Trump Proposes No Tax on SSA Benefits for Seniors

[scagnt83]

I've gotten nothing my guy. I've paid a lot, but haven't gotten anything yet. And based on current reports, I might only get 83% of what I should get at full retirement age. My guess is it will be worse by then unless something is done to fix it. And my bet is I'll never get out of it what I'll have paid into it.

If you're down for helping the downtrodden, I can give you my Venmo to send me money.

You missed the point.

SS is not a retirement account.

It is a social safety net.

How does it make sense to provide a social safety net to people who have no need for it?

That is a major fundamental flaw of the system making it unsustainable. We are giving out social welfare benefits to millionaires who have no need for it.

Perhaps the tax should be lower on high earners.... and they dont get benefits.

But providing social welfare benefits to citizens who are wealthy, is doomed to fail.

And the reason that change doesnt happen, is because everyone "wants what is theirs" from the SS system.... despite if they need it or not.

It has been twisted into something it was never intended to be. And is not needed to be.

There is zero need to give tax dollars to support the incomes of millionaire retirees.

 

[somarco]

Or just have target date funds based on SS full retirement age.

Or just "pie funds" in 5 categories. Aggressive, moderate aggressive, moderate, moderate conservative, conservative. Check a box.

Nothing wrong with that, but as long as the participant has the ability to switch investments within the family, too many will make decisions based on emotion.

If they want to gamble with their own money, outside of the 401k, that's fine. But too many get to retirement with little or nothing to show for it.

A few years ago I had supper with husband & wife teachers. Both were near retirement age and bragged how they had their funds "invested" in a money market fund. I asked if this was something they did just recently because they were nearing retirement age.

No, they had used the money market fund for the last 30+ years.

SMH

 

[somarco]

You pay into it and hope you never have to use it,

That is my comment about folks who have health insurance and pay premiums for years then want to drop it because they never have any claims . . .

Almost without exception their health changes in a few years and they want to get back on the plan. Sorry, Charlie, no can do . . .

 

[sman]

You missed the point.

SS is not a retirement account.

It is a social safety net.

How does it make sense to provide a social safety net to people who have no need for it?

That is a major fundamental flaw of the system making it unsustainable. We are giving out social welfare benefits to millionaires who have no need for it.

Perhaps the tax should be lower on high earners.... and they dont get benefits.

But providing social welfare benefits to citizens who are wealthy, is doomed to fail.

And the reason that change doesnt happen, is because everyone "wants what is theirs" from the SS system.... despite if they need it or not.

It has been twisted into something it was never intended to be. And is not needed to be.

There is zero need to give tax dollars to support the incomes of millionaire retirees.

You keep saying I missed your point. No, I didn't miss your point, I simply reject it. If the powers that be didn't want those of certain means to receive a benefit later in life, they should have stated that in the beginning. That is nowhere in the code. I can certainly see them doing means testing at some point in the future, but that's going to be a hill many politicians may not want to climb. Unless of course it's an "eat the rich" love fest.

SS was established, in part, as an "old-age" benefit. You can say it isn't a retirement account, but that's exactly what it is for millions of people. You can play semantics all you want, but for a large portion of the 65+ crowd, that is their only income in retirement.

And damn straight, if I put $500k-$600k in a system whereby I am told I will get a monthly check at a future date, I want my check. Call me greedy, evil, or whatever other derogatory adjective you choose. I want what has been promised to me. That is money I can put aside for my children/grandchildren. I'll never get out of it what I put into it. So the extra is a benefit for "the system".

 

[LostDollar]

You keep saying I missed your point. No, I didn't miss your point, I simply reject it. If the powers that be didn't want those of certain means to receive a benefit later in life, they should have stated that in the beginning. That is nowhere in the code. I can certainly see them doing means testing at some point in the future, but that's going to be a hill many politicians may not want to climb. Unless of course it's an "eat the rich" love fest.

SS was established, in part, as an "old-age" benefit. You can say it isn't a retirement account, but that's exactly what it is for millions of people. You can play semantics all you want, but for a large portion of the 65+ crowd, that is their only income in retirement.

And damn straight, if I put $500k-$600k in a system whereby I am told I will get a monthly check at a future date, I want my check. Call me greedy, evil, or whatever other derogatory adjective you choose. I want what has been promised to me. That is money I can put aside for my children/grandchildren. I'll never get out of it what I put into it. So the extra is a benefit for "the system".

FICA payments are a TAX which goes to the government. You have no right to that money or control over it.

Social Security is an entitlement program. You have to meet program rules and apply for it before you have any right to any money through through the social security program.

 

[LostDollar]

You missed the point.

SS is not a retirement account.

It is a social safety net.

How does it make sense to provide a social safety net to people who have no need for it?

That is a major fundamental flaw of the system making it unsustainable. We are giving out social welfare benefits to millionaires who have no need for it.

Perhaps the tax should be lower on high earners.... and they dont get benefits.

But providing social welfare benefits to citizens who are wealthy, is doomed to fail.

And the reason that change doesnt happen, is because everyone "wants what is theirs" from the SS system.... despite if they need it or not.

It has been twisted into something it was never intended to be. And is not needed to be.

There is zero need to give tax dollars to support the incomes of millionaire retirees.

It is fascinating to me how many youtube videos there are from a large quantity of financial planners about managing social security.

It's like a person with 100's of thousands, or multiple millions, in retirement accounts have no other retirement money management concern beyond maximizing their social security payments.



I am left wondering what some of those advisors will do to earn money if Social Security payments go to zero taxability.

 

[Special Agent]

You missed the point.

SS is not a retirement account.

It is a social safety net.

How does it make sense to provide a social safety net to people who have no need for it?

That is a major fundamental flaw of the system making it unsustainable. We are giving out social welfare benefits to millionaires who have no need for it.

Perhaps the tax should be lower on high earners.... and they dont get benefits.

But providing social welfare benefits to citizens who are wealthy, is doomed to fail.

And the reason that change doesnt happen, is because everyone "wants what is theirs" from the SS system.... despite if they need it or not.

It has been twisted into something it was never intended to be. And is not needed to be.

There is zero need to give tax dollars to support the incomes of millionaire retirees.

You do know that benefits are capped right?it is not welfare program at all it is a pays a you go system that typically returns 3-5% investment of what you put in and for self employed is fully tax deductible and it also is inflation protected .This is not a bad deal if you are wealthy person with other retirement accounts and you consider it as part of your fixed income/bond allocation of your portfolio and for people that are not good with financial planning or low income it is way for our society to keep millions of americans out of absolute poverty in retirement.

If we didn't have SS we would be paying to keep older and disabled people out of poverty with higher taxes for medicaid etc

Our country was founded because rich white guys pissed off about paying taxes so none of this DOGE shenanigan's is surprising.

 

[scagnt83]

You keep saying I missed your point. No, I didn't miss your point, I simply reject it. If the powers that be didn't want those of certain means to receive a benefit later in life, they should have stated that in the beginning. That is nowhere in the code. I can certainly see them doing means testing at some point in the future, but that's going to be a hill many politicians may not want to climb. Unless of course it's an "eat the rich" love fest.

SS was established, in part, as an "old-age" benefit. You can say it isn't a retirement account, but that's exactly what it is for millions of people. You can play semantics all you want, but for a large portion of the 65+ crowd, that is their only income in retirement.

And damn straight, if I put $500k-$600k in a system whereby I am told I will get a monthly check at a future date, I want my check. Call me greedy, evil, or

I called it a Social Safety Net. Repeatedly.

And I pointed out that it is the main income for many retirees.


SS has changed over time vs. what it originally was intended to be.

"we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."--
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act


It was never intended to provide millionaires with supplemental income during retirement. And that is a major reason it is no longer sustainable.

whatever other derogatory adjective you choose. I want what has been promised to me. That is money I can put aside for my children/grandchildren. I'll never get out of it what I put into it. So the extra is a benefit for "the system".

I have not called you anything derogatory.

I paraphrased what you stated. And described the real world impact.

"You want to opt out, and not contribute."

If me describing the impact of your stated desire brings up strong emotions, thats on you.

 

[scagnt83]

You do know that benefits are capped right?it is not welfare program at all it is a pays a you go system that typically returns 3-5% investment of what you put in and for self employed is fully tax deductible and it also is inflation protected .This is not a bad deal if you are wealthy person with other retirement accounts and you consider it as part of your fixed income/bond allocation of your portfolio and for people that are not good with financial planning or low income it is way for our society to keep millions of americans out of absolute poverty in retirement.

If we didn't have SS we would be paying to keep older and disabled people out of poverty with higher taxes for medicaid etc

Our country was founded because rich white guys pissed off about paying taxes so none of this DOGE shenanigan's is surprising.

Yes. I am very aware of that. There are also income caps on FICA assessments.

SS absolutely is a welfare program.

we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."--
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act

I dont mean its bad. Im stating a fact. SS is meant to be a social welfare program. Not a retirement account.

I am in favor of having SS in theory. And it is an essential part of many retirees survival.

And that is part of my point. It is essential for many. But we pay the largest amounts to those who dont need it. The average payment is $2k a month. But those who dont need the income.... are paid on average $4k per month. Now, how do you think that impacts what the low income beneficiaries receive?

People wanting to treat is as a retirement account, is exactly why it has become the monstrosity it is today. Benefits have grown to cover those who dont actually need it.... because "want whats theirs".... out of a social safety net system...

 

[Special Agent]

SS fun facts
Q23: Has Social Security ever been financed by general tax revenues?

A: Not to any significant extent. (See detailed explanation.)

---

Q24: How much has Social Security paid out since it started?

A: From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

(See detailed tables of annual Social Security payments 1937-2008.) (See also detail for Q26)

---

Q25: How much has Social Security taken in taxes and other income since it started?

A: From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

(See detailed tables of annual Social Security revenues 1937-2008.) (See also detail for Q26)

---

Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?

A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference. (See detailed Table.)

Social Security History FAQs

The Official History Website for the U.S. Social Security Administration.

www.ssa.gov