The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Wallace · 20-03-2007, 10:10 AM

Well, for all the noble words that it's YOUR money, that's not exactly true. You have to pay taxes. You don't really get to decide what the government spends it on. Wages are basically a product of a contract between you, your employer (if you have one) and the government. You agree to work for a certain wage, providing that the government is allowed to deduct certain amounts for whatever purposes they choose. That's just a fact of life. I don't particularly like my UK wage being used to pay for weapons, or the war in Iraq. I don't like my local taxes being used to pay for speed cameras and high speed police car chases, but that's the way it is. Well, it was, now I am an ex-pat so I don't pay taxes any more.

You can't have it both ways - live in a country that does its best to provide all the services that are needed and then decide that you don't want to contribute to them. Whether you use those services is up to you, but you shouldn't get the option not to help out.

blackgang · 20-03-2007, 10:46 AM

How very true that is, If you do not like it then you are free to leave.

But there are jobs that can be worked without paying any tax or govt take out, you just have to be smart enough to look and find em.

Quote:

It is said that some of the street-corner beggars in Las Vegas make between $50,000 and $70,000 a year (tax free). They come in from other states, work the "season", then return to their homes and BMW's......

man with no head · 20-03-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallace

Well, for all the noble words that it's YOUR money, that's not exactly true.

So, whose money is it? Why not take 15% of my house and give it to a squatter? How about forcing me to give up a seat in my car to anyone who demands such? Should I have to have a 5th chair at my table so some random person can walk into my house and eat on demand?

Quote:

You have to pay taxes. You don't really get to decide what the government spends it on. Wages are basically a product of a contract between you, your employer (if you have one) and the government. You agree to work for a certain wage, providing that the government is allowed to deduct certain amounts for whatever purposes they choose. That's just a fact of life.

And as I stated this is acceptable. What is not acceptable is a separate tax for a welfare system. Especially one that supports current 'retirees' by forcing working people to pay into the system so someone else gets a check each month.

Collect tax and give money raised to anotehr person? That's welfare.

Quote:

Whether you use those services is up to you, but you shouldn't get the option not to help out.

Ah, right, now it's 'helping out.'

blackgang · 20-03-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

And as I stated this is acceptable. What is not acceptable is a separate tax for a welfare system. Especially one that supports current 'retirees' by forcing working people to pay into the system so someone else gets a check each month.

You are still full of shit.
We paid our money in and now are getting some back, that is unless we are an illegal alien, who you seem to think is OK to get SSA or SSI,,
Well pobly not the origional money we put in, don't know as i don't think there is a way to check the serial numbers on the bills. HA

Milkman · 20-03-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallace

Well, for all the noble words that it's YOUR money, that's not exactly true. You have to pay taxes. You don't really get to decide what the government spends it on.

In the U.S. the SS taxes are separate from the income and others, etc.

Two different programs and situations.

The problem with this issue is that it isn't our money after it's taken by the SS deduction and we're told like little kindergartners, when and if, we'll get it.

SS is headed for insolvency. Period.

The reason why this debate is occurring is because the money isn't there.

If there was money there, nobody would be talking about this.

The doo-doo has hit fan. And there won't be any changes because of the massive politics involved.

It's already finished.

man with no head · 20-03-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackgang

Quote:

And as I stated this is acceptable. What is not acceptable is a separate tax for a welfare system. Especially one that supports current 'retirees' by forcing working people to pay into the system so someone else gets a check each month.

You are still full of shit.
We paid our money in and now are getting some back, that is unless we are an illegal alien, who you seem to think is OK to get SSA or SSI,,
Well pobly not the origional money we put in, don't know as i don't think there is a way to check the serial numbers on the bills. HA

That is patently false.

The money you paid in was given to someone else. And, now, the money I'm paying in is going to you. Who is going to pay me when it's my time to 'collect?'

Conveniently the politicians have brainwashed the elderly using words like 'contribution' and 'benefit.' Wrong. It's 'taxes' and 'weflare.' Welfare for elderly who are living on the backs of those who are younger.

It's no different than the welfare mom having 10 kids and using taxes to support them. The only thing different between you and the welfare mom is your age.

man with no head · 20-03-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallace

Well, for all the noble words that it's YOUR money, that's not exactly true. You have to pay taxes. You don't really get to decide what the government spends it on.

In the U.S. the SS taxes are separate from the income and others, etc.

Two different programs and situations.

The problem with this issue is that it isn't our money after it's taken by the SS deduction and we're told like little kindergartners, when and if, we'll get it.

SS is headed for insolvency. Period.

The reason why this debate is occurring is because the money isn't there.

If there was money there, nobody would be talking about this.

The doo-doo has hit fan. And there won't be any changes because of the massive politics involved.

It's already finished.

And as least in the case of income taxes one can achieve a $0 tax liability using legal means.

For Blackgang to suggest that we break the law to avoid paying SS/FICA means he has lost his argument.

There is only one legal way to aboid SS/FICA: sign a statment with supporting evidence that one belongs to a religious organization which believe paying/accepting from public welfare is against their religion. Aside from the extreme scruitiny that entails one has to break the law in order to not pay into the elderly's welfare fund.

RDN · 20-03-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

...The money you paid in was given to someone else. And, now, the money I'm paying in is going to you. Who is going to pay me when it's my time to 'collect?'...

Do you truthfully believe that there will be no provision made by future US governments to pay some form of social security?

blackgang · 20-03-2007, 09:32 PM

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

Quote:

Is there or is there not an actual Social Security trust fund?
Since the mid-1980s, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been collecting more in payroll taxes each year than it pays out in pension, survivor, and disability benefits. The difference between receipts and payments grew significantly in the 1990s, and now amounts to some $160 billion each year. The Social Security system is expected to continue running annual surpluses at least through 2025.
Each year, SSA turns over any surplus funds to the U.S. Treasury, which spends the funds. In return, SSA receives special-issue, non-negotiable U.S. Treasury securities, which represent an implicit promise by the U.S. government to repay Social Security when and if additional money is needed to cover benefits. These bonds are what we call the "trust fund." In 2000, the trust fund contained bonds valued at $1.2 trillion; by 2025, the accumulated surpluses should top $3 trillion.
These, of course, are projections—the surpluses (and thus the trust fund) could be larger or smaller than anticipated, depending on wage growth, population changes, the overall state of the economy, and so on. Under the SSA's "low-cost" (or best-case) scenario, the Social Security trust fund will grow continuously until late in the 21st century.
So, yes, there is a trust fund, representing the excess of payroll taxes over benefit claims, and it is "invested" in promissory notes issued by the government

man with no head · 20-03-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

...The money you paid in was given to someone else. And, now, the money I'm paying in is going to you. Who is going to pay me when it's my time to 'collect?'...

Do you truthfully believe that there will be no provision made by future US governments to pay some form of social security?

A. There is no money now. SS exists because there are 2 workers paying into the system to support one.

B. Social Security is a fraud. It takes your money and gives you less back in the end.

C. The ratio of workers to those collecting welfare will continue to decline. The only way to solve this problem is either higher taxes or lower payments. That means people of my generation and beyond will be cheated even more than we are now.

D. I simply do not trust any politician with my money.

Milkman · 21-03-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

...The money you paid in was given to someone else. And, now, the money I'm paying in is going to you. Who is going to pay me when it's my time to 'collect?'...

Do you truthfully believe that there will be no provision made by future US governments to pay some form of social security?

Well, they've been stonewalling for 60 years.

I don't want to wait until I'm 67 years old to find out.

Let's bury our heads in the sand, and hope there will be a VAT tax or something.

blackgang · 21-03-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

...The money you paid in was given to someone else. And, now, the money I'm paying in is going to you. Who is going to pay me when it's my time to 'collect?'...

Do you truthfully believe that there will be no provision made by future US governments to pay some form of social security?

A. There is no money now. SS exists because there are 2 workers paying into the system to support one.

B. Social Security is a fraud. It takes your money and gives you less back in the end.

C. The ratio of workers to those collecting welfare will continue to decline. The only way to solve this problem is either higher taxes or lower payments. That means people of my generation and beyond will be cheated even more than we are now.

D. I simply do not trust any politician with my money.

I can see that SUKASAK already has his head in the sand, he will pay no attention to proof and just wanders around making his baseless accusations.
"THERE IS NO MONEY" when there is a link and proof that there was 1.5 trillion dollars in the SSA fund in 2000 and by 2025 there will be $3 trillion dollars in reserve.
When told how he can keep his money from politicians

Quote:

D. I simply do not trust any politician with my money.

, he refuses to keep it from them, he was told how to do it and now also refuses to do it because it is against the law,, Sheesh.

All the guy wants to do is post his own bullshit from is own feeble mind without proof of what he says, and when shown he is wrong, just shines it off and goes right on, And besides that he says they take 15% of his money which is also bullshit, they do invest 15% of the money he makes but it is paid equally by him and his employer each which is 7.65 %,sounds like G.W. Bush to me..

man with no head · 21-03-2007, 05:16 PM

I'm not the one with my head in the sand:

Quote:

Speaking to Coalition for American Financial Security last week, O'Neill made the simple statement that, "Today we have no assets [in the Social Security Trust Fund]." That statement prompted howls of outrage from Democrats in Congress. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Robert Matsui (D-CA) called the statement "the height of irresponsibility."

Quote:

[Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefits…but only in a bookkeeping sense…they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing, or from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government's ability to pay benefits.

O'Neill, Democrats Clash Over Trust Fund

Quote:

Although Social Security will fall into deficit into 2018, some assert that the program’s trust fund will make up the shortfall, and therefore delay any tax increases or benefit cuts, until 2042. That is simply wrong. There is a trust fund, but it has no money in it -- and it never did. No money has ever been saved for future retirees.

Quote:

One problem: the federal government wasn’t allowed to actually save this money. Since 1939, federal law has required Social Security to “invest” its extra money in Treasury bonds. In other words, the government lends the money to itself. Those funds are then mixed in with all other tax revenue and spent on programs such as education, foreign aid and defense.

So in 2018, when the Social Security program tries to redeem these bonds, the Treasury (having already spent that money over the previous 35 years) won’t be able to repay Social Security from any pre-existing store of cash. Taxpayers will be forced to pay extra taxes in order to fund Social Security’s 40 million retiring baby boomers.

Social Security's Fictitious Trust Fund

Quote:

The Social Security trust fund really does exist nestled in the bottom drawer of an unremarkable government file cabinet.

It's in a pair of white loose-leaf notebooks holding plastic page covers. Each caresses a piece of paper representing a bond worth a staggering amount of money. Say, $8,577,396,000.00 ($8.577 billion), due on June 30, 2013, with 6.5 percent interest.

ABC News: Social Security Trust Fund Sits in Drawer

Oh, and from your own link (you're as bad as Boon Mee when it comes to providing links which counter your own argument):

Quote:

They're right that there's no money in the trust fund.

That's because it's all IOUs from one government agency to another.

lom · 21-03-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

That's because it's all IOUs from one government agency to another.

You must be a bit thick so I will make it easier for you to understand:

All countries in the world borrows money against Treasury bounds and they all eventually have to pay back their loans with interest.
Now, replace Social Security with Japan or whatever - if the money had not been borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund it would had to be borrowed from somewhere else instead.
Or do you believe that without the loan from Social Security, the money would never been borrowed ?

man with no head · 21-03-2007, 05:40 PM

It's not the same thing.

The Chinese/Japanese are doing it so we have money to buy their products. If we didn't have the ability to borrow money from overseas then the additional taxes would eat up our ability to buy Toyotas, Hondas, and cheap crap from China. It is in their best interest to loan us the money.

On the flip side of the coin every single person who loans money to SS loses money. You will never get back the investment that is being stolen from you, and, you will never get back more than if you invested the same exact money in simple interest bearing CDs or IRAs in the states.

As well, taking 15% of one's wages immediately steals 15% from everyone's bottom line on the promise that 'some day' we might get some of it back. If the U.S. government defaults on SS's IOUs there won't be some foreign army threatening to bomb us as a result. The government simply will raise the income tax or lower benefits to make up for the problem (again, screwing those paying now).

lom · 21-03-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

The Chinese/Japanese are doing it so we have money to buy their products. If we didn't have the ability to borrow money from overseas then the additional taxes would eat up our ability to buy Toyotas, Hondas, and cheap crap from China. It is in their best interest to loan us the money.

That's not true !
I don't know of any country that doesn't borrow money against treasury bonds to balance the country's budget, it is very common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

you will never get back more than if you invested the same exact money in simple interest bearing CDs or IRAs in the states.

Don't know what CD or IRA is, but the principle for investing retirement money is that it should be an extremely safe investment.
Many European countries has that requirement, stock market (which can crash) or private institutes like banks or insurance companies or are not accepted.
Banks, insurance companies and broker firms usually has to deposit some money to get their license, so at worst if they go broke you'll be guaranteed 10 - 20% of your money..

No, as I said before , retirement money is not to gamble with and fortunately governments around the world has the same opinion regardless of the country's political position. Leftwing and rightwing countries share the same opinion - the money should be there when you retire, but not before.
If you need money for own investments, then I suggest that you save from what remains after your tax is paid, that's what I and others have had to do. With that money you can gamble as much as you want.

20-03-2007, 10:10 AM	#41 (permalink)
Wallace Wat Chalong Last Online: 04-09-2007 11:42 AM Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Q Continuum Posts: 870	Well, for all the noble words that it's YOUR money, that's not exactly true. You have to pay taxes. You don't really get to decide what the government spends it on. Wages are basically a product of a contract between you, your employer (if you have one) and the government. You agree to work for a certain wage, providing that the government is allowed to deduct certain amounts for whatever purposes they choose. That's just a fact of life. I don't particularly like my UK wage being used to pay for weapons, or the war in Iraq. I don't like my local taxes being used to pay for speed cameras and high speed police car chases, but that's the way it is. Well, it was, now I am an ex-pat so I don't pay taxes any more. You can't have it both ways - live in a country that does its best to provide all the services that are needed and then decide that you don't want to contribute to them. Whether you use those services is up to you, but you shouldn't get the option not to help out. __________________ The truth is out there, but then I'm stuck in here.

21-03-2007, 05:40 PM	#55 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	It's not the same thing. The Chinese/Japanese are doing it so we have money to buy their products. If we didn't have the ability to borrow money from overseas then the additional taxes would eat up our ability to buy Toyotas, Hondas, and cheap crap from China. It is in their best interest to loan us the money. On the flip side of the coin every single person who loans money to SS loses money. You will never get back the investment that is being stolen from you, and, you will never get back more than if you invested the same exact money in simple interest bearing CDs or IRAs in the states. As well, taking 15% of one's wages immediately steals 15% from everyone's bottom line on the promise that 'some day' we might get some of it back. If the U.S. government defaults on SS's IOUs there won't be some foreign army threatening to bomb us as a result. The government simply will raise the income tax or lower benefits to make up for the problem (again, screwing those paying now).