Zone1 Social Security Scam

[rightwinger]

You really want to live in a country that FORCES workers into 6 to 12% cut of their paychecks going to FICA and then makes them WORK until 70? You OK with 69 year old roofers and firemen?

I'm not. It's a cynical trap.. Especially if you dont age very well.
It's supposed to be UNIVERSAL and AVAILABLE. Right now at qualifying age of 63.5 -- more than 70% of workers have NEGATIVE returns on SS investment because they DIE in less 15 years.

You OK with that negative ROI going to 85% ?????

yup
That is the way it works

Used to be workers collected Social Security for five years after they retired. Now, they live 20.

If you are a fireman or roofer, you need to make plans for what you will do once you can no longer work. It has always been like that. Firemen would retire after 20 years and then find another occupation

 

[Couchpotato]

yup
That is the way it works

Used to be workers collected Social Security for five years after they retired. Now, they live 20.

If you are a fireman or roofer, you need to make plans for what you will do once you can no longer work. It has always been like that. Firemen would retire after 20 years and then find another occupation

Most firefighters have to do 30 years and there is typically a minimum retirement age. My neighbor is a FF and here in my area That's 57. Not too old to keep working but I dont know if you're getting another career. Not to mention that most of them are hobbled up, knees, back, hands etc so its not as easy as just getting another career.

To the greater point. I thought SS worked and that's why Americans love it so much? Didn't you say that at the start of this thread? It seems as though you're now saying that SS kinda "works" so long as the people who are collecting are kind enough to die so they don't collect for too long. I fail to see how the SS system is better than just investing a small percentage of your earnings over your working career. In the case of the person who invests their money they can retire when they choose, will have enough to last them regardless of how long they live and can pass the remaining funds to whomever they choose when they die or even before if they so choose. The other option you retire when the Government says, only really works if you live for 5-8 years after retirement and don't get to pass whatever money you don't use on.

The real reason people "love" SS is because they have been lead to believe that it's some sort of retirement account that they have paid into during their career. So, there is no way to stop SS without some large part of the electorate feeling like their money was stolen and they are being screwed and that's precisely the argument politicians make any time anyone talks about even changing SS let alone discontinuing the program.

 

[flacaltenn]

yup
That is the way it works

Used to be workers collected Social Security for five years after they retired. Now, they live 20.

If you are a fireman or roofer, you need to make plans for what you will do once you can no longer work. It has always been like that. Firemen would retire after 20 years and then find another occupation

I dont want to force them to "learn to code" or find another job. For the majority of people, SSoc is ALREADY a negative return on investment. People start DYING in huge numbers by age 67 or so. My mom for instance only collected 20% of what she paid into all her life.

And for ME as half of my career I was self-employed -- I got the "privilege" of paying 12.5% into FICA tax every payday. I'd have to live to 98 just to BREAK EVEN !!! And that's the situation of a LOT of construction, labor contractors, and hard working people.

You IGNORE thievery of Congress and Admins STEALING the SocSec surpluses.

Your party OPPOSED the plan to channel those surpluses into a program designed by Repubs to USE the surpluses SOLELY to defer future costs. Your tribe DEMAGOGUE that nifty solution to death. And TODAY -- it would be saving SocSec about 15 to 25Bill/yr.

You IGNORE the phonyness and lying about the Trust Fund.

You IGNORE the poor "ROInvestment" of SocSec and want to make it WORSE for future workers.

The CRISIS IS NOW -- It's NOT IN THE FUCKING FUTURE anymore. So "in the future" -- there will WONT BE a baby boom -- just LESS workers and LESS retirees. It's unneccessary to fuck with it NOW!!!!!

 

[Couchpotato]

I dont want to force them to "learn to code" or find another job. For the majority of people, SSoc is ALREADY a negative return on investment. People start DYING in huge numbers by age 67 or so. My mom for instance only collected 20% of what she paid into all her life.

And for ME as half of my career I was self-employed -- I got the "privilege" of paying 12.5% into FICA tax every payday. I'd have to live to 98 just to BREAK EVEN !!! And that's the situation of a LOT of construction, labor contractors, and hard working people.

You IGNORE thievery of Congress and Admins STEALING the SocSec surpluses.

Your party OPPOSED the plan to channel those surpluses into a program designed by Repubs to USE the surpluses SOLELY to defer future costs. Your tribe DEMAGOGUE that nifty solution to death. And TODAY -- it would be saving SocSec about 15 to 25Bill/yr.

You IGNORE the phonyness and lying about the Trust Fund.

You IGNORE the poor "ROInvestment" of SocSec and want to make it WORSE for future workers.

The CRISIS IS NOW -- It's NOT IN THE FUCKING FUTURE anymore. So "in the future" -- there will WONT BE a baby boom -- just LESS workers and LESS retirees. It's unneccessary to fuck with it NOW!!!!!

He sees it as a feature, not a bug.

 

[rightwinger]

I dont want to force them to "learn to code" or find another job. For the majority of people, SSoc is ALREADY a negative return on investment. People start DYING in huge numbers by age 67 or so. My mom for instance only collected 20% of what she paid into all her life.

And for ME as half of my career I was self-employed -- I got the "privilege" of paying 12.5% into FICA tax every payday. I'd have to live to 98 just to BREAK EVEN !!! And that's the situation of a LOT of construction, labor contractors, and hard working people.

You IGNORE thievery of Congress and Admins STEALING the SocSec surpluses.

Your party OPPOSED the plan to channel those surpluses into a program designed by Repubs to USE the surpluses SOLELY to defer future costs. Your tribe DEMAGOGUE that nifty solution to death. And TODAY -- it would be saving SocSec about 15 to 25Bill/yr.

You IGNORE the phonyness and lying about the Trust Fund.

You IGNORE the poor "ROInvestment" of SocSec and want to make it WORSE for future workers.

The CRISIS IS NOW -- It's NOT IN THE FUCKING FUTURE anymore. So "in the future" -- there will WONT BE a baby boom -- just LESS workers and LESS retirees. It's unneccessary to fuck with it NOW!!!!!

Life is like that sometimes
You don’t always win

If you are in a profession you can’t work into your 60s, it is up to you to make alternative arrangements. it is called being an adult

If you died young, you already missed out on a lot more than Social Security

 

[Couchpotato]

Life is like that sometimes
You don’t always win

If you are in a profession you can’t work into your 60s, it is up to you to make alternative arrangements. it is called being an adult

If you died young, you already missed out on a lot more than Social Security

Yeah kind of like saving for your retirement so you aren't a burden on the younger generation in your old age. Right?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah kind of like saving for your retirement so you aren't a burden on the younger generation in your old age. Right?

It would be nice, but many people only earn enough to pay the bills as it is.

Save for retirement and a major health emergency can wipe out your savings.

Other countries don’t have those worries

 

[dblack]

It would be nice, but many people only earn enough to pay the bills as it is.

Save for retirement and a major health emergency can wipe out your savings.

Other countries don’t have those worries

It's called state-sponsored dependency.

 

[flacaltenn]

Life is like that sometimes
You don’t always win

If you are in a profession you can’t work into your 60s, it is up to you to make alternative arrangements. it is called being an adult

If you died young, you already missed out on a lot more than Social Security

Go tell that to FDR. Not what he had in mind. If you want the people to EVER TRUST "Univeral ANYTHING" ever again -- dont have the motto -- "You dont always win".

 

[flacaltenn]

Life is like that sometimes
You don’t always win

If you are in a profession you can’t work into your 60s, it is up to you to make alternative arrangements. it is called being an adult

If you died young, you already missed out on a lot more than Social Security

Not just a matter of dying young. It's a matter of being UNIVERSAL. If the ONLY people who see a return on it are people TOO OLD TO ENJOY retirement -- you've broken the reason for the system in the 1st place.

 

[rightwinger]

It's called state-sponsored dependency.

Actually it is Capitalist dependency
Low wages and benefits make people dependent on government

 

[rightwinger]

Not just a matter of dying young. It's a matter of being UNIVERSAL. If the ONLY people who see a return on it are people TOO OLD TO ENJOY retirement -- you've broken the reason for the system in the 1st place.

Most retirees live well into their 80s
Social Security was not designed to support it

 

[rightwinger]

Go tell that to FDR. Not what he had in mind. If you want the people to EVER TRUST "Univeral ANYTHING" ever again -- dont have the motto -- "You dont always win".

Social Security and Medicare are much better than FDR ever imagined

 

[Couchpotato]

It would be nice, but many people only earn enough to pay the bills as it is.

Save for retirement and a major health emergency can wipe out your savings.

Other countries don’t have those worries

Huh. Maybe they should be allowed to take that SS money and invest it. Then the money would be available to them if they needed it. Unlike now where the Government takes it and spends it.

Actually it is Capitalist dependency
Low wages and benefits make people dependent on government

? The government taking your money and then doling out limited benefits to you in old age is the biggest wealth thief going. Especially for the poorest in the society. It prevents them from ever accumulating wealth to pass on for the next generation to build on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Most retirees live well into their 80s
Social Security was not designed to support it

1st sentence not true. See graph below.
2nd sentence -- WE KNEW THERE WAS GONNA BE A BABY BOOMER CRISIS. And neither party did anything to fix it. And the MEDIA or Federal Govt hasn't even acknowledged that the CRISIS STARTED in 2010 or so,. Dont NEED drastic measures NOW.

Age of death is STEEP after 55 or so. Only 1/2 by mean or median make it to 80.

You gonna tell that 1/2 -- Enjoy your 6 to 10 years of Soc Sec when you DEMAND they WORK until 70? And whatever "life sucks" message you previously posted?

 

[flacaltenn]

Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

This is the problem with "fact-checkers". The 1% and $1400 cap is a fact. And the more important fact is that FDR DID NOT GET THE SYSTEM HE WANTED. ANYTHING he said about the system WAS GONE after about 1942. When he vetoed TWO bills to raise the FICA and cap. In fact, in his INITIAL SELLING of the program -- he DID PROMISE that the rate and cap would remain close to the same.
But -- it ended up to be pay-as-you-go rather than a SECURED pool of your SEGREGATED retirement funds.

FDR might not approve of Social Security today

Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security? The question seems absurd. After all, Social Security is considered the New Deal's signature achievement. It distributes nearly $800 billion a...

www.tampabay.com

When Roosevelt proposed Social Security in 1935, he envisioned a contributory pension plan. Workers' payroll taxes ("contributions") would be saved and used to pay their retirement benefits. Initially, before workers had time to pay into the system, there would be temporary subsidies. But Roosevelt rejected Social Security as a "pay-as-you-go" system that channeled the taxes of today's workers to pay today's retirees. That, he believed, would saddle future generations with huge debts — or higher taxes — as the number of retirees expanded.

Discovering that the original draft proposal wasn't a contributory pension, Roosevelt ordered it rewritten and complained to Frances Perkins, his labor secretary: "This is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress ... to meet."

But Roosevelt's vision didn't prevail. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress gradually switched Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system. Interestingly, a coalition of liberals and conservatives pushed the change. Liberals wanted higher benefits, which — with few retirees then — existing taxes could support. Conservatives disliked the huge surpluses the government would accumulate under a contributory plan.

All this is well-told in Sylvester Schieber's The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System. Schieber probably knows more about American retirement programs than anyone. He has advised the Social Security system, consulted with private firms and written widely on the subject. His book shows how today's "entitlement" psychology dates to Social Security's muddled beginnings.

Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they "earned" these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs. Indeed, Roosevelt — believing he had created a contributory program — said exactly that:

"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. … No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program."

 

[Couchpotato]

The Sage of Main Street

Laugh it up but you clearly have no real solutions so we both now know what you are.

 

[dblack]

Actually it is Capitalist dependency
Low wages and benefits make people dependent on government

No, government makes people dependent on the government. People on the dole are easy to control.

 

[sartre play]

VERY few people don't pay for insurance, The older you are the more likely it is that you have insurance. Even if you are a healthy person, who will get there own band aid rather than go to a DR to see if they need one. After paying both private and into SOCIAL SECURITY, for many many long years, am ever grateful I did. Just got the finial bill, 80 thousand dollars. And my cost was under two thousand dollars. No one knows if & when they will get a heart attack or cancer or some untreated virus. I do guarantee that you will be grateful for that percentage you paid in against the day it happens to you. Hope you live your whole life with out a major problem, then you can continue to complain about that small percentage Social Security takes from your check.

 

[dblack]

VERY few people don't pay for insurance, The older you are the more likely it is that you have insurance. Even if you are a healthy person, who will get there own band aid rather than go to a DR to see if they need one. After paying both private and into SOCIAL SECURITY, for many many long years, am ever grateful I did. Just got the finial bill, 80 thousand dollars. And my cost was under two thousand dollars.

Has it occurred to you that, without the inflationary insurance gravy train mutilating the market, the services you received might actually cost closer to $2k than $80k?