Poll: Majority supports tax hike to save Social Security
WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans say go ahead and raise taxes if it will save Social Security benefits for future generations. And raise the retirement age, if you have to.
Both options are preferable to cutting monthly benefits, even for people who are years away from applying for them.
Those are the findings of a new Associated Press-GfK poll on public attitudes toward the nation's largest federal program.
Social Security is facing serious long-term financial problems. When given a choice on how to fix them, 53 percent of adults said they would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for future generations, according to the poll. Just 36 percent said they would cut benefits instead.
The results were similar when people were asked whether they would rather raise the retirement age or cut monthly payments for future generations — 53 percent said they would raise the retirement age, while 35 percent said they would cut monthly payments.
"Right now, it seems like we're taxed so much, but if that would be the only way to go, I guess I'd have to be for it to preserve it," said Marge Youngs, a 77-year-old widow from Toledo, Ohio. "It's extremely important to me. It's most of my income."
Social Security is being hit by a wave of millions of retiring baby boomers, leaving relatively fewer workers to pay into the system. The trustees who oversee the massive retirement and disability program say Social Security's trust funds will run out of money in 2033. At that point, Social Security will only collect enough tax revenue to pay 75 percent of benefits, unless Congress acts.
Lawmakers from both political parties say there is a good chance Congress will address Social Security in the next year or two — if the White House takes the lead. Yet so far, Social Security has not played a big role in the presidential election.
In previous polls, Democrats have typically scored better than Republicans on handling Social Security. But the AP-GfK poll shows Americans are closely divided on which presidential candidate they trust to handle the issue.
Forty-seven percent said they trust President Barack Obama to do a better job on Social Security, and 44 percent said they trust his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. The difference is within the poll's margin of sampling error.
Charles McSwain, 69, of Philadelphia, said he trusts Obama because he thinks the president is more likely to stick up for the middle class.
"He at least gives the appearance of trying to help people that aren't super rich, and Romney doesn't," said McSwain, who works part time selling real estate.
But Jeff Victory of Nashville, Tenn., worries that Obama doesn't have the stomach to cut benefits to help rein in the program.
"Barack has already shown he's going to give anything free out to everyone he possibly can, so I'm going to have to go with Romney on that one," said Victory, a 26-year-old electrician.
Romney has said he favors gradually increasing the retirement age, but he opposes tax increases to shore up Social Security. For future generations, Romney would slow the growth of benefits "for those with higher incomes."
Obama hasn't laid out a detailed plan for addressing Social Security. But during the 2008 campaign, he called for applying the Social Security payroll tax to wages above $250,000. It is now limited to wages below $110,100, a level that increases with inflation.
Obama says any changes to Social Security should be done "without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable or people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."
Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has been a leading proponent in Congress of allowing workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts. Romney has not fully embraced the idea, but Democrats are using it to accuse Republicans of trying to privatize Social Security.
Romney put Ryan on the ticket Aug. 11. The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Aug. 16-20.
About 56 million people get Social Security benefits. Monthly payments average $1,236 for retirees.
The options for fixing Social Security fall into two broad categories — raising taxes or cutting benefits, or some combination of the two. But there are many options within each category. For example, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut for future generations, because they would have to wait longer to qualify for full benefits.
Retirees now can qualify for full benefits at age 66, a threshold that is rising to 67 for people born in 1960 or later.
In previous polls, most of the options for addressing Social Security scored poorly among the public, which helps explain why Congress hasn't embraced them. But the AP-GfK poll forced people to make a choice: Raise taxes or cut benefits? Raise the retirement age or cut monthly payments?
Democrats, Republicans and independents all favored raising the retirement age over cutting monthly payments. But there was a big divide on raising taxes. Sixty-five percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents supported higher taxes, compared with just 38 percent of Republicans.
"Raising taxes, especially on the people that provide the jobs for us, is not an option because what you do there, you discourage promoting jobs," said James Taylor, a 68-year-old retiree from Golden, Miss.
But Juan Tellez, a 22-year-old college student in Gainesville, Fla., said he would accept higher taxes if it means preserving benefits, even though he's not very confident Social Security will be around for his generation.
"I think of Social Security as an investment, as a public investment almost, something more communal," Tellez said. "I feel like I would want to invest in that."
About three-quarters of the public believe Social Security is an important issue, though there is no consensus about whether people will be able to rely on it throughout their retirement. Only 30 percent said it was very likely or extremely likely they will be able to rely on Social Security.
Among people younger than 35, just 20 percent believe Social Security will provide income throughout their retirement, while 55 percent of people 65 and older said the same.
"I'm not planning on it at all, honestly," said Victory, the 26-year-old electrician.
The poll involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 adults nationwide. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
___
AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed this report.
Both options are preferable to cutting monthly benefits, even for people who are years away from applying for them.
Those are the findings of a new Associated Press-GfK poll on public attitudes toward the nation's largest federal program.
Social Security is facing serious long-term financial problems. When given a choice on how to fix them, 53 percent of adults said they would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for future generations, according to the poll. Just 36 percent said they would cut benefits instead.
The results were similar when people were asked whether they would rather raise the retirement age or cut monthly payments for future generations — 53 percent said they would raise the retirement age, while 35 percent said they would cut monthly payments.
"Right now, it seems like we're taxed so much, but if that would be the only way to go, I guess I'd have to be for it to preserve it," said Marge Youngs, a 77-year-old widow from Toledo, Ohio. "It's extremely important to me. It's most of my income."
Social Security is being hit by a wave of millions of retiring baby boomers, leaving relatively fewer workers to pay into the system. The trustees who oversee the massive retirement and disability program say Social Security's trust funds will run out of money in 2033. At that point, Social Security will only collect enough tax revenue to pay 75 percent of benefits, unless Congress acts.
Lawmakers from both political parties say there is a good chance Congress will address Social Security in the next year or two — if the White House takes the lead. Yet so far, Social Security has not played a big role in the presidential election.
In previous polls, Democrats have typically scored better than Republicans on handling Social Security. But the AP-GfK poll shows Americans are closely divided on which presidential candidate they trust to handle the issue.
Forty-seven percent said they trust President Barack Obama to do a better job on Social Security, and 44 percent said they trust his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. The difference is within the poll's margin of sampling error.
Charles McSwain, 69, of Philadelphia, said he trusts Obama because he thinks the president is more likely to stick up for the middle class.
"He at least gives the appearance of trying to help people that aren't super rich, and Romney doesn't," said McSwain, who works part time selling real estate.
But Jeff Victory of Nashville, Tenn., worries that Obama doesn't have the stomach to cut benefits to help rein in the program.
"Barack has already shown he's going to give anything free out to everyone he possibly can, so I'm going to have to go with Romney on that one," said Victory, a 26-year-old electrician.
Romney has said he favors gradually increasing the retirement age, but he opposes tax increases to shore up Social Security. For future generations, Romney would slow the growth of benefits "for those with higher incomes."
Obama hasn't laid out a detailed plan for addressing Social Security. But during the 2008 campaign, he called for applying the Social Security payroll tax to wages above $250,000. It is now limited to wages below $110,100, a level that increases with inflation.
Obama says any changes to Social Security should be done "without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable or people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."
Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has been a leading proponent in Congress of allowing workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts. Romney has not fully embraced the idea, but Democrats are using it to accuse Republicans of trying to privatize Social Security.
Romney put Ryan on the ticket Aug. 11. The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Aug. 16-20.
About 56 million people get Social Security benefits. Monthly payments average $1,236 for retirees.
The options for fixing Social Security fall into two broad categories — raising taxes or cutting benefits, or some combination of the two. But there are many options within each category. For example, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut for future generations, because they would have to wait longer to qualify for full benefits.
Retirees now can qualify for full benefits at age 66, a threshold that is rising to 67 for people born in 1960 or later.
In previous polls, most of the options for addressing Social Security scored poorly among the public, which helps explain why Congress hasn't embraced them. But the AP-GfK poll forced people to make a choice: Raise taxes or cut benefits? Raise the retirement age or cut monthly payments?
Democrats, Republicans and independents all favored raising the retirement age over cutting monthly payments. But there was a big divide on raising taxes. Sixty-five percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents supported higher taxes, compared with just 38 percent of Republicans.
"Raising taxes, especially on the people that provide the jobs for us, is not an option because what you do there, you discourage promoting jobs," said James Taylor, a 68-year-old retiree from Golden, Miss.
But Juan Tellez, a 22-year-old college student in Gainesville, Fla., said he would accept higher taxes if it means preserving benefits, even though he's not very confident Social Security will be around for his generation.
"I think of Social Security as an investment, as a public investment almost, something more communal," Tellez said. "I feel like I would want to invest in that."
About three-quarters of the public believe Social Security is an important issue, though there is no consensus about whether people will be able to rely on it throughout their retirement. Only 30 percent said it was very likely or extremely likely they will be able to rely on Social Security.
Among people younger than 35, just 20 percent believe Social Security will provide income throughout their retirement, while 55 percent of people 65 and older said the same.
"I'm not planning on it at all, honestly," said Victory, the 26-year-old electrician.
The poll involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 adults nationwide. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
___
AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed this report.
If you are of working age and not investing 10% of everything you make, you will find your self in trouble when you try to retire. Medical is a major problem, any major medical problem is not covered. The other problem with the system is that there are people out there who think that the government OWES us. Yes we paid into it but if we had taken that same amount of money and invested it we would be a lot better off.
 @whitewings2003 Invest in WHAT? No "investment" that I am aware of will guarantee you a return AND insurance even close to what Social Security offers.
SS is a joke for people of my age. I'd like to see a way figured out that lets those that have already invested and are either on the cusp or already are retired keep collecting what they should get while letting people like me cut their losses and be given the opertunity to invest our retirement into something other than this joke they call SS.
The folks in DC won't even reinstitute the payroll tax they've cut the last few years because they're afraid they might lose votes. Anyone who thinks those clowns are going to do anything that takes any guts to fix the nations problems is either a fool or an idiot.
Scrap The Cap is the solution! Â www.justscrapthecap.com. Â We do not need to raise the age if we Scrap The Cap.
Â
Social Security is a great program.  Charities failed and that is why it was created.  Social Security is retirement and life time disability insurance. Â
Social Security is an entitlement that can be fixed simply with a pot-pourri of fixes. The amount of income subject to the payroll tax should be raised to at least the historic level of 90% (it's about 83% now, if I recall correctly). At present, someone making $200,000 pays the same payroll tax as someone making $110,100. This would be far preferable to increasing the payroll tax, which would sap life out of the economy. Second, everybody should be in the system; some municipal/state employees are not. Third, raising the age slightly makes some sense, but there are some occupations (heavy physical labor) where this doesn't make sense. Fourth, the COLAs should be based on what elderly folks commonly purchase, which is not the case now (would add to the cost). Fifth, some of the rules should be modernized, e.g. being eligible for a spouse's earnings record if one was married to them for the predetermined 10 years, even if the 10 years was 40 years ago. Sixth, 401-ks should be more widely available, 5% contributions should be mandatory, they should be effective from day 1 in a conservative mix of investments as the default, should be portable, should apply to all ages. Last, financial education should be mandatory in primary and secondary schools.
The far-bigger problem to fix is Medicare/Medicaid, and this is one where the tax has been at the same rate for decades and-as a result-only covers about 1/3 or costs. This is the only payroll tax that should be raised in the entitlement realm, perhaps to cover 2/3rds of the costs, with the remainder being premiums, means-testing, etc.
Also overlooked is the disability program, where claimants aren't required to prove their "disability" again after their initial claim (as I understand it), and neither party has the courage to insert this proof into the program, leaving millions collecting who shouldn't be. The savings here could be re-directed to the Medicare/Medicaid program.
 @bricsa:Â
"....
Also overlooked is the disability program, where claimants aren't required to prove their "disability" again after their initial claim (as I understand it), and neither party has the courage to insert this proof into the program, leaving millions collecting who shouldn't be. The savings here could be re-directed to the Medicare/Medicaid program ...."
Â
I happen to be on SSI (for disability). I can assure you that it is indeed a permanent disability - I had my lower left leg amputated, it has not, nor will it ever, grow back.
Â
So, what kind of "proof" would you require? How often? Who is going to pay for all the case reviews & how quickly will they be accomplished when even getting the initial detgermination can take over a year? And, who is going to pay for the "extra" work of all these reviews? Oh, that's right - taxpayers. On one hand you are complaining about the cost of the program, but then you are turning around & suggesting ADDING to that cost.
 @bricsa Some of what you said makes sense. However, I do not personally think that Social Security is an 'entitlement' program. Anyone who collects social security has paid into it, has earned that benefit for their work put in over the years. I guess maybe I'm just not liking that entitlement has taken on a negative definition in recent years and for many it means giving something to someone who hasn't earned it. And that is not what social security is.Â
 @chickysgirl  @bricsa Well, close, if you did pay into SS it is not an entitlement, it is more a benefit for years of work. But in some cases people that did not pay into is benefit still reap the benefit or in this case entitlement. The GOP VP candidate for instance, his college finances were paid for with Social Security money. Ryan's father died and the SS benefit that would have went to his father became an entitlement and went to the son. Ryan, himself had not yet entered in the job market when started receiving the SS entitlement.
 @T_BONE_WALKER I'm in agreement with you. While others have said that Paul Ryan was collecting money he did not actually earn, that was part of the deal that his father had with the government when he earned it--that if he died before his children were grown, or his wife was still living, they would be taken care of. It was not to suuport Ryan for his enitre life, it was to help him do things like go to college which his father was probably saving for while he was alive. The thing is, that is not a huge sum of money given to child survivors, its still based upon contributions of the person who earned it.  I can see where people think it is an entitlement for survivors, but like you said, I believe it was the government being responsible for taking care of widows and orphans (much like the Bible says to do) and using money contributed by those who originally paid into the program.
@left-center @chickysgirl @bricsa Sounds like an insurance policy to me bought and paid for by US citizens and Ryan's father who wants to make sure being American meant Ryan was not going to starve due to circumstaces beyond his control. If you want to call it an entitlement, fine. I call it having responsibilities to maintaining a society. The fund is unfortunately one of the last large sums of money available in this country to transfer up to the wealthy but they cant cant transfer it to their accounts until it is no longer a tax and they can privatize it. Thats why they would like us all to think of it as an entitlement instead of our property bought and paid for.
 @bricsa "Second, everybody should be in the system; some municipal/state employees are not."
Â
Neither are federal employees, with the exception of the military.
@Cetus  Just for your information. Federal employees hired after 1987 pay into Social Security just like everyone else. Those hired under the old CSRS system didn't unless they worked outside the federal system before or after their federal service.
 @bricsa Very nice. The only thing I would add is to cut SS taxes to zero for those earning up to the poverty level, and deduct SS taxes for whatever income amount is needed to pay for the next year's benefit outlays. It might be $142k one year and $151k for the next, for example. Do not leave any "surplus" for the government to siphon off to pay for silly wars or tax breaks for the wealthiest amongst us.
I support it...but.....only if our Gov't stop messing with this SS system,waste our tax dollars for war(s) !
Shouldn't the cuttoff level for income be raised so that a person pays social security and medicare tax on all their earnings? It's another unfair burden on the middle class and means that percentage wise, the middle class pays more taxes than the more wealthy. I believe the cuttoff is around $100,000.00 per year, and anyhting over than that, you don't have to pay ss and medicare tax on. I don't think this is right, and by raising the income level so that all earnings are taxed would go a long way towards stabilizing the system. I simply do not see while the middle class should have to pay higher taxes, inflicting another burden on already financially distressed families.
Also read a poll that stated about 90% of all baby boomers are taking their SS at 62 in which most had paid 40 plus years into and wanted to finally get something back instead of waiting till 65 as the government propaganda machine says to do...
@Windowseat The statistics may be true. Every person who is contemplating beginning to collect their social security, should do the math. The reduction in benefits is substantial if you begin to collect to early. The people at the SS office werevery helpful in assisting me with my options.
 @onebluedolphin  @Windowseat I retired when I was 55 for reasons of health; I was sick of going to work! I had a net worth of over a million dollars at the time and every actuarial planning device I could find told me that with just my pension and savings I would never want for money.Â
Â
All through the years I worked I told people that I never expected to receive Social Security because (I figured) by the time I was eligible "they" wopould apply a "means test" and in my case they would say, "You have a pension, you have IRAs, you have a paid-for home, you have substantial savings and you have other investments. You don't NEED Social Security."
Â
Well, after I retired the world economy took a huge dump and I lost a goodly amount of value in my investments. The real estate bubble burst bringing down the value of my home to only slightly more than half of what it was at its peak.  My sister came back into my life and I have been helping her financially as well as her adult son, kind of hard to turn your back on family. The result is that I now come very close to NEEDING my Social security benefit and I'm glad that it is there. No one can predict the future but it is nice to know that SS will be there, in some form, for our later years.
If the only folks that drew SS were the ones that paid into it, we wouldn't have a problem.
The PROBLEM is the fed has stolen from it for decades. Same with Medicare. Same with unemployment benefits.
Â
Now ya want to raise the ante so the workers can raped even more and get less?
How's that worked so far?
Â
Socialism at its finest. Bring on the soup/bread lines.
Â
Â
@bobalouie I dispute that the workers are raped by the system which you feel is socialist. In all the socialist-democratic countries I know of, the workers receive terrifuc benefits for their tax money. As for soup/bread lines, don't you think you might be a little overly dramatic?
It was never meant to be the "sole" retirement plan! It was meant for the elderly living in poverty which at the time was about 50% of the elderly and there were just over 52,000 recipients. It has gotten so out of hand that it should either be phased out, or there should be no income lilmit as to when you stop paying into it.
Â
Right now, I think you stop paying into for the year once you have earned around $106,000..... Why stop? Instead of raising taxes, remove this limit and that should help...
 @Rod Absolutely! When I hear the argument that a person cannot live on SS alone, and my daddy used to regurgitate this argument, I would show him where FDR himself never stated it was a complete retirement but ONLY a supplement to a person's personal savings AND a company pension. Companies were encouraged by governmental regulations to fund some kind of pension system for their employees back then just as they were encouraged to fund medical payment plans (insurance) during the wage freezes after WWII.
Â
It is the same argument that is used with the minimum wage laws, that a person cannot live on minimum wage. Neither law was supposed to be more than subsistence.
 @furd:Â
And most companies ditched their pensions in favor of the infamous 401k's - which lost most if not all their value. I lost EVERYTHING I had in my 401k - so now I DO live on "only" social security. It's a challenge every month, and it makes me appreciate what I can no longer afford - going to a movie, buying a book, taking a drive in the country - all things I can no longer afford to do.Â
Â
I would LOVE to be working again - but even though I have applied for nearly 500 jobs since losing mine in Feb 2009, I have had only 2 interviews. I am frustrated beyond belief when I hear people stating that if you are a person who has been unemployed longer than 3 months, hiring managers will not consider you, even if you have tons of experience. I still apply for every job I am qualified for, but wonder some days why I bother since I am apparently "too old" (I am over 50) and have been out of work "too long".
Â
Where are all the jobs that "trickle down" was supposed to create? Personally, trickle down seems more like pi$$ed on to me.
@Furd @Rod I wonder if there are any statistics on how many people have been cheated out of their pensions? Or out of their retirement savings by crooked bankers. For many, due to no fault of their own, ss is about all they have! Remove the income cutoff, and let everyone pay on all their earnings.
Where the heck are these polls because I know I haven't seen it anywhere?
Social Security and Medicare work. They are popular programs and anyone who says that they are going broke is just regurgitating the right wing talking point.Â
Â
We will fund and pay for these social programs because the people will demand it.Â
Â
If that means a few hundred billion less to the Pentagon each year, then so be it.Â
Â
If it means raising the retirement age because people are living much longer, then so be it.
Â
We also need to consider raising the cap on what can be taxed. That is an easy and fair way to get more money into the system.
Â
Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2005. Even the rubber stamp Republicans were against this. He failed and had no real public support. And then a few years later the markets tanked.
Â
Social Security is not about your retirement specifically, it is about all of our retirements. You may pay in more, you may pay in less. The point is to do good by your fellow American in the long run.  Â
 @caphillkidÂ
 "They are popular programs and anyone who says that they are going broke is just regurgitating the right wing talking point."
Â
Â
The Congressional Budget Office says they are heading for bankruptcy. That is not a "right-wing talking point. Below is a video of Obama himself admitting medicare is headed for insolvency. When dod obama start uttering "right-wing talking points" Cap? You can talk all the lies and crap you want but the facts are the facts whether you choose to believe them or not. Just be aware that in the end the American people are not going to allow the liberal left to drag the country we love and it's people into a future of debt and destruction.
Â
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btknlNtEYbo
 @ByeByeBarry If the congressional leaders of our country would decide that we don't need to police the rest of the world, at both a cost of American lives, and a huge part of our country's debt, that would be the place to start resolving many of our problems. But, of course, you aren't going to mention that because that would mean having to also blame the right wing imperialists for dragging this country we love and its people into a future of debt and destruction.    Â
 @ByeByeBarry "The Congressional Budget Office says they are heading for bankruptcy.   That is not a "right-wing talking point."
--------------------------
Because Republicans still beleive the talking point that we can not tax the people with the farking money. And the Republicans still beleive the talking point that we have to have a military as big as all the other countries combined
Â
These are ACTUAL "right-wing" talking points.
I would support a tax increase to save social security as well as medicare and medicaid. I'm also very much in favor of ending corporate and individual tax loopholes that allow for offshore tax accounts to evade paying US taxes. Don't want to pay taxes here in the US, then end your citizen and get out! Also in favor of the fat cats and corporations paying their fair share of taxes. GE last year didn't pay a dime! We must demand that the tax code be rewritten. All the loop hole (especially for the rich and corporations) need to be deleted.Â
@HallandOates I agree the loop holes need to be deleted, however, how much more should the rich pay? 47% of our nation doesn't pay a dime and they are the ones using all the services, foolishly. While the rich pay 90%.  If you can tax the rich more, but it will not solve the overspending problems of the democrats. They need to cut services to the lazy and take care of the day to day issues of the government, like making sure there is enough money for streets and etc.Â
 @justsayin:Â
".... 47% of our nation doesn't pay a dime and they are the ones using all the services, foolishly ...."
Â
I really hate it when people make this claim. ALL people pay taxes of some sort - sales tax is the most common, most applicable. And what is "foolish" about using services to which a person is entitled? Should people NOT take care of themselves & their children simply because you (or others like you) feel that it is "foolish" to allow them to do so?
Â
The 47% claim is a stupid one. All it REALLY proves is that close to half the people in the US do not make enough money to have to pay taxes on their income. There are "standard deductions and other deductions that everyone can take - if you do not make much money to begin with, vby the time those decuctions are taken many people do not OWE anything.
Â
Perhaps if more people made LIVING WAGES, more people would be paying income tax - which should make you happy.
@justsayin The rich do not pay 90%. That may be their tax bracket; 47% but they do not pay that much. They are able to write off tremendous number of income by finding loopholes and hiring good accountants. Much of their income is able to be sheltered.
 @northwestsurfer  @Furd You're right, this system DOES suck. I periodically try to post and I get an "undefined" notification.Â
The maximum tax rate from about 1950 through 1962 was 91%. The rich during that period were still rich and as you state, the middle class enjoyed unprecedented growth.
@caphillkid I believe we hhad the most vibrant middle class and growth economy in the 1950's when the rich were paying 70% income tax!!! That must tell you something about why our economy is lagging. I f the middle class doesn't have money to buy goods, then everything tanks!!!!
@Furd you can delete your comment and repost further up. Sadly, this new system sucks, I havent seen anyone comment that they like it
caphillkid. Unfortunately this new commenting system doesn't allow for removals and relocations as far as I am able to determine.
Â
I don't recall the exact percentage of my total income I paid in income taxes the last two years but it was in excess of 26% due to my taking a couple of hefty withdrawals from my 401(k). The dollar amount was staggering considering I was living on just $22k a year from my pension.
Â
When justsayin posted about the "rich" (whoever they may be) paying 90% I think he (she?) means that of all taxes collected, 90 percent come from less than ten percent of all taxpayers. Yes, "the rich" do often take advantage of every provision in the tax codes to reduce their tax liability and doing so often does mean they pay a far smaller amount ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS than does the average taxpayer. BUT "the rich" also pays a huge dollar amount in taxes, often greatly surpassing the entire incomes of non-rich people.
@caphillkid Cap, move your comment or repost it up one level, you replied directly to me.
i agree though, I paid 19% last year on taxes, I did not deduct anything either. I'm single without any significant investments, I did not write anything off
Justsayin: How can you say that the rich pay 90%? What planet do you live on? Romney made 20 million last year and paid 13.9% effective rate. My lord, the highest marginal rate for earned income is only 36% anyway, and most 1%ers probably pay between 15 and 25% effective federal.Â
About to turn 25, I just got a letter from the IRS detailing the estimated return on every dollar I contribute to the SS system: .75 cents.
Â
I would not support a tax hike. When you invest money or save it for your future you don't want it to LOSE value. It has to either stay the same or earn interest, otherwise it's a bad investment. The government has proven themselves incapable of managing tax payer money any better than the individual could.
Â
I'd vote for people my age not getting any SSI. Dissolve the program by spending what remains on those who have paid substantially into it. People 25 and under, heads up: save so you can support your own retirement and don't rely on Big Brother.
 @sotweetie:Â
Â
You *claim* that it is a losing proposition to pay into SS, that everyone should be taking care of themselves & planning for their future, planning to support themselves.
Â
Well, guess what? As the saying goes $H!T happens. I am 51 - and on permanent disability. I did not PLAN for this to happen. I loved my job, loved what I did, looked forward to going to work every morning. Then, in Feb 2009, I lost my job. In April 2009, I lostg myleg (emergency BKA due to a bone infection). I have continued to look for work, but have not found a job yet. So, I try to survive on SSI - $1300 a month.
Â
I had "planned" to keep working until oI was in my 70's - it would have given me time to put a little something aside for retirement since I had finally gotten my son raised & off to secondary education on his own. Then life threw me a twist I had not been expdecting or plan ning for.
Â
I am "living proof" that the best laid plans can get side tracked.
Â
As for your letter from the IRS - I would bet that what you received was actually a letter stating your "earnings to date" - it shows what you have paid in to date, and what you could expect to receive if you retired at specific ages. I have received a couple of those in the past. They are NOT from the IRS - they are from the SS Administration.
 @SoTweetie "don't rely on Big Brother."
Instead, you want to rely on the banks and "investment" brokers?
 @SoTweetie So naive. I suggest that you read the history of our country from the late nineteenth century through to today. Social Security is a government plan that works, and works well. Unless forced, most people will NOT save for retirement OR disability. Investing, in other than guaranteed fixed return instruments will NOT protect you from unforeseen catastrophic events. Even when you "do everything right" you can lose big time with the stock market. No one has been able to make "market timing" work all the time.
@Furd @SoTweetie SS was set up during the run of socialism in the early 19th century and needs to be eliminated, it obviously is not sustainable, look at Europe.
 @Furd  @justsayin  @SoTweetie justsayin seems to have a problem with big numbers ...maybe it's the lack of opposing thumbs that confuses him...
 @justsayin  @Furd  @SoTweetie Hardly! Social Security was enacted during the Roosevelt administration in August of 1935.
Your suggestion implies that I hadn't studied American history or known anything about the Social Security system prior to my comment which is untrue. I am not naive, I simply have an opinion that differs from yours.
Â
The stock market is only one of many avenues for investment and people should diversify into bonds, certificates of deposit, land, gold etc in addition to the stock market. As far as the SS system goes, I would never willingly sign up for an investment plan that is projected to have a final return of -25%.
 @SoTweetie "The stock market is only one of many avenues for investment" - indeed...for the brokers and people with enough money to make money off of your money.
The market depends on people who dream of getting rich - who are the suckers who buy high and sell low...every market transaction is fueled by people with more dreams than caution - especially those who have "studied the market" and Know" how it works.They actually think that they can outsmart and out time the computers that have instant access to information BEFORE any human has had the chance to click on the story.
 @SoTweetie Then I apologize for my thinking that you did not know the history.
Â
I am intrigued by this letter you received from the IRS, I have never seen or heard of such letters. I can only respond to my own situation regarding both Social Security and private investing. I just started receiving my SS benefits at age 62 and it appears that I will exhaust ALL my "contributions" (payroll deductions) in about 53 months or a little over four years. Even if I take into consideration the employer matching funds it still works out to be less than nine years before I exhaust ALL that I paid into the system and that doesn't even cover any cost-of-living increases.. If I live another twenty years that means that the system will have returned more than 100% on my investment.
Â
Conversely, my private investments lost considerable value during the 2007-2008 general economic turndown. The only thing that consistently has risen in value is my US Savings Bonds. I did have a friend that, if he hadn't been lying to me over the years, made several million dollars in private investments. Of course he lived like a hermit in a cave and spent some 40 to 60 hours a week on managing his investments, something that I suspect fewer than 1% of the people wish to do.
Â
Now if you want to argue that Social Security is just a huge government-run Ponzi scheme I won't disagree.