U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2018, 03:39 AM
 
Location: PA
33 posts, read 8,491 times
Reputation: 81

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the consequences ? avoiding paying fica taxes carries penalties and interest levied by the irs ...
Yep! Pay or get penalized is my point to Mircea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2018, 05:17 AM
 
13,909 posts, read 7,411,228 times
Reputation: 25410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
This is what I would suggest, just end the program, cut the checks to those who paid into it and call it a day. The waste and fraud would be no more, taxs do not increase, the people dont have to pay for more government employees to run the program... lots of savings to be had for the people.
If you did that, the bottom 50% of the elderly would starve. The payouts are extremely progressive. Lifetime low income people get proportionally much higher checks than high income people. For example, if you made an inflation adjusted $125k for 35 years paying all that money into the Social Security system, your check is only 15% higher than the person making $60k. Iím one of those high income people. Iíd love to have a cash payout. I recognize that the plan isnít for me. Itís for lower income people. Similarly, Iíve always had a high effective Federal income tax rate. The person making half as much barely pays Federal income taxes. Affluent people pay for everything. Itís how progressive systems work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,233 posts, read 1,418,615 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightdoglover View Post
I saw Easy Rider when it came out, have loathed Jack Nicholson ever since he was nasty to the waitress (and I was waitressing at the time, as was my mother) and keep looking for other people who find his smarmy presence in films insufferable.
He was also nasty to a waitress in Five Easy Pieces. Agreed that it was a turn-off.

Back to the OP -- yes millennials will get social security, at least OASI. The disability program might be curtailed, but the old age benefit will continue at least for the forseeable future. The oldest millennials, born in 1983, will be 36 years-old soon. Assuming they started work at 18, they have already contributed Social Security payments for half of the 35-years "Average Indexed Monthly Earnings period".

Social Security old age benefits will probably be eroded by inflation over time, especially if the government chooses to calculate annual COLAs toward the minimum. But the OASI program will be around as long as this US republic survives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 09:36 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,562 posts, read 6,150,393 times
Reputation: 8523
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
He was also nasty to a waitress in Five Easy Pieces. Agreed that it was a turn-off.

Back to the OP -- yes millennials will get social security, at least OASI. The disability program might be curtailed, but the old age benefit will continue at least for the forseeable future. The oldest millennials, born in 1983, will be 36 years-old soon. Assuming they started work at 18, they have already contributed Social Security payments for half of the 35-years "Average Indexed Monthly Earnings period".

Social Security old age benefits will probably be eroded by inflation over time, especially if the government chooses to calculate annual COLAs toward the minimum. But the OASI program will be around as long as this US republic survives.
But that scene was a riot and is classic. One of the scenes that, early in his career, began to bring him notoriety. That waitress was no prize, either, btw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 04:03 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,065,629 times
Reputation: 4425
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
If you did that, the bottom 50% of the elderly would starve. The payouts are extremely progressive. Lifetime low income people get proportionally much higher checks than high income people. For example, if you made an inflation adjusted $125k for 35 years paying all that money into the Social Security system, your check is only 15% higher than the person making $60k. Iím one of those high income people. Iíd love to have a cash payout. I recognize that the plan isnít for me. Itís for lower income people. Similarly, Iíve always had a high effective Federal income tax rate. The person making half as much barely pays Federal income taxes. Affluent people pay for everything. Itís how progressive systems work.
Non progressive systems would kind of resemble the hunger games. Most high wage earners are not necessarily contributing that much more to material gdp output they are just better at negotiations and hobnobing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 04:53 PM
 
8,859 posts, read 5,136,100 times
Reputation: 10134
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
You complain about not having 401k match, for years my husband and I considered ourselves lucky to work some place that offers 401k, let alone match. My daughterís own a small business and it offers nothing. She can only contribute to Roth IRA.
Is it her business? She should look into opening a Simple IRA as the employer retirement plan. Despite the name, it is a different animal than a traditional or Roth IRA, with a separate annual contribution limit.

Vanguard will open a Simple IRA plan for $0, and charge the employer $0 annually. Employees pay $10 per year per mutual fund they choose to own in the plan, until the employee's total Vanguard assets reach 50k. (If an employee has other accounts at Vanguard, those count towards the 50k).

The employer must choose to either offer a 100% on the first 3% of salary contributed per eligible employee, or 2% of salary of each eligible employee irrespective of if the employee contributes or not. Employers are allowed to temporarily suspend the match due to economic hardship, there are rules for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 04:57 PM
 
8,859 posts, read 5,136,100 times
Reputation: 10134
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
If they ultimately cut this program, and working people no longer have Social Security payments deducted from their paycheck, there is detailed information on every one of us on how much our contributions were over our working life. Cut me the check and I'm good (I factor in my pension and my 401K savings in this decision) I cannot collect for another 10 years, and 2028 sounds like an important year in the calculus and lifespan of the program.

And quit calling it an "entitlement", I've paid into this program for over thirty years, and counting.
Entitlement simply means the government is obligated to pay it to you; it is not an observation that you feel entitled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,924 posts, read 14,242,533 times
Reputation: 16102
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Social Security old age benefits will probably be eroded by inflation over time, especially if the government chooses to calculate annual COLAs toward the minimum.
You are not negatively impacted by Chained CPI, and you are not entitled to consume and destroy everything like locusts.

If prices rise, then stop consuming, reduce consumption, purchase substitutes or increase the Supply to match Demand and halt future price increases.

Giving you more money to consume like locusts doesn't decrease prices, it only causes prices to rise higher and at faster rates, meaning instead of rising monthly, prices start rising every three weeks, then every other week, then every week, and as historically documented, every day, and even every hour.

There's no way you could ever possibly win this game so long as the Universe exists, so you might as well learn to deal with it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
Thats because pensions have evaporated and 401k match is almost non-existant, wages are stagnant or on a slight decline. These things wont come without political blow back at some juncture.
Wages are neither stagnant nor declining.

In 1990, 78% of workers earned $30,000 or less. Today, only 48% earn $30,000 or less, because wages have risen.

Wages are rising faster than the rate of all forms of Inflation.

Average wages in 2016 were $48,642 and $50,321 in 2017.

The percent change is 3.45%, while all forms of Inflation increased 2.18% over the same period, leaving a net gain of 1.27%

Average wage in 2010 was $41,673, so there has been a 20.75% increase through 2017.

All forms of Inflation increased 11.73% over the same period, so that results in a net wage increase of 9.02%

Average wage in 2000 was $32,154 so that is a 56.49% increase, while all forms of Inflation have increased 40.9% so that represents a 15.59% net increase in wages since 2000.

Average wage in 1990 was $21,027 so wages have increased 139.31% since then, while all forms of Inflation have increased 81.94% giving a net increase of 57.37%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
I must have struck a nerve, good! Thatís nice to assume I have not been on the gov website. I have been on it and have seen how much I have paid into it when Iím the long run I most likely will not receive it back!
If you're average, you'll get back everything you paid in and a helluva lot more.

In 2017, the average person paid $2,573 a year in FICA taxes. They'll get that back in the first 2 months. Even if they only get the average monthly benefit of $1,401 then by the 2nd month they've gotten back $2,802 and they're $229 ahead in the game. They'll get $14,100 the next 10 months for a total of $16,812 which is 6.5x more than they paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
Had I placed that money in other investments, I could have made money.
The operand is "could."

You could, if you don't get taken to the cleaners in a nasty divorce, and if you or your spouse or children don't get ill, and if you don't get seriously injured, and if you don't lose your job and if you don't get taken in a Ponzi-scheme and if...

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

If you are the Wall Street Wizardģ you claim to be, why are you even here? And why would you care if you have to pay into Social Security.

You and all the other Wall Street Wizardsģ can make money from nothing, so why aren't you?

The whole point of Social Security is that it's a guaranteed base income, no matter what happens in your life.

If you have a Beautiful Lifeô, then good for you, if not, you're covered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
Am I mandated to pay into SS?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquiringmind33 View Post
What are the consequences if I do not?
Then you get to play tennis and ride horses for 5-10 years at a federal minimum security prison.

Perhaps you can ask to occupy Pete Rose's old cell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 07:26 PM
 
6,942 posts, read 3,065,629 times
Reputation: 4425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You are not negatively impacted by Chained CPI, and you are not entitled to consume and destroy everything like locusts.

If prices rise, then stop consuming, reduce consumption, purchase substitutes or increase the Supply to match Demand and halt future price increases.

Giving you more money to consume like locusts doesn't decrease prices, it only causes prices to rise higher and at faster rates, meaning instead of rising monthly, prices start rising every three weeks, then every other week, then every week, and as historically documented, every day, and even every hour.

There's no way you could ever possibly win this game so long as the Universe exists, so you might as well learn to deal with it now.



Wages are neither stagnant nor declining.

In 1990, 78% of workers earned $30,000 or less. Today, only 48% earn $30,000 or less, because wages have risen.

Wages are rising faster than the rate of all forms of Inflation.

Average wages in 2016 were $48,642 and $50,321 in 2017.

The percent change is 3.45%, while all forms of Inflation increased 2.18% over the same period, leaving a net gain of 1.27%

Average wage in 2010 was $41,673, so there has been a 20.75% increase through 2017.

All forms of Inflation increased 11.73% over the same period, so that results in a net wage increase of 9.02%

Average wage in 2000 was $32,154 so that is a 56.49% increase, while all forms of Inflation have increased 40.9% so that represents a 15.59% net increase in wages since 2000.

Average wage in 1990 was $21,027 so wages have increased 139.31% since then, while all forms of Inflation have increased 81.94% giving a net increase of 57.37%.



If you're average, you'll get back everything you paid in and a helluva lot more.

In 2017, the average person paid $2,573 a year in FICA taxes. They'll get that back in the first 2 months. Even if they only get the average monthly benefit of $1,401 then by the 2nd month they've gotten back $2,802 and they're $229 ahead in the game. They'll get $14,100 the next 10 months for a total of $16,812 which is 6.5x more than they paid.



The operand is "could."

You could, if you don't get taken to the cleaners in a nasty divorce, and if you or your spouse or children don't get ill, and if you don't get seriously injured, and if you don't lose your job and if you don't get taken in a Ponzi-scheme and if...

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

If you are the Wall Street Wizardģ you claim to be, why are you even here? And why would you care if you have to pay into Social Security.

You and all the other Wall Street Wizardsģ can make money from nothing, so why aren't you?

The whole point of Social Security is that it's a guaranteed base income, no matter what happens in your life.

If you have a Beautiful Lifeô, then good for you, if not, you're covered.



Yes.



Then you get to play tennis and ride horses for 5-10 years at a federal minimum security prison.

Perhaps you can ask to occupy Pete Rose's old cell.
How are they calculating that inflation rate when rents and tuition medical expenses (the key inelastic demand needs of a society) have double digit inflation rates?

This has to be satisfactory answered in order to take the inflation rate serious. Even taking the upper bound of the claimed inflation rates standard deviation would result in declining wages. I mean your seriously arguing a 1.27% rate which is noise. If there was, say a 30% in wages adjusted to real inflation then you might have a valid argument but not at 1% ish
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 07:42 PM
 
Location: PA
33 posts, read 8,491 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
If you did that, the bottom 50% of the elderly would starve. The payouts are extremely progressive. Lifetime low income people get proportionally much higher checks than high income people. For example, if you made an inflation adjusted $125k for 35 years paying all that money into the Social Security system, your check is only 15% higher than the person making $60k. Iím one of those high income people. Iíd love to have a cash payout. I recognize that the plan isnít for me. Itís for lower income people. Similarly, Iíve always had a high effective Federal income tax rate. The person making half as much barely pays Federal income taxes. Affluent people pay for everything. Itís how progressive systems work.
There are plenty of charities, churches, organizations, the lottery that contribute to the elderly. Plus Iím sure their own families would be able to take care of them. Plus the smaller tax burden would also be a benefit. If those who feel they elderly need to be taken care of or want to pay their share of income to them, they are welcome to donate their funds!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top