Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

mattchuck2 wrote

nepa wrote

Not saying I want a lump sum... I'm saying I want to forfeit my benefit entirely because I will not need it... I'm a smart saver.

2. People should be able to raid their social security accounts for money

I don't get why you are saying that I am promoting "raiding" my social security account?

I am in a strong financial position.  I will not need Social Security.  I am willing to give it up the benefit entirely in lieu of favorable tax treatment on a portion of the savings that I have generated myself.  I am asking for nothing from Social Security.

What about this implies that I would be taking money from my SS account?

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

You don't want to take your Social Security money that you paid in at all and you want to keep contributing?

Or you want the option of no longer contributing to Social Security?

Because #1 seems weird (but fine, if that's what you want to do) and #2 is "raiding" Social Security because it allows everyone to forgo it entirely, causing a death spiral in funding that will lead to its demise.

mattchuck2 wrote

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

You don't want to take your Social Security money that you paid in at all and you want to keep contributing?

Or you want the option of no longer contributing to Social Security?

Because #1 seems weird (but fine, if that's what you want to do) and #2 is "raiding" Social Security because it allows everyone to forgo it entirely, causing a death spiral in funding that will lead to its demise.

#1... why does this seem weird?  I think it sounds like a good idea.  The only thing I am asking for is favorable tax treatment when I begin taking distributions on my personal retirement assets.

I'm thinking that future liabilities would be reduced significantly, if people had the option to pay less taxes in retirement if they chose not to take a SS benefit.  

nepa wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

You don't want to take your Social Security money that you paid in at all and you want to keep contributing?

Or you want the option of no longer contributing to Social Security?

Because #1 seems weird (but fine, if that's what you want to do) and #2 is "raiding" Social Security because it allows everyone to forgo it entirely, causing a death spiral in funding that will lead to its demise.

#1... why does this seem weird?  I think it sounds like a good idea.  The only thing I am asking for is favorable tax treatment when I begin taking distributions on my personal retirement assets.

Why does it seem weird that you've paid 6.2% of your income towards something for your entire career and you don't want to realize the gains (or even get reimbursed for your payments) from that thing? Do I have to answer that?

And there are plenty of tax favorable ways to get at your retirement money with very little tax impact. Research "Roth Pipeline" or "Roth Conversion Ladder" for starters.

mattchuck2 wrote

Why does it seem weird that you've paid 6.2% of your income towards something for your entire career and you don't want to realize the gains (or even get reimbursed for your payments) from that thing? Do I have to answer that?

And there are plenty of tax favorable ways to get at your retirement money with very little tax impact. Research "Roth Pipeline" or "Roth Conversion Ladder" for starters.

I pay for a lot of things with my tax dollars for which I receive absolutely nothing... that's just the way the system works... right?  

To be honest MC, you sound a bit critical, and I'm not quite sure why.  I'm willing to support a system that I believe in.... A system that I think is integral to the overall health of our society... I have presented an idea that I think would help with maintaining the overall viability of that system.  

Your reply to me (or lack thereof) sounds a bit like the reply of a conservative... one that would indicate that I lack common sense because I am willing to pay for something for which I will receive no benefit.  

That to me... coming from a self professed bleeding heart, ...sounds a bit weird... are you sure you're as liberal as you think you are?   

My wife and I earn too much money for the Roth options to work for us... our goal is to be in a much lower tax bracket in retirement.  Using after tax money for retirement savings with our strategy doesn't work.

Let's get this back on track.

Step 1:

I would legalize it. Criminalizing marijuana is unethical and bad for business. We have invested so much money supporting dictators and locking people up. There is literally no argument that can be made to keep it illegal.

Step 2: Figure out a way to fix the union system. We need unions to protect workers, at the same time the system we have is corrupt. It needs to be easier to unionize, but there should be mechanisms to tear them down when they meet specific goals.

Step 3: Fix the election system. Raise the public money ceiling. Give candidates who take public money more access / discounted access to public services. NPR, PBS, the USPS, whatever. Punish candidates who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar wrt foreign money / super pacs that get caught colluding with candidates etc. Then repeal citizen united later on.

 - streamline voting process, set guidelines for fair registration, fair absentee voting, more electronic oversight, and e-voting

Step 4: Figure out a way to tax capital gains more fairly. I am actually not in favor of a Bernie style full on tax rate of every gain that doesn't take into account losses and inflation. Tax each trade a bit. Make things fairer. More coming.

+100000^^^

Here's my crazy ass rant. It's yooge.

Hold somebody accountable for the 2008 meltdown. If the whole damn thing was legal, then change the law. If it wasn't punish somebody.  Wall Street does add value to the economy, but I'd be surprised if it is as much as they take out of it. If no one is accountable it will happen again.

Figure out some way to encourage corporations to keep profits in the US and pay tax on them. I think our corporate tax rate has to be lower.

Get the big money out of politics, it's a joke. The supreme court blew that one yooge.

Treat energy independence as part of national defense. Even 2% of the defense budget could make a yooge difference in advancing renewables.  Perfect that technology and sell it to the world. Offer a 1$ billion prize to the corporation or university that discovers a real solution, what ever that is - let some scientist define it.

Enforce the LAW: Congress declares war. Everyone has to stand up and be counted before we start killing people.  I blame both the president and congress for this. The president is an autocrat and the congress are pussies.

Congress doesn't get their own super duper govt health insurance if we don't. Bastards.

Figure out some way to stop the US consumer's subsidy of drug development. We pay $30 a pill and in Canada they pay $1 for the same pill.  Probably need some kind of communist of socialist program to fix that.\

Ditch super delegates.

Put the word yooge in the dictionary. It belongs there. It's yooge.

There were only two other times or debt ratio has been higher. In the 40's we actually paid the debt down in the late 60's the economy grew fast enough to take care of the problem. It was never really paid down. Now we are at 105 trending higher. It's not anything you can turn around in a dime. Giving out a grand is silly. Other than a major emergency we can not afford that.
The tax system needs to be revamped.
I'm post more when I have time.

So you think it is weird that Napa is willing to forgo his ssi because he paid into it. Then on the other hand you want uncap the income threshold.  That's 14 % tax for people who will get no benefit for those dollars. Irony at it's best right there.

I'm ok with Matts #4 but the rest range from stupid to bat shit crazy commie stuff

On the social security piece since the benefits are capped so should the % of what is taxed.  There probably should be a point where is you have earned X in your career say $10 million you don't get benefits because you won't need them which will make the trust fund last a little longer.

I might be willing to forgo or reduce my SS benefits in exchange for not taxing my Ira / 401k at all upon withdrawal.  

tjf1967 wrote

There were only two other times or debt ratio has been higher. In the 40's we actually paid the debt down in the late 60's the economy grew fast enough to take care of the problem. It was never really paid down. Now we are at 105 trending higher. It's not anything you can turn around in a dime. Giving out a grand is silly. Other than a major emergency we can not afford that.
The tax system needs to be revamped.
I'm post more when I have time.

So you think it is weird that Napa is willing to forgo his ssi because he paid into it. Then on the other hand you want uncap the income threshold.  That's 14 % tax for people who will get no benefit for those dollars. Irony at it's best right there.

Rich people still get a benefit from social security. How do they get "no benefit"? You can argue that the benefit is less than they paid in, but it's impossible to argue that they get "no benefit".

And yeah, I like to get things for the money I pay. If that makes me conservative, so be it. For my tax dollars, I get roads and bridges and plowing and police protection and fire protection and national parks and a populace that at least has a basic safety net and education.

So yeah, I think it's weird that you'd pay into Social Security your entire life and then just walk away from everything you paid for. But if it makes you happy, go for it. Donate your social security checks back to the government (or just never cash them). We all appreciate your sacrifice, comrade.

All I had time to respond to was #1 so let me respond to the rest of it.
#2 We both seem to agree on a Workfare system and pouring money into revitalizing cities and repairing infrastructure. The water problems we have had of late both in NY as well as in countries across the US are due to an aging infrastructure. Pipes that have been in the ground far too long. All this stuff needs repair. But people to work here and hire Government supervisors to be on the ground and in the field to supervise contractors directly to make sure the work is done correctly and the money is not wasted.

#3 Yes

#4 Yes

#5 No, SS is forced retirement savings, if I pay more into I should get more out of it.

Also:
Incentivize colleges to lower tuition by funneling more grant money to affordable colleges and away from the ones that are outrageously high. Make sure to account for those colleges (like Harvard or MIT) that offer a full ride for middle income students - these are good actors, not bad, the more they do this, the easier it is to get grant money.

Restore the GI bill, full college tuition should be a reward for serving our country.

Rework Obamacare so that it is not a regressive tax on lower income families. Obamacare is a tax, make no mistake about it, if the government says you have to have it and you have ot pay for it it is a tax and right now percentage wise that tax hits lower incomes harder.

Stop raiding the Social Security trust. Companies have dropped retirement plans, dropped healthcare, dropped vacation plans, no wonder people feel like slave laborers and have no loyalty anymore - we need to give them hope for their retirement years.

Stop importing slave labor from Mexico or other parts of the world, if we have a guest worker program than they too should be paid $15/hr. No wonder all our jobs have left and our people don't have adequate jobs anymore, we would rather pay some poor exploited worked in China rather than pay our people here. Investing in America is investing in Americans. If it takes putting trade restrictions on China - so be it, we buy more from them than they do from us. Our prices for goods will go up, but my economics says that when the jobs come back the tax base comes back and the country gets stronger, not weaker. A rising tide lifts all boats. I believe the time has come for us to put up some trade barriers. Individual businesses will scream that they will loose business and people will loose jobs but those jobs will come back on shore and companies that learn to operate efficiently here will prosper.

Don't be afraid to call radical Islam what it is, a political party/organization and not a religion and we can start fighting it like we did the Nazis. We were fighting to eliminate a radical political system and not the German people. The problem we have is that people equate Radical Islam as a religion, it is not. As a religion we have to use kit gloves.

Since the Supreme court overruled the restrictions on campaign finance and super pacs - tax the hell out of them. I say a 95% tax on any contribution to a super pac.


That should be enough for now, sure to get a shit ton of flak over those changes.




 

I like all of Ptexs additional ideas

A rising tide raises all boats sounds a lot like trickle down Reaganomics to me

mattchuck2 wrote

So yeah, I think it's weird that you'd pay into Social Security your entire life and then just walk away from everything you paid for. But if it makes you happy, go for it. Donate your social security checks back to the government (or just never cash them). We all appreciate your sacrifice, comrade.

Dude, you're worse than my wife... Obviously you selectively read my posts:

nepa wrote

I am willing to give up the benefit entirely in lieu of favorable tax treatment on a portion of the savings that I have generated myself.

nepa wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

So yeah, I think it's weird that you'd pay into Social Security your entire life and then just walk away from everything you paid for. But if it makes you happy, go for it. Donate your social security checks back to the government (or just never cash them). We all appreciate your sacrifice, comrade.

Dude, you're worse than my wife... Obviously you selectively read my posts:

nepa wrote

I am willing to give up the benefit entirely in lieu of favorable tax treatment on a portion of the savings that I have generated myself.

Ahhh, so you do want to get some benefit out of it.

I don't think the math works out on your proposal (and you're being deliberately obtuse by acting like you're not touching your social security bucket, even though you are trying to take from another one of the government's buckets - I'll leave that discussion for another time). Maximum Social security benefit is $2,639 a month, or $31,668 per year. Anyone with more than $791,700 of investable retirement assets can safely draw that amount of money and be perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that there are people in this board that are there (or above there). And you're saying that the government should give people who have above that amount of retirement assets a favorable tax rate?!?!?

What you're arguing for is a highly regressive tax break that only gets more expensive to the government the richer people are. So Bill Gates would benefit enormously, but the average person wouldn't benefit at all. You're also arguing that people who save more in their retirement accounts and do your plan should receive a more favorable tax rate than people who collect social security checks (I guess that's the incentive), but then you're robbing the Treasury of a ton of money. All while giving people who have plenty of money and favorable tax treatment even more money and favorable tax treatment. Have you really thought this plan through?

Coach Z wrote

I like all of Ptexs additional ideas

A rising tide raises all boats sounds a lot like trickle down Reaganomics to me

Thank you except I am not espousing favorable tax rates for the wealthy. I would rather see us go to tax system much like we had during Eisenhower's admin. I time when we were paying off the debt.

mattchuck2 wrote

Ahhh, so you do want to get some benefit out of it.

I don't think the math works out on your proposal (and you're being deliberately obtuse by acting like you're not touching your social security bucket, even though you are trying to take from another one of the government's buckets - I'll leave that discussion for another time). Maximum Social security benefit is $2,639 a month, or $31,668 per year. Anyone with more than $791,700 of investable retirement assets can safely draw that amount of money and be perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that there are people in this board that are there (or above there). And you're saying that the government should give people who have above that amount of retirement assets a favorable tax rate?!?!?

What you're arguing for is a highly regressive tax break that only gets more expensive to the government the richer people are. So Bill Gates would benefit enormously, but the average person wouldn't benefit at all. You're also arguing that people who save more in their retirement accounts and do your plan should receive a more favorable tax rate than people who collect social security checks (I guess that's the incentive), but then you're robbing the Treasury of a ton of money. All while giving people who have plenty of money and favorable tax treatment even more money and favorable tax treatment. Have you really thought this plan through?

I don't get where I'm being "deliberately obtuse"... to be honest, that sounds like an uncalled for insult.

You're making a ton of assumptions.... most of them are completely invalid.

First, I don't have the same level of wealth as Bill Gates.  People in my bracket get screwed more often than not because of people like you... that lump everyone with money into the Billionaire class.  I have worked hard over the past 20 years, I have made good decisions, I will retire young without the need for a Social Security benefit, but I certainly don't have an infinite stream of wealth coming in my direction.  

Second, How would I be "robbing the Treasury of a ton of money" when you don't even know what I proposed as the "favorable tax treatment?"  I guess, if an idea does not involve giving away a bunch of cash, it can't be good for anyone.

Of course, you have to assume that I would try to tip the scales in my favor... I have money... people with money have no soul.  I could not possibly have an idea that would be equitable for everyone?  Right?  

^ I'm just saying you're running into math problems. Say you worked hard, saved, and have $5,000,000 for retirement. Not Bill Gates money, but not poor or middle class either. That money throws off $200,000 a year using the 4% rule. If your taxes are lowered 30% (let's say from 20% of your income to 14% to make the math easy), you'll be depriving the Treasury of $12,000 a year. If you're not taking Social Security (and you would have earned the maximum benefit), cool, the government saves $18,000 a year on you. The government would probably like that.

But what happens with someone who has $50,000,000? Using the same process, the government would lose $180,000 every year that person lived.

So, unless you're arguing that there should be a very narrow income stream where this plan is valid (which just so happens to contain your exact income, and helps nobody above you on the income scale and not that many people below you), then it's kind of a dumb plan.

Why complicate the tax code even more, just to allow people in your exact situation an additional option for like 20 years of your life that won't (if I understand your plan correctly) affect government receipts or expenditures very much at all?

I guess that's what I'm most annoyed about. You are already getting a lot of benefits with your savings plan. You pay less taxes now because you are (I assume), maxing out your 401k. You probably own a home which is another savings vehicle with favorable tax benefits. In your tax bracket, the tax savings from just those two things over the course of your life will be a pretty big number when you add it up.

Well off people already get pretty nice tax treatment. You're arguing for more. I'm saying it'd be a tough sell to the electorate, but good luck.

And, in any case, I started this thread to try to come up with some solutions to the problems that people have with the government when they tell pollsters that they are "angry".

"I want High Income people to receive favorable tax treatment for forgoing social security" doesn't seem like it would rank very high on people's main list of pet peeves.

This is another invalid assumption: Where did I say that the favorable tax treatment would be in perpetuity?

How about what I actually said: "favorable tax treatment on a portion of the retirement savings that I generated myself"

Which means:

If I grossed 10 million in SS eligible earnings over my career, and paid in 5.6% of those earnings into Social Security, then I would get favorable tax treatment on $(10 million X .056) of my retirement savings.