Is the UPS Teamsters Pension like Gold?

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
The maximum payout right now is $2710 a month at age 62 if you made maximum earnings

My estimate is only a couple hundred dollars less than that and I paid nowhere near the $168 ,000
The more you make the less percentage you get

They may have to raise the age a little bit and or maybe lower the payments a little bit

But I can't see them raising the percentage of taxes they come out of your payroll for social security because it also be a big burden on your employer.

Whatever you pay for social security and Medicare your employer also matches that
Thanks, Dave
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
.... And every administration since then has borrowed money from Social Security replaced it with Treasury Bills and when those bills matured pay back the cash.
It's the law.

All excess SS funds must be invested in interest-bearing special-issue bonds. In other words, if Social Security brings in X amount of revenue, and the amount it pays out for benefits and administrative expenses in a given year is lower than X, there's going to be a surplus of money that's collected. This extra money, known as Social Security's "asset reserves," is required by law to be invested in special-issue bonds.
 
I'm talking about the current FICA which combined with Medicare in 15.30% split equally (7.65%) between employer and employee and has been in place for around 40 years. You're talking about the inflation adjusted maximum income subjected to FICA.
You can't raise a tax because it's going to be counterproductive
They need to maybe slightly trim benefits and start raising a age limit a little bit just like many other foreign countries have done
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns

Conclusion

Social Security’s growing shortfalls and looming trust-fund insolvency require the consideration of a broad range of savings policies. No single policy—including lifting the Social Security tax cap—can fix the entire shortfall without the need for other savings proposals. And while fully eliminating the cap could close half the long-term shortfall, advocates should note that such a policy would dramatically raise taxes not just on the rich but also the upper middle class. It would also rob nearly all other progressive priorities (and the larger Medicare shortfalls) of their largest potential tax-the-rich funding mechanism—all to ensure that (mostly) wealthy baby boomers receive benefits vastly exceeding their lifetime contributions to Social Security. Generational equity requires scaling back the unaffordable promises made to current and future retirees, rather than maxing out the taxes on working families.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
You can't raise a tax because it's going to be counterproductive
They need to maybe slightly trim benefits and start raising a age limit a little bit just like many other foreign countries have done
The tax will likely be raised. When you think about how companies are striving to eliminate the human factor from it's operations as much as possible a gradual increase in the tax should not have a significant overall impact.
A good example that came out just the other day was when Walmart announced plans to build 6 fresh food distribution facilities that will use only a fraction of the labor older facilities use.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member

Conclusion

Social Security’s growing shortfalls and looming trust-fund insolvency require the consideration of a broad range of savings policies. No single policy—including lifting the Social Security tax cap—can fix the entire shortfall without the need for other savings proposals. And while fully eliminating the cap could close half the long-term shortfall, advocates should note that such a policy would dramatically raise taxes not just on the rich but also the upper middle class. It would also rob nearly all other progressive priorities (and the larger Medicare shortfalls) of their largest potential tax-the-rich funding mechanism—all to ensure that (mostly) wealthy baby boomers receive benefits vastly exceeding their lifetime contributions to Social Security. Generational equity requires scaling back the unaffordable promises made to current and future retirees, rather than maxing out the taxes on working families.
What they never say is in 2035 the oldest Baby Boomers will be 89. The youngest will be 71. A large percentage of that population will be dead.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
What they never say is in 2035 the oldest Baby Boomers will be 89. The youngest will be 71. A large percentage of that population will be dead.
1720894224310.gif
 

Over70irregs

Well-Known Member

Conclusion

Social Security’s growing shortfalls and looming trust-fund insolvency require the consideration of a broad range of savings policies. No single policy—including lifting the Social Security tax cap—can fix the entire shortfall without the need for other savings proposals. And while fully eliminating the cap could close half the long-term shortfall, advocates should note that such a policy would dramatically raise taxes not just on the rich but also the upper middle class. It would also rob nearly all other progressive priorities (and the larger Medicare shortfalls) of their largest potential tax-the-rich funding mechanism—all to ensure that (mostly) wealthy baby boomers receive benefits vastly exceeding their lifetime contributions to Social Security. Generational equity requires scaling back the unaffordable promises made to current and future retirees, rather than maxing out the taxes on working families.
Let them figure it out. Do your thing for you.
 
Top