# Help me out here: the House Republicans voted in favour of raising payroll taxes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220 "2011-12-23T22:35:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220/41 "2011-12-25T22:34:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What gives you the idea that the money you get is the money you paid in? It’s a transfer-payment system. The money you paid in when to people who were retired when you paid it in. The money you’ll get will be paid by people who are still working then. Why would you think the two are connected? And, even normal pensions (those that used to be common from large companies and still exist in local/state gov’t)- any one person is expected to get back out more than they put in- as the pension fund has earnings and a lot of dudes die before they can collect, and others leave before they are vested. So, sure, in Soc Sec if you do get to retirement age, you will likely take out more than you put in, but that’s normal. But since Soc Sec also pays out to the disabled, etc, it’s is also a bit like a welfare system. This is where the funds from those who earn more than $100K would go to. Those who never have paid in. I think it is thus fair to have no top limit on paying in, but a top limit on getting out. This also painlessly solves any Soc Sec deficit issue. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220/42 "2011-12-25T22:39:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If it was set up in a way where you would have a personal, named, account into which the money was deposited and grew with that account’s contents being disbursed as part of your estate should you die early, that wouldn’t be true. > > Let’s see. Maximum SS contribution in 2011 was ~$11K - more than half from employer if you’re employed, all of it from you if you’re your own boss. > > If you start working at 20 and earn enough to max out the contribution every year (which means you’re earning more than $106K/year every year), by 65, if interest on the savings is 2% (and let’s leave the inflation out of it) your contribution, compounded, would be $806K. Current maximum SS benefit is $2,366 monthly. If that money continues to earn that 2%, it would take about 43 years for you to exhaust that pool of money. That would be by the age of 108. But you know, even in a normal pension, if you die early your estate doesn’t always get your contributions out. It depends on how it’s vested, minimum retirement age, # of years, etc. For example, my Mom had a real pension. But she died before she was able to collect. In this case, since she died after 20 years of contributions, and after age 50, Dad did get a small monthly check. But if she had died earlier, Dad wouldn’t have got anything. It’s a _pool_, not a _savings account._ And, you know, today- 108 isn’t crazy. However, many don’t have that many full quarters. Most dudes earn crap during their 20’s. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220/43 "2011-12-25T22:42:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But you know, even in a normal pension, if you die early your estate doesn’t always get your contributions out. I was not talking about “normal pension”. Here is what I posted: “If it was set up in a way where you would have a personal, named, account into which the money was deposited and grew with that account’s contents being disbursed as part of your estate should you die early, that wouldn’t be true.” > [@](#): > > And, you know, today- 108 isn’t crazy. However, many don’t have that many full quarters. Most dudes earn crap during their 20’s. And accordingly the benefit they get is less. Thus the calc would be different. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220/44 "2011-12-25T23:04:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I was not talking about “normal pension”. Here is what I posted: “If it was set up in a way where you would have a personal, named, account into which the money was deposited and grew with that account’s contents being disbursed as part of your estate should you die early, that wouldn’t be true.”. You are correct, then it wouldn’t be true. But I think that is a very bad idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-out-here-the-house-republicans-voted-in-favour-of-raising-payroll-taxes/607220.md?page=2)