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.
To Floridasandy: Slackjaw is essentially correct. Social Security is not an account which each of us maintains in the same way we have bank accounts, 401K's, Roth IRA's, etc. They do keep track of our lifetime earnings on which we have paid FICA taxes because they have to have some way to calculate our benefits. However, Social Security is insurance. Taking the case of a single (unmarried) person who is retired (for simplicity, as there are spousal benefits too), if that person draws a benefit for one month and then dies, the "leftover" money is not paid to an heir but simply reverts back into the system. In similar fashion, if someone outlives his statistical age to die, then that person will draw more than the average per person on which the system is based. If you are proposing that the entire thing be revamped and reorganized so that we can only receive what we have paid in in taxes (plus some specified) rate of interest), that would completely change the nature of the system, and the system would not longer serve its main purpose, which is to prevent us from becoming completely destitute in our old age. This is because (assuming more than average longevity) the point at which we would have received our "last" payment would be the point at which we are old enough not to be able to re-enter the workforce. This is precisely why there is no "last" payment, except at death.
Let's compare this to auto insurance. You and I both pay premiums, but we only get that money back if we have an accident. So one of us may get back more than we paid in and the other may not get anything at all. Social Security is not exactly like auto insurance in every particular (if we were to continue the analogy), but it is close enough to make the point. We only draw Soc. Sec. if we live to age 62 (or older age if we choose to delay applying in order to get more per month). Some people die before they turn 62 and don't get a penny. But if you live to 100 you'll get way more than your "share". But we can only draw if we have paid in (worked), just like we are only covered by auto insurance if we have paid the premium.
Please forgive me if I am being too simplistic and you already knew all this, but it seemed to me that you and Slackjaw were talking past each other, hence my attempt at clarification.
Of course not, various people from high priced areas with children have weighed in already on how ludicrous this claim is.
It is yet another example of someone distorting their perception of reality to support their poor conclusions.
One more right here. Affluent area, top 5% income and teenage son. The most expensive jeans he ever bought cost $40, second pair half off! His shoes are $40 converse hi tops, wears em until they disintegrate.
Oh yeah, my iphone4 was $99.
Last edited by shaker281; 02-08-2011 at 03:52 AM..
However, Social Security is insurance. Taking the case of a single (unmarried) person who is retired (for simplicity, as there are spousal benefits too), if that person draws a benefit for one month and then dies, the "leftover" money is not paid to an heir but simply reverts back into the system. In similar fashion, if someone outlives his statistical age to die, then that person will draw more than the average per person on which the system is based. If you are proposing that the entire thing be revamped and reorganized so that we can only receive what we have paid in in taxes (plus some specified) rate of interest), that would completely change the nature of the system, and the system would not longer serve its main purpose, which is to prevent us from becoming completely destitute in our old age. This is because (assuming more than average longevity) the point at which we would have received our "last" payment would be the point at which we are old enough not to be able to re-enter the workforce. This is precisely why there is no "last" payment, except at death.
Exactly correct, it works in the same fashion as an annuity or pension or any form of insurance - spread the cost/risk. Although, if they offer to give me back all my payments PLUS INTEREST, I'll take it.
I'll probably use the money to buy $500 jeans, $150 running shoes, maybe a backup Mcmansion.
To Floridasandy: Slackjaw is essentially correct. Social Security is not an account which each of us maintains in the same way we have bank accounts, 401K's, Roth IRA's, etc. They do keep track of our lifetime earnings on which we have paid FICA taxes because they have to have some way to calculate our benefits. However, Social Security is insurance. Taking the case of a single (unmarried) person who is retired (for simplicity, as there are spousal benefits too), if that person draws a benefit for one month and then dies, the "leftover" money is not paid to an heir but simply reverts back into the system. In similar fashion, if someone outlives his statistical age to die, then that person will draw more than the average per person on which the system is based. If you are proposing that the entire thing be revamped and reorganized so that we can only receive what we have paid in in taxes (plus some specified) rate of interest), that would completely change the nature of the system, and the system would not longer serve its main purpose, which is to prevent us from becoming completely destitute in our old age. This is because (assuming more than average longevity) the point at which we would have received our "last" payment would be the point at which we are old enough not to be able to re-enter the workforce. This is precisely why there is no "last" payment, except at death.
Let's compare this to auto insurance. You and I both pay premiums, but we only get that money back if we have an accident. So one of us may get back more than we paid in and the other may not get anything at all. Social Security is not exactly like auto insurance in every particular (if we were to continue the analogy), but it is close enough to make the point. We only draw Soc. Sec. if we live to age 62 (or older age if we choose to delay applying in order to get more per month). Some people die before they turn 62 and don't get a penny. But if you live to 100 you'll get way more than your "share". But we can only draw if we have paid in (worked), just like we are only covered by auto insurance if we have paid the premium.
Please forgive me if I am being too simplistic and you already knew all this, but it seemed to me that you and Slackjaw were talking past each other, hence my attempt at clarification.
i understand how social security works now. we were only talking HYPOTHETICAL fixes to the system here, not how the system is structured. maybe that is why we were talking around each other....
my suggestion is a proposition only, just as medicare payments cannot leave the country currently. we may have to start thinking "outside of the box" to fix the system.
these are just various suggestions being offered for dealing with the situation that we now find ourselves in-which is that the social security system pays out more than it takes in, with a shrinking working base to fund it.
there were like 19 suggestions and i am surprised that the focus is just on this one tiny aspect of one tiny potential fix. this is only for discussion purposes and perhaps others have suggestions on how to fix social security that are not damaging to americans-who actually are the people who have paid into it!
while i am on economic fixes, we need to "fix" foreign aid. i think ron paul covered it quite well in antiwar.com today:
“Diplomacy” via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas. But the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home, so how can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.
this isn't an issue of regulating how your earned money is spent, but rather how you could spend other people's money. we are only talking hypothetically about benefits BEYOND what you would have earned.... i would think you would agree that at least the retirement money distributed within the united states helps the economy of the united states.
I hear you loud & clear floridasandy—once the taxpayers’ money kicks in, you’re on your own if you live abroad. SSI was created to help the elderly, as well as the Economy. All angles were calculated—especially re-circulating the money in this country.
SSI is the only legitimate Ponzi-scheme this country has left.
Last edited by DSOs; 02-08-2011 at 02:17 PM..
Reason: bolded quote, 1 less paragraph
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,145 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
My mistake, it is clear that the concept of $500 jeans is more than you can conceive. Perhaps it is some huge sum of money where you come from. I will try in the future to keep my monetary figures to an amount that the Wal-Mart crowd can relate to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw
Now this is funny, following statistics and graphs brought forth (along with personal experience of various posters from expensive locations) you are just going to cling to your absurd implication that the kids these days wear $500 jeans.
Then topping it off with a feeble dig that he is somehow a lower class because he doesn't discounts you claim.
America was the richest nation because the other powerful nations (UK, Germany, USSR, Japan) destroyed each other in WWII.
I agree. And ironically, the very prosperity which we enjoyed after World War II while the other nations were rebuilding sowed the seeds of our present troubles. Since there was essentially no one to compete with us, our labor unions could push for higher wages and benefits (what could be more normal?) and the large companies could give them these raises and still make a profit because there was no competition on a world-wide scale. Thus we began to price ourselves out of the world market before anyone seemed aware of the long-term consequences. Now we are on the ropes because it's too expensive to manufacture stuff here (among many other reasons, I admit).
I hear you loud & clear floridasandy—once the taxpayers’ money kicks in, you’re on your own if you live abroad. SSI was created to help the elderly, as well as the Economy. All angles were calculated—especially re-circulating the money in this country.
SSI is the only legitimate Ponzi-scheme this country has left.
SSI has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, which is about Social Security benefits.
Americans living abroad do not get anything at all that is funded by taxpayer money. Stop losing sleep over it. It's not happening.
Americans abroad get Social Security benefits which are entirely funded by their own contributions as workers, not from your taxes. Americans abroad do NOT get Medicare benefits, even if they continue to pay the monthly premium on Medicare. Americans living abroad, or even temporarily visiting abroad, do not receive one single cent of SSI, which is funded by your taxes.
You have been seriously misled, probably by forwarded chain emails, and you might be well advised to do some independent reading about this.
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.
