Social Security

[Tobra]

Sorry Hugh, I am not buying that logic, I would be keeping that dough in my pocket if it were not a mandatory tax, not giving it to the employee. I suppose that is all academic anyway, the money will be long gone before I(or any of my employees) get close to seeing any of it.

It is politically impossible to take stuff away once it is given, that is why LBJ's voodoo BS never got burned down

[Hugh R]

Think of it like a gallon of gasoline. The feds and state tax it and you pay the tax. If the feds or state eliminated the tax, don't you think the "market clearing" price of the gasoline would creep back up to the same price? When you buy a gallon of gas you, or most people, don't think about the taxes, but rather the price. Some economist type please jump in here.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by gatotom

Hugh R, no you are not the fool, I am.....been self employed most of my life.

Dueller, is this the same system for senators, etc. and military personal. My youngest son is at USNA and I thought that after 20 yrs service he gets 70% and if he does 30 yrs its 90%

I wish!

At twenty you get 50% of your base pay, which, because of the tax free allowances that are stacked onto base pay, is much less than your total income. Every year after 20, your percentage of base pay you get in retirement goes up by 2 1/2%.

I am not *****ing, but it is not nirvana.

The scoop:

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/retirement/calc/

I will retire at 26 years as an O-6, High 3...do the math

[Dueller]

One of the fundamental flaws in viewing SS contributions as what should I get out of it that it is not an individual investment program. To wit: I you contribute the max to age 60 and keel over dead leaving no minor children or surviving spouse and there are no benefits payable. Yup..they keep your money. But perhaps your 35 year old son will get some of it in another 30 years. Or your neighbor's widow left with the 4 yard apes.

Comforting, eh?

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Dueller

One of the fundamental flaws in viewing SS contributions as what should I get out of it that it is not an individual investment program. To wit: I you contribute the max to age 60 and keel over dead leaving no minor children or surviving spouse and there are no benefits payable. Yup..they keep your money. But perhaps your 35 year old son will get some of it in another 30 years. Or your neighbor's widow left with the 4 yard apes.

Comforting, eh?

Its a hive mentality.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Think of it like a gallon of gasoline. The feds and state tax it and you pay the tax. If the feds or state eliminated the tax, don't you think the "market clearing" price of the gasoline would creep back up to the same price? When you buy a gallon of gas you, or most people, don't think about the taxes, but rather the price. Some economist type please jump in here.

Been awhile (BS in Econ in the early 80's), but you are essentially correct with a few caveats. The cost of production would remain fairly constant so market forces would allow, in a market other than an oligopoly, a seller to make a fair profit by selling below current, tax swollen, prices, dampening the "market clearing" pressure.

YMMV, mine did, I became a Navy Pilot

[gatotom]

Seahawk....thanks for the info and the correction to my original thought.

It appears that you will retire in alot better shape than one would get after 26 yrs of work , SS would probably equate to maybe 1200.00 per month and I assume you also graduated from USNA.

So, if my son retires at 26 yrs which would be age 47 on a O-6 rate, he is still miles ahead of the guy on the street.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by gatotom

Seahawk....thanks for the info and the correction to my original thought.

It appears that you will retire in alot better shape than one would get after 26 yrs of work , SS would probably equate to maybe 1200.00 per month and I assume you also graduated from USNA.

So, if my son retires at 26 yrs which would be age 47 on a O-6 rate, he is still miles ahead of the guy on the street.

You should be very proud of your son...a few good friends of mine have sons at the Academy (all in their second year) and they are the finest kind of young men. I am sure your son is the same.

I did not go to the Naval Academy...I went to Cal. My son, however, wants to attend USNA without any pressure from me at all. We'll see

The retirement is good, not great, but the life I've had flying off small frigates and and cruisers, the experiences across the world flying and in management is frankly the real reason I stayed. I wish your son all the best in whatever he opts for, for however long

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

Thank LBJ for robbing the SS system...the Great Society....he was the one that started putting SS funds in the General Fund and leaving an IOU for futher generations to pay.

LBJ has been touted as the GREAT LIBERAL Equalizer...the helper of the downtrodden...well it seems that he trodded on more people than he helped..OH I get it he helped himself and his friend....Yep your right the Great Liberal equalizer.

Not to defend LBJ but the fact is that when he started stealing the excess SS funds it was more of an accounting thing and there was little issue of SS going broke.

That's the reason that I blame the recent guys more. They absolutely KNOW that SS is going to go broke and at the very same time that they are pontificating about it they are STLL stealing the excess SS money you guys are paying in at this very moment.

[strupgolf]

If you went to a bank and told them you want to start a investment account for, say, 45 years. You told them YOU would give them a big chuck of money each year. Great. Then THEY told you that they would hold your money, invest it in something, and then YOU call us back in 45 years. They also mention that the rate would be very low, and if you die before you get a dime of it, none of your family will get anything. You would tell the bank to take a hike. SS is just like this, except we dont get the chance to tell the bank to take a hike.

[dmcummins]

My wife is a school administrator and has never paid in to Social Security. She can retire now at 47 with 25 years of service and its a lot more than I'll ever get. Plus, she can choose if she wants it in a lump sum or with survivor benefits. If she would work till she was 62 her retirement would be higher than her salary.

I wish I had this option. It must be nice that some groups get to get out of SS.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

If you went to a bank and told them you want to start a investment account for, say, 45 years. You told them YOU would give them a big chuck of money each year. Great. Then THEY told you that they would hold your money, invest it in something, and then YOU call us back in 45 years. They also mention that the rate would be very low, and if you die before you get a dime of it, none of your family will get anything. You would tell the bank to take a hike. SS is just like this, except we dont get the chance to tell the bank to take a hike.

Exactly why it should be private, especially for those of us not near to collecting. I know damn well that I can do a better job of investing than the govt. Not that it would take much. Sadly, my contributions are paying for those who collect today. I'll depend on my ROTH IRA, thanks. Not much faith in that money being there come retirement time.

[Sunroof]

Interesting subject.....
As a baby-boomer about to turn 60, I like so many thousand of my generation will have to depend on social security supplemented by savings, 401K, assest liquidation, inheritance and maybe even a part-time job to keep the household going. I for one will start to take it at 66 so thats my target date. I was amazed to hear that 40% of my generation or so will depend on social secuirty to stay afloat. The next president will be dealing with the great majority of boomers that will start collecting social security. If they start taxing it further, reducing schedules or minimizing benefits, I believe the resulting revolution will make the Boston Tea Party look tame!!!!

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by dmcummins

My wife is a school administrator and has never paid in to Social Security. She can retire now at 47 with 25 years of service and its a lot more than I'll ever get. Plus, she can choose if she wants it in a lump sum or with survivor benefits. If she would work till she was 62 her retirement would be higher than her salary.

I wish I had this option. It must be nice that some groups get to get out of SS.

Same difference. My wife pays into her pension and does not have a choice about it.

My guess is that if your wife's pension wasn't mandatory her retirement bennies would not be as high. Same for mine.


You guys fail to see the forest for the trees. if we did not have SS many of your retired parents/grandparents would be flat ass broke and you would be struggling to keep them off the street. The average American has the economic wisdom of a turtle. The problem is the theft of the funds.

This would be fixed in a hurry by doing the following:

1-Putting ALL senators, reps, presidents, etc on the same SS system the rest of us are one.

2-Term limits.

[Lothar]

The government has no constitutional authority to create a welfare program for the poor, the old, or any other group. The Constitution does not provide for the creation of such programs and the 10th amendment prohibits it by default. It is enslavement of working people and nothing more.

We will also be a hell of a lot better off as soon as we repeal the 16th amendment.

[berettafan]

And comments about whether your contributions are deductible or not maybe don't give fair consideration to the macroeconomics of the situation. Gov't needs $xxxx coming in so they take it. Doesn't really matter what convoluted method is used to get that money (income tax, estate tax, SS, fees, confiscations) the fact is it is taken. Big picture is we are all going to be paying in the same gross amount no matter what form we pay it in on and unless we fix SPENDING it is not going to get better.


And Hugh is right about total cost to the employer. HOWEVER, IMO most employers would keep their 7.65% portion if SS was abolished and NOT pass it on.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Lothar

The government has no constitutional authority to create a welfare program for the poor, the old, or any other group. The Constitution does not provide for the creation of such programs and the 10th amendment prohibits it by default. It is enslavement of working people and nothing more.

We will also be a hell of a lot better off as soon as we repeal the 16th amendment.

Regardless of authority i personally take comfort in the fact that my grandmother recieves a check every month thanks to her (and others) contributing to SS.

You guys wanna talk about privatized pensions? Call PBGC and ask them how it's working out for Beth Steel workers and thousands upon thousands of others.

[RKC]

Sometimes I wish they would privatize Social Security.....until I remember that eventually enough people will make poor investments, or some Enron type financial company will go belly-up, and then the government that we have in this country will cough up the dough, and probably cost us twice what it would've if we'd just left well enough alone. (S & L's? Continental Bank? Chrysler? Today's Mortgage Relief?)

[Hugh R]

I don't have a problem with the concept of SS, its the lack of interest, the blatant fact that most people don't get back what they even put in, let alone any interest, the borrowing against it with promises to pay. If the gubmit had truely paid interest on it, there would not be a short fall.

[berettafan]

IRG2 interest remember that if Uncle Sam is going to pay interest on our SS we'll have to give him the $$ to do it via increased taxes.