Thread: Social Security

Yes MM, but if you are self employed then you can choose not to pay it at all and do what ever you want for a pension plan.
Railroad workers are not on the SSA roles, nor are some muni employees, and they have the RR pension plan, nor are govt employees as far as I know.
But there is no way that you can ever draw from the fund tho if you didn't pay in unless you are an illegal alien in the USA and then you are welcome to draw..
In fact in Chula Vista or San Diego SSA offices there are so many mexicans in the office that they are taken and a citizen might have to wait in line for 2 or 3 days for a small bit of service.

It is rather amusing the responses on this thread:

A. Live in the U.S. and break the law to avoid paying into SS.
B. Move somewhere else because it's unpatriotic to complain about the government's policies and taxes (take it up the ass or leave the U.S.).
C. Accept the system as it is because politicans can be trusted with your money.
D. I don't care because I'm raping the system and if it's broken when you retire then so what.

I've presented lots of facts (even from SecTreas), nobody has disputed them, yet some people accuse me of having my head in the sand?

Last time,, because you do not seem to realize that every big corp or govt agency does not operate on cash, banks included, they work on paper.
You say there is no money only paper in SSA. fact, just like everything else..
you make your self look stupid for the things you say.
you say that you do not want to pay SSA or taxes, but will do nothing to keep from it and that in it's self is stupid.
Either you owe them and should pay then or you do not and should not pay.
so make up your mind and quit sniveling.
I do believe that everyone should pay 10% of gross into taxes, and I always did that, but after I had made 10% payin for what my years gross would be, I quit paying them because they didn't want to charge me 10% but wanted to charge me 65% because I am not an underachiever and made $1000 to $3000 a week in 1978 or later and the taxes on that amount are very high and you have to work 7 days a week and a lot of hours each day, so if I work extra for it then it is mine. Before 1978 I did pay in on all my income but it was silly for me to pay that when guys like you were only paying in $7,000 a year.
Anyway you can have it now, you will never understand, you do hate the USA because every thread since I have been here has been about how bad the US is and how they are fucking you, yet you refuse to leave or do anything about it except come on a discussion forum and bitch to a bunch of guys that don't give a shit and don't live there no more anyway.

Tax The Rich!

...they don't pay enough

^
That's incomplete and misleading.
I'd say, basically, the rich are earning much more now than 10 years ago, which is why they are paying more tax, in proportion to taxes collected, not in % of their income.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Last time,, because you do not seem to realize that every big corp or govt agency does not operate on cash, banks included, they work on paper.
You say there is no money only paper in SSA. fact, just like everything else..
you make your self look stupid for the things you say.
you say that you do not want to pay SSA or taxes, but will do nothing to keep from it and that in it's self is stupid.
Either you owe them and should pay then or you do not and should not pay.
so make up your mind and quit sniveling.
I do believe that everyone should pay 10% of gross into taxes, and I always did that, but after I had made 10% payin for what my years gross would be, I quit paying them because they didn't want to charge me 10% but wanted to charge me 65% because I am not an underachiever and made $1000 to $3000 a week in 1978 or later and the taxes on that amount are very high and you have to work 7 days a week and a lot of hours each day, so if I work extra for it then it is mine. Before 1978 I did pay in on all my income but it was silly for me to pay that when guys like you were only paying in $7,000 a year.
Anyway you can have it now, you will never understand, you do hate the USA because every thread since I have been here has been about how bad the US is and how they are fucking you, yet you refuse to leave or do anything about it except come on a discussion forum and bitch to a bunch of guys that don't give a shit and don't live there no more anyway.

Perhaps it would be easier to understand your point(s) if your English were at least 50% coherent. Frankly it's getting to the point of where a Blackgang.cgi script is needed to figure out just what the hell your gibberish means. I wasn't even 10 years old in 1978 so I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with 2007 either. What you post most of the time makes no sense and, frankly, adds nothing of value to the debate.

There. Is. No. Money. In. Social. Security.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, chairman of the six-member board of trustees for both programs, said the estimates "leave no question that Social Security reform is needed and it is needed soon. Reform of this system, for the sake of our children, grandchildren and the financial future of our country, is a very real and pressing matter."

The trustees said that Social Security's unfunded obligations total $4 trillion over the next 75 years, an increase from last year's projection of $3.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Snow said that to meet that shortfall, Social Security payroll taxes would have to be raised by 3.5 percentage points or benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent.

Keep working! Millions on welfare depend on you!

Originally Posted by stroller

^
That's incomplete and misleading.
I'd say, basically, the rich are earning much more now than 10 years ago, which is why they are paying more tax, in proportion to taxes collected, not in % of their income.

All income tax, including Social Security tax, is immoral and should be eliminated.

At best a flat tax should be implimented. Everyone should pay the same percentage.

Originally Posted by surasak

...At best a flat tax should be implimented. Everyone should pay the same percentage.

I totally agree with this, but little else of what you say.

When I was working, the best money making scheme was to put as much money as possible (15% of salary) into FSAVCs - free standing additional voluntary contributions - to a pension scheme. The good old UK government allowed you to reclaim tax. So, as I paid 40% tax, for every £60 I paid in, the government added £40 straight away. Lovely jubbly!

PS. UK bank notes used to have on them "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of..." followed by £5, £10 etc, depending on the note, and "For the Governer and Company of the Bank of England" and signed by the chief cashier.

So it's just a piece of paper with a promise on it, an IOU if you like. I don't recall ever going to a bank and asking them to give me my £5 of gold bullion.

Let me explain so you will know what's going on here (otherwise, if you try to wade through BG's gibberish you'll be severely confused).

Here in the U.S. everyone pays 15% of their wages to Social Security (up to a cap of $97,000...anyone making over that pays the same as if he/she made only $97,000). Periodically employers/self-employed send taxes to the U.S. government. The Treasury takes the income tax and the Social Security Administration takes the SS tax.

The SSA takes the SS tax, pays those who are 'collecting' and gives the rest back to the Treasury in exchange for special bonds. The SS Trust Fund therefore never contains any money once the excess is loaned back to the U.S. government and the remaining is paid to current retirees.

In short, the system never deposits money in an account for taxpayer 123-45-6789. The taxpayer gets a 'credit' and after 10 years (40 credits) has enough to qualify for 'benefits' when one retires. One only needs to make $960 for a credit, or, $38,000 in a lifetime to qualify for retirement. Credits are awarded yearly

The base tax is about 12.5% (when I refer to the 15% in my posts I'm also including the other social welfare taxes for the elderly). On $97,000 this amounts to about $12,000. This means that a person pays $12,000 into SS until retirement at that income level. SS benefits are calculated using the 35 highest yearly incomes.

As of 2006 the maximum monthly check was about $2000. This means at the highest level of qualification one can get back about $24,000 per year.

Now, consider this: a person pays $12,000 for 35 years and starts collecting. He or she paid $420,000 in taxes. He or she will have to live 17.5 years past retirement just to break even. If he or she lives 17.6 years then he or she will cost the system more than he or she paid in (very common now).

In contrast, the same $12,000 invested yearly for 35 years in a real retirement account would generate almost $1.2 milllion. That means in order to break even with the real world a SS recipient would have to live for 50 years past retirement.

Now you can see how the scheme cheats workers.

When SS was established about 16 workers paid into the system for each that collected. Now it's about 3.3 to 1 and getting smaller.

Since the SS trust fund is a paper fund it isn't invested in anything and there's no profit being generated as there would be if you instead invested the money in real securities as are most real world trust funds.

As well, the excess tax collected from SS is put into the general fund and spent on things unrelated to the true purpose of the tax in the first place. In return worthless bonds are issued back to the SS trust fund. Imagine if you paid a tax on gasoline and the tax was supposed to pay for highway maintenance and instead was used to fund research into viscosity of various brands of ketchup. Imagine as well that a bridge collapsed and the highway department had no money to rebuild it because the money that was originally collected doesn't exist any longer. Wouldn't you be angry about that?

As the number of workers/retirees declines the system will go bankrupt. Then the SS trust fund will try to redeem the bonds but the government won't be obligated to because nothing tangible ever was exchanged for the bonds in the first place. At current rates of benefits to tax rates there's no avoiding it. Either taxes will have to increase up to 20% of wages to maintain current levels of benefits, benefits will be cut, or, Federal taxes will go up to pay the SS trust fund bonds because last time I looked the Treasury was in debt.

Either way, taxes on someone have to go up so someone else can retire. Where's the fairness in that?

If we could keep our money instead then national savings would increase, taxes would go down, and, we could retire with dignity instead of being a leech on someone else.

I don't think the gov could simply refuse to redeem the bonds, also as far as I know there is interest on them, which you haven't accounted for in your comparison to a private fund.

Originally Posted by surasak

If we could keep our money instead then national savings would increase, taxes would go down, and, we could retire with dignity instead of being a leech on someone else.

We've been through this already: what makes you assume people would invest that money, and what makes you so sure they would invest it sensibly if they did?
I am obviously not familiar with the US system, but I don't see any fault on the SSA's side, it seems the way temporary 'surplus' is used by the gov needs to be changed, as well as the system be reformed to accomodate changing demographics. Yeah, it isn't 100% fair, but the idea you'll get out of it what you paid in is a misconception, since it's a communal fund which also addresses inequalities and needs, not wants and greed.

Stroller post,,

I don't think the gov could simply refuse to redeem the bonds, also as far as I know there is interest on them, which you haven't accounted for in your comparison to a private fund.

Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
If we could keep our money instead then national savings would increase, taxes would go down, and, we could retire with dignity instead of being a leech on someone else.

We've been through this already: what makes you assume people would invest that money, and what makes you so sure they would invest it sensibly if they did?
I am obviously not familiar with the US system, but I don't see any fault on the SSA's side, it seems the way temporary 'surplus' is used by the gov needs to be changed, as well as the system be reformed to accommodate changing demographics. Yeah, it isn't 100% fair, but the idea you'll get out of it what you paid in is a misconception, since it's a communal fund which also addresses inequalities and needs, not wants and greed.

sukasak said

The bonds issued are not the same as T-bills. With T-bills a private person or organization physically hands over money to the government with the promise to pay in return with interest. If the government defaults in this manner the results would be horrendous.

SS, on the other hand, takes money comprised of what is supposed to be retirement taxes and transfers them to the general treasury with some vague promise that the bonds might be paid at some point.

What he doesn't understand or refuses to admit because it would make him look more like and idiot and take away any room for his argument, is that the bonds issued to SSA are not regular bonds and have no maturity date and so can be redeemed at any time while reg T bonds do have a maturity date and can only be redeemed with a penalty on early withdrawal, Just like US savings bonds, which series E bonds, you buy at 1/2 face value, they mature at 10 years and you can redeem them at twice the purchase price.

Stroller got it figured and sukasak is lost somewhere "out there', but he just hates the US and so has to make it look as bad as he can even if he is full of shit and don't understand what he is talking about..

Originally Posted by stroller

We've been through this already: what makes you assume people would invest that money, and what makes you so sure they would invest it sensibly if they did?

I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend it.


If people don't save nor invest sensibly then that's their choice.

They have the option.


Under the current US government scheme we do not have the option.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend it.

Are you then prepared to pay an additional tax, covering the higher interest rate your government has to pay when borrowing the money elsewhere ?
And an additional tax to cover for those who goof with their retirement investments ?

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend it.

Are you then prepared to pay an additional tax, covering the higher interest rate your government has to pay when borrowing the money elsewhere ?
And an additional tax to cover for those who goof with their retirement investments ?

No, I'm not prepared to and don't want to.

It's not my problem.

I spend enough time worrying about how I'm going to make it.

If people 'goof' on their retirement investments they work longer.

This is happening now.

Right now, it's happening.

People just keep working.

When they become to old to work - now this - will be an issue.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's not my problem.

ok, so it's not your problems to participate in bringing your country forwards through economical investments for coming generations.

It's only you right ? Here and now. Pay-as-you-go..
You don't feel any debt to previous generations for what they invested for you, and you are not willing to invest for the coming ones.

Fortunately, countries and governments around the world are a bit less shortsighted than that.
The generation contract is an economical link over generations, without it we would have been born without debt but then there wouldn't be any society service for us either.
So you want to go to school young man ? Work and pay your tax and we'll make a school for you when we have collected enough tax..

You should be aware that the 15% being held by your government is not piled up while waiting for you to retire, it is working capital for the government and is used to pay for the past, the present and the future.
Remove that money and they have to borrow it elsewhere.
You can't be serious if you believe that it wont affect you, of course they will have to raise tax to cover for higher interest fees.

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's not my problem.

ok, so it's not your problems to participate in bringing your country forwards through economical investments for coming generations.

lom,

Yes, I do want to 'bring my country forward through economical investments for the coming generations.'

But....the U.S. government has blown it. They have screwed up so badly that I don't have faith in them.

It's only you right ? Here and now. Pay-as-you-go..
You don't feel any debt to previous generations for what they invested for you, and you are not willing to invest for the coming ones.

It's mostly about only, me.

The US government has made it only, about me.

Income taxes, education costs, SSA, user-fees, sales taxes, car tabs, etc.

Even the Lotto in my state of Washington was supposed to be put into the schools (education). Instead, the bureaucrats took the Lotto money and put it into the General Fund, and then sprinkle it all over the place. There are actually some police officers paid from the Lotto money.

I can't trust the bureaucrats and politicians to look to the future - they never have - and they never will.

Fortunately, countries and governments around the world are a bit less shortsighted than that.
The generation contract is an economical link over generations, without it we would have been born without debt but then there wouldn't be any society service for us either.
So you want to go to school young man ? Work and pay your tax and we'll make a school for you when we have collected enough tax.

.

School funding via say, property taxes, and infrastructure (roads) I look at completely differently.

My focus is only on Social Security.

SS stands alone and cannot be equated with education funding and infrastructure, which I do support.

You should be aware that the 15% being held by your government is not piled up while waiting for you to retire, it is working capital for the government and is used to pay for the past, the present and the future.
Remove that money and they have to borrow it elsewhere.
You can't be serious if you believe that it wont affect you, of course they will have to raise tax to cover for higher interest fees.

They'll have to borrow it and pay interest because they got the nation into this mess by myopic attitudes, neglect, sefishness, and poor planning.

Americans, keep working hard.

Originally Posted by Milkman

They'll have to borrow it and pay interest

Who are "they" that will have to pay that interest ?

Originally Posted by Milkman

If people 'goof' on their retirement investments they work longer.

So, in times of unemployment, what is more economical for a society:
1. To cover up for the missing money for a full retirement (maybe 10-20&#37 and let the person retire at 65 or even at 63.
or
2. Pay full welfare for a younger unemployed worker while he is waiting for the older one to fill up his retirement scheme ?

Me thinks it wiser to get the young ones into work.
I don't wanna steal their work so I retired early

when sukasak says welfare he means SSA pension.
What Keep working! Millions on welfare depend on you!

Here is what he is talking about,

Is there really a Social Security trust fund?

Yes. Presently, Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays in benefits. The excess is borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, which in turn issues special-issue Treasury bonds to Social Security. These bonds totaled $1.9 trillion at the beginning of 2006. Social Security received $94 billion in interest from bonds in 2005.

And the interest comes from.........?

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by Milkman

They'll have to borrow it and pay interest

Who are "they" that will have to pay that interest ?

People that are employed in the U.S.

But this won't happen and we know it.

Having to borrow and pay interest to pay the receivers of this won't be necessary if it's just cut completely.

Or, the age of eligibility is raised.

And COLAS reduced.

Means Testing implemented.

Originally Posted by Milkman

If people 'goof' on their retirement investments they work longer.

lom:

So, in times of unemployment, what is more economical for a society:
1. To cover up for the missing money for a full retirement (maybe 10-20%) and let the person retire at 65 or even at 63.
or
2. Pay full welfare for a younger unemployed worker while he is waiting for the older one to fill up his retirement scheme ?

Apples and Oranges.

Unemployment and SS should not be discussed because they're too different topics.

Just like education funding and infrastructure.


It's about SS. Just do the math.

Me thinks it wiser to get the young ones into work.

Unemployment rates are low, and also low for the younger cohorts (generations). The period of unemployment is much less than the life expectancy of someone going onto SS, which continues until the die, with 'colas.'

Again, apples and oranges.

I don't wanna steal their work so I retired early

True.

As older workers retire there will likely be more opportunities for certain cohorts younger.

Congrats on early retirement.

You earned it.

As long as SS isn't involved.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend

If I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement.

So, it's better to let politicians do it for those individuals? Politicians are to be better trusted?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend

If I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement.

So, it's better to let politicians do it for those individuals? Politicians are to be better trusted?

Europe is a perfect example of failed policies.

Germany, in particular.

Yes, the US has got problems in this area.

In Europe it's far worse for the younger generations.

-
If a bureaucrat or politician can take my money and give me a greater return than I can, I'd like to see their performance, and annualized returns.

Originally Posted by lom

You don't feel any debt to previous generations for what they invested for you, and you are not willing to invest for the coming ones.
to borrow it elsewhere.

That's what the general funds are for: things that are tangible and pass on from generation to generation. Cities. Bridges. Transportation networks. Defense. Day-to-day things that we all share and pass on.

But forcing someone to work to support another person using the tax structure is not fair play.