Who's worried about Social Security?

[GregFL]

Yep, you got it.  Also, if you change anything like your name or signature,it will change all posts you have made.

[SHH]

There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments that they draw off of after retirement in addition to SS. The poor and middle class, however, usually don't. Not only do I think they should tax every income level for Social Security, they should tax the higher incomes a higher percentage. That in itself would fix the Social Security situation, in my opinion. BUT, since the powers that be, our SUPPOSED representatives in Congress are in that higher tax bracket who aren't taxed, it will NEVER be changed unless WE stand up and DEMAND it.

Ok getting off my soapbox now.

[cleveland]

Good info, SSH - I didn't know that upper brackets weren't taxed for SS. Wow!

Poison...

[GregFL]

Yes, the cap is 90,000 income.  After that the employer and tax-payer pay no SS taxes on any additional income.  There is also a cap on benefits.

Removing the income cap would result in 100 billion in taxes on high income earners and on employers.  It would levy 15% more taxes on all wages made over 90,000..and this burden would be split between the wage earner and the employer.

Is this "fair"?  Specifically, should the wealth creators in our society pay for everyone else? Should small businesses be funding your retirement?  At what point does this become a hinderance to a productive society?

What you are advocating is further socialization of our economy.  You are advocating forcing people to fund a system they don't even need or want.  You are asking people to pay a disproportinate amount because they have taken the risks and steps necessary to make a high wage, or just because they are a business owner or stock holder of a corporation.

Businesses would be forced to pay 1/2 percent of this additional tax burden.  Businesses pass all expenses off to their customers in the form of higher prices or fees.  Therefore, this portion of the tax would actually be passed onto the consumer. This is how people screw themselves by supporting taxes "on the rich".  Doesn't happen in the real world.  


This idea sucks.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-18 04:06:00, SHH wrote:

"There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT?

The simple answer is that is the level of income that the maximum  BENEFITS are capped.  For a more detailed answer, see my post above.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-18 04:06:00, SHH wrote:

"There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT?

Because this is the level of income that the maximum BENEFIT is calculated.

You aren't suggesting that people making, say $300,000 per year should pay social security based on that amount, but collect a benefit based on $90,000 per year.

Or are you?  If so, please explain how this is an equitable system.

[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 07:32 ]

[Johnny G]

A case is made that the "rich" gain disproportionately from the "system," and should pay a disproportianate amount toward supporting it.

Another interesting factor is how unprepared the average boomer is for retirement.

G

[Anonymous]

Most people that are young and not disabled
will make fun of Social Security and think
it is a farce.

I have never seen anyone turn down Social Security, have you?

It is one of the smartest programs ever set up in the US.

Also, it is one of the most criticized prorams this country has ever had.

We all get old, we all get some kink of disability with age, or some tragically at a younger age.

Social Security saves peoples lives, and help stabilize the country and creae the large middle class who acculmulated enourmous wealth for the US!

Viva Social Security!

[Stripe]

Social Security was never intended by Congress  to be the PRIMARY source of retimrement income. Remember, it was part of the New Deal legislation, like the PWA, the CCC and a whole host of other government programs designed and implemented to put cash in the markets and create some movement in the economy.  If I recall my history lessons correctly, Social Security was enacted in 1935 to provide assistance to many of the older persons who lost their entire life savings in the 1929 market crash - those who had no other means of support in old age; it also has provisions for disablity and survivor benefits.

That is has grown from a fall back position to the only provision for retirmement for some citizens is dangerous indeed.  Just like the rest of you, I've contributed all my life, and hopefully I'll personally get some benefit return. Fortunately or unfortunately, people are living much, much longer than the reitrement program ever predicted. Thus the payments to current recipients are greater than the contributions of current recipients.  Yeah, they are spending my money.

Having tried to get benefits for children on behalf of deceased parents with little to no employment history - or establishing disability benefits for a minimum wage worker - I can tell you it's not a pretty picutre.  There's no way a fully disabled person can live on $428.00 per month. It's certainly nothing you would want to count on to protect your family.

[GregFL]

Social security is a SCAM, pure and simple.


Got any idea what percentage of our annual budget goes to social security and medicare benefits?

anyone?

5%
10%
15%
20%
40%
50%


Keep in mind it was 2% When the program started.

Our government is redistributing the wealth of this country to a priviledged class...people who live to be over 65.

The entire purpose of Social security has been buried under a tremendously corrupt and inequitable system that seeks to appease an important voting block of citizens instead of doing what is right and necessary.

One more comment before I give the percentage of GNP away that these programs are draining from our budget.  It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead.  All these "tax the rich" ideas are just stupid and short sited, hurt the economy and are not "fair" by any measure of fairness.

Oh yeah, our government currently spends 42 FUCKING CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED IN TAXES REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH  to the elderly in the form of social security and medicare benefits. Chew on that number for a minute.  42% of every tax dollar taken in is handed over to people who's only reason for collecting it is they have lived to a specific age.

We spend more money on SS benefits than we do on the Military by a substantial margin, and   This figure is rising every year!


 Meanwhile, people moan and bitch about giving money to homeless mothers(ALL housing assistance amounts to 2% of our budget   and Wic benefits to children(ALL food and nutrition assitance is 1.8% of our budget).  


The whole situation is un-fucking real.

[SHH]

What kind of statement is this???

"It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead."

Refuse to try to get ahead? Refuse? Do you seriously think that people CHOOSE to be poor? Do you think that the only reason people are not wealthy is because they didnt want to take risks??? Greg what planet are you living on? I have worked like a dog every year of my adult life with the exception of 3 when I was a stay at home mother. I make less than 35,000 a year. And Im educated and have 22 yrs experience in my field. However, I could not continue college because I didnt have the money for tuition, I couldnt qualify for assistance, and I couldnt afford to pay my bills without working fulltime and to finish college would have required me to not work at all. I left home at age 18. I worked my way into 10-12 cars, and 3 homes over the years without anybody's help. But if I had an opportunity you can bet I would have taken it to become more financially secure. I have a 401k but can only afford to put 3% into it. Thats not going to make me financially secure in 20 yrs for sure. YOu make it sound as if all a person has to do is take a risk and suddenly become wealthy. What about those poor saps who work for 25 yrs as a self employed electrician, painter, or plumber, fixing YOUR 400,000 dollar house, and cannot afford to put money aside due to bills and medical insurance, and have to rely on Social Security when they turn 65? Are you going to tell THEM they didnt take risks? That they just wanted to be poor? Try volunteering at an abused womens shelter sometime. Try serving food at a soup kitchen. Maybe then you will see the REALITY of what shape this country is really in.

[Anonymous]

GREGFL...forgot to log in.

On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:

"What kind of statement is this???



"It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead."

Yes, that is generally the whiners who come sucking at the tit of the wealthy to solve all their problems.

On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:


Refuse to try to get ahead? Refuse? Do you seriously think that people CHOOSE to be poor? Do you think that the only reason people are not wealthy is because they didnt want to take risks???

No, but again, those are typically the whiners who come looking for a handout.  The poor who are doing everything to get out of their situation don't usually advocate this tomfoolery. I didn't when I was poor.  
 


By the way, this is called  a qualifer..."the piss poor WHO refuse to get ahead".  This isn't an indictment of all poor people.  Reading comprehension is a good thing SHH.....

On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:

 Greg what planet are you living on?

The circular revolving one I like to call "reality".

On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:

 "a bunch of personal history that tended to support my conclusion above.  

Yes, I have worked hard in my life also (but not now!)  My first year in business I made 18,000 dollars and worked 75 hours per week.  No shit.  I set the alarm at 3:00 in the morning because I couldn't afford a secretary so I had to work 4 or 5 hours before opening time just so I could be available for my customers.  I also had to pick my son up from the babysitter because my ex was a lazy bitch, and also spend my evenings with him so he could have a normal life.  You would seem to suggest my reward for making that sacrifice would be to pay a disproporyinate NON VOLUNTARY percentage of my wages so some old fucks can golf in Florida and chug designer pills on my tab.  Fuck em.  If someone is needy, let them be needs tested, but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me.  


Also, Thanks for making my point for me.  You have nothing but emotion to fall back on when you suggest it is equitable to tax disproportinate amounts of money out of those who are successfull.  I am sorry you haven't been able to make any real money in your life, but that doesn't mean I should pay your way.  42 cents out of every dollar ridistributed to the elderly and the percentage rising every year?  You think this is equitable?  You think hitting up high wage earners "solves" this problem?

I suggest an economics 101 class for you.

 By the way, I have spent time living homeless as a child (thanks Art!) and in a trailer as an adult. I drove an old station wagon that the doors flew open if you took turns too fast. I took a 2000 dollar loan and put it on the "pass" line and opened a business at 27.  Last year I paid more in taxes than you made, and frankly I don't appreciate it.  I am also an advocate of social programs to help the needy, but when my millionare neighbors all laugh at their SS checks while they are golfing and gulping down anti depressents and driving around in their "jazzys" all on my tax dollar, I take offense.

Sue me.

[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 18:56 ]

[SHH]

Yes my father who worked for our lovely United States government off and on for over 35 years as a CONTRACTOR because that is how the Govt. gets away with paying benefits, is very appreciative of his $475 a month Social Security check he receives, which by the way, would only pay for half of his 11 medicines if he didnt have medicaid in addition to medicare. My father, who was employed by our govt, cannot afford to live on his own anywhere, and has to live with me. He has never been able to obtain private medical insurance because of his diabetes and heart disease, and therefore spent most of his earned money on housing expenses and medical expenses so therefore, no retirement to fall back on when he lost his leg in 2004. So, yea he is out playing golf on that social security check. Try living in MY reality Greg.

[GregFL]

again, you are falling back on a personal emotional argument and ignoring what I said...in this case.."if someone is needy, let them be needs tested,but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me."  Your response ignored that and only focused on the second part of that sentence  where I said.." but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me."  I ask you, Was your response a fair assessment of what I said?  I think not.  

Are you guilty here of only seeing this issue thru your own lenses and ignoring what I am writing?  that is the second major mis-characterization of what I have said.

In any event, I don't hold you accountable.  This is a common thing people do...when they have a problem they look at other segments of society to solve it for them.  I just personally find it offensive.  I also support your right to disagree.

Fair enough?

[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 20:24 ]

[Ft. Lauderdale]

Hey Greg ,just for the record ... How long & why were you homeless?