Thread: Social Security

Originally Posted by surasak

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.

I know the feeling, my house insurance covers damage from hurricanes and I am continuously paying without having any hurricane.
Wasted money isn't it ?

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by surasak

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.

I know the feeling, my house insurance covers damage from hurricanes and I am continuously paying without having any hurricane.
Wasted money isn't it ?

Waaaaay off topic.

The insurance industry and SSA are not related to one another.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The insurance industry and SSA are not related to one another.

They are twins.
One is run by privates , the other by the government.

Originally Posted by Milkman

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.

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by surasak

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.

I know the feeling, my house insurance covers damage from hurricanes and I am continuously paying without having any hurricane.
Wasted money isn't it ?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Milkman

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.

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).

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?

Originally Posted by Lily

Just out of curiosity, what is the top rate of income tax in the US?

I believe now it's 35%.

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.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Lily

Just out of curiosity, what is the top rate of income tax in the US?

I believe now it's 35%.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lily

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.

Separate countries, and they separate rates of taxation cannot be compared, really.

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.

Originally Posted by stroller

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.

I didn't say it was shrinking.

Social security does not work as intended when the birth rate/population growth rates are extremely low.

The overall growth of U.S. population is barely over 1%:

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.

Originally Posted by blackgang

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?

Originally Posted by surasak

Social security does not work as intended

What exactly do you think was intended?

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

Originally Posted by surasak

Social security does not work as intended

What exactly do you think was intended?

We don't know what was intended 70 years ago. The lack of forsight may have been just as bad then as today.

Life expectancy was lower.

The worker paying : recipient ration was much larger.

COLAS didn't exist until Nixon established them in a campaign year.

Originally Posted by Milkman

COLAS didn't exist until Nixon established them in a campaign year.

And who said Tricky Dick wasn't a great president!

Originally Posted by Milkman

We don't know what was intended 70 years ago.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

In fact, the correct name for US Social Security is "Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance".

So after all it is not a tax , but a mandatory insurance fee

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.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

COLAS didn't exist until Nixon established them in a campaign year.

And who said Tricky Dick wasn't a great president!

(Off-topic for a moment, apologies):

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.