Social Security

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-04-2007, 04:36 PM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ I get an SS statement every year.

I've got mine right in front of me. It tells me I'll be drawing $1208 a month at age 62 at my current earnings rate and $1763 at age 67.

It also states that unless there are changes SS will be exhausted by 2040.

Are you sure you get a statement ?

Yes, I'm sure.

I read it every year.

The current earning rate is an I.O.U.

I do believe it will be there. But when, how much, and what rate of return is what is being discussed.

The politics are too deep to have any change or reform. It's been talked about for over 40 years.

I think they'll just try to tap additional sources of 'then-current' revenue.
02-04-2007, 05:36 PM
man with no head

^Which is why the Trust Fund IOUs are worthless.

It amuses me...no, on second thought, it really doesn't surprise me to see the fake conservatives here supporting a massive welfare system.
02-04-2007, 07:35 PM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

^Which is why the Trust Fund IOUs are worthless.

It amuses me...no, on second thought, it really doesn't surprise me to see the fake conservatives here supporting a massive welfare system.

Exactly.

Playing both sides of the same coin.

It doesn't work.
03-04-2007, 01:12 AM
Storekeeper

I tired long ago of trying to teach you two numb skulls anything. I just accept now that you're both self centered and selfish. I can be a moderate conservative and support SS ... just like I do pro-choice and pro-gun control. And oh yeah ... I'm even cool with the gay guys and girls. :)

I'm gonna go take a nap now fellas ... Uncle Sam is paying me over $20 an hour to sleep in every day :p
03-04-2007, 01:17 AM
Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

It amuses me...no, on second thought, it really doesn't surprise me to see the fake conservatives here supporting a massive welfare system.

Well ... I've convinced myself that my boy Milkdud is talking out his ass ...

... He knows even less about SS than he does about those minor topics he thought he was teaching me something about months ago :lam:
03-04-2007, 01:30 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I tired long ago of trying to teach you two numb skulls anything. I just accept now that you're both self centered and selfish. I can be a moderate conservative and support SS ... just like I do pro-choice and pro-gun control. And oh yeah ... I'm even cool with the gay guys and girls. :)

I'm gonna go take a nap now fellas ... Uncle Sam is paying me over $20 an hour to sleep in every day :p

What does your above post have to do with the SSA?
03-04-2007, 01:35 AM
man with no head

Ah, yes, the old 'selfsh' strawman rears its head again.

Who is more selfish? A person who demands that society pay their lazy way into retirement? Or a person who does not? It is the utmost measure of selfishness to expect something for nothing or to place a burden on someone else's back.

Being old doesn't give one the right to stop working and expect others to foot the bill.
03-04-2007, 01:45 AM
Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Being old doesn't give one the right to stop working and expect others to foot the bill.

Bullshit ... those people played by the rules and now you want to jerk the rug out from underneath them.
03-04-2007, 01:49 AM
Storekeeper

My guess is that neither one of you is in the top 1% or the top 10 % of those paying taxes. The wealthy are footing the bill ... not anybody in your wage brackets.
03-04-2007, 01:59 AM
Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Being old doesn't give one the right to stop working and expect others to foot the bill.

So says the perennial teenager, surasak...:rolleyes:
03-04-2007, 02:06 AM
Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Being old doesn't give one the right to stop working and expect others to foot the bill.

So says the perennial teenager, surasak...:rolleyes:

His attitude is part of the problem with American culture ... no sense of responsibility towards family.

My only regret is that I didn't go directly into civil service upon retirement from the military so that I could have been a "Triple Dipper" at age 62. :D
03-04-2007, 02:08 AM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

My guess is that neither one of you is in the top 1% or the top 10 % of those paying taxes. The wealthy are footing the bill ... not anybody in your wage brackets.

Earth to SK: the wealthy are exempt from SS taxes. Duh. :rolleyes:

In fact, by having a separate SS tax it allows them to have lower tax rates.

When the government defaults on the SS bonds the wealthy will be the biggest winners.
03-04-2007, 02:10 AM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

His attitude is part of the problem with American culture ... no sense of responsibility to family.

SS and Medicare are the reasons why family no longer want to care for their parents.

I have consistently supported the opposite. It is a family's responsibility to care for the old. Not society's.
03-04-2007, 02:26 AM
Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

It is a family's responsibility to care for the old. Not society's.

We are in agreement on that then.

But at the same time there are many who have responsibly planned for their future and SS was only one part of their long term plan.

MM mentioned 401ks, mutuals and other modes and even savings. If we jerked the SS rug out from their plan then we should also do away with FDIC protecting savings accounts up to $100,000.

IMHO SS is the lest our government can do to ensure senior citizens have at least minimal income especially when so many people have lost their asses on private pensions that have folded. Not to mention how timing is everything when it comes to drawing off things like IRAs to fund retirement.
03-04-2007, 02:28 AM
Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

SS and Medicare are the reasons why family no longer want to care for their parents.

At most a minimal factor on an egocentric culture.
03-04-2007, 06:19 AM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

IMHO SS is the lest our government can do to ensure senior citizens have at least minimal income especially when so many people have lost their asses on private pensions that have folded. Not to mention how timing is everything when it comes to drawing off things like IRAs to fund retirement.

You make it sound like there's a magic pot of money that doesn't require input from every American making less than $97000.

The government should do this with its money. The government should do that with its money. Sounds like liberalism to me.

What about everyone else then that takes a risk and fails? Should the government also not bail them out as well? It is not fair to collectively punish everyone because a few people, for whatever reason, have bad luck, are incompetent, or unwilling to support themselves through life and into retirement. The only ones who deserve sympathy or public help are those physcially unable to do any bit of meaningful work or unable to care for themselves.

How about we pass a law taxing everyone 15% so those in the 30-40 year old age range can sit at home all day? Would that be fair?

Lots of people lose investments for varying reasons. That's hardly reason enough to get the government involved in taking care of people until they lie 6 feet under.

Should we also have bailed out every single person who lost a house in New Orleans post-Katrina? Hell no. The power of government should not extend to bailing people out due to stupidity.
03-04-2007, 06:44 AM
Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Being old doesn't give one the right to stop working and expect others to foot the bill.

So says the perennial teenager, surasak...:rolleyes:

His attitude is part of the problem with American culture ... no sense of responsibility towards family.

My only regret is that I didn't go directly into civil service upon retirement from the military so that I could have been a "Triple Dipper" at age 62. :D

Fok that civil service - better to make it on your own abilities.:)
03-04-2007, 06:55 AM
Storekeeper

I'm OK with you changing the rules sadsack ... as long as you grandfather in those who are 45 and older ... :p
03-04-2007, 09:00 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

MM mentioned 401ks, mutuals and other modes and even savings. If we jerked the SS rug out from their plan then we should also do away with FDIC protecting savings accounts up to $100,000.

FDIC is to keep banks solvent and prevent run-ins on banks. In the early 20th Century some banks in the U.S. actually went bust because of just rumors.

FDIC and SSA are completely different things.

Quote:

IMHO SS is the lest our government can do to ensure senior citizens have at least minimal income especially when so many people have lost their asses on private pensions that have folded. Not to mention how timing is everything when it comes to drawing off things like IRAs to fund retirement.

Good point here, SK.

I think SS was a good idea that became a mess because of the government's poor planning and the political force SS have become. It's a political issue. The Third Rail. When something becomes politicized problems are often not solved.

As for the pensions folding and being underfunded, this is a shame as as well. (Defined Pensions Benefits. also known as DBs.) I just watched another interview of a guy who spent 35 years of his life at Bethleham Steel and his pension is underfunded. So, he won't be getting what he thought he would be for his years of service. The recent federal court ruling a year and a half ago with United Airlines paved the way to freeze and reduce pensions.
03-04-2007, 09:03 AM
Storekeeper

So ... surasak and Milkman ... I'm assuming that the two of you are invested in some of your recommendations ? Mutual funds for example ? So how do you feel about being able to claim capital gains losses on your income taxes ?
03-04-2007, 09:12 AM
lom

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

What about everyone else then that takes a risk and fails? Should the government also not bail them out as well?

To continue with your style of ranting, should the government fly home their citizens who happen to get stuck in a civil war when they are abroad ?
Should they fly home tourists after a tsunami ?
Should they try to rescue a captured war-news reporter, he is after all in it by own decision. ?

You don't like teamwork, right ?
And co-operation is the same as socialism..:rolleyes:

You are also a dishonest debater, your part of the SS insurance fee is 7.65%, not 15%. You can't assume that the part your employer pay is money that you would get otherwise.
He is probably more interested in a higher profit so he can buy that new house he's been dreaming of.
Why do you assume him to be a communist and share the money with you ?;)

And, with the distrust in the government that you have, I think it is best for you to change your monthly dollar salary into some other currency.
After all it's the same government printing the greenback and being responsible for your SS insurance being returned.
03-04-2007, 09:26 AM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by lom

You are also a dishonest debater, your part of the SS insurance fee is 7.65%, not 15%.

It is 15%. Self-employed pay this amount. The government happens to not include the 7.65% paid by employers so that one doesn't pay income tax on that portion (as self-employed persons are allowed a Federal income tax deduction for 1/2 of what they pay).

It's still a scam either way to force people to pay into a welfare system of which they may never at least get back what was stolen from them.
03-04-2007, 09:28 AM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I'm OK with you changing the rules sadsack ... as long as you grandfather in those who are 45 and older ... :p

I have stated many times that people ought to be repaid what was taken as a condition to shutting down the system.
03-04-2007, 09:36 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

So ... surasak and Milkman ... I'm assuming that the two of you are invested in some of your recommendations ? Mutual funds for example ? So how do you feel about being able to claim capital gains losses on your income taxes ?

That's an entirely different matter altogether.

But the Capital Gains tax is primarily paid by the middle class, as a whole.

NON-retirement things I have right now are in an Index fund and a Target Retirement Fund. Both have negligible tax implications.

As for the capital gains tax, some advocate there shouldn't even be one.

I have studied it for many years.
03-04-2007, 09:38 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by lom

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

What about everyone else then that takes a risk and fails? Should the government also not bail them out as well?

To continue with your style of ranting, should the government fly home their citizens who happen to get stuck in a civil war when they are abroad ?
Should they fly home tourists after a tsunami ?
Should they try to rescue a captured war-news reporter, he is after all in it by own decision. ?

You don't like teamwork, right ?
And co-operation is the same as socialism..:rolleyes:

SSA has nothing to do with disaster relief and other federal agencies such as FEMA, for example.

Quote:

You are also a dishonest debater, your part of the SS insurance fee is 7.65%, not 15%.

No, it's 15% if you include everything.

This also includes the employer contribution.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page