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.
Where is the evidence to support your claim that the rich don't collect Social Security?
The rich dont pay into SS so they dont collect. The rich doesnt have wages, they have investment income, tax shelters etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefall
But it gets us a little closer, doesn't it?
Using that argument, if you abolish all federal spending on schools, roads, police etc, we get a little closer as well.. Sounds great
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The current system never goes bankrupt under anybody's scenario. It's a complete misuse of the word. The worst case scenario is that recipients would eventually receive roughly 75% of scheduled benefits rather than 100%.
Isnt that fantastic.. Recipients would receive 75% of their benefits, which will demish to nothing, while current recipients receive FAR MORE.. Housing, energy assistance, checks, medical.. While future will have to get bye with 75%.. Sounds fair right...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
According to CBO’s estimates, the government’s outlays for Social Security under the proposal, including its payments into individual accounts, would peak at over 6 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to 5 percent of GDP in 2083.
The subject isnt SS as a % of GDP, its as a % of debt.. nice try though at mixing up issues...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
By contrast, under the alternative fiscal scenario with benefits as scheduled, Social Security outlays would be close to 6 percent of GDP in the years beyond 2033.
Again, not the point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Additionally, there is a marked difference in the certainty of benefits. SS benefits are fixed by wage-based formulas established in law. These reflect both cost-of-living and productivity increases. Roadmap benefits depend heavily on the performance of the particular stocks and bonds one ends up holding in an individual account. There is a guaranteed return of only the cost-of-living.
If they are only payin 75%, then you get a negative rate of return in relationship to the cost of living.. The alternative not only returns the "cost of living" but also it gets passed on to your children instead of now. you get CRAP if you die too soon.. Tough luck, who cares about the money you paid right!! Liberal way.. take take take, and hope you die early...
The disastrous results of just that sort of system were what prompted the creation of Social Security to begin with. Haven't right-wingers created enough disasters lately?
There are of course some errors in it, but such data have always been maintained.
There are no such people. Save for the spouse, former spouse, or dependent children of some beneficiaries.
SS is not an investment program. Nobody has ever invested anything in it.
Most people end up collecting well more than they ever paid in.
No, it points out how woefully inadequate your understanding of the system is.
Not what the Supreme Court said.
The only reason payroll taxes are a part of your gross pay is so that you can afford to pay the tax. If SS went away, so would the tax, and so would that portion of your gross pay.
Actually, the average person would have to depend on luck to outperform Social Security.
That is such a complete load of garbage. I am not going to even bother. /boggle
"They" can't.
Because FICA is not insurance for the participant.
It's insurance for the Federal government.
{I wrote to the Congress asking if we have a property right to entitlements. The answer was "no". They are entirely at the discretion of Congress and are synonymous with "gifts".}
The government went bankrupt in 1933. FICA was concocted to get the millions of "human resources" to underwrite the debt, and be the surety.
Even the Federal Reserve site admits that the "dollar bill" has value because the population of the USA underwrites it... but doesn't admit that it is FICA that is the reason.
Under the law of notes, an obligated party must accept their own notes in lieu of lawful money. So the government must accept their own wastepaper notes, because of Title 12 USC Sec. 411.
But why do we?
"Voluntary" consent, via participation in Socialist InSecurity.
In short, we have been swindled.
And they know it. But can't admit it.
The day that 51% of Americans withdraw consent, and leave FICA, is the day that the regime implodes, the "dollar bill" ceases to have trade value, and the remaining parasites collapse the government. Which will be followed by a resignation, en masse, of the government officials, who will no doubt swiftly emigrate to nations that do not extradite to the USA.
It's not "the Republican plan" as you state. This is Boehner's plan, not the Republican Party plan.
Where does it say in your article that all Repubs are onboard. And like they have any majority power to do anything.
Reading is fundamental to understanding.
Many Republicans and "tea types" have said they want to do away with Social Security and other so-called social programs. We have one of them running for representative in my district.
The rich dont pay into SS so they dont collect. The rich doesnt have wages, they have investment income, tax shelters etc...
That's odd. IRS data indicate that people with an AGI above $1,000,000 in 2008 reported $1.5 billion in SS benefits received. Why do you suppose rich people report income that they never collected like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Isnt that fantastic..
Yes, it is, as it dispels once and for all the idiotic notion that SS can go bankrupt. Clowns make such statements. People who know what they are talking about do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Recipients would receive 75% of their benefits, which will demish to nothing...
No, sheltered child, SS could pay that roughly 75% indefinitely. The percentage does not "demish" or even go down. In fact, it creeps up slightly over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...while current recipients receive FAR MORE..
Wrong again. By the time the 75% level could go into effect, beneficiaries would be receiving both a greater number of dollars and a greater volume of purchasing power than current beneficiaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The subject isnt SS as a % of GDP, its as a % of debt.. nice try though at mixing up issues...
SS is in the black. By a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If they are only payin 75%, then you get a negative rate of return in relationship to the cost of living..
The 75% is three-fourths of a number that exists far into the future, not a number that exists today. You're doing the math all wrong because you don't understand how the program works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The alternative not only returns the "cost of living"...
Taking the word "not" out of that would make it more accurate and informative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...but also it gets passed on to your children instead of now. you get CRAP if you die too soon.. Tough luck, who cares about the money you paid right!! Liberal way.. take take take, and hope you die early...
When you die, SS benefits accrue to a spouse, to a former spouse, and to any dependent children. These may also qualify for benefits of their own based on your work record. Your fifth cousin in Oxnard? No. And what if you DON'T die? At least for a long time? You can never outlive Social Security, a true and fully COLA-adjusted lifetime annuity? Know what the security of a product like that costs in the private sector?
Like it or not..the Dems will have to address SS and medicare as the money is running out.
It's fine without any "fixes" until at least 2050 and even then could continue provided the government doesn't default on it's debt until 2080. If we just delayed the retirement age for SSI by 2 years then we're good until 2080 in a positive cash flow measure or alternatively if we remove the cap on SSI (right now only the first $100k pays SSI taxes and the rest is tax free) then SSI is literally solvent as far as it can be projected. There is no crisis.
A high-profile Republican budget plan would slash Social Security benefits in the long-run -- perhaps even by up to half of what they are now, the program's actuary concluded in a new study.
The Chief Actuary of Social Security analyzed a proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's ranking member on the budget committee, who could become its chairman in January, and found that new entrants in the US workforce could see massive decreases in their payouts upon retirement.
Oh, you mean Bush's idea to eventually privatize Social Security
So how is Tea Party different from GOP business as usual to liquidate the US Treasury, and disburse it amongst Wall Street predators?
You dont have ALL receiving it now either.. people DIE before they collect..
Then their heirs collect, don't they. And the variability under the Paulie Plan is monumentally greater than under SS. Some people will do fine. Some...perhaps many...perhaps most will not do fine. Many people do not have the time or skills to manage an investment portfolio, and have not the slightest interest in doing or learning to do so. The people you back know that full well and can't wait to take advantage of these folks. You're trying to do a setup job on them. Some friend YOU are.
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.
