
 
We'll see what happens by the time we reach projected critical deadlines. Scary talk in anticipation is just that...scary talk and of course a call to action by legislators to begin to plan for expected shortfalls.

Earmarking moneys and funds is the cause of the problem so redistributing government money is the likely solution.
Scary talk is there just to sway your vote.

Now get back to enjoying your retirement years and gain assurance from the thought that it's too big to fail so something will have to be worked out.
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
Hmm... regardless of who/whom is in power...
  • The fund is slated to hit zero, circa 2033, with funds only available to pay about 75%.
  • Cutting out the tax on S.S., brings it forward to about 2030.
  • It would take an added inflow of about $300B per year to move that 75% to 100%
  • The current deficits going forward, appear to be in the $2T range.
Dramatic changes are almost necessary, which will make a lot of people very unhappy, but they will ignore the situation and blindly blame each other. I would add imho, but consider it more of a fact... rather than opinion.
Click to expand...

If SS taxes are to be removed from peopleā€™s paychecks as hinted at ā€¦ then SS will dry up sooner than expected.
 
I vote they tax the crap out of my kids and grandkids!
They owe me. ;) šŸ¤£

But seriously: we don't NEED to retire at 62, 65, OR 70!
People need to get a second career and carry on!
Life isn't short like it was back in 1939 when they created the SS system.
People didn't spend 20-40 YEARS getting SS.

 
I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum that I'll likely never retire because of my divorce. That said, even in my 20s I assumed that the Social Security Administration would be bankrupt by the time I'm older. I've never had a lot of faith that SS would be available.
 
I think it was around 1960 -61, Congress voted to steal the fund to build highways and go to the Moon.
Then People were laid off so China can build everything cheap. Then Many employers don't have to pay Social Security.
Now non of it had anything to do with overspending that also happened due to run away Lawmakers and Gravy bowl charges.

I'm sure you see what is all wrong about all of that and how it has to be nixed and put back the way it was. China Enemy, Russia Enemy,
Middle east mostly enemies. Will the Donald agree to pay more taxes? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! But thas a must too.

Now none of that is actually a political view point. Its just plain public trust lost to thieves, crooks and a pot of liars all a boiling at over charge.

Disband NASA save $100,000,000,000, fire most of the Treasury department, it will work with Ai. Save $30 billion. Most all Departments of Government will run on Ai, Save over a $trillion a year. Sure the fix is easy. Who cares about Gubber-mint employees graft.

If I hadn't fixed stuff I would have been fired. Nuff is E-nuff. So do you want do the Dance Ringo. In my area most all gubber-mining employees run the red lights that don't have cameras.
 
Last edited:
Social Security should require that those, who want to collect benefits, have an income below a certain maximum. I don't really need Social Security since I have a 100K pension from a state government. In that way those, who really need it, will get more. Everyone should pay Social Security taxes to fund those who need it in later years.

In addition, our Federal government should legalize voluntary euthanasia for everyone if the person requests it. Too many folks are living with great pain and/or impairment and suffer terribly for many years before they die a "natural" death.

I'm 89, by the way, and am still in good health but worry that some terrible impairment will hit and I will have to suffer for years before I finally die. Allowing voluntary euthanasia would drastically cut the social security benefits paid out.
 
Last edited:
Mitch86 said:
Social Security should require that those, who want to collect benefits, have an income below a certain maximum.
Click to expand...

The maximum Social Security check

Your maximum benefit if you file at full retirement age ā€“ between 66 and 67 ā€“ is $3,822 per month. Your maximum benefit if you file at age 70 ā€“ the age when extra benefits stop accruing ā€“ is $4,873 per month.
Click to expand...
So roughly half what you are pulling down, and it is subject to income tax at that.

Are you in both the SS system and your State pension?

Who's mangers are you dogging with that opinion?
 
Maybe itā€™s time to try a new scheme for the next generation of retirees. šŸ¤”

If the current employer and employee payroll taxes were rolled into employeeā€™s
existing 401k programs the employee would have more control over how the funds are invested and more control over when they choose to retire.

It would also remove the cost of the government bureaucracy surrounding Social Security.
 
The Russian answer in involuntary euthanasia of Ukraine.
Maybe it goes both ways too.

Maybe not to worry is correct multiple-choice answer.
 
I'm sure the fix for retirement is investing in the Economy. I know theft will be like sighing a pass for Bernie M.
Still Payroll deductions to investments in a 401K for the working lifetime makes sense. It has to go up because of
the built in inflation due to the Debt of 30 + $trillions. No government can afford to print cash anymore. Its the
Bingo of a belief that can save no one.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top