Social Security - your thoughts?

#179
#179
The pension model wont work going forward. Need to reform to provide the benefit instead of the cash for the benefit.
 
#182
#182
lawgator1 said:
Be tough to do it on holdings but buy or sell, yes. I'm talking if you buy $1 million of Boeing stock you pay something along the lines of $1k in tax. Same if you sell.
Click to expand...
You’re going to tax the transaction twice? On the way in, and on the way out?

If I sell the $1M for $1.2M, I’ll also pay capital gains tax.

I likely paid income tax on the base $1M.

This is a party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and SpaceCoastVol
#184
#184
lawgator1 said:
Be tough to do it on holdings but buy or sell, yes. I'm talking if you buy $1 million of Boeing stock you pay something along the lines of $1k in tax. Same if you sell.
Click to expand...

Like the "tiny" stock buyback tax that Biden passed and has already tried to raise.

The same tiny tax that they haven't collected because the Biden admin can't issue guidance and regulations timely

Something like that???
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 85SugarVol
#186
#186
Look, I have not worked out the numbers and I am not saying it is THE solution. I just offered it for discussion purposes based on the assumption that we want to fully fund it. Seems to me that is the starting point and also seems to me that it is politically impossible not to do so.

So, assuming we must fund it, how do we go about doing that?
 
#187
#187
lawgator1 said:
Look, I have not worked out the numbers and I am not saying it is THE solution. I just offered it for discussion purposes based on the assumption that we want to fully fund it. Seems to me that is the starting point and also seems to me that it is politically impossible not to do so.

So, assuming we must fund it, how do we go about doing that?
Click to expand...
Are you dead-set opposed to privatization of SS?
 
#189
#189
McDad said:
Are you dead-set opposed to privatization of SS?
Click to expand...


Put it this way: I am very skeptical of it and the Devil would be in the details. I assume that you do not mean to allow actual individual direction but rather, for example, very low risk, bond-oriented investments for some relatively small portion of a retiree's account. Perhaps a bit more aggressive for someone in their 30s. And sliding in between.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#190
#190
lawgator1 said:
Put it this way: I am very skeptical of it and the Devil would be in the details. I assume that you do not mean to allow actual individual direction but rather, for example, very low risk, bond-oriented investments for some relatively small portion of a retiree's account. Perhaps a bit more aggressive for someone in their 30s. And sliding in between.
Click to expand...
Something similar. Not bonds. Simplex, no load index funds. Can have a choice from a few. All have impeccable track records over decades. And/or simple 401s. Point is, like you said, a limited choice of very stable options. Or they could choose to stay enrolled in SS.
This would offload a lot of people from SS system.

Also, allow folks who are currently in SS the option of pulling out a discounted lump sum to place in the limited options. Pretty easy to calculate whether a person is better off in or out of SS depending on age and expected rates of return.
 
#191
#191
lawgator1 said:
Wow. Insightful. This had only been said about a million times before.

Solutions are what we need to discuss now.

Means testing is a non starter. Raising retirement age by a year, maybe that would work. Or combo that with a tiny tax on securities since tax rate increase on the wealthy is apparently also untenable.
Click to expand...
lawgator1 said:
A fraction of one percent.
Click to expand...
Oh hell no. Can't you people ever get your grubby paws the hell out of my wallet? You already steal enough that you then throw down a rat hole.
 
#193
#193
utvolpj said:
We gave the govt trillions, asked them to hold it for us, and they spent it. Who could have possibly seen that coming?
Click to expand...
And we have a ton of LGs that want to give them more.... with zero accountability.
 
#194
#194
McDad said:
Something similar. Not bonds. Simplex, no load index funds. Can have a choice from a few. All have impeccable track records over decades. And/or simple 401s. Point is, like you said, a limited choice of very stable options. Or they could choose to stay enrolled in SS.
This would offload a lot of people from SS system.

Also, allow folks who are currently in SS the option of pulling out a discounted lump sum to place in the limited options. Pretty easy to calculate whether a person is better off in or out of SS depending on age and expected rates of return.
Click to expand...


The concern is obvious, which is that if there were a substantial market downturn, or even a modest one that lasted a period of a few years, you'd have people who run out of $ to pay for retirement substantially before they would have, had they been getting the steady SS check.

Everyone would love it if it consistently gave 5% + growth. But if it got sluggish and there were the kind of enormous losses that would entail to a huge population with no alternatives, not so much.
 
#195
#195
lawgator1 said:
Be tough to do it on holdings but buy or sell, yes. I'm talking if you buy $1 million of Boeing stock you pay something along the lines of $1k in tax. Same if you sell.
Click to expand...
Then when that isn't 'enough', they will sigh and squirm and say "we just need a little bit more". No. They already get enough. How about a constitutional amendment for a 15% flat tax on ALL income? For everybody.
 
#196
#196
lawgator1 said:
Look, I have not worked out the numbers and I am not saying it is THE solution. I just offered it for discussion purposes based on the assumption that we want to fully fund it. Seems to me that is the starting point and also seems to me that it is politically impossible not to do so.

So, assuming we must fund it, how do we go about doing that?
Click to expand...
Maybe it would help if we stop forgiving loans and stop sending billions to countries that will never appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, Gandalf and SpaceCoastVol
#197
#197
SpaceCoastVol said:
Then when that isn't 'enough', they will sigh and squirm and say "we just need a little bit more". No. They already get enough. How about a constitutional amendment for a 15% flat tax on ALL income? For everybody.
Click to expand...


GOP would never go for that. Their benefactors pay nothing close to that now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbovol
#199
#199
overseasorange2 said:
Maybe it would help if we stop forgiving loans and stop sending billions to countries that will never appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I for one don't care whether or not any of them 'appreciate it'. I want OUR tax dollars to benefit OUR country first. If there is any left over then we can be generous. With $4,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, we are nowhere near that point yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overseasorange2
#200
#200
SpaceCoastVol said:
LOL Right. And the elitist Democrats are so magnanimous that they pay more than 'their fair share'.

You are such a partisan hack.
Click to expand...


Just being honest. The billionaires and those worth many millions game the system and pay much lower percentages than 15.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top