The Hidden Social Security Math Nobody Shows Retirees

[68BabyBlue]

Please. This subject requires more “dialogue. Here/there.

I'm going to take the bait, and try to keep it within the rails of general discussion. When I took Federal Income Taxation my first year in law school, we spent a full semester delving into the issues that drive programs such as Social Security. The issue of funding them makes the world go round. We were taught that socking it to the "upper crust" was politically popular, but not practical for two reasons. First, there aren't enough of those folks to pay the tab, and second, they always create legal carve outs so they don't have to pay. This is where elite tax lawyers earn their keep. By default, the middle pays the tab, because there are so many of them.

The upper crust wants these programs. They don't want starving peasants storming their gated estates. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners draw the highest proportion of the payouts, but pay the least into it. The working folks in the upper middle foot the bill, with a tax code that works against them. I was furious when I paid my federal income tax during my executive years when I was a top 5% earner, and got whacked even after my excellent CPA worked his magic. The upside for me personally, was I ended up with a Social Security benefit in the top 1%, even though l drove to the finish line with truck driver pay.

 

[68BabyBlue]

AGI is not wealth.

10% is 10%. The majority of them are working stiffs.

Certainly you can believe what you like.

I've done a flip flop that enabled me to retire relatively comfortably. The first half of my career, I earned between top 10 percent and top 3% AGI, but had a relatively small net worth after voluntarily impoverishing myself to attend law school. At the end of my career, I was top 20% income in a good year, far less in a bad one. However, my net worth finally caught up, reaching the top 5%. At the finish line, net worth trumps income.

 

[j-c-c-62]

AGI is not wealth.

10% is 10%. The majority of them are working stiffs.

Certainly you can believe what you like.

I missed the part where anybody said it was wealth. However, income is spent or collected, either buys influence or power more than the lack of.
10% of a smaller group is a smaller group having impact over a larger uncounted group.
Who cares if they are working stiffs, they make their choices, it's a free country?
I choose to believe mainly what stands up to critical thinking, whether the outcome suits me or not.

 

[j-c-c-62]

The issue of funding them makes the world go round. We were taught that socking it to the "upper crust" was politically popular, but not practical for two reasons. First, there aren't enough of those folks to pay the tab,

The issue however is not paying the full tab, it's how much is best for the greater good

and second, they always create legal carve outs so they don't have to pay. This is where elite tax lawyers earn their keep.

Backs up the theory, it takes money to make money, and money sure helps one keep it

The upper crust wants these programs.

Not all according to the current crop if one reads between the lines and their actions

They don't want starving peasants storming their gated estates.

We agree, neither side wants that

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners draw the highest proportion of the payouts, but pay the least into it.

But most of their income goes ultimately into the pockets of the 1%

The working folks in the upper middle foot the bill, with a tax code that works against them.

We agree.