Get rid of Social Security now?

[MikeK]

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I don't know about that. I've been reading and hearing this kind of financial "The sky is falling!" routine for decades now and with very few exceptions, if any, it issues from Libertarians.

I've already said that if you're too scared or too stupid to learn how to invest then you can take your money and buy savings bonds and T bills. But that is not a good enough reason to force me to relinquish control over my money to the crooks in government.

"Scared?" or "stupid?" In accordance with your perception, perhaps. But there is a third category which may be called, conditioned.

I was born at the height of the Great Depression, which my parents suffered through and learned bitterly cruel lessons from. Their advice to us was to get an education, look for a civil service job with a good pension, live within your means and avoid debt like the plague, don't put all your cash savings in the same bank, and invest in nothing but government bonds.

I followed that advice to the letter. My late wife and I raised three healthy girls, all of whom are happily married. I am retired and living comfortably. I have no debts and I want for nothing. So if being scared and stupid got me here all I can say is the journey has been rather pleasant and productive and there are very few things I would change if I could.

Your ideas of success and happiness are very different from mine. You have a problem with that but I don't.

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

I'm not forgetting. My contribution was 7.5% and so is yours. You are conveniently including the levy imposed on my employer in that sum to enhance your grievance. If you have a related anti-government problem associated with that it's a separate issue. But you should stop telling workers their FICA contribution is 15% of their income. It isn't!

 

[flacaltenn]

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I don't know about that. I've been reading and hearing this kind of financial "The sky is falling!" routine for decades now and with very few exceptions, if any, it issues from Libertarians.

I've already said that if you're too scared or too stupid to learn how to invest then you can take your money and buy savings bonds and T bills. But that is not a good enough reason to force me to relinquish control over my money to the crooks in government.

"Scared?" or "stupid?" In accordance with your perception, perhaps. But there is a third category which may be called, conditioned.

I was born at the height of the Great Depression, which my parents suffered through and learned bitterly cruel lessons from. Their advice to us was to get an education, look for a civil service job with a good pension, live within your means and avoid debt like the plague, don't put all your cash savings in the same bank, and invest in nothing but government bonds.

I followed that advice to the letter. My late wife and I raised three healthy girls, all of whom are happily married. I am retired and living comfortably. I have no debts and I want for nothing. So if being scared and stupid got me here all I can say is the journey has been rather pleasant and productive and there are very few things I would change if I could.

Your ideas of success and happiness are very different from mine. You have a problem with that but I don't.

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

I'm not forgetting. My contribution was 7.5% and so is yours. You are conveniently including the levy imposed on my employer in that sum to enhance your grievance. If you have a related anti-government problem associated with that it's a separate issue. But you should stop telling workers their FICA contribution is 15% of their income. It isn't!

The burden for SS alone is 12.4%.. It is due from EVERY Employed individual. ((Despite your whining)) This is witnessed by the fact that every self-employed person (like me) pays the entire 12.4%.. This convienience of having the employer pay 1/2 directly is just nice P.R --- and more manipulation of the weak-minded dupes you are portraying..

 

[MikeK]

The burden for SS alone is 12.4%.. It is due from EVERY Employed individual. (Despite your whining) This is witnessed by the fact that every self-employed person (like me) pays the entire 12.4%.. This convienience of having the employer pay 1/2 directly is just nice P.R --- and more manipulation of the weak-minded dupes you are portraying..

If the full FICA "burden" is 12.4% then the worker's share is 6.2%. Thank you for the correction. And if you object to paying the full 12.4% as a self-employed person you can resolve that by becoming an employee.

But apart from this petty bickering is the extremely relevant fact that Social Security exists for the benefit of the entire society, not just for that of the individual beneficiaries. And whether you like it or not it played an important part in avoiding a slide into another depression when Bush collapsed the Economy in 2008 with his profligate spending. I know this because I live in a very large middle class retirement community and I know several people whose pensions were totally or partially wiped out by that decline and by devious corporate maneuverings. Were it not for Social Security these people, and many others like them, would be in deep trouble. As it is they are barely getting along. But instead of becoming a burden on relatives or government they have some money to spend. The bottom line is Social Security prevents senior impoverishment and it keeps billions of dollars circulating in the Economy.

Most of the more sophisticated Libertarians I run into in these forums like to refer to Objectivism as a major element, if not the entire basis, of their political philosophy. But they invariably hasten to back off from that position when I remind them that the veritable godess of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, fell into hard times in her old age and became dependent on Social Security and Medicare in 1976. And were it not for Social Security and Medicare, Ms. Rand's alternatives would have been welfare and hospital emergency rooms.

There are millions of Americans who became very wealthy in spite of the FICA deduction from their incomes. So the worst thing you can say about Social Security is it's an inconvenient tax that ultimately pays you back. Your argument that you can do better in the Stock Market is predicated on the absence of risk, which is a false notion -- and a dangerous one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I don't know about that. I've been reading and hearing this kind of financial "The sky is falling!" routine for decades now and with very few exceptions, if any, it issues from Libertarians.

I have never once mentioned the insolvency of SS. My one and only point is that SS fosters dependence by the mishandling of a significant share of their lifetime income.

I've already said that if you're too scared or too stupid to learn how to invest then you can take your money and buy savings bonds and T bills. But that is not a good enough reason to force me to relinquish control over my money to the crooks in government.

"Scared?" or "stupid?" In accordance with your perception, perhaps. But there is a third category which may be called, conditioned.

Conditioned by whom?

I was born at the height of the Great Depression, which my parents suffered through and learned bitterly cruel lessons from. Their advice to us was to get an education, look for a civil service job with a good pension, live within your means and avoid debt like the plague, don't put all your cash savings in the same bank, and invest in nothing but government bonds.

I followed that advice to the letter. My late wife and I raised three healthy girls, all of whom are happily married. I am retired and living comfortably. I have no debts and I want for nothing. So if being scared and stupid got me here all I can say is the journey has been rather pleasant and productive and there are very few things I would change if I could.

Good for you and if SS was privatized you could have done the exact same thing couldn't you?

Your ideas of success and happiness are very different from mine. You have a problem with that but I don't.

Where did I ever bring such a subjective and irrelevant emotion as happiness when it comes to money?

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

I'm not forgetting. My contribution was 7.5% and so is yours. You are conveniently including the levy imposed on my employer in that sum to enhance your grievance. If you have a related anti-government problem associated with that it's a separate issue. But you should stop telling workers their FICA contribution is 15% of their income. It isn't!

I disagree. I employ people and the money I contribute to SS as the employer match certainly is not mine it belongs to my employees thus it part of their income.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I don't know about that. I've been reading and hearing this kind of financial "The sky is falling!" routine for decades now and with very few exceptions, if any, it issues from Libertarians.


"Scared?" or "stupid?" In accordance with your perception, perhaps. But there is a third category which may be called, conditioned.

I was born at the height of the Great Depression, which my parents suffered through and learned bitterly cruel lessons from. Their advice to us was to get an education, look for a civil service job with a good pension, live within your means and avoid debt like the plague, don't put all your cash savings in the same bank, and invest in nothing but government bonds.

I followed that advice to the letter. My late wife and I raised three healthy girls, all of whom are happily married. I am retired and living comfortably. I have no debts and I want for nothing. So if being scared and stupid got me here all I can say is the journey has been rather pleasant and productive and there are very few things I would change if I could.

Your ideas of success and happiness are very different from mine. You have a problem with that but I don't.

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

I'm not forgetting. My contribution was 7.5% and so is yours. You are conveniently including the levy imposed on my employer in that sum to enhance your grievance. If you have a related anti-government problem associated with that it's a separate issue. But you should stop telling workers their FICA contribution is 15% of their income. It isn't!

The burden for SS alone is 12.4%.. It is due from EVERY Employed individual. ((Despite your whining)) This is witnessed by the fact that every self-employed person (like me) pays the entire 12.4%.. This convienience of having the employer pay 1/2 directly is just nice P.R --- and more manipulation of the weak-minded dupes you are portraying..

Don't forget to add medicare into the mix. If we were allowed to keep our money and save it in accounts we own there would be no need for medicaid either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The burden for SS alone is 12.4%.. It is due from EVERY Employed individual. (Despite your whining) This is witnessed by the fact that every self-employed person (like me) pays the entire 12.4%.. This convienience of having the employer pay 1/2 directly is just nice P.R --- and more manipulation of the weak-minded dupes you are portraying..

If the full FICA "burden" is 12.4% then the worker's share is 6.2%. Thank you for the correction. And if you object to paying the full 12.4% as a self-employed person you can resolve that by becoming an employee.

But apart from this petty bickering is the extremely relevant fact that Social Security exists for the benefit of the entire society, not just for that of the individual beneficiaries. And whether you like it or not it played an important part in avoiding a slide into another depression when Bush collapsed the Economy in 2008 with his profligate spending. I know this because I live in a very large middle class retirement community and I know several people whose pensions were totally or partially wiped out by that decline and by devious corporate maneuverings. Were it not for Social Security these people, and many others like them, would be in deep trouble. As it is they are barely getting along. But instead of becoming a burden on relatives or government they have some money to spend. The bottom line is Social Security prevents senior impoverishment and it keeps billions of dollars circulating in the Economy.

Most of the more sophisticated Libertarians I run into in these forums like to refer to Objectivism as a major element, if not the entire basis, of their political philosophy. But they invariably hasten to back off from that position when I remind them that the veritable godess of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, fell into hard times in her old age and became dependent on Social Security and Medicare in 1976. And were it not for Social Security and Medicare, Ms. Rand's alternatives would have been welfare and hospital emergency rooms.

There are millions of Americans who became very wealthy in spite of the FICA deduction from their incomes. So the worst thing you can say about Social Security is it's an inconvenient tax that ultimately pays you back. Your argument that you can do better in the Stock Market is predicated on the absence of risk, which is a false notion -- and a dangerous one.

I have never once dismissed risk in my arguments have I?

In fact it's your arguments that dismiss risk because all your examples of going belly up involve people leaving the bulk of their money in equities after retirement.

I have told you over and over that doing that is risky.

 

[flacaltenn]

The burden for SS alone is 12.4%.. It is due from EVERY Employed individual. (Despite your whining) This is witnessed by the fact that every self-employed person (like me) pays the entire 12.4%.. This convienience of having the employer pay 1/2 directly is just nice P.R --- and more manipulation of the weak-minded dupes you are portraying..

If the full FICA "burden" is 12.4% then the worker's share is 6.2%. Thank you for the correction. And if you object to paying the full 12.4% as a self-employed person you can resolve that by becoming an employee.

Got a better idea --- Instead of taking away my job of 20 years and suggesting that I become an employee --- Why don't all you leftist dictators just go to hell???

The govt expects 12.4% of payroll from EACH individual.. EVERYONE pays that rate...

 

[MikeK]

The govt expects 12.4% of payroll from EACH individual.. EVERYONE pays that rate...

Wrong.

The individual worker pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. =12.4% total. (Worker and employer are two separate individuals.)

So it's not as bad for the average worker as the Chicken Littles like to make it seem -- which is why they wrongfully claim the FICA deduction is 15%, when it's nowhere near that.

Go here for a detailed explanation.
How are FICA taxes computed?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The govt expects 12.4% of payroll from EACH individual.. EVERYONE pays that rate...

Wrong.

The individual worker pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. =12.4% total. (Worker and employer are two separate individuals.)

So it's not as bad for the average worker as the Chicken Littles like to make it seem -- which is why they wrongfully claim the FICA deduction is 15%, when it's nowhere near that.

Go here for a detailed explanation.
How are FICA taxes computed?

And to whom does the employer contribution belong?

It is the employees' money thus it is part of the employees' income.

 

[MikeK]

The govt expects 12.4% of payroll from EACH individual.. EVERYONE pays that rate...

Wrong.

The individual worker pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. =12.4% total. (Worker and employer are two separate individuals.)

So it's not as bad for the average worker as the Chicken Littles like to make it seem -- which is why they wrongfully claim the FICA deduction is 15%, when it's nowhere near that.

Go here for a detailed explanation.
How are FICA taxes computed?

And to whom does the employer contribution belong?

The contribution the employer makes has nothing to do with the employee's salary or the employee's contribution. The employer's obligation belongs to the employer and is entirely separate from the employee's salary.

If you work for me, I am obliged to withhold 6.2% of your wages and forward it to FICA along with another 6.2% from my own pocket.

Bottom line: Employees contribute 6.2% to FICA. Not 15%. Not 12.4%.

6.2%.

And that's not bad.

It is the employees' money thus it is part of the employees' income.

6.2% is the employee's money. The other 6.2% comes from the employer. It's a compulsory perquisite, like a pension plan contribution, or health insurance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wrong.

The individual worker pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. =12.4% total. (Worker and employer are two separate individuals.)

So it's not as bad for the average worker as the Chicken Littles like to make it seem -- which is why they wrongfully claim the FICA deduction is 15%, when it's nowhere near that.

Go here for a detailed explanation.
How are FICA taxes computed?

The contribution the employer makes has nothing to do with the employee's salary or the employee's contribution. The employer's obligation belongs to the employer and is entirely separate from the employee's salary.

If you work for me, I am obliged to withhold 6.2% of your wages and forward it to FICA along with another 6.2% from my own pocket.

Bottom line: Employees contribute 6.2% to FICA. Not 15%. Not 12.4%.

6.2%.

And that's not bad.

It is the employees' money thus it is part of the employees' income.

6.2% is the employee's money. The other 6.2% comes from the employer. It's a compulsory perquisite, like a pension plan contribution, or health insurance.

You really do need a big daddy government to survive dontcha?

EACH worker pays 12.4% as witnessed by the fact that the MILLIONS of self-employed folks pay that rate. The fact that your employer (if you have one) is required to kick in 1/2 of that is a PR trick to make leftists feel better. That 6.2 or 7% is NOT available for wages. It is calculated in cost of business and reduces the money available for wages.

Go ask your employer what you cost him --- I'm SURE he's gonna add the FICA contribution. THAT'S how wages are looked at in the real world.. To the employer, there is NO diff between wage and FICA.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong.

The individual worker pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. =12.4% total. (Worker and employer are two separate individuals.)

So it's not as bad for the average worker as the Chicken Littles like to make it seem -- which is why they wrongfully claim the FICA deduction is 15%, when it's nowhere near that.

Go here for a detailed explanation.
How are FICA taxes computed?

The contribution the employer makes has nothing to do with the employee's salary or the employee's contribution. The employer's obligation belongs to the employer and is entirely separate from the employee's salary.

If you work for me, I am obliged to withhold 6.2% of your wages and forward it to FICA along with another 6.2% from my own pocket.

Bottom line: Employees contribute 6.2% to FICA. Not 15%. Not 12.4%.

6.2%.

And that's not bad.

It is the employees' money thus it is part of the employees' income.

6.2% is the employee's money. The other 6.2% comes from the employer. It's a compulsory perquisite, like a pension plan contribution, or health insurance.

It's part of their compensation and it's not like a pension or health insurance because the SS match is mandated by law therefore it is part of their income.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I don't know about that. I've been reading and hearing this kind of financial "The sky is falling!" routine for decades now and with very few exceptions, if any, it issues from Libertarians.

I've already said that if you're too scared or too stupid to learn how to invest then you can take your money and buy savings bonds and T bills. But that is not a good enough reason to force me to relinquish control over my money to the crooks in government.

"Scared?" or "stupid?" In accordance with your perception, perhaps. But there is a third category which may be called, conditioned.

I was born at the height of the Great Depression, which my parents suffered through and learned bitterly cruel lessons from. Their advice to us was to get an education, look for a civil service job with a good pension, live within your means and avoid debt like the plague, don't put all your cash savings in the same bank, and invest in nothing but government bonds.

I followed that advice to the letter. My late wife and I raised three healthy girls, all of whom are happily married. I am retired and living comfortably. I have no debts and I want for nothing. So if being scared and stupid got me here all I can say is the journey has been rather pleasant and productive and there are very few things I would change if I could.

Your ideas of success and happiness are very different from mine. You have a problem with that but I don't.

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

I'm not forgetting. My contribution was 7.5% and so is yours. You are conveniently including the levy imposed on my employer in that sum to enhance your grievance. If you have a related anti-government problem associated with that it's a separate issue. But you should stop telling workers their FICA contribution is 15% of their income. It isn't!

In other words: you are a parasite and proud of it.

 

[Fang]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

No wonder this country is in serious trouble. How could you be so ignorant and quite honestly so stupid to believe this bullshit? Mitt Romney campaigned on saving social security. If you actually paid attention you might know this fact.

 

[Sarah G]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

No wonder this country is in serious trouble. How could you be so ignorant and quite honestly so stupid to believe this bullshit? Mitt Romney campaigned on saving social security. If you actually paid attention you might know this fact.

Mitt Romney campaigned on some policy? That's amazing, I never heard him take a stand at all. On anything.

Seriously.

 

[MikeK]

The Republicans will not be content until they rid the nation of Social Security. This battle could go on for years, and for years the aged will live in fear.
Would it be in the best interests of America to elect Republicans in the next election. The Republicans will drop the Social Security and other social programs. Once the loss of Social Security is felt Americans will then rid the nation of Republicans. It might take years for the entire cleansing but the new Social Security program might then be secure for a long time to come.

No wonder this country is in serious trouble. How could you be so ignorant and quite honestly so stupid to believe this bullshit? Mitt Romney campaigned on saving social security. If you actually paid attention you might know this fact.

Mitt Romney campaigned on everything! He was for everything before he was against it, and around again. His strategy clearly was structured on confidence in a short public attention span and short memories. And that is what cost him the election.

Karl Rove was wrong this time! And it's too bad you are so easily fooled.

 

[MikeK]

The contribution the employer makes has nothing to do with the employee's salary or the employee's contribution. The employer's obligation belongs to the employer and is entirely separate from the employee's salary.

If you work for me, I am obliged to withhold 6.2% of your wages and forward it to FICA along with another 6.2% from my own pocket.

Bottom line: Employees contribute 6.2% to FICA. Not 15%. Not 12.4%.

6.2%.

And that's not bad.


6.2% is the employee's money. The other 6.2% comes from the employer. It's a compulsory perquisite, like a pension plan contribution, or health insurance.

It's part of their compensation and it's not like a pension or health insurance because the SS match is mandated by law therefore it is part of their income.

It would be more accurate (and honest) to say the 6.2% FICA contribution is added to the overall cost of hiring employees than to say it is part of an individual employee's compensation, which is like saying the cost of heating in winter, air-conditioning in summer, access to toilets and drinking water is also part of the employees' compensation.

But if it makes you feel better to say it your way, I understand.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's part of their compensation and it's not like a pension or health insurance because the SS match is mandated by law therefore it is part of their income.

It would be more accurate (and honest) to say the 6.2% FICA contribution is added to the overall cost of hiring employees than to say it is part of an individual employee's compensation, which is like saying the cost of heating in winter, air-conditioning in summer, access to toilets and drinking water is also part of the employees' compensation.

But if it makes you feel better to say it your way, I understand.

I understand if it makes you feel better to be a government apologist after all you are dependent on it.

We can parse definitions all you want but my argument is still valid because the total of employee and employer contributions for the SS and medicare scams is 15% of one's income.

And that 15% of one's income would provide a better retirement if it was held in a private account.

 

[MikeK]

I understand if it makes you feel better to be a government apologist after all you are dependent on it.

We can parse definitions all you want but my argument is still valid because the total of employee and employer contributions for the SS and medicare scams is 15% of one's income.

And that 15% of one's income would provide a better retirement if it was held in a private account.

Right. Until one of Mitt Romney's pals rips it off.

Now tell us that never happens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand if it makes you feel better to be a government apologist after all you are dependent on it.

We can parse definitions all you want but my argument is still valid because the total of employee and employer contributions for the SS and medicare scams is 15% of one's income.

And that 15% of one's income would provide a better retirement if it was held in a private account.

Right. Until one of Mitt Romney's pals rips it off.

Now tell us that never happens.

I suppose Romney has pals in the US Congress.