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.
Sure, but I'd like to know what you think it is because you're saying something that I don't understand. The Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v Nestor that you have no right to that money, so when you say that you paid into Social Security, it really doesn't matter that you paid into it. As soon as you pay the money, it's no longer yours.
Baby boomers will be the first generation that will have paid more into the system then they will take out.
Chew on that one for a while.
Ok, I'll chew.
Yep, just looking at my social security statement I downloaded.
This is good to the end of last year but as of that time I have paid in $91514 to social security and $21,637 for medicare. My employer (much of this time it was me as over half my life was self employed) paid in $90,909 and $21,136 for a total of $225,196. All this since 1965. 47 years of paying into the system.
That $225,196 is what I paid in and does not include any "interest" or earnings of which there aren't any. I know, it is pay as you go and the money was spend a long time ago but just pointing out that was the dollars I paid in.
In 1980 I earned $19,900 paying 5.08% or $1,010.92 into social security. My employer also paid in 7.05% (see rate history here) on my behalf for $1,402.95 for a total of $2,413.87 for the year.
But how much was $2,413.87 in 1980? Adjusted for inflation $2,413.87 would be equivalent to $6,748.85 today so it wasn't a small amount of money paid in when I paid it. Scary, if I had just paid in that exact amount from 1982 earning just 4% interest I would have $164,903.85 today.
A couple years later and I was maxing out social security and there were years, 1986 comes to mind, where I paid in over $5,700 in social security alone when $5,700 adjusted for inflation was $12,204 today.
Some day when I have time I want to make up a spread sheet detailing how much I have paid in over my lifetime adjusting for inflation. If I did this now I have little doubt if I collected just 4% interest since I started working my "account" would be worth well over half a million dollars today.
"The `right' to Social Security benefits is in one sense `earned,' " 623*623 yet the Government's insurance scheme now before us rests not on the idea of the contributors to the fund earning something, but simply provides that they may "justly call" upon the Government "in their later years, for protection from `the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.' " These are nice words but they cannot conceal the fact that they simply tell the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their own and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases.
I bolded your I there because it (taken with your post as a whole) illustrates an important issue and source of confusion. Social security is not merely a scheme for redistributing cash from one generation to another but from people who made more money before they retired to people who made less. The amounts that people get out do not scale equivalently with what they put in. Further, you do not have to put in a full career to be eligible. Correct me if I have the exact number wrong, but I believe about 10 years is the requirement for full benefits. You personally may very well have paid more money in payroll taxes than the expected value of your benefits, but, your generation as a whole paid much less. Social security is a pay-as-you-go government redistribution program, not a proper pension program. If you remember back to Bush's failed attempt to implement individual accounts, that was all about trying to transform social security from what it is into a real pension plan.
That is a reaction to very bad government policies, like quotas and so-called "anti-discrimination" laws.
I hire someone with no college degree, but 4 years of military experience in communication electronic repair at 3rd Shop. Then along comes a "minority" who screams "racism" and sues me because I wouldn't hire them, even though they had zero experience, or I did hire them, but started them at a lower rate of pay, because they had no training and no experience.
College degrees are simply union cards that help protect employers from Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson Feminazi style discrimination law suits -- which cost a helluva lot of money to defend, even when you're innocent.
Things like that happen when the government attempts to engage in "social engineering."
Emphasizing...
Mircea
I couldn't agree more. EOEC has a way of requiring less qualified people to get jobs. I've seen it happen too many times. I sort of had to chuckle at one case. The company hired "jerk" because EOEC said they'd have to pay a fine if they didn't. But, what "jerk" did on the job ended up costing them about six times as much, and I lost track of it when it came to the liability lawsuit. But, the last I heard, they were going to chain their "token Asian" to a steam pipe outside so he would be harmless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Look under the sofa cushions and behind the couch. There's probably $800,000 in change lying about.
Building wealth...
Mircea
LMAO... First of all, there was nowhere near $800,000 (more like $8.57), and second, the wife already got to it..... And spent it...
No offense, because your frustration is understandable. But neither is it fair to blame the (attempted) "cures", while overlooking the very "disease" that prompted them in the first place!
Heck, when a Harvard-educated black guy can't even assume the job of POTUS without a bunch of yahoos ragging him for being an "uppity muslim Kenyan", then what chance does the average 'minority' have? Like it or not, ending slavery and segregation, and now discrimination, have all required no small amount of guv-mint "engineering" (among other things). And BTW, who else is gonna do it...?
Funny... I remember something very similar when Kennedy was running for office. I was hearing statements like: "He'll be the president just as the Pope tells him to be. Instead of Washington, we'll have to listen to Rome." He was white, but he was also the first Catholic President.
And, as for "uppity Muslim Kenyan", you might be surprised if you only knew just how many college educated IDIOTS I've met in my lifetime. Simple common sense escapes them... And, that's Obama's problem as well. Of course, I don't lay all that blame on him. For the last 20+ years, virtually all the "EXPERT" economic advisors have gotten all their "sheepskins" from the same sources... Which means they all have the same flaws in their advice, no matter who is the President listening to them.
Granted, they have their priorities whacked, but Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement plan, for people just like them who spend money on crap like iPhones.
Digitally...
Mircea
That is a reaction to very bad government policies, like quotas and so-called "anti-discrimination" laws.
I hire someone with no college degree, but 4 years of military experience in communication electronic repair at 3rd Shop. Then along comes a "minority" who screams "racism" and sues me because I wouldn't hire them, even though they had zero experience, or I did hire them, but started them at a lower rate of pay, because they had no training and no experience.
College degrees are simply union cards that help protect employers from Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson Feminazi style discrimination law suits -- which cost a helluva lot of money to defend, even when you're innocent.
Things like that happen when the government attempts to engage in "social engineering."
Emphasizing...
Mircea
Look under the sofa cushions and behind the couch. There's probably $800,000 in change lying about.
Building wealth...
Mircea
Uh, the point is that you're clueless.
Social Security is not a "forced redistribution" program. It is an end-of-life insurance program designed to function as an hedge to keep from living on the streets, drinking water out of a ditch and foraging for nuts and berries to eat in your old age.
This is probably pointless, since it's beyond your understanding, but in the hopes that some might be persuaded to dump out your Kool-Aid....
(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414(a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416(l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
Very obviously, there's some part of "insurance" that you don't comprehend.
To continue demolishing your frivolous argument, let's look at a few facts.
First, the Silent Generation got saddled with a 520% FICA tax increase which they paid to make sure Social Security would be there for them, as well as future generations.
Second, the Baby Boomers took a 71% FICA tax increase in stride, which they gladly paid to make sure Social Security would be there for them and future generations.
Finally, the $2.6 TRILLION OASDI Trust Fund exists because the Silent Generation and Boomer Generation paid the FICA payroll taxes the got hit with.
Now what have Generation X-Box and Y-Work done to make sure Social Security will be there for them and future generations?
Absolutely nothing.
The last FICA tax increase was in 1990.
If Generation X-Box and Y-Work want Social Security to be there for them, then they'll have to suck it up and pay higher FICA payroll taxes -- just like everyone else did.
Social Security is presently recommending a 7.05% rate, which would be an increase of 0.85 and a whopping 13% FICA tax increase....
...gosh, you think Generation X-Box and Y-Work can handle that?
In reality it needs to be 9.2%, but even if it was raised to that, it would amount to a 48% FICA tax increase, which is not the 520% the Silent Generation got slammed with, and not the 71% the Boomers got hit with.
If you can point out where theft is taking place, go right ahead.
Debunking....
Mircea
As long as your paperwork is in order you shouldn't have problem
The fed gives extra points for prior military service. if it is good enough for them....
You might be interested in becoming a member (in good standing) of T. A. I. L.
(Taxpayers Against Idiotic Legislation)
(Truckers Against Ignorant Legislation)
(Tutors Against Infantile Laws)
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.
