I know the feeling, my house insurance covers damage from hurricanes and I am continuously paying without having any hurricane.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Wasted money isn't it ? :rolleyes:
Printable View
I know the feeling, my house insurance covers damage from hurricanes and I am continuously paying without having any hurricane.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Wasted money isn't it ? :rolleyes:
Waaaaay off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
The insurance industry and SSA are not related to one another.
They are twins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
One is run by privates , the other by the government.
Most insurance policies are voluntary.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
Exluding PMI, and some others for homes, and also mandatory insurance laws for drivers of vehicles.
This is about SSA and how it's been managed.
It seems the discussion has become (once again) of whether SSA should exist, or pay it's commitment.
But IMO, I think the issue is how it's been mishandled, and mismanaged for at least the last 40-60 years.
I agree with you ... but it's an emotional topic. Mostly for those who don't want to support the system any longer who feel cheated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
It's not the same. You buy insurance with the expectation of covering a loss because it's cheaper this way. You might be right if SS were similar to life insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
What if you paid your premiums every month only to find out that your coverage was not as promised, or, your premiums kept going up, you were forced to pay them, and your coverage was less than your neighbor's simply because he or she was older?
Not only that but how in reality it's a secret income tax. By creating a surplus (due to taxes being too high) it allows the government to shift those funds to the general expenditures (thus allowing your friendly politician to waste even more money without having to be held accountable for it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Figure in the 15% SS tax on top of income tax and most people end up being in a much higher overall tax bracket than the Federal income tax alone would have one believe.
Just out of curiosity, what is the top rate of income tax in the US?
I believe now it's 35%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily
Below is a link. Notice that until the Reagan Tax Reform Act, the top income tax rate in the U.S. was 50%. He then reduced it to 28%.
When Reagan was an actor the tax rate were over 80%, even into the 90 percent range.
Because of this he often stop working until the next year began. This experience was very influential on Reagan's tax philosophy and tax policies.
When Bush got elected he cut it from 39% to 35% I believe.
Chart and graph below: Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Well, I don't know what you are whinging about.
Australia's top rate is 47%. We don't make social security contributions so I suppose that is taken into account.
You and Surasak would be more resentful about our system. You need not have worked a day in your life to get social security and all the perks that go with it in Aus.
In many cases, however, depending on where one lives and one's income the real overall tax rate can easily be over 50% since we do have a division of powers between the Federal, state, and local governments. Let's not confuse how other countries apply taxes with the way it's done here since the Federal income tax is but one part of everyone's tax burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilkmanI believe now it's 35%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily
Below is a link. Notice that until the Reagan Tax Reform Act, the top income tax rate in the U.S. was 50%. He then reduced it to 28%.
When Reagan was an actor the tax rate were over 80%, even into the 90 percent range.
Because of this he often stop working until the next year began. This experience was very influential on Reagan's tax philosophy and tax policies.
When Bush got elected he cut it from 39% to 35% I believe.
Chart and graph below: Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
The fact that there is a welfare system established for one set of people and not anyone else is what makes the social security system inherently unfair.
At least if one pays income taxes then one benefits directly from such a levy. If I pay a tax for a park or a library then I can enjoy said benefits right away. Every person who pays can.
I believe in the upcoming years we'll find the social security sytems going the way of the dodo bird as people get tired of being burdened by such systems. Social security does not work as intended when the birth rate/population growth rates are extremely low.
:rolleyes: :( :dev+ang: :rolleyes: BWHAHAHAhahahahaha
I don't think the US population is shrinking: "The U.S. average fertility rate is currently 2.1335 births per woman, the U.S.’s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)", on top of this you have immigration: " Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990." Negative Population Growth
One of the problems is the increasing life-expectancy, you have more and more old people drawing retirement and healthcare funds.
^Kill the buggars off then or let them starve to death.
No matter that they paid their dues and supported the previous generation.
Separate countries, and they separate rates of taxation cannot be compared, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily
There are just too many variables involved.
If you add up Federal income, state income, state sales, fed sales, capital gains, city taxes, county taxes, and other add-ons like the state of Virginia taxation your car under the "personal property tax" whether it's on cement blocks or not, then you have a lot of your income going into taxes.
And remember....the U.S. government is running large deficits and accumulating debts.
As for S.S., it' on it's way to insolvency.
The concept is noble; the way it's been run into the ground is not.
I didn't say it was shrinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
The overall growth of U.S. population is barely over 1%:Quote:
Social security does not work as intended when the birth rate/population growth rates are extremely low.
WSDOT - WTP - Washington State's Population Growth Compared To U.S. National Population Growth
Fertility rates are misleading in terms of population growth as are immigrant statistics. My wife, for example, has contributed $0 to Social Security since her arrival.
And as well many immigrants don't contribute to SS due to their illegal status (there's about 10-15 million illegal Mexicans here, for example).
Well I also pay a personal property tax for my sailing yacht, when it was state licensed as required by US law I paid a license fee to the state, now that I have it documented with the USCG I pay a property tax.
Ain't that a bunch or shit, I don't think I should have to pay a tax as long as that boat is not in US waters.
Get re-registered in Solomon Islands or some place like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
What exactly do you think was intended?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
We don't know what was intended 70 years ago. The lack of forsight may have been just as bad then as today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward
Life expectancy was lower.
The worker paying : recipient ration was much larger.
COLAS didn't exist until Nixon established them in a campaign year.
And who said Tricky Dick wasn't a great president!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
We do know what was intended. The world was in the throes of a depression. Economists realized that a loss of income by even small segments of the population could cause economies to spiral downward. Social Insurance programs like Social Security were devised to protect individuals and communities from the loss of income that results from events like death, disability and old age. In fact, the correct name for US Social Security is "Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance". While one goal is to protect individuals the main goal is to protect economies by making sure that people who lose income from work can continue to be consumers and support the local economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Granted, over the years Congress has been too generous with the program, but its basic purpose, to protect businesses by making sure that people who lose work income remain customers, is still in tact.
So after all it is not a tax , but a mandatory insurance fee :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward
Exactly. That's what "social insurance" is all about. People brand Social Security as some sort of socialist or liberal program. Nothing could be further from the truth. A true liberal program wouldn't have such a regressive tax.
No, Social Security is social insurance the main purpose of which is to protect business by maintaining a base of spend-happy customers.
Edit: Remember FICA? Stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. It is the law that enabled the government to collect the premiums (not tax) which funded Social Security.
(Off-topic for a moment, apologies):Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon MeeAnd who said Tricky Dick wasn't a great president!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
I really like Nixon a lot. Oh yes, he had flaws. But he was a brilliant man with keen insight into culture, the world, and the future. I've read a few of his books that he wrote after he resigned. Nixon gave insights and opinions about many things that turned out to be true. And he wasn't a rich, Ivy leaguer either. A working class boy from Whittier, California.
Anonymous Coward, good point above about the start and progression of S.S.
He certainly was the most liberal president we've had this century: His two greatest achievements were the Federalization of welfare and the recognition of Red China. Go Dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
...and if it really remained as 'insurance' then the rate of contributions wouldn't have to keep increasing because profitability would ensure that not everyone would have to contribute or receive.
A system of 'insurance' where everyone is potentially a recipient isn't really insurance. Insurance is designed to take in money and avoid liability to make a profit. Government mandated insurance does neither. It takes and takes and takes and spends and spends and spends because of the assumption that it's someone else's money...which is the root problem of the whole scheme.
If SS were really established only to help those who truly needed it then the payouts would be small and the taxes would be rather minor AND the law would not allow the surplus to be handed over to the general fund. 15% of a person's income (up to $97000) is unacceptable if the goals setout decades ago were still in place. Even a normal life insurance policy doesn't require a premium of nearly $15,000 per year.
Detente was a smart move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward
^
But it was Reagen who brought down the Berlin Wall.
Both men were great presidents.
I don't buy that. Right man in the right place, but what brought down the Berlin wall was a failed economic system. Nixon had vision, Reagan had charm and timing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
A lot of factors were involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Brezhnev knew that the arms race was hurting the economy of the USSR.
Detente with China also made the USSR worry because the USA and China relations were thawing - at the same time there was the Sino-Soviet Split.
(Since I've gone off topic and this is an interesting topic, I'll start a thread on the Cold War in the main Issues section. It can cover W. and E. Europe, USSR, USA, China, South East Asia, etc.).
Originally, it was. There was what was called an "Annual Earnings Test". This "test" was used to determine whether or not you needed the insurance pay out. Unfortunately, Congress slowly liberalized this test and eventually eliminated it for people aged 65 and up.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
I think it helps to continue to remember that both the individual and the community are the "insured". It would be great if everyone prepared for their own retirement, death and possible disability. But, they don't. Social Insurance allows the community to show its compassionate side while preserving the spending ability of its members and the viability of its businesses and economy.
..and if it were still a form of social insurance for a small group of people who really needed it then I could be onboard to continue supporting it.
However, it has become a free-for-all for the politicians to court the senior vote (the ones not paying into the system) while screwing the rest of us by allowing a flawed system to continue to spiral into bankruptcy.
The fact that entitlements are over 50% of Federal spending now is quite disturbing.
He stroller, when ya gonna start deleting these offensive posts?
I don't know nothing about social security, because our family gets its money from growing corn and putting it in a still.
But here it is Sunday night, and my wife's cousin is here (not that cousin!). Baxter works for the social security people down at the big city that I never go to, and now I will let Baxter explain,
Hi there, I'm Baxter Peurifoy, from Knoxville, and I work in the retirement benefits section of SSA. OASDI stands for old age, survivor, and disability insurance. That takes 6.2% of your wages. Medicare is the other tax, for old age medical care, not the same as welfare Medicaid for poor folks. The Medicare insurance rate is 1.45%, so you cannot ever pay more than 7.65% of your wages to SS. Self employed is different, but works out to less than 14%.
The money put in by our working grandparents and parents was put into trust funds that were all loaned to the government, who will never pay it back. Guess how they almost balanced the federal budget for all those years - yes sir, by using SS funds.
There will be enough OASDI to keep paying promised benefits until about 2045, to the wage earners who were born before about....I don't remember exactly, maybe born before 1965. You younger people are screwed. No way in Hell will your grandchildren have the money to pay for you.
Baxter Peurifoy, Benefits Examiner GS-10
PS: if you're ever up in these parts on a Sunday after church, Medallion's wife (cousin) makes the best gooseberry pie in all of Kentucky.
This is completely inaccurate and the kind of stuff I'd expect from a GS-10 benefit examiner, who is basically nothing more than a clerk deemed not skilled enough to actually make benefit determinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by medallion
The shortfall in 2045 will be about 1% of payroll. If the government got on it's ass now and did some minor repair to both tax rates and benefit amounts that shortfall could fade away to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by medallion
Anonymous Coward, Field Office Manager, GS-13: retired and glad of it.
Is it fair to someone who's paid halfway into the scheme to suddenly change the rules in the middle of the game? That's what has many people my age steamed about the whole situation.
What rules were changed in the "middle of the game"?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Supposing that retirement age/taxes/benefits change for someone like me (about halfway through the path towards retirement).
Do I get to pay higher taxes for lower benefits? Continue the same rate, but, with a higher retirement to get the same benefits as those retiring today? Continue the same tax rate, but, lower benefits? That means that from day one until retirement the rules would have changed (costing me something I was 'promised' for example).
I think the more fair thing to do is cut off those who don't need it so that those who do need it can get it. Return it to a means-tested program as it should be.
In the past significant adjustments to entitlement have attempted to grandfather in participants past a certain age. Of course, this has not been without controversy. There were huge protests a couple of decades ago from the so called "notch babies"; people born between 1916 and 1919. They felt that corrections to errors in legislated computational formulas were unfair to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
I agree that some sort of means testing is appropriate. But, the government has a steep hill to climb. During the 50's and 60's, when anti-Communist and anti-Socialist fervor was at its height the government shied away from anything with "social" in the title and allowed the press and the public to create the myth that Social Security was some sort of investment program rather than social insurance. This made people believe that somewhere in the government coffers was an "account" in their name that they were irrevocably entitled to at age 62.
This entitlement myth enabled Congress to so liberalize the program that it became financially tenuous in the far term.
Part of making Social Security work is an education program to recast the program in its original light: social insurance. In its original incarnation the Social Security means test was of earned income only. Perhaps in todays world where income can take many other forms a broader definition is required. Of course, all that presupposes that in the sort of economy we have today social insurance is even a viable concept.
I think what bothered me most throughout my career was how little people understood about Social Security and the huge misconceptions they held on what is was, how it worked and how it affected them. This lack of knowledge, by both the people and their representatives in Congress, allowed the program to be altered to the point where it little resembles what was originally conceived.