TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

If they come for Social Security and your retirement accounts, this is how

13 点作者 DocFeind将近 2 年前

4 条评论

Terr_将近 2 年前
There&#x27;s something a lot of people miss that I like to always emphasize: &quot;Social Security&quot; (OASDI) is structurally and <i>literally</i> an INSURANCE program, not an investment nor a retirement account.<p>The people talking about replacing&#x2F;privatizing it with some kind of special individual investment account are actually suggesting a total replacement of qualitative change, not just a minor tweak in management or control.<p>&gt; Much of this campaign is helped politically by the use of the astonishingly obfuscatory phrase “millionaires and billionaires.” [...] Most millionaires — people with a net worth of over $1 million — are part of the middle class and work for a living.<p>Especially with inflation: When the term &quot;millionaire&quot; became popular in the 1930s, it meant a benchmark of wealth that would today be reserved for 18-millions-aires.<p>As time goes on--and absent some fundamental currency change--a US &quot;millionaire&quot; will become a meaninglessly low bar.
PopAlongKid将近 2 年前
&gt;And anyone working for a salary in the U.S. is already heavily taxed, from 15.3% on their first dollar up to 37% of their income via FICA, plus state taxes of 5% to 10%, as well as property and other types of taxes. Counting FICA, federal, state and city taxes, someone earning $160,000 may, in many parts of the country, be paying a marginal tax rate nearing 50%.<p>This is erroneous and misleading. First, if you are going to include the <i>employer&#x27;s</i> 7.65% portion of FICA tax as a tax paid <i>by the employee</i>, then you also need to include that amount in the total employee income, which results in lower numbers.<p>Then, after specifically mentioning someone &quot;working for a salary&quot;, suddenly &quot;property and other types of taxes&quot; are dragged into it, which have nothing to do with income tax on wages.<p>Lastly, the calculation is just plain wrong. A single U.S. taxpayer, no dependents, with standard deduction and $160K of wage income will pay 18.2% income tax, plus 7.65% FICA tax (on the $160K). And if they are a California resident, which most people consider a &quot;high tax&quot; state, the state tax will be 6.9%.<p>So the total tax will be 18.2 + 7.65 + 6.9 = 32.75%.<p>If we add $1,000 of wage income, the combined fed and state income tax (no FICA) goes up $333, so the marginal rate is 33.3%, not &quot;nearing 50%&quot;.<p>&gt; from 15.3% on their first dollar up to 37% of their income via FICA<p>This is nonsense, as there is nothing in the calculation of FICA related to &quot;37% of their income&quot;.
throw9away6将近 2 年前
There is nothing wrong with social security. It’s Medicare and Medicaid that is a budgetary black hole that you can’t close
评论 #36977055 未加载
ilamont将近 2 年前
<i>But nowhere in the document does the GAO suggest investing some of the $2 trillion Social Security trust fund in the stock market — something every other pension plan in the U.S. and around the world does.</i><p>Is this true? Some nonprofit boards are so risk-averse they will only invest in the lowest risk investments, typically bonds and money market funds. On the other end of the scale, we&#x27;ve heard of some pension fund LPs investing in whatever high-risk garbage VCs push their way, such as funds in Ontario and Alaska investing in FTX after Sequoia gave their stamp of approval (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;decrypt.co&#x2F;114235&#x2F;ontario-teachers-95m-ftx-pension-fund-limited-impact" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;decrypt.co&#x2F;114235&#x2F;ontario-teachers-95m-ftx-pension-f...</a>).
评论 #36980001 未加载
评论 #36977052 未加载