Social Security.

12346

Comments

  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    macgyver06 wrote:
    It was a bogus plan when it was written up.

    And you do know its not a fixed sum of money you get...the more you make, the more you get.

    Well, yeah, and the more you make the more you pay (up to the cap). And then tehre's no additional benefit beyond that cap.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    JamMastaE wrote:
    WOW...you don't have a clue do you.thats why things are so bad,too many clueless people like you.

    I think you've demonstrated that you have no perspective. If you think we're 3rd world, keep thinking that. Fine by me. But you won't convince any rational people.

    And why do you call people names in most of your posts? It is not just the message, it is also the presentation. They both need some work.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • JamMastaE
    JamMastaE Posts: 444
    here is my rap



    take your head out your ass and open your eyes
    stop believing the hype and media lies

    believe nothing you hear and half that you see
    don't bother with the paper & shut off the T.V.

    this is not conspiracy,how naive can you be
    grab a good book and help fight illiteracy

    it's not hard to shed the wool when you see the proof
    but maybe your just to stupid to comprehend the truth

    some succumb when they feel out-powered
    because denial is the refuge of the coward
    "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain


    "I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
    Emiliano Zapata
  • JamMastaE
    JamMastaE Posts: 444
    jeffbr wrote:
    I think you've demonstrated that you have no perspective. If you think we're 3rd world, keep thinking that. Fine by me. But you won't convince any rational people.

    And why do you call people names in most of your posts? It is not just the message, it is also the presentation. They both need some work.



    clueless is not a "name",it's what you are when you don't know what your talking about.like you.
    "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain


    "I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
    Emiliano Zapata
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Good, don't expect too. Save your money. 401K now. IRA now. Start putting money away. Live well within your means and you'll never live paycheck to paycheck. Trust me, it can be done. Get all the education you can get and make yourself as marketable as possible.

    Social Security for our generation is a waste other than taking care of the immediate needs of our elders who either lived longer than they thought or didn't prepare at all in their lives, it's simply another tax that we pay. It was never ever intended to be used as it is in our society.

    It's called growing up and being responsible. Competition sucks sometimes, but it's a hell of a lot better than having other people make all your decisions for you and living a life of virtual pablum.

    Most people don't seem to understand that healthcare and retirement are their own responsibilities and must be planned for.

    Look at Galveston Tx and any other municipality that doesn't have to pay into Social Security...they are doing a hell of a lot better. Social Security is an IOU, it dosen't exist, it's not being saved or invested the way it would be if it were private, it's spent, it's spent the second it hits the governments coffers and that is why it is in horrible shape. Too many old people and "disabled", not enough people paying in. The government is the reason for this issue in the first place.

    Great post. Social Security was established as a TEMPORARY fix after the Great Depression. This program should have gone away years ago. There is no reason to fix a program that shouldn't exist in the first place. Let me invest that 33% of my yearly income that disappears to social security tax as I know I can do a better job of investing my money than what the government can.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    jeffer96 wrote:
    Let me invest that 33% of my yearly income that disappears to social security tax as I know I can do a better job of investing my money than what the government can.

    SSI is NOT 33%
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    fanch75 wrote:
    SSI is NOT 33%
    Seriously, man. If you're sinking 33% of your income into Social Security, either you or your accountant screwed up bad and no one's told you about it yet.

    The Social Security tax right now is 6.2% of your yearly income up to $97,500. No matter how much money you make as an employee, you'll never pay more than $6,045.
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    fanch75 wrote:
    SSI is NOT 33%

    True. SSI is only 12.4% or $5k of my annual salary. As I believe in a flat tax, I tend to throw in all the rest of the crap I give 1/3 of my paycheck to.

    I will never need Social Security as I have planned ahead and invested in my retirement. It's a simple thing to do. This is a system that has outlived it's original intention by 60 years. It's time for it to go away like it was intended to.
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    RainDog wrote:
    Seriously, man. If you're sinking 33% of your income into Social Security, either you or your accountant screwed up bad and no one's told you about it yet.

    The Social Security tax right now is 6.2% of your yearly income up to $97,500. No matter how much money you make as an employee, you'll never pay more than $6,045.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200501060004

    Under the present system, 12.4 percent of a worker's salary -- up to an annual maximum level of $90,000 in 2005 -- is paid into the fund. This amount is split evenly between employer and employee, each of whom pays 6.2 percent of the eligible salary.

    I see no reason why my employer needs to fund something I will never use either. They already invest in my retirement by matching my investment every two weeks.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jeffer96 wrote:
    I see no reason why my employer needs to fund something I will never use either. They already invest in my retirement by matching my investment every two weeks.

    Employer 401k match = one of my favorite expenses, as a business owner.

    Social Security match = one of my least favorite expenses, as a business owner.

    My 401k match is very high a provides a great tool for acquiring employees. The social security match is just a waste.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    jeffer96 wrote:
    True. SSI is only 12.4% or $5k of my annual salary. As I believe in a flat tax, I tend to throw in all the rest of the crap I give 1/3 of my paycheck to.

    I will never need Social Security as I have planned ahead and invested in my retirement. It's a simple thing to do. This is a system that has outlived it's original intention by 60 years. It's time for it to go away like it was intended to.


    Flat Taxes don't work because as long as the government is taxing income they will always always find ways to amend the formula you know....for the common good (and to keep someone in office) It still gives the government too much control.

    See the 1985 Flat Tax. It's been amended a few times.....

    I think we are going to have to redo the whole system and I'm seriously infavor of a revenue neutral national sales tax with a prebate.

    Imagine if we had the option of choosing to invest our own social security?

    Hell you could put it in a high yield savings account or buy bonds or stick it in an IRA or even a damned CD and still come out smelling like roses compared to the current system.

    Receiving our entire paycheck and paying attention to what we are investing in makes more sense to me. Our current system has done nothing but raise government dependants and that's not freedom nor liberty.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    jeffer96 wrote:
    I see no reason why my employer needs to fund something I will never use either. They already invest in my retirement by matching my investment every two weeks.


    Ok I need to stop you here, because this is not how Social Security works.

    Social Security is not deferring your income into an account (like a 401k), it's a tax. Your money (and the employer's match) is not going into some account somewhere. It goes right into the General Fund, and today's Social Security recipients are paid out of that General Fund. Your 6.2% and your employer's 6.2% is a tax that funds today's entitlees.

    That is why it may go bankrupt - there is no account anywhere with your name on it that you are entitled to. When you retire, the folks paying taxes then will be funding your receipts. The fear is that the entitlees will exceed those paying in, hence, a bankrupt system.

    A 401k or other deferred income plan that you and/or your employer contribute to is entirely different. Every penny in your name, is yours, and has your name attached to it (of course the value goes up/down, based on the value of the investments themselves). The plan administrator balances the total funds invested to the total accounts of all those in the plan. That's why 401k never go bankrupt - they can't. The proposal that Bush had a few years ago was a version of that.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • american
    american Posts: 55
    It's Bush's fault. He made it so it can't be saved. Case closed.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Social Security match = one of my least favorite expenses, as a business owner.

    One more point (as an addendum to my above post), the self-employed have to pay BOTH the employEE 6.2% and the "matching" employER 6.2% portion of social security. That's because the self-employed is both the employee and the employer.

    Self-paying the "match" is called the "Self Employment Tax.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    fanch75 wrote:
    One more point (as an addendum to my above post), the self-employed have to pay BOTH the employEE 6.2% and the "matching" employER 6.2% portion of social security. That's because the self-employed is both the employee and the employer.

    Self-paying the "match" is called the "Self Employment Tax.

    Which fucking sucks. I'd rather take that money and invest it myself.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    macgyver06 wrote:
    Do you all think this can be saved?

    Have you seen the numbers.

    My generation is being screwed by the selfish wealthy, as if there arent enough obstacles to maintain a steady personal economic gain in this economy!
    I'm 23 and will never see Social Security money. Nor do i want to.

    I will not accept slave wages!


    It doesn't need to be saved.. it is an obligation the government must honor. It is an entitlement - a must pay bill.

    The cost is increasing - It has been a zero sum game for a long time - and now that there will be some cost for this program that has served America for a really long time - we characterize it as a failure.

    It is merely something that must be addressed every year in the budget.

    If the cost grows - it must be ofset by decreasing other spending or increasing taxes..

    It does not need to be saved - that is merely silly political talk.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Abuskedti wrote:
    If the cost grows - it must be ofset by decreasing other spending or increasing taxes..

    It does not need to be saved - that is merely silly political talk.

    You are right in that it will be saved; it would be political suicide for anyone to allow it to stop paying out benefits after people pay into the system for 40+ years. It won't happen.

    Right now, SSI is in the black. The receipts exceed disbursements and so it continues fine. As I mentioned above, the way SSI funds is that SSI taxes are paid into the General Fund and the receipts receive payments from taht same fund. To increase SSI taxes now would only increase the perceived "surplus," to be spent/squandered elsewhere. Since the gov't is today in deficit, we already see this happening.

    What will happen is that when SSI's disbursements exceed receipts, taxes will be raised. It's the way it funds and the way it works. Today's payign employees pay for today's receiving entitlements.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    fanch75 wrote:
    Ok I need to stop you here, because this is not how Social Security works.

    Social Security is not deferring your income into an account (like a 401k), it's a tax. Your money (and the employer's match) is not going into some account somewhere. It goes right into the General Fund, and today's Social Security recipients are paid out of that General Fund. Your 6.2% and your employer's 6.2% is a tax that funds today's entitlees.

    That is why it may go bankrupt - there is no account anywhere with your name on it that you are entitled to. When you retire, the folks paying taxes then will be funding your receipts. The fear is that the entitlees will exceed those paying in, hence, a bankrupt system.

    A 401k or other deferred income plan that you and/or your employer contribute to is entirely different. Every penny in your name, is yours, and has your name attached to it (of course the value goes up/down, based on the value of the investments themselves). The plan administrator balances the total funds invested to the total accounts of all those in the plan. That's why 401k never go bankrupt - they can't. The proposal that Bush had a few years ago was a version of that.

    You mistook my statement, which after re-reading it, I can see why. My employer matches my 401(k) investment every two weeks. What I am saying is that I feel no need to pay for social security, my employer sure as hell doesn't need to pay for social security, as social security was a temporary program which was meant to go away some 60 years ago.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I have learned alot from this discussion. the most important point someone made is that it was created as a temporary fix for the depression. and at this point I dont see how the current problem of keeping it properly funding can be fixed
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and at this point I dont see how the current problem of keeping it properly funding can be fixed

    I can tell you exactly how it will be fixed. Right now, receipts exceed disbursements. When disbursements exceed receipts (predicted to be some 40 years from now), taxes will be raised, most likely on the wealthy. Problem solved.

    Bush's attempt, though it had its problems, was a courageous attempt. He tried to do something now, as opposed to just leaving it to future generations, as the above scenario I mention.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?

Categories