Thread: Social Security

Originally Posted by Milkman

Many of us will come up very short, including me.

That has been said by people for 30 years now but they seem to shut up when they reach their retirement age..
And you are speaking about losses that you expect , but have yet to see.

Wallace is spot on with his NO GUARANTEE point, the retirement money is too important to gamble with on a private market. In the end it will be the government who has to take care of you if you lose - there is no civilized country in the world that would let their citizens starve .

So the money you pay is not only an insurance for you but an insurance for your country that they will not have to cover your living when retired.
Hence, it is mandatory and should be so.

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by Milkman

Many of us will come up very short, including me.

That has been said by people for 30 years now but they seem to shut up when they reach their retirement age..
And you are speaking about losses that you expect , but have yet to see.

You are correct lom. We (or I) have yet to see. The medical costs will be wiping a lot of life savings and 401ks out, IMO.

I do my calculation based upon the assumption that the rate of inflation will remain at about 3% and I shoot for annualized returns of 5% over the rate of inflation, so assume an average of 8%.

I should not assume the interest rate and rate of return, but use these numbers as a peg, and they can be changed.

Wallace is spot on with his NO GUARANTEE point, the retirement money is too important to gamble with on a private market.

But this is exactly what the U.S. government is doing: 401Ks, IRAs.

In the end it will be the government who has to take care of you if you lose

The government covers a portion, which is fair. And I think it's up to the individual to plan and invest. If people don't, tough luck.

there is no civilized country in the world that would let their citizens starve.

Agree.

And no one starves.

But many will be working until they are too old to work.

For some it will be in their early 70s. Others, later.

So the money you pay is not only an insurance for you but an insurance for your country that they will not have to cover your living when retired.

Agree, but the U.S. does not not have this.

Hence, it is mandatory and should be so.

They need to put the money aside in individual accounts. Perhaps like Super-Annu in Oz, although I'm not familiar with the system.

Regardless, the government has completly failed with SS.

Greenspan and Bernanke have long given us the warnings.

Here is a financial investing calculator link. The one in my above post was not the one I wanted to use.

This is the one I wanted to post: Bankrate.com savings goal calculator -- Saving for the future

Do you know why the cut-off is $97,000? Do you think it's fair that the government steals almost $14,000 of your wages in order to give it to someone else?

Assuming that a person makes $100,000 per year (more than double the national average, mind you, so calling anyone who makes less than that an underachiever is insulting a majority of the population) that means in an average working lifetime said person has $500,000 stolen from them

OK SURASAK, if I have paid in the amount as you say, then they are not taking money from someone else and giving it to me, and I had earned MAX long before I was retirement age and anything I earned after that date did not mean one cent more on my payback.
I actually retired in 1990 and just cruised around and was drawing my union pensions already,
And I can't help it if there are so many underachievers out there making less than the cutoff max SSA rate of deposits, if they are insulted I can't help that.

OH and by the way, I know that this will piss you off when ever you think about it and get in your Geo Prism in the snow,, My wife went down last week and paid 1.2 mil. for a new Toyota 4x4 diesel torbo "fortuner", you would call it a "Forrunner".. But some just like to drive a SUV.

Originally Posted by Wallace

Milkman - whilst there may be benefits sometimes in handing your hard-earned money over to a private company to invest for you, there is also absolutely NO GUARANTEE that investing privately will give you your money. The endowment policy fiasco in the UK is a perfect example of a situation in which people were told to pay interest only mortgages, while putting extra money into a private savings account. Those accounts are now paying FAR LESS than people expected because of the fluctuations in the money markets. Giving your money to others to invest for you may actually mean you end up with nothing. As I've said before, just look at Enron and Maxwell. Pensions, benefits, the lot, all gone.

But a simple IRA will give back more than any government funded pyramid scheme could ever dream of.

Why is it that we are supposed to trust politicians with our money but not ourselves?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Wallace

Milkman - whilst there may be benefits sometimes in handing your hard-earned money over to a private company to invest for you, there is also absolutely NO GUARANTEE that investing privately will give you your money. The endowment policy fiasco in the UK is a perfect example of a situation in which people were told to pay interest only mortgages, while putting extra money into a private savings account. Those accounts are now paying FAR LESS than people expected because of the fluctuations in the money markets. Giving your money to others to invest for you may actually mean you end up with nothing. As I've said before, just look at Enron and Maxwell. Pensions, benefits, the lot, all gone.

But a simple IRA will give back more than any government funded pyramid scheme could ever dream of.

Why is it that we are supposed to trust politicians with our money but not ourselves?

I would rather have control myself.

Some noted that if we are left to our own devices with the 15% that we would spend it, or waste it.

Bullsh*t.

And people that do not save a minimum of 20% of the gross do NOT deserve any assistance from the government.



The typical American line is that Americans cannot save.

Most can't.

Because they are myopic, ignorant, selfish, and suffers from "now-nowism."


If someone cannot get better returns than SS over a period of say, 40 years of investing, they are a moron.

Exactly. At least with my own retirement account (even a simple IRA) I can withdraw money if I ever need it...and my family can inherit it if I pass away.

My Socialist Security contributions are doing nothing other than allowing scum like Backstabber to make fraudulent claims about how great the program is going to be for me in the future.

Originally Posted by surasak

Exactly. At least with my own retirement account (even a simple IRA) I can withdraw money if I ever need it...and my family can inherit it if I pass away.

Exactly!


Let's say I die (young or old).

I'd rather be able to have the money put in a trust for my grand-kids education, for example.


With Socialist Security you get 0.

But MM if it is left to shitsak from the way he talks and does he will piss it off, just read what he always posts,,

At least with my own retirement account (even a simple IRA) I can withdraw money if I ever need it

Upper most in his mind is drawing that money out, and has most likely already done that everytime he gets over $100.. HA

So you would be be supporting him for one..

Originally Posted by blackgang

But MM if it is left to shitsak from the way he talks and does he will piss it off, just read what he always posts,,

At least with my own retirement account (even a simple IRA) I can withdraw money if I ever need it

Upper most in his mind is drawing that money out, and has most likely already done that everytime he gets over $100.. HA

So you would be be supporting him for one..

No I would NOT be supporting him. Not at all.


I think a lot of the issue BG, is choice.


Now don't get me wrong.

I do think you deserve your SS.

You paid into it. For decades.

But the what I see at my age (37) is the government taking a huge portion of my income, spending it, or putting it who knows where, and then:

telling me when I have a right to collect!!


The government is taking my money and also making the rules for me!!


You can take IRA money out for 1) buying a first home and 2) education

without penalty.


The bottom line is: it YOUR money.


And YOU should be able to do what you want with it.

Thats for sure and if you work foreign then you do not have to pay SSA if you don't pay it your self.
Thats all well and good, your choice.
I don't think there gonna be any population on this earth by the time you are in your 60s so I wouldn't worry to much about it, and if there is you will be facing Mecca 5 times a day of be dead.
Then your days of free choice will be over as well..

The issue with SS is that it's not a 'pay now, we guarantee you get your money later.' Otherwise it would survive indefinately because you'd always get your money back in a 1:1 ratio.

So, if that were really the case, then, why have it?

The truth is: people who pay now are paying those who are collecting now. There's no magic pile of money there. It doesn't exist. It's all on paper. The system survives right now because the ratio of people paying in is high enough to support those collecting now. It is the worst kind of welfare ever devised.

My SS 'contributions' are going right to Blackadder and his gang of elderly croonies who established this scheme in the beginning. The perfect scheme: invent a system that they pay little into and design it so future workers support them. They are stealing directly from my wages. It is theft: plain and simple.

If I and others stopped paying into the system he wouldn't get his prunes this month because the checks would stop. That is why no politician will touch the problem because of fear of losing an election.

There is no money for Social Security without current 'contributors' paying every week, 2 weeks, or every month.

When it comes time for me to 'collect' there won't be enough people paying into the system. Thus, 'benefits' (my own money I paid) will be cut or taxes will be raised (just so I can get my own money back). Imagine if you put money in a bank and were told that there was no guarantee that you'd get it back, in the meantime, you had to pay the bank money to keep your money there, and, that the bank had no reserve and was simply using your money to fund the ATMs.

The fact that any sane person supports this is beyond reproach.

Thankfully more and more young Americans are realizing the scam that is being perpetrated upon them and once that critical point is reached the elderly and retirees are going to pay.

Big negativo on that, BG
I've had to pay into SS the entire time I've worked overseas due to my company's accounting policies. When I first started out with them, I probably would have pissed the money away if it were not held out so I'm glad it's going to be there for me.

If you work for a company based in the US or even the Cayman's/Bermuda, SS is held back.

BM said that, then corrected it himself in the end of his post..

I have worked for US based co. and it was taken and I have worked for foreign co. that weren't connected to the US and they didn't take it out, and some people are self employed and pay it in for themselves, some work for cash and do not pay..

If shitsak was really wanting to do anything about it except come on a forum and bitch and make himself look like a fool then he could work for cash or do what ever it takes to keep from paying it. He wants to look like a HERO and still do shit the easy way.

What he doesn't seem to think about is the whole fucking US govt is operating the way he says the SSA is operating,
SSA has money, piles of it and is owed money that they have loaned to the General fund and will pobly never see because the fund is broke and living on credit, The whole country is living on credit, The 1960 $ is worth about 15 cents because your country is broke and operating on credit, just like most people in the country are living on credit.

I didn't want to pay 65% of my wages into IRS so I went Exempt for 10 years.
Sure it wasn't to easy and they kept after me, but I worked somewhere steady and did have to change jobs once in awhile but in the end I came out way ahead of the game and was illegal for a long time. But during that time, I took home $3,000.00 a week and my fellow workers who were legal took home $700.00
What I am saying is there is ways to get around the system, but you can do nothing but look silly by coming on a forum and acting like a child without knowledge of how things really work.
If what he knew anything about the world of finance he might be able to figure it out instead of saying that all who are drawing a SSA check are living on HIS money when we have paid in a hell of a lot more that he will ever pay in actual dollars, not the inflated ones he is making today., he admits that he never hits cut off money and most of us did and worked most of a year without any additional contributions to SSA fund.

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.

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.

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......

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?

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.

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.'

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

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.

Originally Posted by blackgang

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.

Originally Posted by Milkman

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.

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?

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

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

Originally Posted by RDN

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.