If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[SwimExpert]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

 

[David_42]

I wonder if right wingers on here would be happy with (based on the Chilean pension plan) they were MANDATED by the government to put in TEN PERCENT of their salary......LOL

We're already mandated to put in 14% of our salaries to the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

 

[David_42]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

 

[Andylusion]

We're already mandated to put in 14% of our salaries to the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

The so-called "employer contribution" is another 6.2%. Only numskulls like you believe that doesn't come out of your salary.

I'm fine with it coming out of my salary, my grandparents lived a long and enjoyable life thanks to social security.

But you won't. The money is running out. Social Security, is going broke. The government is in debt larger than the GDP of the entire country.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Social Security is running out.

You grandparents lived great and wonderful lives on other people's money. That's fine. But that's not going to last forever, just like Greece proves. Get over it.

Pulling the Winston Churchill shit, eh? It could be saved, we have to have a safety net for the elderly, mainly due to poverty. Yes, we can thank the tax cuts and the wars started by bush/Reagan tripling the debt.. We're a debt based country now, like many other countries in the world. Oh, tell me more about every single country on earth using socialist policies. On other people's money? They paid into it, and the majority of society is ok with social security, sounds like your a butthurt dick. If you cite Greece one more time, I might break down. Greece is one country, that failed due to tax evasion (It was a cultural thing, other countries with high taxes still pay them, we have Americans dodging low ass taxes now, it's not a Greece problem) I could claim capitalism fails due to 2008 but that's a dishonest lie because capitalism does work, and it works well, when regulated and mixed with socialistic policies, which is what every country on earth does.

What's sad is that you are going to be one of those people (if you don't save up a ton of cash), that is going to be living on social security, for wages below a Walmart Greeter, and you are going to screaming looking for someone to blame for your impoverishment, and the only one to blame is you.

A better system is being offered, and you are rejecting it for your $600 a month Social Security Utopia.

Nothing Bush, or Reagan did, caused Social Security to go broke. It's fundamental to the system.

It is other people's money. You don't pay into an account where your money is invested and grows, and when you collect, you are collecting your own money.

That's the system we want. Not what we have.

The system we have, you pay for other people's retirement. When you grow old, your money is gone. It's spent, and gone.

So when you retire, you have to hope that there is enough working people paying into the system, like you did all your life, to pay for you.

The problem is, we already know that's not the case. That's why the system is going broke. When you retire, there will not be enough 'other people's money' to pay for you. So you'll get $600 a month, or whatever the limited funds will afford. Or they'll increase the retirement age to 75.

But you are acting just like the Greeks, the way you respond on this forum. People had been warning that the pension system in Greece had to be reformed for decades. Literally all the way back to the 90s, they were warning that it's not sustainable.

Now the people are ruined, the pension pays out a few hundred Euros a month (because the system is broke), and everyone is rioting in the streets, as if it's not their fault. But it is. And when it's you, and your old, and broke, and Social Security is paying out a few hundred a month, you'll be blaming bush, and reagan, and everyone else you can scream at, but the fault will be yours.

 

[Andylusion]

We're already mandated to put in 14% of our salaries to the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

And yet it's going broke.

Again, there is no question that people like getting checks from the government.

That doesn't change the fact, the system is going broke. That doesn't change the fact that wages are lower because of this system.

 

[SwimExpert]

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

I think you're getting your threads crossed. Raising wages has nothing to do with social security and retirement planning.

 

[David_42]

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

The so-called "employer contribution" is another 6.2%. Only numskulls like you believe that doesn't come out of your salary.

I'm fine with it coming out of my salary, my grandparents lived a long and enjoyable life thanks to social security.

But you won't. The money is running out. Social Security, is going broke. The government is in debt larger than the GDP of the entire country.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Social Security is running out.

You grandparents lived great and wonderful lives on other people's money. That's fine. But that's not going to last forever, just like Greece proves. Get over it.

Pulling the Winston Churchill shit, eh? It could be saved, we have to have a safety net for the elderly, mainly due to poverty. Yes, we can thank the tax cuts and the wars started by bush/Reagan tripling the debt.. We're a debt based country now, like many other countries in the world. Oh, tell me more about every single country on earth using socialist policies. On other people's money? They paid into it, and the majority of society is ok with social security, sounds like your a butthurt dick. If you cite Greece one more time, I might break down. Greece is one country, that failed due to tax evasion (It was a cultural thing, other countries with high taxes still pay them, we have Americans dodging low ass taxes now, it's not a Greece problem) I could claim capitalism fails due to 2008 but that's a dishonest lie because capitalism does work, and it works well, when regulated and mixed with socialistic policies, which is what every country on earth does.

What's sad is that you are going to be one of those people (if you don't save up a ton of cash), that is going to be living on social security, for wages below a Walmart Greeter, and you are going to screaming looking for someone to blame for your impoverishment, and the only one to blame is you.

A better system is being offered, and you are rejecting it for your $600 a month Social Security Utopia.

Nothing Bush, or Reagan did, caused Social Security to go broke. It's fundamental to the system.

It is other people's money. You don't pay into an account where your money is invested and grows, and when you collect, you are collecting your own money.

That's the system we want. Not what we have.

The system we have, you pay for other people's retirement. When you grow old, your money is gone. It's spent, and gone.

So when you retire, you have to hope that there is enough working people paying into the system, like you did all your life, to pay for you.

The problem is, we already know that's not the case. That's why the system is going broke. When you retire, there will not be enough 'other people's money' to pay for you. So you'll get $600 a month, or whatever the limited funds will afford. Or they'll increase the retirement age to 75.

But you are acting just like the Greeks, the way you respond on this forum. People had been warning that the pension system in Greece had to be reformed for decades. Literally all the way back to the 90s, they were warning that it's not sustainable.

Now the people are ruined, the pension pays out a few hundred Euros a month (because the system is broke), and everyone is rioting in the streets, as if it's not their fault. But it is. And when it's you, and your old, and broke, and Social Security is paying out a few hundred a month, you'll be blaming bush, and reagan, and everyone else you can scream at, but the fault will be yours.

We should increase SS benefits, but that's another point. People on SS usually have their own money, SS is the backbone. Why would I blame myself? The world will probably be destroyed in 50 years if we don't drastically change. I never tried To blame bush or Reagan in regards to social security, we were discussing debt which you brought up. Keep up. Yeah, people still pay into SS, it's a system shared by society and supported by the majority. Greece is an entirely different country with a massive amount of tax evasion and they refused to raise the age for retirement, that was a mistake. When you grow old your money is gone? Yeah, bullshit. The Greece system is different and you lack context nutter. Typical Christian, **** the elderly who fail to invest properly.

 

[David_42]

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

I think you're getting your threads crossed. Raising wages has nothing to do with social security and retirement planning.

We were discussing what employers pay in this thread.

 

[SwimExpert]

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

I think you're getting your threads crossed. Raising wages has nothing to do with social security and retirement planning.

We were discussing what employers pay in this thread.

No.

 

[bripat9643]

It requires finding someone trusted to help you manage knowing what's happening in the market.

So? Open an account with an established, reputable broker. There are several of them out there. Personally, I do business with T. Rowe Price. Always been very easy, and they've always been very helpful.

Yes, and we can expect millions of seniors to not be ripped off..

They were already ripped off by Social Security.

 

[Andylusion]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

Just for fun, I calculated out how much I pay into SS, and instead had that diverted to my mutual funds, at their current rate of return, over the next 30 years. I would have over half a million dollars.

Or.... my current payout from Social Security at retirement, which will be $700 a month....

So let's see..... Your plan - $700 a month until I die.
My plan - Half a million.

$700 a month..... or half a million...... Yeah, I can see how screwed over I'll be without SS...... entirely.

Actually, that's not all that true either, because without the employer paying that 6.2% tax, he would be able to pay me more, which means I could divert that towards my retirement as well. Which means I could well get a full million at retirement.

Let's see.... $700 a month.... or millionaire.... If that's what you mean by "fucked" without Social Security... please sign me up.

 

[bripat9643]

We're already mandated to put in 14% of our salaries to the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

The vast majority of us are harmed by being forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

 

[David_42]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

Just for fun, I calculated out how much I pay into SS, and instead had that diverted to my mutual funds, at their current rate of return, over the next 30 years. I would have over half a million dollars.

Or.... my current payout from Social Security at retirement, which will be $700 a month....

So let's see..... Your plan - $700 a month until I die.
My plan - Half a million.

$700 a month..... or half a million...... Yeah, I can see how screwed over I'll be without SS...... entirely.

Actually, that's not all that true either, because without the employer paying that 6.2% tax, he would be able to pay me more, which means I could divert that towards my retirement as well. Which means I could well get a full million at retirement.

Let's see.... $700 a month.... or millionaire.... If that's what you mean by "fucked" without Social Security... please sign me up.

Funny thing, SS is a system that many people contribute to for the benefit of the majority, and American opinion demonstrates this. Yes, and the millions on SS would have flawless mutual funds.. LOL.

 

[David_42]

The moron above pulls "facts" out of his ass.....Maximum contribution for SS is 6.2%.....and that is ONLY up to the first $117K.

(I am sure that right wing morons are pulling state, county and city taxes into the mix because.....well, because they're morons.)

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

The vast majority of us are harmed by being forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

Americans disagree. Then again, a paranoid nutter on an Internet board means nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

Just for fun, I calculated out how much I pay into SS, and instead had that diverted to my mutual funds, at their current rate of return, over the next 30 years. I would have over half a million dollars.

Or.... my current payout from Social Security at retirement, which will be $700 a month....

So let's see..... Your plan - $700 a month until I die.
My plan - Half a million.

$700 a month..... or half a million...... Yeah, I can see how screwed over I'll be without SS...... entirely.

Actually, that's not all that true either, because without the employer paying that 6.2% tax, he would be able to pay me more, which means I could divert that towards my retirement as well. Which means I could well get a full million at retirement.

Let's see.... $700 a month.... or millionaire.... If that's what you mean by "fucked" without Social Security... please sign me up.

Funny thing, SS is a system that many people contribute to for the benefit of the majority, and American opinion demonstrates this. Yes, and the millions on SS would have flawless mutual funds.. LOL.

Wrong. It doesn't take flawless mutual funds. It will take just an average rate of return.

I don't contribute to SS for the benefit of the majority. I don't give a hoot about the majority. I "contribute" because the government forces me to, and for no other reason.

 

[bripat9643]

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

The vast majority of us are harmed by being forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

Americans disagree. Then again, a paranoid nutter on an Internet board means nothing.

It doesn't matter what Americans believe. Facts are facts. They would all be better off if they had personal retirement accounts. The government is robbing them.

"Nutters" are the kind who believe opinions and delusions are more important than facts.

 

[Andylusion]

You want millions of seniors to trust and rely on a select few trusted individuals

I would think that after decades of a long term business relationship those seniors would have long figured out the trustworthiness of the company with whom they're doing business.

and what about the ones who choose wrong?

That's their fault.

Can't afford to invest earlier in life?

Stop taking hundreds of dollars out of their paychecks every week, and they'll have plenty of extra money to invest early in life.

You assume employers will suddenly decide to start raising wages.. That's clearly what happened when regulations didn't exist and labor unions were nonexistent.. Oh, good, their fault.. So you agree people are going to be fucked without SS?

Just for fun, I calculated out how much I pay into SS, and instead had that diverted to my mutual funds, at their current rate of return, over the next 30 years. I would have over half a million dollars.

Or.... my current payout from Social Security at retirement, which will be $700 a month....

So let's see..... Your plan - $700 a month until I die.
My plan - Half a million.

$700 a month..... or half a million...... Yeah, I can see how screwed over I'll be without SS...... entirely.

Actually, that's not all that true either, because without the employer paying that 6.2% tax, he would be able to pay me more, which means I could divert that towards my retirement as well. Which means I could well get a full million at retirement.

Let's see.... $700 a month.... or millionaire.... If that's what you mean by "fucked" without Social Security... please sign me up.

Funny thing, SS is a system that many people contribute to for the benefit of the majority, and American opinion demonstrates this. Yes, and the millions on SS would have flawless mutual funds.. LOL.

Nothing of what you said, changes what I said. Further, no one, as in not a single person, contributes to SS because it benefits the majority of society.

You doubt that? Ok.... let's have a test. You allow the system to be optional, and then we'll see how many vote with their money, to support social security.

In fact, we already have done that in Texas, and the majority voted for private retirement investments, and thus far every single one of them has done better.


But even if..... the fact people want something doesn't mean that it is good. My nephew wants to eat junk food and stay up all night, and never take a bath.

Does the mere fact that if we polled all 6-year-olds mean that doing that is a good idea?

No. And certainly there are idiots who would rather live off social security, and be poor.

I say.... let them.

But also allow the rest of us have an option out. Why should you in your arrogance, force everyone to be poor, because a few wish to be poor?

 

[Andylusion]

It is 6.2% on you and the employer. The employer pays you LESS, so that they can pay that tax. I've been in business for the last 20 years. When the employer decides how much he will pay someone, or whether or not to give someone a raise.... they consider the "Total cost of employment".

That's why if you look around the world, in places where the employer pays higher taxes on employees... the wages are lower.

If the company has $45,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $30,000.

If the company has $30,000 for a given job... how much do you get paid? $20,000.

The employer side tax, comes out of your wages... you just don't see it. You are paying the entire tax. You pay the 6.2% out of your check, and you pay the 6.2% out of the employers cost, in lower wages.

Right now... you are paying 12.4% of your wages to Social Security. Just a fact.

You don't take into account variation in business practices in regards to wage payouts.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your wagers are lower, to pay for those Social Security taxes.

I've worked with employers on this, and that is exactly how they determine wages and raises. They have a set number that they expect to pay out for a given job. This is how much I can pay for this job.

Then they work backward from there, to determine wages. If that number is $32,000, then they take out taxes, fees, unemployment compensation, benefits, vacation cost, the cost of 401K if they have it, and the cost of health care to cover them. Whatever money amount is left, that's how they determine what your wage is. Or if you can get a raise. Then you end up with $22,000 a year.

You are paying for all of your benefits, and all your taxes, out of lower wages. I promise you, that's how it works. I've worked with business owners for 20 years.

And people benefit throughout society thanks to this. Yes, sure, your "expertise" in central Ohio, self proclaimed Christian capitalist. LOL.

The vast majority of us are harmed by being forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

Americans disagree. Then again, a paranoid nutter on an Internet board means nothing.

Disagree doesn't change the facts. I doubt even that most would disagree. If you allowed people to opt-out of Social Security, I doubt you'd have very many still in it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, Chile's Private Pension Model Works, Big Time

"Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets."

Chile: using free enterprise. If only we were as open to free enterprise as Chile

If Only

From a NYT article regarding Chile's private pension plan.......

Many young people, who should be enrolling in the system early to accrue maximum benefit, are staying out or paying in very little. Some cannot afford to contribute beyond the obligatory minimum payment, which is 10 percent of wages, while others are either self-employed or have been hired by companies as low-paid independent contract workers and thus do not have to contribute at all.
"The bottom line is that this system does not work with this labor market," said Andras Uthoff, an economist who is director of the social development division of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America here. If current trends continue, he added, "only a small percentage of people are going to be able to finance meaningful pensions. What happens then to the rest?"
As a result of such doubts, attacking the pension system and especially the perceived excesses of the funds has become a surefire source of votes. One of the big winners in the first round of the election last month, for example, was Guido Girardi, a senator-elect and Bachelet supporter who has taken upon himself the role of scourge of the private management funds.
"I am going to do away with these thieves in jackets and ties," Girardi said. "We are going to defend the citizenry from these funds that rob people of their pensions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/world/americas/10iht-chile.html?_r=0

I thought self employed in the USA was 15.2% or it was at one time recently

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, Chile's Private Pension Model Works, Big Time

"Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets."

Chile: using free enterprise. If only we were as open to free enterprise as Chile

If Only

From a NYT article regarding Chile's private pension plan.......

Many young people, who should be enrolling in the system early to accrue maximum benefit, are staying out or paying in very little. Some cannot afford to contribute beyond the obligatory minimum payment, which is 10 percent of wages, while others are either self-employed or have been hired by companies as low-paid independent contract workers and thus do not have to contribute at all.
"The bottom line is that this system does not work with this labor market," said Andras Uthoff, an economist who is director of the social development division of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America here. If current trends continue, he added, "only a small percentage of people are going to be able to finance meaningful pensions. What happens then to the rest?"
As a result of such doubts, attacking the pension system and especially the perceived excesses of the funds has become a surefire source of votes. One of the big winners in the first round of the election last month, for example, was Guido Girardi, a senator-elect and Bachelet supporter who has taken upon himself the role of scourge of the private management funds.
"I am going to do away with these thieves in jackets and ties," Girardi said. "We are going to defend the citizenry from these funds that rob people of their pensions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/world/americas/10iht-chile.html?_r=0

**** the UN. We need to boot them out of the USA