^
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. ;)
Printable View
^
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. ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
There. Is. No. Money. In. Social. Security.
Keep working! Millions on welfare depend on you!Quote:
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.
All income tax, including Social Security tax, is immoral and should be eliminated.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
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! :D
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
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.
Compare it to what will happen if the government defaults on SS: SS doesn't tax anyone over $97,000. The Federal Income tax applies, however. When SS's special bonds come due then the money comes from the general tax revenues to repay the 'loan' from SS to the government. In effect we're paying SS twice: once for the SS tax and again for the interest (which comes from our Federal income taxes). If the government decided not to repay the bonds then those at the upper income levels would benefit because the money loaned by SS to the Federal government makes their taxes lower. The wealthiest Americans benefit by having SS loan the excess to the government and by the government failing to repay those loans. It becomes a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary workers to the rich.
This is why we cannot and should not trust any government, any politician with our retirement.
Now, picture this: if SS truly were a trust fund then the money would be there, on demand, whenever needed (just as I could walk to my bank and remove $10,000 on demand). But what would happen if the bank didn't have any cash on hand (as legally required) and I demanded my money and the bank didn't have it? This would be like having a Bank of the United States where you deposited your money but would never have any guarantee of return let alone getting your principal back.
http://www.cepr.net/publications/soc...2001_07_23.pdf
If we really were concerned with retirement we would take money from people and put it in their own unique account (not pooled or shared) that would have survivorship benefits, the ability to borrow against the accumulated balance, as well as denying payments to those who never paid into it.
Stroller post,,
sukasak saidQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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..
I think it's better to let the individual invest the money than let the government bureaucrats spend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
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.
Are you then prepared to pay an additional tax, covering the higher interest rate your government has to pay when borrowing the money elsewhere ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
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.
ok, so it's not your problems to participate in bringing your country forwards through economical investments for coming generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
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.
lom,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 mostly about only, me.Quote:
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.
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.
.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Americans, keep working hard.
Who are "they" that will have to pay that interest ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
So, in times of unemployment, what is more economical for a society:Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
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 ?
Me thinks it wiser to get the young ones into work.
I don't wanna steal their work so I retired early :)
Here is what he is talking about,Quote:
when sukasak says welfare he means SSA pension.
What Keep working! Millions on welfare depend on you!
Quote:
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.........?
People that are employed in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
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.
lom:Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Apples and Oranges.Quote:
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 ?
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.
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.'Quote:
Me thinks it wiser to get the young ones into work.
Again, apples and oranges.
True.Quote:
I don't wanna steal their work so I retired early :)
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. :cool:
If I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasakIf I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
So, it's better to let politicians do it for those individuals? Politicians are to be better trusted?
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.
:D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
But forcing someone to work to support another person using the tax structure is not fair play.
Because if SS is turning a surplus right now it prevents the politicians from making tough choices in spending. They can keep the real income tax low because the surplus from SS is letting them make up the difference. Spend now, worry about the consequences later.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
Sorry but I do think stroller is spot on. While it's easy to mistrust politicians and other guardians of the nation's wealth, it is no science to figure that if you were to give each person in the country £1m, a month will be enough to have many scratching their heads wondering how they could have gone through it. Fast forward a year, and we can only guess how much will have gravitated to the few from the many, but one thing for sure, many will be worth less than their windfall.
With this in mind, while most people with only average intelligence could invest for their own future and those of their children, it is easy to conceive that a few years down the road will see the beginnings of yet another need to support the idle, unproductive and incapable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
I think you've answered your own question. Most people CANNOT be trusted to save for their retirement. I was staggered to discover how many relatively educated and intelligent people in my old company were NOT part of the very generous pension scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
They'd rather spend now and worry about....... blah blah...
God Damn Sukasak, You keep asking the same questions and can not understand the answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasakThat'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
But forcing someone to work to support another person using the tax structure is not fair play.
The general funds are now and have been for years BROKE and in debt trillions of dollars, they are the ones that borrowed from the SSA fund, Everyone raised hell when it was found out and didn't want the General Fund fucking with SSA money.
But it is figured that it is chaeper to use that than borrow more from Japan and China.
You seem to think that owning T bonds is fine, but still you do not think that the SSA should hold such bonds.? Where do you think that the General Fund should get the money??
Do you not believe that it is OK to own and buy US SAVINGS BONDS??
And it was the Govt that made the rule that SSA loan excess money to the treasury than loan it on the open market, cheaper and safer to loan it to the gen. fund. So thats where they are making the profit of the interest.
Even some private pension funds money is coming from investment in T Bonds, is it also wrong for them to make a profit from the T Bonds???:finger:
And politicians are better with money? Witness the pissing away of $1 trillion so far in Iraq. It's not uncommon for the Pentagon, for example, to spend $500 for a hammer or a toilet seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDNQuote:
Originally Posted by surasak
I think you've answered your own question. Most people CANNOT be trusted to save for their retirement. I was staggered to discover how many relatively educated and intelligent people in my old company were NOT part of the very generous pension scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
They'd rather spend now and worry about....... blah blah...
The more money politiicans have the more corrupt they become. Certainly we should not allow them access nor control over the most important aspect of one's life: retirement.
If people KNOW that something like SS will 'take care of them' it lessens personal responsibility in the long run. Consume now, don't worry about the future. Feeding off the public trough encourages nothing.
In other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
Lazy people don't have a right to someone else's money simply because someone else happens to be productive and unwilling to be a burden on others.
You have already said that, so why do you give it to em? I know that you are not that patriotic or for love of country,, so must be from fear of going to jail cause you ain't smart enough to skip out on taxes for a few years..Quote:
The more money politiicans have the more corrupt they become. Certainly we should not allow them access nor control over the most important aspect of one's life: retirement.
Don't you know and understand,Everyone else does, SS was never meant to cover you during retirement, but to just make it somewhat sweeter..??Quote:
If people KNOW that something like SS will 'take care of them' it lessens personal responsibility in the long run. Consume now, don't worry about the future. Feeding off the public trough encourages nothing.]
Fair sentiment and I wholeheartedly agree, but we're talking new age democracy with each individual enjoying the right to be cared for, and whether or not they can tie their own shoelaces, because if they can't it's invariably someone else's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasakIn other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
Lazy people don't have a right to someone else's money simply because someone else happens to be productive and unwilling to be a burden on others.
The Welfare/Nanny State could not possibly have been created with a concept of today's pathetic expectations, but while we may wonder what's holding it all together it's the best we have and somehow plods along regardless; until of course it implodes.
No, everybody who pays in will be paid for retirement, and most people are obligated to pay in, so they won't be a burden later after not contributing.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
What's so difficult to understand about it?
This is NOT how SS works.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
It is not working this way.
Look at Western Europe.
Truly, a disaster.
Much worse than the U.S.
I know a dude that is living in mexico where it is cheap, he is a worthless bastard and has been on SSI.[that pays max SS benefits] now for years, but soon he will be 65 and then it is back to reg. SSA pension and it will cut him from $1400.00 a month to about $400.00 because he has never worked over a year or so in his miserable fucking life.
Maybe we could get him next door to Sursak and it would be very convinent for him to support that dude living real close,,he says he got to support some one..
I've never heard Surasak say nor imply that he is unpatriotic.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
He just doesn't like flushing his hard earned money down the toilet bowl.
That's not how it works here.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
^^Who likes flushing their hard earned money away? I certainly don't, and made sure the tax pirates prised not a penny more than I absolutely needed to donate in order to have them look elsewhere for a soft touch.
No but he has never said a Good word about the place either, can't be to patriotic either,, bitches about everything and will not do anything about it.
And a real patriot will not go on international forum and mean mouth his beloved country, but will do it to make the country look bad if he don't like it..
And some famous guy said, If you do not like what the politico are doing with your money, Don't give it to em..
I believed that, so I got in the tax revolt back in the 70s as I was tired of paying at that time $25k or 30k a year and them investigating me and wanting more, shutting down my checking and investigating some more.
So I did like I said back aways, I paid what I thought would be 10% of my gross and then went exempt, and did that for a few years,
After I had done that for awhile I came out and filed 10 years back tax forms, then I was legal and done the legal thing and filed Bankruptcy for the money. easiest 1/4 mil I ever made.
You couldn't do that unless you were making good money and were mobile and really believed in what you were doing cause after awhile they get smart to what you are doing.
7-11 do not pay well enough to make it worth while.
I certainly don't either and have my deductions setup so that legally I don't pay a cent in Federal income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
As it is I cannot legally avoid paying into SS right now because I must show ample income in order to sponsor my stepdaughter to live in the U.S.
And someone said that he is a patriotic country loving bumpkin..
Even I believe that you should pay something, and he even bitch about 15%.
Well at min wage you don't actually own income tax.
I cant really understand why you think Surasak, that your deductions are supporting people who have worked for decades and paid their SS money.
Why do you think it is your money?
Why isn't it their deductions that are being used to support them?
If not, where did their deductions go?
And if you pay no income tax, why should people who do pay it, subsidise you now?
It's a 'pay as you go' system....meaning that those who are collecting today are collecting from those paying into the system today. If Social Security takes $1000 from either me or Milkman then somehow a portion of that $1000 finds its way directly to blackgang. That's how the system in the U.S. works. The net balance of the Social Security trust fund is $0 at all times (meaning what goes out balances with what comes in). Any surplus is loaned by law to the Federal government as a way to keep general income taxes down. When interest is paid on that loan it's another way money is indirectly stolen from one person and given to another.
If the system actually took one's money, put it in a separate account, and then paid the person when one retires then nobody would be raising a fuss about the insolvency crisis approaching in a few decades. SS couldn't go bankrupt if people paying into the system actually collected their own money back.
The failure of the system is that it requires a substantial number of workers in order to support a retiree. When the system was established roughly 16 people paid in to support one who collected. Now it's near 3:1 and approaching 2:1. It's simply impossible to keep the system as it is without either raising taxes (taking more and more from those working now) or lowering payments (again, screwing those who have paid their taxes up to this point).
The system should be eliminated and every penny refunded to anyone who paid the tax.
With regards to Federal income tax: if you want to talk about subsidies then let's consider how the average taxpayer subsidizes home ownership in the United States (which is responsible for the high percentage of home ownership). The home mortgage interest deduction is the biggest systematic form of welfare in the U.S. aside from Social Security.
Frankly I'd like to see all income taxes eliminated and the tax system replaced with a consumption tax.
But the money has been spend already!Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak