Posted: 4/29/2005 4:56:59 AM EDT
| If I understand what I heard last night, if I save more money while working I get less than someone else who didn't save. What kind of incentive is that for me to save for retirement? I can't believe the President came up with this |
|
The last two months have left me feeling quite betrayed by Jorge. At age 25 the social security issue is the number one issue I take to heart on the "domestic" side. I want nothing to do with social security. To add shit to the pile I am self-employed... I am absolutely fearful of the 2008 Prez race not to mention mid-term congressioanl races. The "political capital" Bush was given is different than that which he thinks he has. |
I'm not sure that you heard correctly. |
I thought he said that the "rich" wouldn't lose benefits but the "needy" could get more. EDIT He did. See the quote in the attached link: http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=348112 |
To some extent they do this already. They tax SS earnings over a certain amount, and also hit you with the SS tax if you make more than a certian amount over age 65. Sad to say, but without reform that is what will happen in the future anyway. Those of us who save will see benefit cuts while those who don't save won't. Lots of "poor" seniors made a good living while working but pissed their $$$ away. GunLvr |
The answer is yes... there are about 5 other SS threads you can read and post into without duping. Explain how "if I save more money while working I get less than someone else who didn't save"? The math doesn't quite come out for me. Yeah... if you SAVE money (I assume you mean opting to personally invest a portion instead of putting it into SS) while working you will get less. Because putting your money in SAVINGS isn't investing. If I understand this right you essneitally put in 1/2, your employer puts in 1/2 to match your 1/2. When you collect SS you get both halves (and depending on the total for the year you might get taxed on the 1/2 you didn't pay in). So yes, the person who put in 100% of their 1/2 gets more than if you put in 98% (which is matched by your employer) and the other 2% in a lousy savins account. Also, if you think that by just putting money into SS is going to allow you to live comfortably in your older years your sadly mistaken. You're young enough now that you should go buy a "Investments for Dummies" book, get an IRA and Mutual Fund account going and max it out every year if you can. That in addition to your SS will set you up well. |
|
Social Security is nothing more than an income tax, with a name that is palatable to the masses. It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American tax payer in history. The S.S. Trust Fund of $1.5 Trillion does not exist, Congress spent the money long ago. Congress has been spending your S.S. payments since day one. S.S. was used to avoid increasing the income tax and that is all it was intended to do. Take a look how S.S. got started. Supreme Court would decide the Constitutionality of the SSA, so FDR stacked the court in his favor. “By the time of the court's ruling in May 1937, more than 26 million SSNs had been issued; around $150,000,000 in taxes had been collected; a dozen or so benefit claims had already been paid, and there were about 150 local field offices in operation around the country”. [Source: S.S. .gov, retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html] Nice system, collect $150,000,000 in taxes to pay one dozen claims. S.S. will never be repaired, simply because the Fed has been depending on it for a source of spending for decades. The American tax payer will pay the price. S.S. should die. FDR spent eight years in the White House and did little to benifit this country. After eight years and all of his social programs, we will still running 22% unemployment on Dec. 7, 1941. Only because of WWII did he get a positive note in the history books.  |
|
Let me try this real simple OK! Say you Mr. A and Mr. B pay the same amount of social security each month for the math let's say its $200 and you are the same age. If Mr.A and Mr.B both retire at the same age their monthly social security payment is $800. Now you Mr.A decide you want the investment option so half of your $200 goes into an investment account. You pay the same $200 but now $100 goes into like a 401K where YOU can decide what to invest in either high risk or even no risk bonds. When you Mr.A retire you will get half of the payment Mr.B would or $400 BUT you get all the money in one big lump sum that went into the investment account. Mr.B who didn't do this still gets his $800. The half you put into the investment account is like a 401K and will grow with interest depending on how you invest it. If you don't understand this then maybe you shouldn't vote for its pretty simple. Hell most of us who have paid in for the last 30 years and still have 10 years to go wish to hell we had had that option and quite frankly would settle just to get back what we paid in in one lump sum. The biggest mistake that people have with social security is they don't understand nor comprehend that it is their money not the governments. The program was never intended to compensate people who never paid in a dime but it is. The government turned a retirement plan into an insurance policy with no premiums necessary and now those of us who paid the premiums are about to get screwed. If I was you younger guys I would be supporting this to the hilt for its your money and you should get it back. Its a chance for half the money you pay in to not be used by those who didn't pay in. Now you know why the liberals are fighting this. Tj |
In theory the "void" that is the Trust Fund could be filled in by the "surplus" that is made. It might take a while, but eventually the surplus would replenish what was take out. Between that time a slow transition of allowing people to invest in other retirement plans (kind of liek the way Bush's plan sounds) people could gradually work their way out of it altogether until it's eventually phased out. Unfortunately the politicians would never allow this. The surplus currently goes into the "general" spending account and no doubt part of that spending is for their raises, hookers and blow for ex-Prez Clinton and keeping Ted Kennedy in alcohol until he dies. Yes... it's sadly broke. A huge mistake. And something that'll never be fixed in our lifetimes. |
I guess you'll need to clarify what you mean by "if I save more money while working".... |
I was refering to the fact that the President said that people that can't afford to save would receive more in socail security than those that do save. from the referenced link: http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=348112 Secondly, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty. Yes I realized that I can't simply retire on SS. I have been contributing to 401 K programs and IRAs for the last 13 years. |