Social Security

[Fly Rod]

Why would congress weary about social??<br />They retire with what they make about a couple hundred thousand a year the best medical plan. Their spouse or mistress gets half if hubby dies.<br /><br />We need some one to start a petition to take away their retirement package and put them on social security like the rest of us and then we would see amuch better social security system. And I would bet that you would never see a short fall.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Social Security

Alan Greenspan told congress that if they don't <br />cut back SS payments for future recipients, they<br />won't have enuff $ to pay all the babyboomers.<br />why am I putting in all that money? I'll never<br />see a penny when I retire...

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Social Security

Nope, don't count on it. Save, save, save. SS won't be there in 20 years. Medicare is in even worse shape. What do you expect when you are considering giving UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS social security and medicare benefits

 

[JB]

Re: Social Security

SS doesn't GIVE anything to anybody.<br /><br />If you ever draw benefits it will be in proportion to what you PAID IN.<br /><br />Same with Medicare, except that you continue to pay after you retire.

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Social Security

Unless you are a widow/widower, or a disabled adult child. Then you can claim benies from what your late spouse or parents paid in. So in fact, you put nothing in and got something in return.<br /><br />People that make over 87K a year do not pay into SS.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Social Security

Beg to differ, JB. It's my understanding that SS benefits are a function of earnings upon retirement, while the amount paid in is based on earnings up to the FICA limit over your working lifetime.<br /><br />When I first started working full time, the FICA limit was $28,500 - meaning that the guy in the corner office making $500k paid the same SS as the $30k shop foreman. Do you think they draw the same SS benefit? Sorry, not so.<br /><br />From day one, SS was designed as a system where today's workers pay the retirement benefits of today's retirees, not, as some believe, an investment scheme where you get back what you pay in. Think about it, the first year of SS, retirees who had never paid a dime started drawing benefits.<br /><br />Medicare benefits are the same for everybody regardless of amount paid.<br /><br />At least, that's the way it was taught to me.<br /><br />Anyway, this business of cutting taxes and increasing spending every year is a ticking bomb as far as I can see. Our children and their children are really going to pay the price.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Social Security

based on last 10 years of employment only JB,<br />regardless how much you contributed all those<br />other years worked. the rate at which we pay <br />will be going up, but the rate at which we<br />are paid out will be going down. this is to<br />compensate for the large number of babyboomers<br />who will soon be eligible for SS...<br />more people collecting and less people contributing<br />is a bad situation.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Social Security

guageguy, that is incorrect. everyone pays SS tax<br />regarless of income. there is a cap however on<br />how much you have to pay in a given year, but<br />can't remember how much it is????

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Social Security

I thought if you made more than 87,900 you didn't have to pay SS but were still taxed for medicare at 1.45% of your income

 

[jtexas]

Re: Social Security

gaugeguy, you pay 7.51% of income up to the limit; any amount over the limit is free.

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Social Security

The lightbulb comes on. So if you make the big coin, you still are only paying SS on the $87K and that is it.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Social Security

that sounds right to me guageguy.

 

[jinx]

Re: Social Security

SAVE SAVE SAVE, that's what we're doing because it won't be here for us.<br /><br />Currently 3 workers per retiree. In 25 years it will be 2.25 workers per retiree. The system was not designed for such a load.<br /><br />The cold truth about SS is that it only works as designed if people don't live very long after they retire. Black Males, for example, have a life expectancy much shorter than most other groups and SS makes a "profit" on them.<br /><br />They lose on White females because they draw benefits far longer.<br /><br />As far as the 87K limitation, SS is in fact a contribution on your own account. If they remove the limitation, it becomes just another tax.<br /><br />Jinx

 

[jtexas]

Re: Social Security

SS also makes a profit on undocumented workers with fake SS numbers, who pay in but never claim a benefit!

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Social Security

Some kind of a joke isn't it? We pay in 7% of what we have made over a working career of 45 years, and some of us (me, I'm 37) will never see that money. If a person was to take that 7% and put it in the stock market, or even into a 401K they would be millionaires when they retire. <br /><br />And Greenspan needs to speak english when he reports to congress

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Social Security

GW has been pushing for "personal savings accts."<br />you would be able to stash a certain amount away<br />tax free to save for retirement YOURSELF.<br /> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020228-1.html

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Social Security

Originally posted by Fly Rod:<br />Why would congress weary about social??<br />They retire with what they make about a couple hundred thousand a year the best medical plan. Their spouse or mistress gets half if hubby dies.<br /><br />We need some one to start a petition to take away their retirement package and put them on social security like the rest of us and then we would see amuch better social security system. And I would bet that you would never see a short fall.

FYI, here is more info on what congress gets on SS and retirement.<br /><br /> http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

 

[JB]

Re: Social Security

My SS "benefit" is based on the number of quarters that I paid the maximum, which, during my working life went from 3% of the first $6,000 to 7.5% of the first $38,000. An increase of 1583%. You can expect the same to happen to you.<br /><br />If I live to be 90 I will draw as many dollars as I paid in over 50 years. . . without interest.<br /><br />There are a lot of myths about SS, which was sold to the American public as a life boat for those who had no other way to support themselves. GREAT con job. Now we have become dependent on it and consider it a "right" to be taken care of by the earning public. Further, very few of us now take the measures to ensure that we can take care of ourselves.<br /><br />The only income (or asset) which reduces benefits is wage or salary income, so people with many thousands of bux income from other sources and/or many hundreds of thousands in liquid assets still draw the same "benefit" as those in real need for whatever reason.<br /><br />The problem is that to "fix" it a lawmaker must commit political suicide. Not very likely. Greenspan is right, but there isn't the chance of a snowball in hades that his advice will be followed.<br /><br />I do not believe it will go away. I do believe it will continue to get enhanced at the expense of wage and salary earners. We continue to move toward becoming a socialist state.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Social Security

Social Security has always had a surplus,someone please correct me if i'm wrong .<br /><br />How about "we the people" demand that congress pay back the money which they've borrowed,stole and pilfered away from the social security fund since it's inception.<br />Start by slashing the salaries in half for all congress men/women and senators,afterall they'll be the first ones to say they're not there for the money, they're there to do service for their country,as they would have you believe When are these officials ever going to be held accountable for mismanaging the assets of this country?? SHAME ON THEM, AND SHAME ON US FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN

 

[plywoody]

Re: Social Security

A common misperception is that Social security is a retirement program. It is not now, and never has been a retirement program. It is a tax, pure and simple.<br /><br />It goes to pay all sorts of people, including the disabled, spouses of deceased workers, as well as seniors and retirees.<br /><br />Of course you could yield lots more by putting that same amount in a private retirement fund, but as it stands currently that is not what it is, and it is unfair to compare it to a retirement fund.<br /><br />Greenspan's comments were interesting, as it took a lot of guts to come out and say that the current deficits were unsustainable, and something needs to be done and done soon...He offered a solution that he knew was unpalatable politically, but it was more important to identify the problem, for the Feds, at least, than it was to solve them.<br /><br />And Bush comes out and says that he wants to make the tax cuts permanent, that he is the "wartime" president that wants to keep troops all over the world, go to Mars, we find out that the new presciption benefit is going to cost 30% (at least) more than advertised, but we are on track to cut the deficit in half using "wise policy decisions" whatever they are...<br /><br />And if you believe that, I bet there is a bridge in Brooklyn that he will sell you as well!