Some questions about Social Security

[Archer 007]

Is it taxable?
At what rate?
At what level of intake does taxing start?

 

[cgannon64]

I hope its not taxable. Imagine if the government took from what they were handing out. They might as well just not tax it and lower the amount they give out accordingly.

Unless they want to trick old folks into thinking they're getting more than the really are.

 

[The Yankee]

I think it's taxable, since I used to get Social Security before I turned 18 as a dependant of a retired person (my father) and he gets SS. Don't know the rates or whatever. I got about $7,000 a year, so it makes things even tighter now that the income is no longer there.

But then again, if my father wasn't forced to retire, there'd be a lot more income...

 

[JollyRoger]

Assuming you're talking about someone receiving social security, it is potentially taxable at ordinary income tax rates if you or your spouse have other sources of income. It's some sort of formula to determine how much (if any) of it is taxable. I don't know what the minimum income threshold is, but if you're doing better than merely getting by, you're getting taxed.

 

[Archer 007]

I was wondering because some neighbors of mine had the question to ask me since i'm suppost to be the expert on government and taxes. Other then about $600 a month of SS, they get about $300 in other income from a part-time job and retirement benifits.

 

[Constantine]

I heard it was going bankrupt after the baby boom

 

[taper]

Probably will. I'm not quite 21 now, and I'm not expecting to get back a cent of what I'm putting in. I'd rather have the gov't butt out and let me use my money to provide for my own family, rather than provide for everybody's family. If they spent their life not planning for their retirement, why should I give them money?

 

[Archer 007]

Well, yes. It will go bankrupt in about 2025. Unless it can be corrected, but we should just get rid of it a sell Medicare to the HMO's. I was asking this question for an older neighbor, however.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by archer_007
I was wondering because some neighbors of mine had the question to ask me since i'm suppost to be the expert on government and taxes. Other then about $600 a month of SS, they get about $300 in other income from a part-time job and retirement benifits.

Assuming these numbers are accurate, I think they will be able to avoid taxation. Usually, taxation of social security kicks in when one spouse still has their full-time job or there is significant income from a private retirement plan.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Originally posted by taper
Probably will. I'm not quite 21 now, and I'm not expecting to get back a cent of what I'm putting in. I'd rather have the gov't butt out and let me use my money to provide for my own family, rather than provide for everybody's family. If they spent their life not planning for their retirement, why should I give them money?

I agree completely. Ever since I started working, I've been saving money, putting some into an IRA or mutual fund.

I recall a story that may or may not be apocryphal. The very first person to receive a social security check contributed nary a cent and got (over the course of her life) nearly $100k. That's just nuts.

If it weren't the government, social security would be a pyramid scheme. But the government is above the law, so its all okay.

 

[The Yankee]

Of course the first people to get SS didn't pay into it. The program just started.

And maybe that person lived very long with SS benefits...though I doubt it was 100K, this was back when $25 weekly salaries paid for your life.

But yes, rich people do benefit from SS too...with higher checks since they put more in it, IIRC.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you look at life expectancies, then social security is just another way for those who work hard, live poor, and die young to subsidize those who barely work, live affluently, and die much older.

 

[cgannon64]

So bascially my parents will be the only people to have paid for and gotten the benefits of Social Security, while the first generation on SS got it without paying, and my generation pays without getting any.

Sounds fair to me. Unless of course someone saves SS, but that is seeming less and less likely the longer Bush is in office...

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by JollyRoger
If you look at life expectancies, then social security is just another way for those who work hard, live poor, and die young to subsidize those who barely work, live affluently, and die much older.

Are you suggesting getting rid of Social Security?

I think the best way to revive it is to raise the retirement age of both full and partial benifits by about 3 years and also raising Social Security tax on workers slighty.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hit all wages with social security taxes (the cut off is about $85,000) and be stingier with who receives a social security check. I don't intend on needing social security when I retire & I don't see why I should be granted it if it is contributing to unnecessarily bankrupting the system. If I get a Social Security check I don't need, I plan to donate the cash equivalent to charity. A substantial part of my private retirement stash will go, however, to a different Charity (the one who partcipates in the triple table dance with Hope and Faith).

 

[The Yankee]

Oh no! You can't put the tax on anyone over $85,000! You'll be labeled a damn Communist! [/sarcasm]

It does make sense though. They can pull benefits out, so why not work to put more into it?

Oh, and don't forget to give a little to Destiny on the pole....

 

[Archer 007]

You dont have to pay Social Security tax if you make over 85000?
That is crazy. Do they still get cut checks at retirement?

 

[JollyRoger]

You pay social security taxes on your first $85,000 of wages. Then you don't have to pay anymore on any additional wages you make that year. That's why one side of the tax burden debate doesn't count social security as part of one's "tax burden" - it would show that the working class pays a higher share of the tax burden than they would like to admit.

 

[Archer 007]

Interesting. That gives me alot of fresh debate fuel.

 

[newfangle]

Social security is a morally corrupt handout system, and its recipients should be liquified on spot and sold to biomedical facilities without trial.

Moderator Action: Certain opinions are best kept to one self. Warned. - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889