Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This sounds like it could be a pretty good field to get into if you can make money while writing off enough expenses to zero out your taxes. I think a home well is a great thing to have, so hopefully you have a lot of business.
It is a good field.......but, the original investment is huge.
Good for you, go ahead and pay for someone else's retirement. Obviously no one has a problem with what you do with your own money.
However... what gives YOU the right to take MY money or force me to participate in SS. Basically nothing and this is the whole reason people should be able to opt out of SS!
Second point is SS makes retirement for millions worse not better. SS lowers the retirement income for millions because if you bothered to do the math you will see that saving 12.4% of income will generate more retirement income than SS.
Again the return on SS is so poor because the system gives disproportionately to the poor and people who choose not to work or work part time. If someone doesn't work or save for their own retirement then they shouldn't have the taxpayers bail their lazy butt out they should work more or save more. Have people take some personal responsibility.
If you want to pay for the freeloaders go right ahead just don't make me use my money to do it.
You miss the point entirely. You live in this country and social security was a decision made long ago by our elected representatives. It would fail it if were voluntary and that's why paying for it is not a choice. You don't like it than you have to get it repealed.
The problem with the "savings argument" is that too many people will fail to do it. I would have failed in the years when my children were younger or in my early years of employment when making the house payment was an "iffy" proposition at times. We wouldn't have social security in the first place if people had done a respectable job of saving for retirement.
You also neglect to point out that social security provides disability benefits for those who can't work and benefits for the children or dependents of those who die before they reach retirement age. You need a plan for dealing with those issues in order to be taken seriously.
Sorry, but as long as you live in this country you are on the hook for social security.
You could move to another country where they don't have social security. Many places in Latin America are like that.
Change the law and allow people to opt out. This is what George Bush tried to do. They called it privatizing SS but they just allow you to keep your own tax dollars.
Social Security is going to change because by ~2033 the payroll taxes will only cover about 70% of benefits.
So we will need a 30% reduction in benefits or a 30% increase in payroll taxes. The democrats will want to fix this on the backs of the middle class to bail out the poor.
Screw them
Upset much? Perhaps, social security will persuade some libertarian folks to move out of America. It would be no loss.
Things will be different though when the next President takes office. I'm sure she will have ideas of her own for social security.
You miss the point entirely. You live in this country and social security was a decision made long ago by our elected representatives. It would fail it if were voluntary and that's why paying for it is not a choice. You don't like it than you have to get it repealed.
The problem with the "savings argument" is that too many people will fail to do it. I would have failed in the years when my children were younger or in my early years of employment when making the house payment was an "iffy" proposition at times. We wouldn't have social security in the first place if people had done a respectable job of saving for retirement.
You also neglect to point out that social security provides disability benefits for those who can't work and benefits for the children or dependents of those who die before they reach retirement age. You need a plan for dealing with those issues in order to be taken seriously.
Sorry, but as long as you live in this country you are on the hook for social security.
You could move to another country where they don't have social security. Many places in Latin America are like that.
Or you could move to a country like Britain, which has mandatory "national insruance", but allows a contracting-out postion so that you can direct its investment.
If there is a serious movement to abolish the SS cap I see something similar to this is being a popular avenue for higher earners to try to get through congress.
01 - 80% of Americans are either too lazy or too dumb to actually save for 'retirement', so the government has to mandate that a tax exists (paid for 1/2 by the taxpayer and 1/2 by the employer) so that they do not starve and become homeless when they are older.
02 - Most employers (if not all) try to pay employees the minimum that a person would need to 'earn' just to be able to survive and pay for their daily and monthly living expenses in the present time. Any employers that would pay their employees enough to put away and save for retirement would be pushed out of the 'free market' by other companies that did not do that and paid their employees less.
03 - Even if the average American actually had enough money to save for retirement - if given the opportunity to access that money over the course of their lives would invariably use it to pay for their children's college costs, pay off a mortgage or spend it buying consumer goods to keep up with their peers and neighbors that were buying newer and better things and the money would just get injected into the economy with no long term benefit for the spender.
04 - Fundamentally - by ensuring that older people have just enough to survive after they turn 65 in the form of Social Security, and taking that money over the course of 30 - 40 years of their working lives without allowing them access to it until they are older or in the case that they die prior to an age where they could collect Social Security - it prevents the money from actually existing in an account that the retired person could leave in the form of an inheritance to a younger heir. It keeps the money (assuming Social Security funds actually exist) in the hands of the government and out of circulation.
05 - It maintains a socio-economic balance that prevents riots in the street and absolute and total turmoil based on the fact that most people even if given the right amount of income in excess of what they need to survive: would not ever even consider saving for retirement but would still hold their hands out when and if the time comes.
01 Truth is most Americans pay the majority of what they ever earn in taxes to government and interest to banks. What little they have left they live off. They are never given the opportunity to save. In addition Social Security funds were never saved for people’s retirement; they were stolen by a criminal government and spent on wars for corporate profit.
02 Employers pay far more than the employee ever see's in their take home pay. That is because government illegally taxes the hell out of their pay prior to them ever getting their fraction of it.
03 BS! Anyone who contends that government is more responsible than the people is just a bold faced liar.
04 The entire purpose of Social Security is to provide a pyramid scheme for government. It is illegal for anyone else to structure any kind of financial instrument which is modeled after the Social Security Pyramid because it is doomed to collapse as Social Security is doing now. Most people who have been forced to contribute to Social Security would have done better by a factor of several times had they been allowed to invest that money privately in something like a 401K.
05 Perhaps you would like to back your statement up with some kind of proof. Oh you can't there is no proof because you are pulling this garbage out of the dumpster of your liberal nonsensical psyche.
You miss the point entirely. You live in this country and social security was a decision made long ago by our elected representatives. It would fail it if were voluntary and that's why paying for it is not a choice. You don't like it than you have to get it repealed.
The problem with the "savings argument" is that too many people will fail to do it. I would have failed in the years when my children were younger or in my early years of employment when making the house payment was an "iffy" proposition at times. We wouldn't have social security in the first place if people had done a respectable job of saving for retirement.
You also neglect to point out that social security provides disability benefits for those who can't work and benefits for the children or dependents of those who die before they reach retirement age. You need a plan for dealing with those issues in order to be taken seriously.
Sorry, but as long as you live in this country you are on the hook for social security.
You could move to another country where they don't have social security. Many places in Latin America are like that.
Again you never answered the question which was...
What gives you the right to tell me that I have to enroll in SS program? Your somewhat answers is that
- it was enacted a long time ago
- some people don't want to save for their own retirement
Well I don't want to participate, I work as an Actuary and I know the math. It is wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor and that makes it a scam.
Your arguments make me feel ill. You believe that you have a right to my money and you believe you have a right to tell me how to save for my own retirement.
We tried that and look what it got us? A retirement system that hurts people saving for their own retirement. It takes from the workers and gives to those who don't want to work.
Ever heard of Disability insurance? Mine through work cost about 40$ per month and it covers more than SS disability. That BTW is going broke by 2016, there is massive fraud by poor people who don't want to work. The government run Disability program is a complete failure better to let the private sector handle it. But we have people like you that love telling others what to do.
Again you never answered the question which was...
What gives you the right to tell me that I have to enroll in SS program? Your somewhat answers is that
- it was enacted a long time ago
- some people don't want to save for their own retirement
Well I don't want to participate, I work as an Actuary and I know the math. It is wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor and that makes it a scam.
Your arguments make me feel ill. You believe that you have a right to my money and you believe you have a right to tell me how to save for my own retirement.
We tried that and look what it got us? A retirement system that hurts people saving for their own retirement. It takes from the workers and gives to those who don't want to work.
Ever heard of Disability insurance? Mine through work cost about 40$ per month and it covers more than SS disability. That BTW is going broke by 2016, there is massive fraud by poor people who don't want to work. The government run Disability program is a complete failure better to let the private sector handle it. But we have people like you that love telling others what to do.
No thanks
The social contract that all of us make with government. You can review John Locke on that if you want too. Its the basis of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Its the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You agree to abide by the laws enacted by the representatives you send to office. FLASH: You don't get to pick which laws you want to obey and those that you don't want to obey.
If private alternatives to social security had worked that's what we would be doing. If you got the world you wanted--where social security was abolished--you wouldn't want it. You'd live in a house surrounded by a moat and barbed wire to protect yourself from hordes of poor elderly people trying to steal to have enough food to eat.
Again, you may not like it, but you don't get to pick and choose. You have to abide by the will of the majority because that's how we do things in America.
The social contract that all of us make with government. You can review John Locke on that if you want too. Its the basis of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Its the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You agree to abide by the laws enacted by the representatives you send to office. FLASH: You don't get to pick which laws you want to obey and those that you don't want to obey.
If private alternatives to social security had worked that's what we would be doing. If you got the world you wanted--where social security was abolished--you wouldn't want it. You'd live in a house surrounded by a moat and barbed wire to protect yourself from hordes of poor elderly people trying to steal to have enough food to eat.
Again, you may not like it, but you don't get to pick and choose. You have to abide by the will of the majority because that's how we do things in America.
America is generally not a simple "popular vote" voting system - look at the electoral college. The early guys were worried about the "tyranny of the majority" and included systems to ameliorate it.
The social contract that all of us make with government. You can review John Locke on that if you want too. Its the basis of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Its the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You agree to abide by the laws enacted by the representatives you send to office. FLASH: You don't get to pick which laws you want to obey and those that you don't want to obey.
If private alternatives to social security had worked that's what we would be doing. If you got the world you wanted--where social security was abolished--you wouldn't want it. You'd live in a house surrounded by a moat and barbed wire to protect yourself from hordes of poor elderly people trying to steal to have enough food to eat.
Again, you may not like it, but you don't get to pick and choose. You have to abide by the will of the majority because that's how we do things in America.
The Rights of man do not give one man the right to steal money from another.
Ever heard of No Taxation Without Representation? Social Security was enacted by FDR and when the supreme court wouldn't uphold it he stacked the court with his own appointments.
I think you need to brush up on your history
Benjamin Franklin once said - "when the people can vote themselves money it will herald the end of the Republic"
Well we're basically at that point and the 18 Trillion of Debt is probably going to do it.
and you are the problem
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
