Tag Archives: pension
N Y Post can’t stand fact that worker earned a big pension while pub’s boss is worth $15,700,000,000
Retired NYC sanitation worker makes $285K a year from pension
That New York Post headline made many folks angry. Do garbage collectors get pensions worth more than they deserve? Are evil unions behind this? Or dopey Dems? Or a PC still running only DOS?
To illustrate their point, the newspaper published a photo, sort of artsy-fartsy, of a trash truck. That’s to show those readers, who live in gated communities, that there is a device, which removes that garbage the help takes out to the curb on Tuesdays and Fridays.
But back to that big pension – $285,000 a year.
The facts often get in the way of a sensational story, and this one is not an exception. Continue reading →
Chinese women retire 17 years earlier than us, but moronic scolds want to hike pension age even higher
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, pontificated about plans to cut Social Security on Thursday, last week, at the Urban-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, Washington, DC. Brady wants to cut Social Security by not only raising the retirement age to 70, but also imposing means testing to cut benefits. He advocated “creating a true cost-of-living for seniors,” meaning using the chained-CPI cost-of-living adjustment formula to further reduce benefits. Chained CPI is lower than the CPI used to adjust everything else.
Brady’s only accomplishment, other than public office, was serving as an executive at the Rapid Cities (ND) Chamber of Commerce before he moved to Texas..
In addition to gutting Social Security he pushes for lower taxes, deficit reduction and Continue reading →
Leave it to the greedy politicians and their wealthy puppet masters to come up with yet another “reform” that will benefit the upper class at the expense of the other 99%. This time it’s called the “Fair Tax”, and it’s made of fairy dust for the entitled.
Every GOP candidate for President appears to have been told this is the official goal for the year. It’s now a mainstay for every conservative campaign, along with the standard “reforms” – abolishing Medicare (offering instead, a stipend to buy an imaginary “inexpensive” private plan for 70, 80, and 90-year-olds), plus. the usual GOP and “centrist” Democrat brainstorm to hike the retirement age for Social Security to 69 or 70 at first (and then increase it annually, according to Continue reading →
The SSA website notes:
Beginning in 1984, includes up to one-half of Social Security benefits as taxable income for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income, combined with half their benefits and any tax-exempt interest they may have exceeds $25,000 for a single taxpayer and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Benefits received by married taxpayers filing separately are taxable without regard to other income. Appropriates amounts equal to estimated tax liability to the Social Security trust funds.
For the last quarter century we have maintained about these same limits, which means that every year more Americans have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The intention in 1983, when this change was approved by Congress, was to only tax high earners. We can all agree that $32,000 is far from high in today’s economy.
The other issue stems from the limits. Setting $25,000 each for an unmarried couple, and $16,000 each for a married couple, certainly discourages legal matrimony, when you can save income tax on $7,000 by divorcing.
A change to $16,000 per person with no reward for separation should be approved by Democrats everywhere, as well as Republicans concerned about “defense of marriage.”
For those spouses who get benefits from their wife’s or husband’s account, that benefit continues after divorce, so you can get your tax break and the same income as though you were still married.
As the years have passed, the amount of taxation has actually increased, even ignoring wage growth and/or inflation.
Here is the SSA’s rather muddled explanation of this disparity, for what it’s worth:
No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:
– file a federal tax return as an “individual” and your combined income* is ◦between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
– more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
– file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is ◦between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits
– more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.