Thread: Social Security

SS as we know it today is at death's door.

IMO within 5 years there will be means testing, the age to qualify for benefits will be increased, and (perhaps in more than 10 years) those benefits will significantly decrease.

someone on the national stage is eventually going to have to make this clear to the american public.

MM we're about the same age, and when i was a teenager i distinctly remember hearing that our generation would not see the same benefits as our grandparents.

there are too many americans who are living too long.

^ Well, then don't use any service of that society which they built for you !

And, they have lent money to the government during their active working years with a promise to get them back with interest later on.
Should they be punished now ?

I've got no problems with it as it's going to be there for me. Been paying into it since I was 16 so I'll do OK.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Boon "welfare" Mee:

I've got no problems with it as it's going to be there for me. Been paying into it since I was 16 so I'll do OK.

People in their sixties should be cut-off from all social security, forced to pay it back to people that actually work for a living.

When these welfare dirtbags in their 60s are 75, then they should get this welfare called "social security" because they hopefully be dead within 3 years.

Please die soon, old useless, farts. You're f*cking useless.

I LOVE this forum!

Perhaps you neglected to absorb the part about me working since I was sixteen and now on the wrong side of 50? Figure if I make it to 85 or so I might recoup the money I've put into it - touch wood...

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

The fact that you are rolling the dice about your own personal "life expectancy" is one of the many examples of why this is a broken, socialist system, that needs to be abolished.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

The fact that you are rolling the dice about your own personal "life expectancy" is one of the many examples of why this is a broken, socialist system, that needs to be abolished.

If I could have put that money I've paid into an alternative savings vehicle when I started out, I would have but it was, and still is the 'law of the land'. Unfortunately, SS has become so huge, it entails a lot more than retirement distributions.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

The fact that you are rolling the dice about your own personal "life expectancy" is one of the many examples of why this is a broken, socialist system, that needs to be abolished.

If I could have put that money I've paid into an alternative savings vehicle when I started out, I would have but it was, and still is the 'law of the land'. Unfortunately, SS has become so huge, it entails a lot more than retirement distributions.

And this is exactly why it has to change.


Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

Originally Posted by Milkman

And this is exactly why it has to change.


Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

No problem, but whenever the change comes, it's going to be painful for those ~40 and under.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

And this is exactly why it has to change.


Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

No problem, but whenever the change comes, it's going to be painful for those ~40 and under.

There won't be any changes because of the politics involved.

The SSA will keep trudging along. They'll just increase the taxes to cover the costs, and incrementally raise the age of eligibility for certain cohorts (generations).

Someone noted Means Testing, and I think this will be applied more stringently, also.

If the 15% deducted for Social Security was put into individual retirement accounts of U.S. Treasury bonds, a lot fewer of the elderly would be pushed into poverty in the coming decades. Currently, Social Security is a regressive tax (income over $97,000 a year is not taxed) for a welfare system that is insufficient for the elderly and abused by many of those drawing disability checks under the SSI program. The Republican suggestion of individual stock accounts is risky and intended to give their brokerage house buddies billions in management fees. Besides, the stock market has shown that it can decline for 10-20 years at a time. That is not security. Converting Social Security into individual U.S. Treasury bond accounts might also give Americans a very real stake in their own currency so that maybe they wouldn't tolerate government waste. Plus, it's fair. People would keep their hard-earned money and even pass it on through inheritance.

Hedging is the way forward if you're young - some money should be invested at high risk, other at medium risk, and some at low risk.

From what I remember of Bush's pitch to the American people, the options of investment would be the same as those offered to federal employees under their retirement program. The options are very conservative. You couldn't act like a day trader. But yeah the management fees would generate millions for brokerage firms involved.

^^^

good post floorpotato.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by surasak

I can't imagine why anyone would think it's fair that I or any other person should spend 15% of our working hours paying income directly to someone else who just happens to be in a position to collect now. What are we going to get out of the deal?

This isn't about taxes going into a general fund that benefits all. This is something which benefits only a select few.

You might as well just let the government take 15% of my land and let some squatter live on it. It's the same principle.

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Absolutely and positively eliminate it completely.

Boon "welfare" Mee:

I've got no problems with it as it's going to be there for me. Been paying into it since I was 16 so I'll do OK.

People in their sixties should be cut-off from all social security, forced to pay it back to people that actually work for a living.

When these welfare dirtbags in their 60s are 75, then they should get this welfare called "social security" because they hopefully be dead within 3 years.

Please die soon, old useless, farts. You're f*cking useless.

Milkman...I paid into social security at the maximum rate every year for 49 years...and I always griped about it and how I would never get my money back...Well, I am now drawing my SS benefits that I earned and paid for over the past 49 years..And I expect to get my full benefits for the rest of my life...And if you feel that SS taxes should be eliminated and the majority votes for that, I am sure that could happen...but I guarantee that your income taxes will see a significant increase to offset you canceled SS payments...On behalf of all the deserving SS recipients on this list, I say "Thank You and please keep working..

Why would taxes go up? The government has no business taking money from me and giving it to you.

That is not a legitimate function of government.

Taxes would go down and tax revenue would go up if people could invest for themselves.

Othewise, why stop at only a 15% SS/FICA tax if it's the best thing since sliced bread?

Originally Posted by floorpotato

If the 15% deducted for Social Security was put into individual retirement accounts of U.S. Treasury bonds, a lot fewer of the elderly would be pushed into poverty in the coming decades. Currently, Social Security is a regressive tax (income over $97,000 a year is not taxed) for a welfare system that is insufficient for the elderly and abused by many of those drawing disability checks under the SSI program. The Republican suggestion of individual stock accounts is risky and intended to give their brokerage house buddies billions in management fees. Besides, the stock market has shown that it can decline for 10-20 years at a time. That is not security. Converting Social Security into individual U.S. Treasury bond accounts might also give Americans a very real stake in their own currency so that maybe they wouldn't tolerate government waste. Plus, it's fair. People would keep their hard-earned money and even pass it on through inheritance.

Yes, It is abused by some and also is not abused by all, and if Shirtsak broke his back now and could no longer work I don't think he would bitch about it being paid to him.
Income over a certain amount is not taxed but it is taxed on all wages earned up to a cutoff point, that is the max donations required per year, When I worked it was the same as it was last year, But I always made good money and if I just worked for 1 employer they would cut it off at [in 1965 it was $4800.00] for some reason I remember the cutoff because I hit it in march, and if you worked for more than one guy then they would take it up to the cutoff no matter how many you worked for and made that amount, then when you filed for your income tax they would reimburse you what ever you had over paid for the year..

SURASAK, it is not 15% of all earnings, it is 15% of wages earned up to $ 97.000 a year now and none over that point, even if paid in they will refund at income tax time if overpaid.
If you were not an underachiever and made good money each year you would know that.
And as far as being self sufficient and depositing your own money for your self if not taxed, you would not deposit that money but would piss it off and then when you were old and could not work my grandkids would be carrying your ass or you would starve.

If you are so against it then why not raise hell with your elected officials and make them stop giving SSI and SSA to Illegal aliens that have never paid in and some have taken what SSA that they get that they did not pay into and run back to Mexico and spend the money there.but just remember that they do not take 15% from everyone total income, only take it from people that work at 7-11 and other underachievers that do not make over $97,000 a year...

Originally Posted by bkkstoneman

Milkman...I paid into social security at the maximum rate every year for 49 years...and I always griped about it and how I would never get my money back...Well, I am now drawing my SS benefits that I earned and paid for over the past 49 years..And I expect to get my full benefits for the rest of my life...

Please get out your calculator and tell me what return you are getting.


You....are on.....welfare.



Shame on you.


You didn't invest on your own....and you suck off of the taxpayer.


Shame....on....you.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by bkkstoneman

Milkman...I paid into social security at the maximum rate every year for 49 years...and I always griped about it and how I would never get my money back...Well, I am now drawing my SS benefits that I earned and paid for over the past 49 years..And I expect to get my full benefits for the rest of my life...

Please get out your calculator and tell me what return you are getting.


You....are on.....welfare.



Shame on you.


You didn't invest on your own....and you suck off of the taxpayer.


Shame....on....you.

There's no shame on bkkstoneman - he had no choice but to pay into SS at full-whack. Don['t get your drift there, Milkman. It's the LAW you have to pay into it even if you're working overseas for a US based company headquartered in the US and elsewhere like the Cayman's etc...

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by floorpotato

If the 15% deducted for Social Security was put into individual retirement accounts of U.S. Treasury bonds, a lot fewer of the elderly would be pushed into poverty in the coming decades. Currently, Social Security is a regressive tax (income over $97,000 a year is not taxed) for a welfare system that is insufficient for the elderly and abused by many of those drawing disability checks under the SSI program. The Republican suggestion of individual stock accounts is risky and intended to give their brokerage house buddies billions in management fees. Besides, the stock market has shown that it can decline for 10-20 years at a time. That is not security. Converting Social Security into individual U.S. Treasury bond accounts might also give Americans a very real stake in their own currency so that maybe they wouldn't tolerate government waste. Plus, it's fair. People would keep their hard-earned money and even pass it on through inheritance.

Yes, It is abused by some and also is not abused by all, and if Shirtsak broke his back now and could no longer work I don't think he would bitch about it being paid to him.
Income over a certain amount is not taxed but it is taxed on all wages earned up to a cutoff point, that is the max donations required per year, When I worked it was the same as it was last year, But I always made good money and if I just worked for 1 employer they would cut it off at [in 1965 it was $4800.00] for some reason I remember the cutoff because I hit it in march, and if you worked for more than one guy then they would take it up to the cutoff no matter how many you worked for and made that amount, then when you filed for your income tax they would reimburse you what ever you had over paid for the year..

SURASAK, it is not 15% of all earnings, it is 15% of wages earned up to $ 97.000 a year now and none over that point, even if paid in they will refund at income tax time if overpaid.
If you were not an underachiever and made good money each year you would know that.
And as far as being self sufficient and depositing your own money for your self if not taxed, you would not deposit that money but would piss it off and then when you were old and could not work my grandkids would be carrying your ass or you would starve.

If you are so against it then why not raise hell with your elected officials and make them stop giving SSI and SSA to Illegal aliens that have never paid in and some have taken what SSA that they get that they did not pay into and run back to Mexico and spend the money there.but just remember that they do not take 15% from everyone total income, only take it from people that work at 7-11 and other underachievers that do not make over $97,000 a year...

Do you know why the cut-off is $97,000? Do you think it's fair that the government steals almost $14,000 of your wages in order to give it to someone else?

Assuming that a person makes $100,000 per year (more than double the national average, mind you, so calling anyone who makes less than that an underachiever is insulting a majority of the population) that means in an average working lifetime said person has $500,000 stolen from them. At current retirement the max. 'benefit' (I love using such a word....as if getting your own money back is a 'benefit?') is about $2600 I believe.

Now, that amounts to about $32,000 per year. At that rate you would have to live almost 16 additional years past retirement of age 67 just to 'earn' your own principal back. That puts you well past the average age of death in the United States.

Now, if you could take the same $14,000 per year and invest it with a simple rate of 5% return per year (a 60 month maturity IRA can return you 5.55% per year)? You'd have $1.5 million at retirement and wouldn't have to wait to use it (plus, if you had any emergencies during that working career you'd have the money instantly available). With SS that money is stolen and gone until you retire, and, even then you will never get back what is rightfully yours. Even if you 'lost' 33% to capital gains on the basis of investing your own money you'd still end up with more money than if you 'gave' it to the government through the current ponzi scheme.

Because the government steals your money to give to another retiree the person paying the maximum amount into SS loses almost $1 million when comparing his retirement 'benefit' to what he really could have at the same age.

How any scumbag can defend Social Security is beyond me.

Tell us just how much every month you put into your personal IRA or bonds market account, now don't fudge and say "OH I average about" that ain't shit, just how much each month.

Even an under achiever should have bugeted a set amount if he really believes what you have said.

OH I see, you have had an "Emergency" and had the money instantly available" and now you have none in savings..
Standard practice for under achievers..

I put in the max to my 401(K).
Best way to reduce your bottom line when April 15th comes around.