What Happens When You're Too Old and Have no $? (retired, prison, problems)
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 gave my opinions. you gave yours. I won. not trying to kill anything. you think cell phones are a right. you think cars are a right. you think hand jobs are a right. any rights I'm missing? you're taken extremely seriously.
Ahhh, another one suffering from the delusion that they can read minds. Yet they only know how to make up stuff when they have lost an argument.
You really think you know everything, don't you? Allow me to fill this one gap in your knowledge. There are many state, county, and local public employees who pay into their own pension systems; this makes them legally exempt (and the employers are legally exempt too) from paying the FICA (Social Security) taxes. By law, those public employees simply do not fall under Social Security.
Let me use myself as an example, as it's the example I know most about. I was a high school teacher in a public school district in California for 34 years, from 1971 to 2005. As such, I was part of the state-wide pension system for public school teachers - neither I nor the school district I worked for had any choice in the matter. That system is called CalSTRS (California State Teachers' Retirement System). I contributed 8% of my salary to that system via payroll deduction and the school district had to match it. That's how my pension was funded.
In my own case, I had other jobs which did fall under Social Security (part-time jobs while in college, moon-lighting jobs on weekends during my career, and so forth); those other jobs qualified me for a very small Social Security retirement benefit and also qualified me for Medicare. Nowdays, teachers also have Medicare taxes (but not SS) taken out so they can qualify for Medicare after a long career and not have to depend on outside work as I did.
I am not claiming that every single state, county, and city public employee falls outside of the Social Security umbrella as I did, because it depends how the particular retirement plan for a state, county, or city is set up. Some are designed to be part of Social Security and some are not. I do know that California public teachers are not unique and that they have lots of company across the nation.
Well, thank you for that information. That's what I was asking for, who and when is someone exempt from paying into SS. As someone who has been self-employed for most of my career, I never heard that paying into it was optional. No, I don't think I know everything.
Would you by any chance have a link to some source to this information? I'm not denying you know what you are talking about. I'd just be interested in reading more about it.
is that a joke? is this what wibs are calling "needs" nowadays?
Basic communications mr lyons. basic cell phone means no pictures, no bells and whistles, basic internet service is nearly indispensable in this day, if it were not, I would be wasting minutes and hours ordering my VA prescriptions and setting up physician appointments with the VA with a cell phone.
My pay as you go cell has 88 minutes and 6 service days left presently, I'll need to spend $20 to get 60 more minutes and 60 more days of service, so, yes, that's basic. What do you call essential? a $150 a month I Phone? and $120 a month cable/satellite bundle from TWC or comcast? Must be nice.
I don't have a Bush phone, or section 8 or food stamps pal, maybe you do?
Don't think it's optional for employers who hire people to work either. If you work for someone or a company, they have to pay their part of your SS or they can be prosecuted for breaking the law. I've seen businesses who did get into big trouble for not paying to the govt. their share of SS payments for employees. I really don't think that legally, paying into SS is optional for anyone. I think you are legally required to pay it. Of course, people could not pay into it and just hope they never get caught. I always pay someone to do my taxes for me, and there has never be an option about my paying into SS that anyone told me about.
Sorry but that's not the case. I was a state cop at one time and we did not pay into SS, nor have to, because of our state pension plan and it was perfectly legal and approved by the feds. The same pertained to teachers in our state participating in the state teachers retirement fund. Some federal employees are not required to pay into it and employees of some religious organizations as well. As previously stated, if people don't pay into it they don't, later, qualify for Medicare although some retroactive pay-in for purposes of the Medicare benefit have been provided for teachers whose retirement plan did not include any medical benefits.
Edited to Add: I see while I was slowly typing this Escort Rider came to the rescue with direct experience to relate. He worked in the same state in which I was a cop.
Sorry but that's not the case. I was a state cop at one time and we did not pay into SS, nor have to, because of our state pension plan and it was perfectly legal and approved by the feds. The same pertained to teachers in our state participating in the state teachers retirement fund. Some federal employees are not required to pay into it and employees of some religious organizations as well. As previously stated, if people don't pay into it they don't, later, qualify for Medicare although some retroactive pay-in for purposes of the Medicare benefit have been provided for teachers whose retirement plan did not include any medical benefits.
I believe you. Additionally, I've been involved in cases where business owners got into trouble for not paying into SS for their employees. So clearly there are some exceptions. I would not even consider not paying into SS. I support that system.
Just wondering what happens to an elderly person or couple who have no savings and don't receive enough in social security and other payouts to support themselves. If they don't want to receive assistance from family members or have no family, would the government leave them to become homeless on the streets or in homeless shelters?
What you are essentially asking is if this person or couple were irresponsible in the way they lived and planned for retirement, should society(you and I) pick up their living expenses for the rest of their lives.
From a historical perspective, most people in this boat never had to worry because they all lived together in one house or neighborhood, and the younger generations helped to take care of them. Plus the Grandparents helped out by cooking, cleaning, watching the grandkids, etc. to help earn their keep.
For lack of a better way to put it, the idea of social security, medicare, etc. was made for those who didn't have the education, intelligence or ability to plan for their own retirement. Basically the government takes out X amount per week, so that there is something left when they can no longer work.
That may help those without the education or sense to help themselves, but it penalizes others who are more responsible. I'd much rather invest the money myself and be left to my own future rather than the Federal government taking my money every week, and promising to give it back to me some time, decades from now.
Also if you pay into the system your whole life, and die before you collect a red cent, you have just given away a bunch of your hard earned money.
Also keep in mind that with people living longer, the money they put in plus interest might be exhausted well before they pass away. So again you and I are still paying, and if the system collapses before it is our turn to collect, we lose out on the massive ponzi like scheme.
I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of rowing the boat while others sat back and relaxed and are now unwilling or unable to row. That does not make me cold hearted as I give my fair share in time and money for charitable causes. However the hard working cannot be held responsible the slackers or uneducated for the rest of our lives without people revolting.
Heck when you here the term "means testing" relating to SS and medicare, it is a code word for stealing even more from the rich to give to the poor.
That is right, means testing is simply a way to say even though you payed in all your life, if you are at a certain economic level, you do not get your money back. I am no where near rich enough to where this would effect me, but I can see where it is flat out robbery by the government to continue to "spread the wealth around".
The same is true of the so called "estate/death tax". These people earned their money and payed their taxes on it. If they made investments, they also payed taxes on the profit. So how is it not flat out robbery to say that if you have a certain amount of money and assets when you die, the government can come in again, and take at least 50% of everything you own?
That money should go to your family, favorite charity, or anywhere you deem fit. It should not go to the government to redistributed to others.
I believe you. Additionally, I've been involved in cases where business owners got into trouble for not paying into SS for their employees. So clearly there are some exceptions. I would not even consider not paying into SS. I support that system.
So do I. Because of prior and subsequent employment, I receive both Social Security and Medicare benefits and they're a great help when added to my overall pension and state-provided, supplemental insurance plan.
Now as to the matter of cell phones and Internet access being necessities, I picture you as being young, somewhat privileged or both. If you stop to consider it, those of us geezers somehow lived and managed without them roughly 40 or more years and survived quite nicely. If people today can't then they need to toughen-up, suck it in and figure it out. Those are nice-to-haves, not need-to-haves; conveniences, not privileges.
Admittedly, we have both a cell phone one for each in fact - and high-speed internet. Add a PC and a tablet, GPS in our car, which, by the way is late model and paid for, cable TV and we own our home. We also still take a good, old-fashioned newspaper. But wonder of wonders, we have all that and more because we worked hard and paid for every bit of it ourselves. Government and the taxes we've paid and continue to pay are in no way, nor should they be, obligated to pay for other's conveniences. Guess I need to add that we also have a land line because we live rurally and in extremely bad weather, which sometimes occurs, the cell phones aren't always reliable.
My point is this, to us these are conveniences which we appreciate being able to provide but at the same time, we'd give most of them up if it was a matter of need vs. wants; eating and having heat in winter vs. convenience. That's what I mean about need-to- vs. want-to-haves.
Ahhh, another one suffering from the delusion that they can read minds. Yet they only know how to make up stuff when they have lost an argument.
clearly I "lost" the "argument". I already told you that you were right about cars being a right. again, you're taken extremely seriously. tell me another fairy tale about internet being a "need" for a non contributor.
"
Basic communications mr lyons. basic cell phone means no pictures, no bells and whistles, basic internet service is nearly indispensable in this day, if it were not, I would be wasting minutes and hours ordering my VA prescriptions and setting up physician appointments with the VA with a cell phone.
My pay as you go cell has 88 minutes and 6 service days left presently, I'll need to spend $20 to get 60 more minutes and 60 more days of service, so, yes, that's basic. What do you call essential? a $150 a month I Phone? and $120 a month cable/satellite bundle from TWC or comcast? Must be nice.
I don't have a Bush phone, or section 8 or food stamps pal, maybe you do?
I work, boy. captain emoticon. needs are food and water. shelter is not a need, it's a want. get over it.
So do I. Because of prior and subsequent employment, I receive both Social Security and Medicare benefits and they're a great help when added to my overall pension and state-provided, supplemental insurance plan.
Now as to the matter of cell phones and Internet access being necessities, I picture you as being young, somewhat privileged or both. If you stop to consider it, those of us geezers somehow lived and managed without them roughly 40 or more years and survived quite nicely. If people today can't then they need to toughen-up, suck it in and figure it out. Those are nice-to-haves, not need-to-haves; conveniences, not privileges.
Now admittedly, we have both a cell phone one for each in fact - and high-speed internet. Add a PC and a tablet, GPS in our car, which, by the way is late model and paid for, cable TV and we own our home. We also still take a good, old-fashioned newspaper. But wonder of wonders, we have all that and more because we worked hard and paid for every bit of it ourselves. Government and the taxes we've paid and continue to pay are in no way, nor should they be, obligated to pay for other's conveniences. Guess I need to add that we also have a land line because we live rurally and in extremely bad weather, which sometimes occurs, the cell phones aren't always reliable.
My point is this, to us these are conveniences which we appreciate being able to provide but at the same time, we'd give most of them up if it was a matter of need vs. wants; eating and having heat in winter vs. convenience. That's what I mean about need-to- vs. want-to-haves.
There is a lot more involved in being "successful" today than just hard work. People are NOT all born with equal intelligence, and that is just the start. I would suggest that people who lost their manufacturing jobs, etc., with free trade, will never again in their lives be able to earn as much as they did in those jobs. People who work in fast food and for the big retailers like Walmart, etc., work hard, but will never make enough money to be financially "secure" in their old age unless they just happen to be part of a very small number of people with high IQs who can learn how to invest, etc., and those jobs are just a pit stop for them now. I don't, however, believe that is true for most who work in the low-pay jobs.
I don't think our elderly should have to suffer in their old age. Cell phones are available at very low costs these days, and in some states taxpayers pay for them for low income people who qualify for public assistance. I just see cell phones as a necessity, especially for older people who have physical problems getting around, etc. We have come a long way forward in terms of being a civilized society and taking care of our citizens. I don't think that progress should stop now. If it does, it means that we are falling back, going backward in time, and it does not foretell anything good about this country.
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.
Yet they only know how to make up stuff when they have lost an argument.
But wonder of wonders, we have all that and more because we worked hard and paid for every bit of it ourselves. Government and the taxes we've paid and continue to pay are in no way, nor should they be, obligated to pay for other's conveniences. Guess I need to add that we also have a land line because we live rurally and in extremely bad weather, which sometimes occurs, the cell phones aren't always reliable.