[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SOCIAL SECURITY (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 8/14/2006 7:20:11 AM EDT
|
Subject: Fw: SOCIAL SECURITY Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. Margaret Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary; 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program; 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year; 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program; 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate. -------------------- Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. -------------------- Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />U.S. ------------------- Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ------------------- Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. Maybe not! Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. |
And what will you do with the issues that Social Security was created to address? They wont go away. |
What issues? If you don't save you will be poor when you retire. It's not a fucking mystery. |
It's up to each individual to save for their retirement and pay for insurance in case they are made "unable" to work. It's part and parcel of the fundamental rule -- you have to produce more than you consume. If you can't or won't do that you should have to depend on VOLUNTARY private charity -- NOT on the largess handed out by politicians from the national treasury. - CD |
A simplistic answer. The reality is that many people simply cannot save enough to ever retire and live off the proceeds of any savings or investments. There are plenty of people out there who have no savings out there and were pretty low earners while they were working to have been able to save up the amounts needed to retire comfortably on. Even those who save could be ruined in the downturn of a stock market such as what happened after 9-11. |
No, the issues won't. They never will either. For as long as people have walked this Earth and for as long as they do walk the Earth, there will always be 'have nots'. Why bankrupt the rest in the process of trying to change what can not be changed. |
|
The next 10-20 years are going to be very interesting for social security. The baby boomers are hitting their 60's so the system is going to see quite a strain in that timeframe. Plus people are carrying much more debt later into their lives these days so that $1000 check every month ain't gonna cut it for most. It's not hard to imagine the age that one could receive benfits being raised to around 75 or 80, that would probably buy it a few more years. Hopefully the Democrats stay out of power, they'll readily give the whole bank away and AARP is gonna be an even more powerful force in the future. Of course when I retire I want my SS check to be as high as possible so maybe I'll switch parties  j/k
|
It's not going to bankrupt anyone. It's going to bankrupt everyone. No pyramid scheme lasts forever. |
What issues has Social Security fixed? It has created at least two new social problems (permanent welfare for the able bodied and an unacceptable tax burden), and spawned two more (out of the Great Society programs), all of which boil down to dependency on the Federal government for money for every aspect of life. SS ruined the prospect of wide spread personal responsibility, and a societal expectation of that behavior. |
The baby boomers are going to suck that bitch dry-this is the generation that couldn't have enough government spending (on them of course), until they started getting the bills towards the end of the '70s. About that time, they started voting conservative. Now that they're back in a position to receive money, guess how they're going to vote. 
|
|
Socialism = State authorized mugging SS was meant as a supplement not a handout. Also consider the birthrate (declined) and the fact 3 earners are now requirement for sustaining one recipient. Also SS has never earned a penny of interest. Quotes frrom the prophet of the modern Socialist-Democrat party. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx |
But the problem is, it doesn't address anything anyways. People don't get enough money to live off SS alone, and they never will. Why continue a broken program? The only thing you are doing is stealing even more money. The longer it continues to progress the bigger the house of cards will get, and when it collapses it is going to take everyone with it. Might as well blow it over now, and not decieve people. SS probably causes more people to be reliant on it, getting the poor savers to think that they will always have SS to fall back on, when it isn't the case. Keeping SS is inhumane, just like what those people who put water tanks out in the desert. When the thing first started I can't believe people didn't stop and think something was desperatly wrong when Ida May Fuller paid $24.75 into the system and got $22,888.92 back. The system requires an ever expanding workfore (which is NOT possible) for it to work, which is the reason I suspect our govt. is so eager to let in as many illegals as possible. The only thing it is doing is delaying the inevitable |
Just make socilaist security OPTIONAL and self supporting. It really is that simple. Those that want to participate can and those that are smart enough to realize that ss is a scam won't have to pay for it. The ss admin will TAKE about $400,000 from me and my employer on my behalf. I could easily live on that interest and leave my kids a big chunk of change. Or I could flush it into the ss system and BEG some politician to not fuck me in the ass and give me some small % of MY OWN money back. If people are too stupid or lazy to take care of their retirement planning then they should eat dog food when they get old. Your lack of planning shouldn't cut into my lifestyle. |
I like this guy, I keep coming across your posts and it is a breath of intelligent air on this site. |
Actually one benefit of having the government in charge of it is that your own assets can be seized for any number of reasons (bankruptcy, divorce, etc.). Social security is untouchable. |
TC, My 401k got killed after 911. My husband's fared better (thank God) Regardless, NEITHER of us will ever see a dime from SSI. Yet, our generation has paid the most into it. Who and what will fix THAT problem???? |
I don't know how old either of you are; I am 44, and while I don't think that the current system will remain unchanged until I reach the eligibility age, I do not believe that it will totally disappear to the point that I will "never see a dime". The last reports I read said SS was solvent in its current configuration until the mid 2030's. What they NEED to do is stop raiding the fund for other things. |
Not completely true, if a man is the sole bread winner for his family, and he retires at 65 then divorces his wife, she can draw against his SS benefits. |
Just a few years younger than you...but at the rate they are changing eligibility, I am gonna be dust long before I even see 1/4 of my money back. MY Money. |
So your actual input has been 200K ( you don't really think that any employer is going to pass along that SS share they no longer pay as a raise to YOU, do you?). The figure I keep hearing as a minimum amount in the bank for a comfortable retirement until death is about $1,000,000. Sounds like you are $800,000 short. Do you have other savings to make up the difference? |
The average retireee makes back their actual monetary contribution within 6 or so years of retirement. You planning on dying that soon after you retire? I don't. |
Then you are both retarded. Do you know how SS works? Money is taken from your paycheck. Please tell me how that prevents poverty? We aren't in the depression anymore. It didn't fix poverty then. There is no reason to be broke at age 65 with all of the retirement options available. I would gladly give up everything i've put just to opt out NOW. |
Well for starters there's the interest to be earned on the 200k, presuming your retirement plan isn't to stash the money under the matress. |
respectfully, that's total bullshit. where is it written [exactly] that people have a right to retire comfortably. in fact, someone show me a right to retire at all... my grandfather lived through the depression, fought in WWII, made a good life for himself, and continued to work until the day he died. he didn't have to, he had plenty saved away. he would have gotten plenty from SS too, but he worked. it drives me goddamned nuts when i hear people say, "...but some people won't be able to retire without SS!" so what? i probably won't be able to retire either, which is ironic considering how much i will have "invested" into the SS system by the time i'm retirement age, coupled with the fact that i won't get a damned thing since there won't be anything left. somebody has to sack-it-up [at some point] and turn that bastardized program off. instead, the whole body will die because we are too afraid to lose the gangrenous arm. i would *gladly* continue to pay into the system, with the understanding that i will receive NOTHING, but my children will not have to pay in. EDIT for improper hilighting. |
Because theres more to life than going to work day in and day out with your nose to the grindstone making someone else money. In all honesty many people don't retire now. As they get older they wind up taking part time jobs to make ends meet. But at some point it is nice to be able to NOT have to get up go into work somewhere and have to answer to someone else and maybe have the opportunity to do some things in life that you've had to put off. There IS more to life than work, and I feel sorry for the Type A personalities who can't see that there is more to life than working. And lets face it: fifty + years of work is plenty enough. |
Go the final step and eliminate it. Get government out of the retirement funding business altogether; the free market would fill the need. |
You need to read your history and learn about some of the poverty that existed in and around many cities until some of these programs we have now. Yes, people are still poor, but it pales in comparison to the conditions people had to live under "back then". |
So I have to pay you because your tired of working? Fuck that. If everyone felt collectively the same way, why not make it optional? Let those who think the same as you pay into it and leave the rest of us alone. Better yet, use that money the government takes from you and some savings and invest in your own damn "tired of working" fund. |
Amen! |
i'd LOVE to retire someday. but [nearly] 1/3 of my income is directly skimmed by the government for taxes. much of which goes to the program that is *supposed* to help me retire some day, that will be EMPTY by the time i reach "retirement age". don't you see the HUGE error in that? i would have a better chance of retiring WITHOUT being forced to "invest" in a program that's supposed to help me retire. ETA: more importantly, i could use that money for other things too. i could start my own little gun shop when i'm old. i could still work, still make money and support the family, but be HAPPY with what i'm doing because it is something i love. there is no benefit for my money to be "invested" in this program. |
I already do not rely on having SS; I have two deferred comp accounts, an IRA, three pension plans I am paying into.....so don't lecture me about having alternatives. Yes, I fully expect to be able to wind down someday. Working three jobs sucks. As I said, there is more to life than reporting to work. Some of you apparently need to recognize that. |
| We are in for some very hard times-the government will print more money (raising inflation) and raise payroll taxes sky high to cover the increasing SS and Medicare burden until enough workers (younger people) get fed up and vote for politicians who will address this properly. We are nowhere near that point, with people supporting a system that takes from their own children. I thought Americans were supposed to try to make things BETTER for their children, not worse. SS may have been manageable at one point-but the baby bubble spelled it's demise. |
Then why have do we NEED SS if your able to retire on your own? As for people who have jobs without nice retirement programs, just put part of your paycheck into a SAVINGS account each month instead racking up debt. The problem with lower income families is not that they don't make enough money, it's that they live outside their means. I don't want to pay because they can't manage their money. |
| i would be really mad about all this, except that from the very first day i started working, i looked at that SS deduction and considered it money taken away from me and spent by the government. never having any expectation of getting any of that money back makes it easier to deal with the fact that i'll probably see little or none of it given back to me decades from now. |
To me it'll be one more egg in the retirement basket. Poor people can't save what they don't make. A poor person might only be able to save $25/week, and to them that might be a LOT and a HUGE sacrifice by the time you calculate in the cost of housing, food, utilities, etc. Trouble is that with even 40 years of working, that $25 a week simply isn't going to add up to a whole lot; certainly not enough to be able to retire. |
Good point. Another thing I just thought of is that what if you die before 65... You never got to reap the benefits of SS (though I cant really say there are many). Pay into it your whole life and be legally prevented from collecting on it. |
His point was not about type A people who are driven to work or whatever it is that Type A people do. His point was there is no guarentee that one will live their later years in a state of idleness, putzing away at ones hobbies. Is it a nice idea? Yes. Great. Aluring. However it is not carved is stone that it must be. |
Just for the record, $25 * 52 weeks = $1300/year. Compounded at 5% over 40 years = $174,043.68. |
His point was that people shouldn't expect to retire. Very few people want to keep their nose to the grindstone til they day they drop over dead. Its the Type A personalities who can't envision any other existance and expect everyone else to feel the same who are apparently contributing to the thread now. |
I respectfully disagree. My employer had $200,000 taken from him as a cost of having me work here - he was ( and is ) taxed on my behalf. If I was allowed to invest MY MONEY I could expect to have doubled it in the 45 or so years of work. That looks more like $ 800,000 than $200,000. Plus I have lots of other investments in hopes that the govt won't tax the shit out of those the way they do my paycheck. Save and invest shitloads of money --- the govt takes a large share.....And I get to live on what is left. |
|
We need to clear up a few things here. 1) There is no RIGHT to retire. 2) Savings for the future with or without SS is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. 3) The government collects money from everyone that has incom tax taken from their pay check. If it was anyone else taking the money other then the government, it would be called STEALING |