Our financial system is crumbling this week.

[cardinalkarp]

What makes you think this is unintentional?

Trump has been griping about the Fed and lowering interest rates for months, so why would he intentionally do something that would cause them to go higher?

Because he’s a [expletive] idiot.

[mikechamp]

What makes you think this is unintentional?

Trump has been griping about the Fed and lowering interest rates for months, so why would he intentionally do something that would cause them to go higher?

Because he’s a [expletive] idiot.

While I agree with you, we might just be quibbling over semantics. I don't think he would intentionally do that. I do think he would unintentionally do that... because of what you just said.

[mikechamp]

Back to the Social Security topic for a moment:

A proposal would cap Social Security at $100,000. Will it fly?

A Washington think tank proposed capping annual Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples as a way to shrink a looming deficit in the retirement trust fund. The idea might sound reasonable enough: Only the wealthiest Americans can collect $100,000 a year from Social Security, a federal program that was meant to ease poverty, not pad wealth. But the “Six Figure Limit” idea has drawn swift rebukes from retirement advocates, who see any cap or cut in Social Security benefits as a slippery slope.

The March 24 paper comes from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a centrist, nonpartisan think tank in the nation’s capital. It suggests a $100,000 cap on the total annual benefit for a couple at full retirement age, and a $50,000 limit for a single retiree, starting this year.

Retiree advocates say any shortfall or benefit cap goes back on a fundamental promise of Social Security: That Americans who pay into the trust fund can count on getting the money back. “Proposals that focus on capping Social Security don’t address the problem in front of Congress: ensuring every American gets every dollar they have earned,” Jenn Jones, vice president of financial security and livable communities at AARP, said in a statement.

But the six-figure limit also has prominent supporters, including the editorial board of the Washington Post. “The Six Figure Limit is the right idea for a program that currently pays about one-third of benefits to retirees with incomes over $100,000,” the board at the newspaper wrote. “The wealthiest members of the wealthiest generation in human history do not need more government largesse. . .”

According to the Washington think tank, a $100,000 cap could save the Social Security program $100 billion to $190 billion over the next decade, depending on how it was implemented.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pro ... 13004.html

[Joe Shlabotnik]

As long as that was adjusted for inflation, I'd be on board with something like that.

[Popeye_Card]

If the alternative is Social Security going away, I could certainly be on-board with it.

I've personally been following the philosophy that SS will be gone by the time I'm ready to draw from it, and anything I receive is a bonus. So I don't have any issue if my benefits end up capped.

[TheoSqua]

I would rather remove the social security tax cap and require higher income earners to pay more taxes here. Those that want 100k a year in social security should have to pay more in social security to get it.

[Arthur Dent]

This whole thing designed to be misleading. No individual can collect a $100k benefit. They're getting this number by supposing a household where both spouses averaged at least $180k wages for at least 35 years each. In that case, you collect a maximum benefit of $50k, meaning Social Security is replacing less than a third of your wages.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

This whole thing designed to be misleading. No individual can collect a $100k benefit. They're getting this number by supposing a household where both spouses averaged at least $180k wages for at least 35 years each. In that case, you collect a maximum benefit of $50k, meaning Social Security is replacing less than a third of your wages.

Two things:

1. Even today, if you can't survive on 100k a year, you're not doing something right. You can. Two of you can. Hell 3 of us are living quite comfortably with a mortgage and me playing an insane amount of golf.

2. Anybody who has made 180k for the past 35 years and does not have a substantial nest egg to supplement that 100k from SS, doesn't deserve any further help. They obviously squandered their chance at comfortable retirement via terrible money management. Screw em.

[cardinalkarp]

This whole thing designed to be misleading. No individual can collect a $100k benefit. They're getting this number by supposing a household where both spouses averaged at least $180k wages for at least 35 years each. In that case, you collect a maximum benefit of $50k, meaning Social Security is replacing less than a third of your wages.

Two things:

1. Even today, if you can't survive on 100k a year, you're not doing something right. You can. Two of you can. Hell 3 of us are living quite comfortably with a mortgage and me playing an insane amount of golf.

2. Anybody who has made 180k for the past 35 years and does not have a substantial nest egg to supplement that 100k from SS, doesn't deserve any further help. They obviously squandered their chance at comfortable retirement via terrible money management. Screw em.

My thoughts exactly.

[IMADreamer]

You'd be shocked at the number of high earners that piss it all away. New cars, all the luxury toys, trips, etc. I agree if you make a lot of money and can't restrain yourself enough to have a nice retirement that's on you.