Anyone who makes more than I do.

Seriously, I'd say anyone in the top 20 or 15 percent of income or net worth. I don't know what that is in annual income. Help me out, here.

I would rather be in the top 15% of net worth than top 10% of income.

If I am not mistaking, a family making 200k a year would be in at least the top 5% of income. I don't consider that very rich, once you factor in taxes and allow them some small rewards for their hard work.

For me, if your household income is 500k a year or more you are doing quite well and would fall in the "pay more because it won't hurt you so much" category.

It's twisted, really.

If you're wealthy (that is, make more than $90,000), then you get to stop paying SSN for wages above that. OK, got it.

If you're wealthy when you retire, then you still get to draw SSN, even if you're Bill Gates, because SSN isn't means tested. OK, got it.

So a worker who made, say, $80,000 a year each year his entire life would have paid SSN taxes of about 7% of his income each year.

Yet a worker who made $125,000 a year each year his entire life would have paid SSN taxes on less than 7% of his income a year.

But both workers would draw the same SSN payment.

Now, how is that fair? Did I misunderstand something about how this works?

Cindy,

Should the higher earner be given a higher payout then? I could see lifting the cap if you get more.

My wife and I max out, but probably will see very little if any when we retire (at least 25 years).

Is that fair either?

Dammit people, pay attention.

It has long been known that the cornerstone piece of legislation for Bush's second term, is Social Security reform. It's not on the table right now, because it is lousy third-rail politics.

But there are a lot of representatives, and senators, watching and waiting for the hammer to fall. The President has made his mind up on the issue, and it will be forthcoming.

It's gonna be a heckuva battle, and well worth watching...

Cindy,

What do you consider wealthy, in terms of income?
I have lived in your neck of the woods and 90k doesn't go very far up there at all.

What you might be missing is that Social Security is not an investment plan, it's an intergenerational wealth transfer scheme designed to provide a minimal stipend to those whose other retirement income streams have failed. Everybody gets the same payment because its a minimal stipend, not because they put in the same amount. What they put in is long gone, their payments became the prior generation's stipend, while the next generation's payments become their stipend. There's no investment going on, so framing it in terms of a return on payments is incorrect.

What you and I will get depends on how many of our kids are employed, and how many immigrants we can attract and employ.

Heckuva battle for sure. Unless Bush can find some way to get the Dems to call off the dogs, this battle is going to be fought district by district, with knives. I don't think he can do it. Even if he wins the election forty-eight states to two I wouldn't give him more than a twenty percent chance to pull it off.

No he can't. He won't. Easier to pay lipservice than pick up the hammer and get to work. He hasn't got the political skills needed to carry it off. Luckily we have only a few more months of him. '

Correction. Everybody does not get the same amount. THe amount depends on the number of quarters of coverage you have charted, the age you are when you start drawing, and the year in which you start drawing. There is a ceiling, however.

Kathyk, thanks, I should have mentioned that.

Maybe if the Pubs had stuck to Clinon's plan of locking the SS trust fund, things wouldn't be in as big a mess as they are today - just maybe. I've always said, the Republicans covert agenda is to bankrupt it, and all other public benefit programs. Back to the days of poor houses and work farms - not sure where the gray heads will be going.

They way it could have been

Wrong, as usual, neophyte.

What a politcian wants - any politician, of any political persuasion - is a legacy. Clinton pegged the meter in that department, but all pols have huge egos, or they wouldn't be in the game.

Bush is 3 for 4. 4 for 4 is a legacy.

jkeene,

I am not looking to make money on my investment, just to get something back. If I pay 7000 for 20 years and stand to get nothing I am going to be a little p***ed!

Clinton was no more serious about SS reform than any other politician. The "lock box" was a scam pure and simple. The problem is not that the trust fund isn't big enough (for now). The problem is that it is all IOUs (treasury bonds). "Locking" it does nothing to solve that problem. Nor does it solve the demographic problem that will eventually hit any Ponzi scheme.

Cindy

"It's twisted, really.

If you're wealthy (that is, make more than $90,000), then you get to stop paying SSN for wages above that. OK, got it.

If you're wealthy when you retire, then you still get to draw SSN, even if you're Bill Gates, because SSN isn't means tested. OK, got it.

So a worker who made, say, $80,000 a year each year his entire life would have paid SSN taxes of about 7% of his income each year.

Yet a worker who made $125,000 a year each year his entire life would have paid SSN taxes on less than 7% of his income a year.

But both workers would draw the same SSN payment.

Now, how is that fair? Did I misunderstand something about how this works?"

Assuning that each one of these guys (women don't make this kind of money) worked 40 years.

Your $80,000 a year guy would have paid in $224,000. while the $90,000+ guy would have paid in $252,000. Now each of them would draw the same amount.

Now, how is that fair? Did I misunderstand something about how this works?"

lb

posted by lb Boy oh boy, are you ever out of touch with the world! LOTS of women make that kind of money.

And as long as republicans are running the show, each and every one of us had better be socking away as much as we can on our own to afford retirement. After all, we know that government handout programs like Social Security and Medicare are liberal socialist institutions.[/b]

Glad to see you think people should be responsible for themselves instead of becoming slaves to a Socialist government. Your retirement after all, is *your* responsibility, not the rest of the country's.

It's not mean spirited to tell people to plan for themselves. The boat is sailing towards the iceberg. We can either pretend the boat is unsinkable or tell people to prepare.

We live so much better than most of the world or most people throughout history - and prepare so poorly for what lies ahead.

Ken