That is not how taxation works.
(Let me preface by saying that I’m only speaking of the US here. I know little about UK pensions, and nothing at all about EU retirement, despite the fact that I live here right now.)
You keep asking this question, and seems like you’re expecting an answer. But the answer is, “no one really knows,” because it’s based on how much you make, how long you work, the age at which you retire, whether you are receiving benefits for yourself only or including a spouse, and whether or not you are disabled. Even the government accountants who are supposed to be able to answer that question can only tell us how much is expected to be paid out in very broad terms, which is why predictions of SS’s solvency are given as a range of years.
It is possible to get a current prediction of one’s expected SS benefit (based on past earnings) from the SS.gov website. Here is a synopsis of mine:
I will be 60 this year. I am healthy and working full time. If I retire at age 62 (earliest possible age to collect benefits) I will get $1,948/month based on my contributions to date. If I wait until my full retirement age (66 ½) I will get $2,764/month. If I hold off until 70, it rises to my current maximum benefit of $3,583/month. My absolute maximum benefit, including my wife and children, would be $4,699/month, but it is unlikely that I would choose that option. If I become disabled and cannot work, my benefit would be $2,662/month.
Those numbers will change upwards slightly, as I continue to work. Anyone else’s numbers will be different, perhaps much different.
One thing the US government could do to increase the solvency of the system is to remove the SS contribution ceiling, which is currently limited to the low six-figures.
There is much additional complexity to this: Medicare (old-age medical insurance coverage) is entirely separate from social security and kicks in at age 65. I also have private retirement income coming from what’s known as a “401k” (a private, non-governmental retirement plan funded by payroll contributions, with the company kicking in a little.)
Did this answer your question?
10 Likes
Wealth inequality is bad.
That affects the poor the most.
Then couple that with what the consequences are, no pension. What are the poor going to live off?
I care about that because its a disaster.
So now let me ask you a question.
Why do you want to hide the debts from the public so much?
Partly.
So what are the positive parts of your reply. Firstly you do admit people are owed.
I will be 60 this year. I am healthy and working full time.
Now you are owed for what you have paid in the past. If you carry on working, that’s not a debt now.
So when you say you can’t tell what’s owed, that’s not the case. It’s quite straightforward. Ask any actuary how to value an annuity [I have to be slightly careful here are there is a difference in meaning between the US variant and the UK variant]. An income for life is the variant I’m talking about.
So how do you value that?
For you at 60, assume you retire at 62. It’s known how the payments increase over time, and we can present value each of those. Turns out its inflation for both and they cancel. Then we need to know the probability you are alive and multiply each cash flow by that. This is simple actuarial maths. Then because its for lots of people something called the central limit theorem kicks in and the amount is known in total with a high degree of certainty.
Turns out that taking income later, you get a higher income, but you’ve lost the payouts, interests on the payouts inbetween. Do you really think the government is offering you a good deal?
That’s exactly what any government requires any pension provider to do. Why shouldn’t the state do the same?
401K - separate issue. That’s a capital backed pension, that you own. It’s wealth. SS is debt.
So no it doesn’t answer it, but I appreciate the attempt.
So let me ask you a question(s)>
Lets assume you know the amount owed, and the same next year so you have the increase, and the rate of increase.
What do those numbers tell you? How can you work out if your pension is safe?
1 Like
Well, all of them, but are we talking asset tax or income tax here?
I don’t like income taxes, they are punishment for creating value and doing work.
But I’d go for a yearly asset tax of all value in excess of 1 million dollars, let’s say 3% until we get things settled out, then it’d probably go down.
Everyone that had to pay the tax for the privilege of living in a country where they are allowed to accumulate wealth I’d give a very nice medal, with Columbia Triumphant and a big cogwheel on it. They could wear it to parties with the other wheels.
4 Likes
Sure. I’ve been paying into it since I was 16. So has everyone else who works legally.
It doesn’t really matter what I think. That’s the way it works. It’s not possible to opt out of SS legally (with some exceptions, mainly for different types of government-based employment, like CalPERS.) It’s the deal I’ve got. Will I make back what I’ve put into it for all these years? Who knows? My mom did, my dad, my first wife, and two of my brothers didn’t. It’s a crap shoot, and the government actuaries know what they’re doing.
Nobody knows that. But SS is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, and the US dollar keeps the entire world economy alive. It’s as good as it’s going to get. It’s not a problem that keeps me awake at night.
And it’s unlikely that the entire government would make any significant changes. To do so would require collusion between all three branches of government, and would take so long that I’ll probably be dead of old age before they do it. And old people are very serious and vocal voters.
5 Likes
Nice straw man.
1 Like
It’s a crap shoot, and the government actuaries know what they’re doing.
===========
I’d dispute that. Post the actuarial number as to how much is owed. Then we can test the validity of their number.
It’s not a straw man.
Let me explain what the number means.
If you are born today in the US, UK, you are born into debt. I think people should be told.
It’s the integenerational transfer.
Again why do you want to hide that from the young?
It is a straw man when our construct words that I never said and put them in my mouth.
You have no idea what I want or don’t want. Quit attributing your own thoughts to other people in order to argue with those thoughts. It is a straw man and dishonest.
2 Likes
Owed to whom, and for what? There are basically three parts to the SS system that make up the lion’s share of the money:
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program provides retirement and survivors benefits to qualified workers and their family members. In FY 2017, we will pay a total of about $813 billion in OASI benefits to a monthly average of approximately 52 million beneficiaries, including 89 percent of the population aged 65 and over.Disability Insurance (DI) program provides benefits for disabled workers and their families. In FY 2017, we will pay a total of about $149 billion in DI benefits to a monthly average of approximately 11 million disabled workers and their family members per month.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides financial support to aged, blind, and disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources. In FY 2017, we will pay a total of nearly $59 billion in Federal benefits and State supplementary payments to a monthly average of approximately 8.4 million recipients.
Depending on your terms, you could also include as “owed”: salaries (I can’t be arsed to look that up; you can Google as well as I can) plus ERISA, Coal Act, SNAP (food stamps) administrative costs, and probably a dozen other things I can’t think of, that fall within the SS purview.
8 Likes
Some did, some did not.
My problem is I was working in an non-unionized industry where we were expected to work overtime for some kind of fleeting, non-monetary status, and we were paid less than for similar work in other industries. And that I stuck around as long as I did. And that I had steep medical expenses which became debt.
Tax was a relatively small factor.
So do you know how much
No, and it’s not really relevant to anything I have said in this thread. Until this exact sentence which you are reading right now, I have not mentioned, here come the words right now for the first time: Social Security. I did mention a universal basic income as something we will probably have to transition to somewhere upthread, though.
3 Likes
Social Security is still being held out to the public as a deferred savings program, not a tax for wealth transference.
Now, when you announce publicly that it is in fact a tax for wealth transference, I’ll agree that you can raise contributions without raising benefits.
There is a solution to retirement systems (public and private) which are underfunded beyond rescue, a solution in which the old people don’t get a vote:
I inherited a house from my parents. Sold it for one hundred thirty grand (alas, before the housing bubble).
I don’t see anything morally different between me and someone who inherited a billion.
There’s a clear accounting definiton for a debt or liability. They are synonyms.
If you received something of economic value in the past, and as a consequence are obliged to deliver something of economic value in the future, you have a debt/liability.
OASI - paid for in the past, to be paid in the future, its a debt.
DI - Again, people paid the insurance premiums in the past, so those with a valid claim are owed the money.
SSI - here, if it works like the UK, its not a debt. There’s no insurance premium component.
Salaries? Not a debt. The work is in the future, the salary in the future. Both are in the future so not included.
So my question for you, because from your statement, we clearly have a different definition of debt.
What’s yours?
[quote=“lolipop_jones, post:202, topic:95143, full:true”]I inherited a house from my parents. Sold it for one hundred thirty grand (alas, before the housing bubble).
I don’t see anything morally different between me and someone who inherited a billion.[/quote]
Within the limited framework you’ve presented, I totally agree. You took advantage of a fundamentally immoral and unethical system that prevents meritocracy, preserves inequity and discourages personal responsibility and achievement. Perhaps you should be ashamed of being no more moral than your neighbors? It’s not for me to say, really.
Inheritance is the root of many, many evils. I seem to recall the founding fathers of the USA had a few things to say about the aristocracy of inherited wealth…
4 Likes
