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.
Greatday got it right. But individuals only providing for themsleves would turn into mayhem! If you fall in america you fall deep. It's a much more unforgiving society made up of big losers and big winners. America is about the worst developed country in the world to be poor in because people don't want to pay for others misfortunes. In my humble opinion i think your neighbors up north canada got it right. Maybe also australia and ireland. By not being as individual as the US and not as collective as Europe. After all the taxes in australia and canada arnt much higher than in the US but poor people arnt left to themselves.
When I look at the poverty rate among the elderly in the US, I can't help but think that what people do is speculate things will somehow miraculously work out in the end. Oftentimes it is volunteers who have to fix that system in the end, old people depend on donations, food stamps and what not.
And with your rapidly dwindling middle class over there, fewer and fewer people are capable of saving or paying contributions voluntarily. Elderly Poverty: The Challenge Before Us
The elderly depend on a monthly social security check, which was paid into throughout their careers. For whatever reason people seem to think they can live on SS alone without saving for retirement, when in fact SS is intended as a bare minimum base level income. Those who did not qualify for SS for whatever reason would receive SSI instead.
SS is automatically deducted from everyone's paycheck. When you retire, you are given an income in return. There is no such thing as "voluntary contribution" to social security, it is mandatory unless you opt out. Social security is guaranteed income.
The elderly depend on a monthly social security check, which was paid into throughout their careers. For whatever reason people seem to think they can live on SS alone without saving for retirement, when in fact SS is intended as a bare minimum base level income. Those who did not qualify for SS for whatever reason would receive SSI instead.
SS is automatically deducted from everyone's paycheck. When you retire, you are given an income in return. There is no such thing as "voluntary contribution" to social security, it is mandatory unless you opt out. Social security is guaranteed income.
Oh, then your system is even more similar to ours because that is roughly the way it works over here as well.
I do remember that at least in Germany certain people can opt out of that system, especially the self-employed and those earning above a certain threshold (probably assuming they have enough money to invest in private pension plans).
When I look at the poverty rate among the elderly in the US, I can't help but think that what people do is speculate things will somehow miraculously work out in the end. Oftentimes it is volunteers who have to fix that system in the end, old people depend on donations, food stamps and what not.
And with your rapidly dwindling middle class over there, fewer and fewer people are capable of saving or paying contributions voluntarily. Elderly Poverty: The Challenge Before Us
The problem in our country is not a compassionate government, but a reckless government that is eroding away the value of the dollar due to inflation that was caused by Keynesian economics and the Fed. The eldery don't have the luxury if inflation protected SS checks by increasing their amount against the annual rise of inflation. Everything that you say, can be corrected with true market economics instead of the government.
SS is automatically deducted from everyone's paycheck. When you retire, you are given an income in return. There is no such thing as "voluntary contribution" to social security, it is mandatory unless you opt out. Social security is guaranteed income.
I am one of millions who chose to "opt out" decades ago and have not contributed one dime in many years.
I can NEVER get Social Security, SSI, Medicare. Ever.
Greatday got it right. But individuals only providing for themsleves would turn into mayhem! If you fall in america you fall deep. It's a much more unforgiving society made up of big losers and big winners. America is about the worst developed country in the world to be poor in because people don't want to pay for others misfortunes. In my humble opinion i think your neighbors up north canada got it right. Maybe also australia and ireland. By not being as individual as the US and not as collective as Europe. After all the taxes in australia and canada arnt much higher than in the US but poor people arnt left to themselves.
Actually, America is one of the best developed countries in the world to be poor in. Because there is unemployment insurance, welfare, foodstamps, disability pay, handicap benefits, veteran's pension, in-home supportive services (taking care of a relative with a major handicap or illness), etc.
In addition, many of the "poor" own TVs, computers, cars and even houses in some instances.
I am one of millions who chose to "opt out" decades ago and have not contributed one dime in many years.
I can NEVER get Social Security, SSI, Medicare. Ever.
And why did you opt out? Were the contributions too high? Or just in protest of the system?
I do think those contributions make sense, I mean the elderly living in poverty today may have a more dignified end of life thanks to your contributions and you in turn would have at least a minimum income once you reach that age. You never know what will happen until then, maybe you lose your job, or the private company you pay contributions to goes broke, or your bank where you deposit your savings goes broke, ... Of course I hope that won't be the case
And why did you opt out? Were the contributions too high? Or just in protest of the system?
All of the above
I took the amount I would have contributed into social security and put it into other investment accounts / vehicles. I have been managing this specific portfolio for many many years. The end result is this:
Next May (2011), the fund will start paying me monthly contributions. And AFTER paying the taxes that will be necessary and medical insurance premiums, the NET amount I will be getting is almost 7 times what social security would have paid me.
Also, If I should die before the fund is depleted (some 40 years out), the balance of the fund goes to my heirs. Unlike social security, no portion go to ones heirs.
I took the amount I would have contributed into social security and put it into other investment accounts / vehicles. I have been managing this specific portfolio for many many years. The end result is this:
Next May (2011), the fund will start paying me monthly contributions. And AFTER paying the taxes that will be necessary and medical insurance premiums, the NET amount I will be getting is almost 7 times what social security would have paid me.
Also, If I should die before the fund is depleted (some 40 years out), the balance of the fund goes to my heirs. Unlike social security, no portion go to ones heirs.
I hope that answers your questions
OK. I guess if I were interested in such financial advantages I would opt out, too. But I'm not. At the moment I pay 1/5th of my gross income into SS, I can live with it and I know my contributions help old people living right now. Some people call it 'contract between generations', of course it is not a contract as such.
For instance - why should I, an individual, provide for your entire retirement and vacation?
I the individual should be the one providing for my vacations and retirement.
First off, congrats on your gold star grandpa award. Lollipop kisses, tugs on your beard and out of the mouths of babes is great stuff. An acquired taste.
As for this individual VS collectivist thinking-- it goes too far when either ideology thinks it's the only criteria worthy of merit. Would our system of checks and balances be healthy (financial crisis screams not), both are served equally, which is the thing that made our nation great.
100% individual leaves you a lone wolf among a million lone wolves competing for a single bone but leaves all vulnerable to outside forces that are organized as collective. Business can't exist without collectivist systems as terra firma. Otherwise 3rd world would be thriving local economy.
100% collectivist is government in service to it's own perpetuation, seeing individuals as a nuisance in it's way toward fulfilling self service. Some churches have fallen prey to this problem. Some military forces in the world (minus the checks and balances) fall prey to this 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.
