Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Seems to me a slight rise in the max-wage number coupled with liberalization of 401k rules would fix things up very nicely, without screwing with the one governmental program that seems to have worked for so long. Anything new is going to have a ton of those pesky unintended consequences. (Or, as someone I admire phrased it, those things that we don't know yet that we don't know.)
|
I'm not too good with the lingo on this topic, but by "max wage number" I am assuming you mean the wage cutoff in each year after which you don't pay into SS. If that's the case I have two comments:
First, I would completely agree with this, and in fact tried to say something similar to to my somewhat inebriated father-in-law over the weekend. He wasn't having it; apparently the president's "SS is broke" mantra has taken hold with the older residents of southwest Florida, go figure. But I am undaunted.
Second, does anyone know of a site that crunches some numbers on what kind of savings could be achieved for increasing this number? And, more to the point, what is the reason for having this cutoff in the first place? If people aren't going to listen to the sage advice of the BRCs of the world when they support a means test for the benefits, I fail to see the logic behind a reverse means test on the cost.
Threaded Mode