« prev   random   next »
2   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2019 Dec 3, 4:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Another entirely bogus and misleading article designed to promote mindless social division. I know people who collected SS at 62, because they didn't trust the government.

The government's SS increases from 66 onward were designed to benefit the government on the basis of cynical actuarial gain i.e. people would croak and the Guv would wind up not paying out anything or much less for the collected taxes. People waiting until 70 are gambling that they will survive long enough to make it work out to their advantage.

Also, one out of seven men never reach the base SS age of 62 to collect to begin with.

The LibbyFuck idea that SS taxes should just be another wealth transfer tax plundering the upper middle class to feed the rest is the real theme.

"In 2016, just 4.6 percent of women and 2.9 percent of men first claiming Social Security benefits were age 70 or older," A negligible percentage of the SS recipients even wait until 70 to collect.
3   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (57)   2019 Dec 3, 5:04pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      


Then poverty will be eliminated!

Sell access to the exit wounds to necrofiliacs!

4   WookieMan   ignore (5)   2019 Dec 3, 5:15pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Top wage earners pay in $16k+ per year and will NEVER reap the full benefit of that investment if they max it out over 10-15 years. Not sure how the rich are gaming the system. They're the ones getting gamed with regards to SS. And yes, I know the "employer" pays half, or 6.2%, but that's already baked into most business owners cost. Basically it's part of the employees pay. And if you can't generate or prove you're worth for that 6.2%, you're fired.
5   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2019 Dec 3, 7:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I'm calling BOGUS on this article. The enormous miss in the article is that the payout scale gives very little additional payout for high-income people who wind up paying in a lot more over their lifetime. The first $9912 you are taxed on gives you back 90% in retirement; up to $59760 that you are taxed on gives you 32%; over that amount taxed on gives you only 15%.

Let's do some calculations!

I'll keep everything in inflation-adjusted terms scaled to today's $$$ values.

Let's look at a "low pay" person and use a case where the payout would be the worse. This is worst-case scenario for the low pay person.
Someone works from age 18 until age 65 (early retirement by today's standards) and earns (inflation adjusted) $25k every year. This person pays in for 47 years, but only 35 years are actually used in the calculation of benefits. That, and coupled with early retirement and coupled with early death sure looks bad for the poor person!
Paid in (65-18) x $25k x 12.4% = $145.7k (inflation adjusted).
The magic payout number is $8921 + $4828 = $13749. However, if you retired at age 65 (early) you only get 75% of the pay, so you get $10311/year. It takes 14.1 years to get back what you put in (inflation adjusted). The person needs to live until age 79.1.

Now let's look at the "high pay" person and use an extreme case of where the payout would be the best. He doesn't graduate from school until age 30 and quits working at age 65, so he only works 35 years (unlike the poor person, he doesn't work those 12 additional years that don't count for getting money back). Additionally, he waits until 70 to get max payout. He is taxed on $100k each year.
Paid in 35 x $100k x 12.4% = $434k
The magic payout number is $8921 + $15951 + $6036 = $30908 per year. It takes 14 years to pay back if he starts at age 70. So he'll need to live until 84.

If that "high pay" person worked 40 years instead of just 35 the total pay in would be $496k. Requiring 16 years to break even if collecting at age 70. That means break-even is age 86.

If that rich person worked 40 years and then started collecting at age 65, they would only get $23181/year and need to collect for a whopping 21.4 years to break even; that's age 86.4.

So, summary: "low pay" person that does all the wrong things needs to live until 79 to break even. "High pay" person who does all the right things to maximize SS payback needs to make it to 84; if they don't perfectly optimize, they'll need to live to age 86 or more.

Oh, there's more.... that SS payout will be taxed at a far higher rate for the rich person. So, they'll be another couple of years behind after losing 20 to 40% of their SS payment.

Here's a basic overview...
• You pay into the system at 6.2% rate. Your employer matches at 6.2% also. If you are an independent contractor, you pay the full 12.4% rate on your income.
• It's basically a flat tax (with a cap), so you don't bother about how much you pay in; instead, you just look at the income you were taxed on. i.e.: Instead of saying "I paid in $12.4k this year" you say "I paid SS on $100k of income."
• You convert all the yearly incomes to an inflation-adjusted value. (So when you were taxed on $40k income back in 1985, that actually counts as $110k or something now.)
• When you retire, you look at the 35 highest inflation-adjusted years. Compute the average of all those years.
• You then compute your payout based on that 35-year average. THAT PAYOUT COMPETITION IS HIGHLY PROGRESSIVE (see below)
• Then, depending on how old you are when you retire, you get that whole amount until you die, or, if you retire "early" you get a reduced amount until you die. Those payments are also indexed to inflation.

The ENORMOUS helper for poor people is that the payout competition is scaled...
For the average yearly taxed income between $0 and $9912, you receive 90% of that annually.
For the average yearly taxed income between $9912 and $59760, you receive only 32% annually.
Above $59760 you receive a piddling 15%.

Retirement age is a bit complicated (and keeps shifting), but suppose someone retiring at age 70 gets full benefit but someone retiring at age 65 gets oly 75% of their benefit.
6   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2019 Dec 3, 8:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

That, too. The lesser pay ins get proportionately more than the higher pay ins, so there is already wealth distribution downward in the system.

Please write p@patrick.net if you would like to register to comment

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions