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.
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.
They don't need my pittance to help old people here.
And yes - as I approach my retirement with the desire to go "play" - such "financial advantages" are important - and I'm been planning for this for 40 years while at the same time protecting my family should something have happened to me before I retired.
BTW, you say you contribute 20% of your income (1/5) to SS? You have got to be kidding? Here its around 7.4% (personal) then the employer matching for a total of around 15%.
They don't need my pittance to help old people here.
And yes - as I approach my retirement with the desire to go "play" - such "financial advantages" are important - and I'm been planning for this for 40 years while at the same time protecting my family should something have happened to me before I retired.
BTW, you say you contribute 20% of your income (1/5) to SS? You have got to be kidding? Here its around 7.4% (personal) then the employer matching for a total of around 15%.
WOW - are you getting nailed.
It is not pittance It is give and take, I give today and get tomorrow, so to speak. While I will not get anything from the ones I help today, I hopefully will get from the next generations once I am old enough to retire. In order to keep that chain alive, it is not easy to opt out over here. Only wealthy people can opt out as they are the ones who the state assumes will never depend on payments anyway.
Yes, 20% may sound like much (since I am self-employed, there is no employer to double my contributions), but it is OK. It entitles me to receive help ones I need it. And once you have witnessed how poor some elderly are, it makes you shift your focus on new priorities.
I posted this on another thread but that is how the government creates inflation as well. When it starts to guarantee things, thus creating false demand, inflation results. That is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But anyway, that's a story for a different thread
Inflation erodes the wealth of wealthy as much as it erodes all others. The difference being the bottom 25% are much closer to the ground, has much less of a rainy day fund buffer, so when their purchasing power takes a massive hit they can't afford to eat. When wealthy take a massive hit, they're less able to afford luxuries, less able to invest, and have less customers. Everything comes to a steady grind like it did in the 70's because people are too bearish, competition gets destructive, habits of hoarding, zero sums games vs unlimited pie. What was attributed to carter was actually a decade long spiral down attributed to both R's & D's putting bandaids on symptoms too long.
They don't need my pittance to help old people here.
And yes - as I approach my retirement with the desire to go "play" - such "financial advantages" are important - and I'm been planning for this for 40 years while at the same time protecting my family should something have happened to me before I retired.
BTW, you say you contribute 20% of your income (1/5) to SS? You have got to be kidding? Here its around 7.4% (personal) then the employer matching for a total of around 15%.
WOW - are you getting nailed.
The employer doesn't pay the 7.4%. Whether YOU were to pay the entire 15% or the EMPLOYER were to pay the entire 15%, or each pays half - ultimately, YOU pay the entirety of the approximately 15% because it is a forced "contribution" that impairs the employer from paying you a higher wage.
The employer doesn't pay the 7.4%. Whether YOU were to pay the entire 15% or the EMPLOYER were to pay the entire 15%, or each pays half - ultimately, YOU pay the entirety of the approximately 15% because it is a forced "contribution" that impairs the employer from paying you a higher wage.
That is exactly what I meant by 'subtracted' above regarding vacation. The cost those 4-6 weeks of vacation cause are ultimately paid by the employee, not the employer.
Individuals should be the only ones with rights. Societies, governments, and corporations are all artificial creations and should have no rights whatsoever. Only the individuals that make up those bodies should have rights. Any power granted to these artificial institutions should only be granted if it helps further the cause of individual liberty. Paying for peace officers and a court system to punish those who infringe upon the liberties of others is about the best example of the power that government should have.
Charity is the responsibility of individuals of good moral character, but charity is always voluntary. Taking money to give to others by threat of violence if you don't fork over your "fair share" is larceny and has absolutely no place in a free society.
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).
Part of the point I was trying to make is that several popular social programs enjoyed by Western Europe have similar counterparts in the US, albeit less generous for the most part.
Since we have that discussion going on in the climate thread where it really does not belong, maybe it is better to open a thread on it...
So, some people in the other thread say that unlike the US, Europe is all about collective at the expense of the individual; that in Europe governments can just take your property away, etc.
But is it really that simple?
For me, I see Europe as the abuser of the system... it may all sound "great" but when you USE the collective power (of the people) for the selfish greed of a VERY small group of people (politicians, corporate executives, etc etc) and BRIBE the majority to look the other way with social services, "free" money, etc etc ... well, that's just plain wrong to me... socialists may disagree... they like it, they like it better where they are top...
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.
So you're saying there aren't homeless in Europe? I find that extremely hard to believe
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.
It is give and take, I give today and get tomorrow, so to speak. While I will not get anything from the ones I help today, I hopefully will get from the next generations once I am old enough to retire. In order to keep that chain alive, it is not easy to opt out over here. Only wealthy people can opt out as they are the ones who the state assumes will never depend on payments anyway.