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.
I work for an employer - a government entity - that opted out of Social Security in the 1980's. When things were booming. "THEY" felt the money would be better invested in the state retirement plan. People also were allowed to opt out of MEDICARE and the state retirement fund.... because they thought they could do better in the market.
This is the very definition of insanity.
I had my credits for Social Security before I took the job at this employer - so I am OK. There are other employees who have NEVER contributed. And if they are behind in their retirement planning - this will not be a good thing.
I had a coworker who spent her last days at work with her OXYGEN TANK next to her desk....she was one who opted out of Medicare.
Employers should be REQUIRED to take out Social Security at a minimum. And NEVER opt out of Medicare.
What can we do about it? Stop Employers who think they know better. The principals at this employer made out like bandits .... the little people? Not so much.
Strange that you label people being able to decide for themselves how best to save for their retirement "insanity." The nanny state really has taken hold. . .
Strange that you label people being able to decide for themselves how best to save for their retirement "insanity." The nanny state really has taken hold. . .
No I used to think like you as well that I as an individual could do better alone than collectively as we have it now. I wanted to opt out thinking I knew best. Then reality slaps you in the face. It is much more expensive to do it on your own. Just like it is much more expensive for two people alone than to be sharing those expenses. The same principle applies here. Forget the nanny state. It is just basic economics. But you know that already don't you?
Strange that you label people being able to decide for themselves how best to save for their retirement "insanity." The nanny state really has taken hold. . .
The employer decided for them.
Oh - and nanny state? Nope. Deep Red Republican state.
The employer never helped employees understand the long-term ramifications of their choice.
I presume you have a car and have automobile insurance. Your logic above regarding SS indicates you would see nothing wrong with your automobile insurance premiums being based upon personal income.
Remember, so-called SS taxes are actually FICA premiums: Federal Insurance Contribution Act premiums.
Heck, let's take it farther: imagine being in the checkout line at a grocery store. The person in front of you buys a gallon of milk, and is charged $2.75. It is now your turn, and the clerk says your gallon of milk is 4.33, because, you know, you earn more money than does the previous customer.
That doesn't register as fair, does it?
I wasn't clear. I don't mean that the actual tax should be increased, I mean that the maximum that is taxed could be higher. It goes up a couple of thousand every year. It's very arbitrary. Last year, I stopped paying FICA at $127k, the first time I ever made that much (and almost died from overtime). Why $127k? Why not $200k?
That's what I meant. Believe me, I don't believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I worked too hard all my life to believe that.
No I used to think like you as well that I as an individual could do better alone than collectively as we have it now. I wanted to opt out thinking I knew best. Then reality slaps you in the face. It is much more expensive to do it on your own. Just like it is much more expensive for two people alone than to be sharing those expenses. The same principle applies here. Forget the nanny state. It is just basic economics. But you know that already don't you?
Tell us all about how it is more expensive to do on your own. You know, the "basic economics" of the issue.
I see nothing wrong or alarming with greatly increasing the max for Soc. Sec. taxes. I have hit the max a few times and it seemed very arbitrary that suddenly I had no more Soc. Sec. taxes taken out. Surely my income isn't extraordinary. Now, Medicare...
I mean not extraordinary for a high-paid income worker. I realize it's more than average or median or whatever. And then there was all the overtime I put in last year. My reward, getting slammed for Medicare Part B for, I think, two years.
I’m fine with removing the max cap on SS earnings as long as there’s also a commensurate adjustment in what SS pays out when you retire. Right now, the lowest earners receive a monthly SS payment equal to 52% of their earnings. High earners get 25%. As long as the percent remains at 25, I’d have no problem paying more. Now if I’m going to have to pay more without an increase in what I’d receive resulting in an even lower percent, I would not be in favor.
It’s already hard enough in these days of no pensions to save enough to cover the rest of what we’ll need in retirement. If I’m shooting to have 80% of my pre-retirement earnings each year, I have to personally fund 55% of that since SS is only paying me 25%. If we’re concerned with people already not being able to save enough for their retirements, raising the cap without raising the payout will just put even more at risk. I’m more in favor of raising the rate we all pay.
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.
