Thread: Social Security

^ Good Lord. What a surprise.

Only had 50 years to prepare for this

My Thai wife has been working in the US and paying into SS for 8 years now. We will likely be retiring to Thailand in 4 years. She does not have US citizenship. As I understand it, she can get SS benefits @ 62 yo if she stays in the US but not if she lives abroad. Does anyone know if that is correct?

Thanks in advance

The coming reality of insolvency. The only people who defend Social Stupidity are the people on the rolls. Here is the bigger picture, below.

Moody’s says spending threatens US rating

By Francesco Guerrera, Jan. 10 2008

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.

Link: FT.com / World - Moody’s says spending threatens US rating

The part in bold is a bit deep for me. I understand, that for many year the US government has taken funds (surpluses) from SS and masked the size of the deficit. But is this related to having an excuse to give tax cuts to the top income earners? Anybody able to explain this?

How does this work? Social Security was initially a pay-as-you-go system – annual payroll taxes of workers covered that year’s payments to retired people. By the early 1980s, however, it was clear that this system was not sustainable. Payments were increasing faster than revenues, and when the baby boomers started retiring and collecting pensions, there would be huge shortfalls.



President Ronald Reagan had the prudence to address this problem early enough to make Social Security sustainable. He appointed Alan Greenspan to design a massive overhaul of the system, which was implemented.


Social Security was in effect transformed into a national pension plan. Social Security payroll taxes were raised, creating a surplus in the trust fund that would fully cover the future costs of baby-boomer retirement. The payroll tax now puts 12.4 per cent of each worker’s wage income into the trust fund (half is paid by the employer, except for the self-employed, who pay the full 12.4 per cent).


....Politicians understand that, with the Social Security Trust Fund surplus declining, they will no longer be able to borrow from them under the table while announcing fictitiously smaller deficits to justify continued expenditures and tax cuts. And they will have to generate funds from other sources of revenue to redeem the bonds after 2017. Rather than admit too much was borrowed recently, and must now be repaid, they want to reduce Social Security benefits. This puts much of the burden on the middle class, who created most of the surplus that has been used to hide the real size of the deficits.



US Office of Management and Budget data show that while government’s reported deficit averaged about $300bn a year from 2002 to 2006 – roughly $4,000 per household – the real current deficit was actually more than 50 per cent bigger. The government just “borrowed” about $165bn from the Social Security Trust Fund every year – under the table.


In 2007, the real deficit was $449bn according to the OMB. However, the “official” deficit widely reported is only $257bn, because it is government policy to add the borrowed Social Security Trust Fund surplus ($192bn in 2007) to revenues before calculating the “official” deficit that has to be borrowed publicly. The recently passed economic stimulus package of $160bn is reported to raise the 2008 official deficit to about $400bn. But the real deficit in 2008 will be about $600bn.

Entire: FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Time to honour America’s debt to the retired

What are you worrying about, you have said that you do not pay into SSA so none of the money is yours and you have no call to be raising hell about it.

You are as bad as Ray Carey, you guys is going to have a stroke worrying about things that do not concern you if you have no dog in the fight.

Originally Posted by blackgang

What are you worrying about, you have said that you do not pay into SSA so none of the money is yours and you have no call to be raising hell about it.

I think you've missed my point, and my question at the top of the post.

I'm curious as to how the US government masks the deficit from SS.

Also, I'll be returning to the US to work in the future and will be obligated to participate and pay into FICA, by law.

In 2007, the real deficit was $449bn according to the OMB. However, the “official” deficit widely reported is only $257bn, because it is government policy to add the borrowed Social Security Trust Fund surplus ($192bn in 2007) to revenues before calculating the “official” deficit that has to be borrowed publicly. The recently passed economic stimulus package of $160bn is reported to raise the 2008 official deficit to about $400bn. But the real deficit in 2008 will be about $600bn

seems to be because of the way they do things and so I guess no one knows the truth, but like your taxes, They take it and piss most of it off and do no good with it, but you give it to them so they will take it and want more.
And I see no difference with your payments into SSA, except that they are accredited to you and they say that they will give em back when you are old enough, if you live that long..but if you die then it is really not a worry to you or them.
So you worrying about it will change nothing except maybe your blood pressure and might cause a stroke, So with politicians handling your money anything might happen, but it will most likely not be to your advantage, just like the debt, and other ways they throw your money away,
Best to just work, pay what they ask and don't worry, they have you lined up for a fucking,, so why go back there anyway if you do not believe in the system??

[quote=blackgang;577658]

Best to just work, pay what they ask and don't worry, they have you lined up for a fucking,, so why go back there anyway if you do not believe in the system??

That is defeatism.

And I won't be defeated.

And I won't pay for you're bum, either.

Oh yes you will, on all counts except I have paid in my own, in fact I worked and paid in for years after I had already paid in the max and was qualified to draw max years before I ever drew any.

Altho I do not see where it bothers you, I also paid in to Union pensions that I draw more money from than SSA and it didn't take as many years or hours to top those up as it did SSA but was a hell of a lot more money per hour worked tho.

You do not pay any so what makes you think that you are carrying anyone, and when you do go back you will not have to make up the years/dollars that you didn't pay by working/living in a communist country either.

Originally Posted by blackgang

You do not pay any so what makes you think that you are carrying anyone, and when you do go back you will not have to make up the years/dollars that you didn't pay by working/living in a communist country either.

VN isn't communist. It hasn't been since 1986.

Here is David Walker, who recently resigned at the GAO, which is the number 1 accounting job in America. He just joined an education organization:

Originally Posted by Milkman

VN isn't communist. It hasn't been since 1986.

Sure, China ain't either..

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by Milkman

VN isn't communist. It hasn't been since 1986.

Sure, China ain't either..

No, China isn't. My friends live there, and have lived there.

The "Communist party" in VN and China is in name only.

It's propaganda. The same form of propaganda as in the US and other nations.

You don't live in VN.

You don't know anything about this country - and also Social Security.

I notice how didn't respond to my youtube with Dave M. Walker, but chose to focus on the "commies."


Nice try, bud.

OK, seems you do not know so much either..Just because you live in Nam and your friends live in China does not make the not communist countrys..

Economist.com | Country Briefings: Vietnam

History in brief
Mar 29th 2004
From Economist.com
The area now known as Vietnam emerged as ethnically distinct around 200 BC, though from 111 BC to 939 AD it was under Chinese rule. This period saw the establishment of considerable Chinese cultural influence, but the Vietnamese resisted full assimilation, and local uprisings during the decline of the T’ang dynasty led to the restoration of Vietnamese independence in 939. By the early 11th century, the country was unified, and although Chinese and Mongol armies made incursions, subsequent Vietnamese dynasties endured and gradually extended their domain south into the Mekong Delta. By 1757 Saigon and most of the southern regions of today’s Vietnam had been incorporated.
The expansion, however, made it difficult to maintain the central control, learned from the Chinese, that characterized the Vietnamese state, and by the early 17th century the country was divided under two ruling families. The country was reunified only in 1802, when Nguyen Anh took power with the assistance of a French missionary, opening the path for a French presence in Vietnam. Though Anh’s successor tried to expunge that presence by executing French missionaries, this backfired: France invaded in 1858. By 1893 France occupied all of Vietnam, as well as Cambodia and Laos, which they consolidated into a single territory known as Indochina.
The French presence did not spur economic or political development. Most non-menial jobs in the bureaucracy were filled with imported French officials, who managed Indochina as a source of raw materials for French factories and a captive market for French goods. Nationalist movements proliferated, and in 1925 Ho Chi Minh founded the predecessor to the Indochinese Communist Party. During the second world war, when Vietnam became a Japanese possession administered by the Vichy French, Ho established a communist-nationalist alliance known as the Viet Minh, which cooperated with the Allies. Soon after Japan was defeated, he proclaimed Vietnam a republic with its capital at Hanoi. When the French tried to reassert their colonial power fighting broke out that lasted until May 1954. A Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu forced the dispirited French to agree to a split of Vietnam into two parts along the 17th parallel: North Vietnam, a Communist state led by Ho, and South Vietnam, a French-backed republic.
After partition the north continued to support communist insurgents in the south. The United States established a military advisory presence in an attempt to contain communism in South-East Asia. This role began to escalate after 1960, and in 1965 America began bombing the north and sending troops to the south. But with mounting casualties and no end in sight, the American public turned against the war, and under Richard Nixon the superpower scaled back its commitment. He removed the last of American troops by 1973, and in 1975 the south fell. The country was officially reunited in June 1976 and remains a communist, one-party state, though in recent years there have been some moves towards economic liberalisation and somewhat improved personal freedoms.

Is China a communist country?
In: Politics and Policy

Answer
Yes, but they're having trouble making pure communism work, so they're trying a little free-enterprise mixed in.

^ It's pretty sad you have to go back in history to talk about TODAY.

As you may know I am 100% anti-Commie. And I don't like Socialists either.

VN is the most capitalistic countries I have ever lived in. Easy to start a business out of your home. You usually don't even file paperwork.

I got a business B3 visa without proving I even had a job.

Taxes? I've never paid them.

You have got it wrong.

Yes, the past is the past. But today is today.

It's easier here than in Thailand. More rights; more legal avenues.

I'd do business in VN in many different industries than Thailand.

And people are starting to understand that.


Read more, and travel more, BG...before you make assumptions.

P.S.

Your CUT AND PASTE is outdated by 30 years.

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ It's pretty sad you have to go back in history to talk about TODAY.

4 Years is HISTORY ?

Originally Posted by Milkman

VN is the most capitalistic countries I have ever lived in. Easy to start a business out of your home. You usually don't even file paperwork.

So what has changed, when I lived in Saigon in 1970 I lived with a couple of girls that ran a business out of their home. No paperwork and no taxes..

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's easier here than in Thailand. More rights; more legal avenues. I'd do business in VN in many different industries than Thailand.

So whats the big deal about that,, Jesus Christ, it is easier in Cuba or China than it is in Thailand, so whats your point?

Maybe you better get off them mind altering drugs and get a in touch with reality.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by Milkman

VN is the most capitalistic countries I have ever lived in. Easy to start a business out of your home. You usually don't even file paperwork.

So what has changed, when I lived in Saigon in 1970 I lived with a couple of girls that ran a business out of their home. No paperwork and no taxes..

You've reinforced my point. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's easier here than in Thailand. More rights; more legal avenues. I'd do business in VN in many different industries than Thailand.

blackgang:

So whats the big deal about that,, Jesus Christ, it is easier in Cuba or China than it is in Thailand, so whats your point?

It's not easier in Cuba. Not at all. Cuba is still very regulated and restricted.

Maybe you better get off them mind altering drugs and get a in touch with reality.

I don't do drugs.


Now, back to the topic of SS. What is your opinion on that Youtube of David M. Walker above.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I don't do drugs.

Damn I misunderstood you then,,,Here is a conv. between you and DJ.

Answer only if you want, Pat.

Occasionally I take 7.5 mg of Valium to help me sleep. If I take less I feel no effect.

If I take more I feel drowsy the next day.
How about you?

I don't know. I think everyone is different. When I took 10 mg at once I slept well, but I felt groggy the next day, in the early hours.

Quote:
I go jogging most days and that sweats it all out so I get no build up of tolerance.


You can sweat it out? Thanks.

I sweat a lot.

I don't take valium often but it really can help get a good nights sleep.
Whether I drink or don't drink, I go to bed late, get up way too early, and the
need to take a nap again.

During M - W, I am off the booze for the most part. Not always, but for the most part.

But I guess along with Viet Nam and China not being communist, you also think that Valium is not a drug??
What about Alcohol, is that not a drug too??

you are a strange fellow..

Originally Posted by blackgang

But I guess along with Viet Nam and China not being communist

Again, you're oversimplifying, and also mistaken.

The political structure of 'Nam does have a Pime Minister, a Central Committee, and Politburo. This is the political structure. Based on Leninism.

The economy is capitalist.

There is also no socialism here. In Ed., medical, housing etc.

No communism here: no collectivization of agriculture, e.g.

you also think that Valium is not a drug??

As I stated, on rare occasion I take 7.5 MG of Valium, and yes I do drink beer 3-4 days per week.

So, I erred in my statement.

How about getting back to Social Security? Check out the Youtube, even though you're avoiding Youtube.

OK, due to the fact that you must get a lot of your arguements from Utube and such places, is there anything else that I should watch while I am there getting the straight stuff about the future of the world and about which countrys are communist and which are just voodoo.
I really want the straight skinny now and not some nuts own personal opinion of whats going on just because it matches with that you have got when behind a bunch of beer and drugs.

OH yea,

^ But remember BG, I am not talking about you at all when it comes to Social Security.

It's the Boomers who started collected on January 1, 2008, this year. 78 million more to follow.

You're not one of them.

Well they might have a plan, I do not know, it was an alright deal when i was paying it in every week, well some years depending on the times, I would have the max in by or before this time of year.
But if you worked for more than 1 co. then they took it out up to the max, which used to be $4,800 gross, I think it was back about 1963 or so, I never worried about claiming over payment if I worked for 4 or 5 a year as it didn't amount to that much then and I was making good money and tax's were not that much then and I always felt privileged to have a good job and be good at my job and live in a good country.
But they paid in all their working lives, same as me so we will have to see what happens next..
I truly do not know how they will make it work, but I ain't one to run around crying "The sky is falling" so we will just have to wait and see.

Just like a bunch from "Over there" that says they would have won WWll if the US had stayed out of it, but I have my doubts, but I can't call em a liar now can I?

I am bumping this thread on Social Security. If folks want to merge the new thread it can be done.

For any reform to SS, there will have to be 60 votes in the Senate alone. This is not likely to happen.

Measuring the shortfall
Social Security is projected to start taking in less tax revenue than it has promised to pay out by 2017 because Baby Boomers will have retired in droves. By 2041, the system will only be able to pay out an estimated 78% of promised benefits.

But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Add the trust fund bonds to the system's projected 75-year revenue hole and the government will have to come up with a way to address a shortfall approaching $7 trillion, according to David Walker, president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Worthy of a quick read. Link: The only way to fix Social Security - Aug. 20, 2008