View Full Version : Social Security: What a Rip-off!
Nahum
07-09-2008, 03:20 PM
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
Baron1710
07-09-2008, 03:23 PM
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to lkeep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
What is low, middle and wealthy? As in how much a year do you have to make to be in those categories?
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to lkeep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
dont worry my brother Barak will get elected and change the world. then SS will just be fixed by the force of his magnetic personality!
LOL!
I have a plan I like to call the Shela Jackson Lee plan. we nationalize the oil industry and use the profits to pay for Social Security!
Nahum
07-09-2008, 03:24 PM
What is low, middle and wealthy? As in how much a year do you have to make to be in those categories?
Wealthy is over $100k.
Baron1710
07-09-2008, 03:26 PM
Wealthy is over $100k.
so if you make 100K you are left with 20K ummmm maybe I will take the rest of the year off
Nahum
07-09-2008, 03:28 PM
Socialism in America.
Same thing in Canada.
The majority of people don't believe Canada Pension (our equivalent of SS) won't be there when they need it!
RandyWayne
07-09-2008, 03:37 PM
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
The problem with those percentages is that they would bring FAR less money into the system than the current ones do!
Virtually all liberal economists base estimated income from taxation on a static model where behavior and wealth generation is unchanged based on tax percentages. They see the same amount of "wealthy" people and those becoming wealthy, who are paying 80% in taxes as does exist with the current 39% bracket. They don't realize that there would be FAR LESS wealth generation with such high taxation.
Imagine if they decided to tax 100% of everyone! Every single dollar and cent that people made would be sent to the government. The government would enjoy a bonanza the first year! But zilch the second... and third... and forth.... The issue is the same with lower tax percentages, but just a bit more hidden.
Nahum
07-09-2008, 03:45 PM
Great point Randy.
I just think this taxation has reached a new level of idiocy.
I wonder what the founders would think?
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
Look at the bright side. Us GenXers have made a lot of babies. More than the baby boomers. Babies who will be paying into the system soon. Maybe that will get things turned around. If not, your best bet will be to end up disabled before you reach retirement age.
OP_Carl
07-09-2008, 03:49 PM
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
That ship done sailed! :snapout
Whutteryagonnadewaboutit? :dunno
It's the perfect storm. Everything is in crisis, and the bulk of the population is too stupid to realize that government caused most of the crisis, so they will beg government to give them a solution. Because they are too stupid to realize that the government solution will be worse than the current problems, plus it will add to their "dependency" (enslavement)
Study natural law and natural rights, and realize that the majority of the regulations governing our behaviors today are not legitimate law, and as such, a citizen has no obligation to obey them and a duty to correct the matter.
How to go about this without getting killed is another story altogether . . .
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
I knowthe funding situation is dire but I have not seen tax statistics as bad as the ones you are citing.
When Social Security was conceived there were 16 people paying in for every 1 person drawing out of the fund. Now the ratio is about 3 or 2 paying in for every one drawing out and as Baby Boomers get ready to retire the ratio is probably going to be almost one on one in a few years.
That is why it not being adequately funded over the years is now coming home to roost (as Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say).
Republicans have at least tried to address the issue which is considered "radioactive" in politics but were blocked at every turn. Mostly because the socialist Democrats just can't wrap their socialist heads around the idea of us being able to invest a portion of our SS witholdings into the stock market. The private sector scares Dems as most of them have never held a real job (the Dems in power that is).
Carpenter
07-09-2008, 05:01 PM
Look at the bright side. Us GenXers have made a lot of babies. More than the baby boomers. Babies who will be paying into the system soon. Maybe that will get things turned around. If not, your best bet will be to end up disabled before you reach retirement age.
This is about as correct as the liklihood that aliens from Mars are going to land and take the place of immigrant labor and not expect any pay.
Carpenter
07-09-2008, 05:02 PM
I knowthe funding situation is dire but I have not seen tax statistics as bad as the ones you are citing.
When Social Security was conceived there were 16 people paying in for every 1 person drawing out of the fund. Now the ratio is about 3 or 2 paying in for every one drawing out and as Baby Boomers get ready to retire the ratio is probably going to be almost one on one in a few years.
That is why it not being adequately funded over the years is now coming home to roost (as Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say).
Republicans have at least tried to address the issue which is considered "radioactive" in politics but were blocked at every turn. Mostly because the socialist Democrats just can't wrap their socialist heads around the idea of us being able to invest a portion of our SS witholdings into the stock market. The private sector scares Dems as most of them have never held a real job (the Dems in power that is).
I was going to post something about SS, but you said it CC1. I'll go polish your star now. :D
I was going to post something about SS, but you said it CC1. I'll go polish your star now. :D
LOL!!! Good cause I think it has been tarnished a bit lately.
TRFrance
07-09-2008, 05:24 PM
The problem with those percentages is that they would bring FAR less money into the system than the current ones do!
Virtually all liberal economists base estimated income from taxation on a static model where behavior and wealth generation is unchanged based on tax percentages. They see the same amount of "wealthy" people and those becoming wealthy, who are paying 80% in taxes as does exist with the current 39% bracket. They don't realize that there would be FAR LESS wealth generation with such high taxation.
Imagine if they decided to tax 100% of everyone! Every single dollar and cent that people made would be sent to the government. The government would enjoy a bonanza the first year! But zilch the second... and third... and forth.... The issue is the same with lower tax percentages, but just a bit more hidden.
Bingo!
But most liberals fail to see the connection --- how lower taxes keeps tax revenue high, and how increasing taxes decreases the movement of capital, decreases the creation of wealth, and decreases overall tax revenues.
If by some miracle I can work for my current company the next 16 years until retirement I will at least have some help. Almost six years ago when I was hired it was the last year my company offered both a 401k they match to a point and an old fashioned defined pension plan.
Starting five years ago new hires only get the matching 401k, no pension plan.
With only about 5 1/2 years at this company if they stopped funding my pension plan tomorrow I have already accrued enough for it to pay at retirement about 25% of what those SS letters advise me my estimated SS retirement will be.
I knowthe funding situation is dire but I have not seen tax statistics as bad as the ones you are citing.
When Social Security was conceived there were 16 people paying in for every 1 person drawing out of the fund. Now the ratio is about 3 or 2 paying in for every one drawing out and as Baby Boomers get ready to retire the ratio is probably going to be almost one on one in a few years.
That is why it not being adequately funded over the years is now coming home to roost (as Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say).
Republicans have at least tried to address the issue which is considered "radioactive" in politics but were blocked at every turn. Mostly because the socialist Democrats just can't wrap their socialist heads around the idea of us being able to invest a portion of our SS witholdings into the stock market. The private sector scares Dems as most of them have never held a real job (the Dems in power that is).
I wonder what people would be saying about that plan had it been passed and huge numbers of people had switched over to the stock market, then lost a huge chunk of their money with what has been going on recently. An insurance agent I went to work for in 2002 had just decided to continue working, even though he had originally planned on retiring at 60, because the stock market troubles of 2000-2001 had basically wiped out his nest egg. Can you imagine that happening on a large scale with social security money? I was in favor of this stock market plan at one point, but I am not so sure any more. I don't know what the answer for the soon to be case of bankruptcy headed our way with social security, but I don't know that letting us put our money into the stock market would be the best route to go.
I wonder what people would be saying about that plan had it been passed and huge numbers of people had switched over to the stock market, then lost a huge chunk of their money with what has been going on recently. An insurance agent I went to work for in 2002 had just decided to continue working, even though he had originally planned on retiring at 60, because the stock market troubles of 2000-2001 had basically wiped out his nest egg. Can you imagine that happening on a large scale with social security money? I was in favor of this stock market plan at one point, but I am not so sure any more. I don't know what the answer for the soon to be case of bankruptcy headed our way with social security, but I don't know that letting us put our money into the stock market would be the best route to go.
Rico, the plan only allowed for a SMALL portion of your SS witholding to be invested in the stock market. That was to protect from what you just stated.
Of course much like you the Dems ignored that and gave the same red herring that you did here.
The Greatest Generation failed in one thing. Their kids.
Hoovie
07-09-2008, 05:52 PM
Would a major super bug flu outbreak, or a nuclear weapon detonation help keep SS solvent?
We just might see it!
Rico, the plan only allowed for a SMALL portion of your SS witholding to be invested in the stock market. That was to protect from what you just stated.
Of course much like you the Dems ignored that and gave the same red herring that you did here.
Maybe the plan was for a small portion at first, but had it been successful, and people started making money through the plan, the cry would then be to open that door a little more and a little more and a little more. Then, a time like now hits, people lose billions in their retirement funds, and who would they look to to bail them out? The government. It's a bad idea, CC1. Most people don't know enough about the stock market to make a wise investment in the first place. It's plain to see the average consumer can't trust the banks to help them with these types of decisions. The banks can't even make wise investment decisions for themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in near as big a mess as we are in now. I know there's an ebb and flow to the stock market, but allowing the social security funds to be exposed to that kind of risk is a dangerous policy.
If by some miracle I can work for my current company the next 16 years until retirement I will at least have some help. Almost six years ago when I was hired it was the last year my company offered both a 401k they match to a point and an old fashioned defined pension plan.
Starting five years ago new hires only get the matching 401k, no pension plan.
With only about 5 1/2 years at this company if they stopped funding my pension plan tomorrow I have already accrued enough for it to pay at retirement about 25% of what those SS letters advise me my estimated SS retirement will be.
Those pension plans from way back are definitely a thing of the past.
Maybe the plan was for a small portion at first, but had it been successful, and people started making money through the plan, the cry would then be to open that door a little more and a little more and a little more. Then, a time like now hits, people lose billions in their retirement funds, and who would they look to to bail them out? The government. It's a bad idea, CC1. Most people don't know enough about the stock market to make a wise investment in the first place. It's plain to see the average consumer can't trust the banks to help them with these types of decisions. The banks can't even make wise investment decisions for themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in near as big a mess as we are in now. I know there's an ebb and flow to the stock market, but allowing the social security funds to be exposed to that kind of risk is a dangerous policy.
Your Democrat logic speaks for itself. The fact is saving for retirement is a longterm proposition and longterm the stock market brings an average return of around 12%.
Your money withheld into SS brings about a 2% return on what you put in.
Add the idea of compound interest to that and you can see where just investing 10% of ones witholding money into the stock market could mean a lot more money at retirement.
Your fear of the stock market and the private sector is soooooo typical Dem it is funny. Gotta rely on Big Brother cause you just don't think folks are smart enough to pick a mutual fund. Duh! Millions do just that every day with their 401k plans. You don't have to be a stock market expert, just choose a good mutual fund.
Those pension plans from way back are definitely a thing of the past.
I know. I was shocked when I saw I had that. I fully expect them to stop funding the existing ones any day now but even if they do what I have accrued will still bring me 25% of what my estimated SS retirement will be.
Your Democrat logic speaks for itself. The fact is saving for retirement is a longterm proposition and longterm the stock market brings an average return of around 12%.
Your money withheld into SS brings about a 2% return on what you put in.
Add the idea of compound interest to that and you can see where just investing 10% of ones witholding money into the stock market could mean a lot more money at retirement.
Your fear of the stock market and the private sector is soooooo typical Dem it is funny. Gotta rely on Big Brother cause you just don't think folks are smart enough to pick a mutual fund. Duh! Millions do just that every day with their 401k plans. You don't have to be a stock market expert, just choose a good mutual fund.
I don't have a fear of the stock market, CC1. In fact, part of the plan I put into effect this year involves saving up enough money to have some money to invest in the stock market. I took the time it takes to learn about what a wisely diversified portfolio would look like, learned about the importance of studying a company and industry before the decision is made to invest in any one company or area of the economy, and also learned the importance of staying on top of my investments.
I literally spent hours going over the choices in the 401K the company I was working for had, to make sure I was putting that 6% where it would bring back good results within my risk tolerance. I'm not working there any more, but I don't regret the time I spent learning the importance of sound retirement planning.
Right now I am in the process of rebuilding our emergency fund. That should be back where it needs to be by the end of this coming winter. Once that goal is met, we are going to establish IRA accounts for both me and my wife. Seeing as how I am now self employed, an IRA will be my main avenue for retirement funding. Once we get those account established, it's on to playing the stock market as an individual investor.
So, you see, I am not afraid of the stock market at all. It's just that I know that people aren't going to be willing to put the time it takes into making smart choices with their money, should the government open up their social security funds to them for investment. Again, I am not crazy with where the fund is headed as it is, but I don't think taking a chance with the ss trust fund is a good idea.
I know. I was shocked when I saw I had that. I fully expect them to stop funding the existing ones any day now but even if they do what I have accrued will still bring me 25% of what my estimated SS retirement will be.
One of the industries that still offers pensions is the insurance industry. Both the carriers I went to work for as an employee offered a pension, along with a 401K, and separate investment choices.
Praxeas
07-09-2008, 06:29 PM
Social Security, what a rip-off!
It really bothers me that I am paying in to something I will never benefit from.
The latest estimates are that SS is at a deficit of over three TRILLION dollars.
Neither one of the presidential candidates wants to tackle real refom, so SS will go bankrupt - or we will need to keep raising taxes astronomically.
Current indications are that, for SS to stay solvent, the three tax brackets would neeed to be raised as follows.
Low income would be taxed at 25% of income.
Middle class would be taxed at 66% of income.
Wealthy would be taxed at 80% of income.
Insane!
Do the wealthy really pay their share though now?
Do the wealthy really pay their share though now?
They're supposed to get a free pass because they're the ones us serfs depend on for jobs.
Praxeas
07-09-2008, 06:32 PM
Don't worry guys, soon the NAU will be formed and the Amero will take over the dollar and peso and whatever they spend in Canahduh. We will have a socialist nation and things will be wunderfull
Don't worry guys, soon the NAU will be formed and the Amero will take over the dollar and peso and whatever they spend in Canahduh. We will have a socialist nation and things will be wunderfull
If we don't go to war over Iran first!
One good thing where I live, we are just 30 minutes away from Bangor Wash. home to a lot of the Trident Submarines.
I figure we are 5 or 6 on the Nuke strike list.
Nuke weapons being as in accurate as they are, I figure there will be one crater between Whistler and Seattle!
Beat all of you to Heaven!
BTW, for anyone interested in getting some good tips on how to get the retirement planning process started, I recommend a book written by Jim Cramer. It's called Stay Mad For Life. I don't know that I will follow everything he suggests in this book, but I found it very helpful in getting started on the task of getting my 401K together, putting an emergency fund together, and good advice on how to start off slowly with investing, once I am ready.
A good site for researching companies and general advice on retirement, investing, and money matters in general is http://moneycentral.msn.com/home.asp . There are tools there for researching companies listed on the stock market and other tools to help you keep track of your investments and their performance.
If we don't go to war over Iran first!
One good thing where I live, we are just 30 minutes away from Bangor Wash. home to a lot of the Trident Submarines.
I figure we are 5 or 6 on the Nuke strike list.
Nuke weapons being as in accurate as they are, I figure there will be one crater between Whistler and Seattle!
Beat all of you to Heaven!
Somebody is going to have to do something. The idea of Iran with a nuke is intolerable. Any radical Muslim Nation for that matter.
I hope in our close alliance with Pakistan we have gained enough intelligence to take out their nukes if their government is ever taken over by radicals.
The funny thing is that I have read that secretly all of the other Nations in the Middle East fear Iran having nuclear capibility and despite their public rhetoric would privately approve Isarel taking that capability out.
Maple Leaf
07-09-2008, 07:11 PM
Same thing in Canada.
The majority of people don't believe Canada Pension (our equivalent of SS) won't be there when they need it!
The Canada Pension Plan is not funded from tax revenues. It is at arm's length from the government and is funded by the premiums of employees, employers, and fund investments.
Major changes were made to premium levels in the late nineties that will ensure that the Canada Pension plan will meet its obligations for the foreseeable future.
There was concern for the viability of the CPP, but it was addressed and the fund is in good shape.
The Old Age Pension is funded from current government revenues, but the CPP is not.
The Canada Pension Plan is not funded from tax revenues. It is at arm's length from the government and is funded by the premiums of employees, employers, and fund investments.
Major changes were made to premium levels in the late nineties that will ensure that the Canada Pension plan will meet its obligations for the foreseeable future.
There was concern for the viability of the CPP, but it was addressed and the fund is in good shape.
The Old Age Pension is funded from current government revenues, but the CPP is not.
It was a smar move by Canada to keep the pension plan seperate and out of the government's reach to spend.
How does the CPP differ from the Old Age Pension? I would assume the old age pension is for those who did not contribute into the CPP?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.