|
| Thread: No Money for You |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
posted September 22, 2007 12:05 AM |
|
|
No Money for You
To all that will depend on Social Security its survival may depend on who you place your faith in.... I am a demarcate by nature but get ill thinking about them trashing our social security system this way.... I hope the next round is in our favor!!!
Dark and best kept secrets about Our Social Security.
Many years ago in Seattle, two
wonderful neighbors,
Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on
a regular basis. They were a great couple full of
laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel
at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.
During the years of our friendship we had many, many
discussions about Elliott's parents (President Franklin D.
and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother
never intended for the Social Security and Welfare
programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott
used to say that if his parents returned to earth and
saw what the politicians had done to their programs
they would have burned all of them in hell.
_____________________________________________
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather
than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
in dependent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
This is MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed
citizens believe it!
==============================================
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so!!
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 12:20 AM |
|
|
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!>
This sounds a little hard to believe. It is incredibly hard to migrate to the US. If the imigrants were in a position to recieve SS benefits then they must be regarded as refugees. What is so wrong about helping a 65 yo refugee?
____________
uhuh
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 01:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,even though they never paid a dime into it!
I don't believe this either. Normally I would look something like this up before opening my mouth, but I'm too lazy at the moment.
As far as I know, SS benefits are based entirely on how much you put into it. There is a simple formula that's used. Basically you add up the total qualifying income in your life. Your benefits are a percentage of that total (with an upper and lower limit). The percentage is the same for everyone. For most people, "qualifying income" is all of their income (certain pension plans exclude you from SS). There is a minimum number of quarters you must work to qualify (I forget the number, but it's not very many).
Quote:
It is incredibly hard to migrate to the US.
I always hear this from people. If this is true, why does the US have more immigrants than any other country in the world? It has something like 4-5 times as many as the next highest country. There's almost a million people per year (legally) moving here. There are currently around 20-22 million immigrants in this country.
|
|
setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 05:10 AM |
|
|
Ugh.
That's crazy.
I guess I am bit speechless at the moment.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 05:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There's almost a million people per year (legally) moving here
And a birth rate of 4 million/year. The one million immigrants undergo strict examination and have to meet finacial requirements - have a job sponser them, or be cashed up enough to start their own business, or have someone over there support them finacially {e.g. marry - even this has ridiculous rules and blah - I've got a friend who married a Yank and they are moving to Asia for a year so they can live in the same country - Aust rules are just as bad}. Whereas American people need no qualifications, financial independence, or have to undergo a "worthiness" check before being able to breed.
I guess this is a sore point with me as an Australian. Living in a multicultural country and hearing uneducated red neck banter about how we are being overun by immigrants. Racial hate being fueled by specualation. Especailly in countries that were invaded by whites and stolen in the first place.
A major reason the US dollar is so strong, the reason things are more inexpensive in the US is because of your enourmous buying power. Sure an overindulgent consumer society is part of it, but the sheer numbers of people there actually keep your cost of living down. It is not a country bursting at the seams, unable to fit more immigrants. The immigrants are educated or willing to do work that many on SS are not prepared to do themselves.
btw, I'd be interested to see those stats you quote bini - and whether they take into account % of population.
____________
uhuh
|
|
Duncan
Famous Hero
The Pathfinder
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 06:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A major reason the US dollar is so strong, the reason things are more inexpensive in the US is because of your enourmous buying power.
I guess that's not the case today, is it? And even more in the future, it'll perhaps get worse. Tough competition with China has steadily weakened the USD, and today almost reaching par with the Canadian dollar. If things are cheap over there, there wouldn't be subprime issue, right? Too much have been wasted on Iraq.
Quote:
It is incredibly hard to migrate to the US. If this is true, why does the US have more immigrants than any other country in the world?
The immigrants are educated or willing to do work that many on SS are not prepared to do themselves.
True. In a way it means that those who migrate have stronger will for survival and continuously strive for a better future. That, I believe, from sociological point of view, is always the case in a country with immigrants. But when we speak of immigrants, let's look back also the past. Who came to US back then? People from Ireland etc in search for better living... Survival is in the blood of the society, which makes it a great nation today.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2007 02:51 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 14:55, 22 Sep 2007.
|
Quote:
btw, I'd be interested to see those stats you quote bini - and whether they take into account % of population
OK, here ya go. These are the official numbers from the agency that oversees immigration.
The above numbers don't include naturalized citizens, refugees, asylees, or an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants.
As for percentage, percentage of what? If you're referring to immigration as a percentage of population, then the US does not have the highest percentage. I don't know who does, but I know Canada and probably Australia have a higher percentage than the US.
One thing to consider though is not a percentage of the population as a whole, but the percentage in the areas most heavily affected. For example immigration is extremely high in California. As a percentage of population it's far higher in California than Canada. More than a quarter of people in California are foreign born. 40% don't speak English at home. (and yes I DO have stats on all this - I've been studying it off and on for the last 2 1/2 years)
I was still in the building industry during the last growth spurt in California. California is currently on a 7-8% growth rate. That's HUUUUGE. It was half that amount when I was building out there in the late 80s and early 90s.....and California was bringing in carpenters and other tradesmen from all over the country to keep up with the building. Every major market in the country had newspaper ads running trying to get workers out there.
I can't even imagine what it's like with double that growth rate. It's extremely inflationary for one thing. The houses I was building were mostly $300-500K. Prices leveled off through most of the 90s, or even dropped after the last bubble. But this new wave of growth caused those same houses to sell for $800-1200k. They more than doubled in price in just a few years.
And houses can be built relatively fast. Most infrastructure like main roads, hospitals, schools, etc have an absolute minimum of 5-10 year delay from the time the need arises to the time something starts getting built.
If you've heard anything about a housing bubble in this country, a near collapse of the mortgage lending industry, massive federal bailouts of homeowners in default, rapid devaluation of the USD, foreign investors running away from US markets, or a domino effect around much of the world, now you know part of the reason. 7-8% growth just can't be sustained for long.....but no, there are those who would have you believe the people who want to slow immigration are racist, there's no practical reason behind it, it's pure racism. Of course the people saying those things benefit from saying it, so the propaganda machine keeps on running at full speed while the 6th largest economy in the world is on the verge of being destroyed....
No, I'm not at all claiming immigration is solely responsible, but it's a big factor. Politicians and economists love talking about all kinds of complicated economic garbage when in reality probably the two biggest factors in the health of an economy are simple demographics and psychology.
I just did a quick calculation. The growth in California over the last 6 years requires over 900,000 houses, plus all the infrastructure and support. About 560,000 houses are needed just for the immigrants.
To put it in perspective, imagine an area 50% larger than Victoria. Now imagine a city of over 1.6 million people, that's a very big city. Now imagine what it would take to completely build that entire city from the ground up in just 6 years. With all the red tape, it'd be lucky to build a freakin mall in six years, let alone an entire city of 1.6 million people.
Nobody is wanting to stop immigration, they just want to slow it down long enough for the economy to catch up and absorb all the people.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 22, 2007 05:05 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:06, 22 Sep 2007.
|
Hmm
I'm in agreement with the president on this issue. I think we should continue to ignore it. These immigrants are in fact helping stave the rate of inflation, which I consider to be a good thing. I don't appreciate how the immigrants practice non-integration but what they are doing for the economy is very good in my eyes. It's a trade-off as I see it and I think this is how the president feels about it too. I'm not entirely certain but I do believe this to be a common held philosophy among Texans.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 08:30 PM |
|
|
|
In regards to the immigrants they are allowed to collect for the time when they were working as an illegal immigrant. I have no problem with them collecting while they are here legally, but you do not reward for breaking laws that are in place for a reason. Period!
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 09:22 PM |
|
|
That doesn't make sense - are they paying tax when they are an illegal immigrant? If so, LOL, and who cares.
@bini, I think we are debating something else here
My prob is with the whining of people on SS about the immigrants that are coming to take all their money. And the fact that countries are being overrun with immigrants.
@ the california thing - another thread
____________
uhuh
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 09:28 PM |
|
|
Funny how US people see the imigrants.. Like a, uhh, nuisance that slows their growth rate.
Try to imagine you're one of them.
You're rotting in a dreadfully poor country, in a desperate try to get a job (unsuccesful of course..), with huge loans you cannot pay because you just lost your job, for no reason You either go to jail, or try to reach a country where you can actually work for enough money not to worry about basic needs.
Obviously you choose the latter.
And, since world media are filled with US-success propaganda, US seems the best place to go.
And so you arrive there, ready to take any work they are willing to give you, trying to earn some honest money to make a living. Sounds good?
No.
No one wants you there. You're a pest, you shouldn't enter their forbidden paradise. Just another annoying intruder.
Oh, and suddenly, you are succesful there, managing to outsmart many and become someone important. ANd when less wealthy americans hear about you, they get angry. What's that vagabond doing here? Isn't he supposed to rot in his pathetic country, why is he stealing OUR property?
that's how anti-Semitism grew strong in Poland. The Jews were succesful. Much more than most of the Poles. Jealousy destroyed it all.
Don't let it happen in US.
In case you wonder, yeah, I am from a poor country.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted September 24, 2007 04:38 AM |
|
|
Kookastar,
Illegal immigrants are not the only people who get away and don't pay taxes. And so....the answer to this has always been: State Tax. Some states have it and some don't. Oregon has it.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 12:22 AM |
|
|
That fact is that illegal immigrants that pay taxes put a lot of money into the Social Security reserve that they never see, why you may ask? Because they are illegal! The legal immigrants makeup about ten percent of our social security reserve and do contribute.
Then there are the immigrants that come here with nothing and a boat full of children to find themselves in the welfare lines taking from the system that I pay into. Some will have their spouse work for pennies, who has taken a job from a legal citizen, and then the wife and ten other family members live off the state.
I'm not against humans trying to better themselves however we all have to take care of our own as well. I don't feel that it is my duty to support illegals that are floating around on welfare nor any citizen that abuses the system.
What happens is the illegal that has been working and not paying now has the opportunity to recover Social Security during the period in which they were working illegally and not paying in. It becomes a burden to society to support the large amount of illegalls that have come here.
EX: If I loose my job and need a grant to help pay my electric bill for a few months while searching for a job, the system is so overfilled with illegals and legals that suck up all these grants my tax paying ** is told sorry we can't help you.
I worked in the system as a intern and know how it works. The illegals come here and then the factory's, restaurant industry, and of coarse the farming communities are guilty for hiring them to work for pennies under social security numbers that they have on file, thats right, yours and ours.
So what happens is we go on unemployment and then the system kicks us out saying we can't get it because it shows that we have worked for the past six months. You are like WTF I have not. What has happened is someone has your SSN and you have to start this long procedure of proving otherwise. In the mean time my children are going hungry and my work history along with my social security benefits are forever messed with.
It is about the big picture not whether or not we feel sorrry for them being forced to live in a third world country. I work as hard as the next guy, my paper work is in order, and I want what is rightfully mine at the end of it all with no hangups.
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 12:47 AM |
|
|
You are correct, if that is the case it is a system in a mess.
I still don't understand this though: {remember I don't live in the US}
If they are illegal, how can they claim money - if they haven't paid tax?
If they are paying tax, then they are just getting their own money back right? {tis a question}
Man that stinks that people are using your SS number to hire illegals, I wonder how prevailant that is though,,, doesn't it all show up when you do your tax return? That is - the tax department should be able to see you are working in 2 places at once, and your income etc. If not then the system is really whacked.
You know, this really urks me: "stealing our jobs"
The truth is, most employers would rather hire locals. BUT THEY WON'T DO THE WORK, at least not for the low wages. I worked graveyard shift for 2 years at the casino here, I saw 200 staff roll over in that time - just in the dishpigging department. It is hard work, crappy hours, and low pay. As time went by the proportion of immigrant workers {legaL} grew. Why?
I moved up the chain and was shown the pile of applications. 100s. Practically NONE Australian born.
It seems that immigrants are prepared to do what it takes to get an income, and support their families. Westerners would rather collect SS then do snowty work. I've never had the option to get SS. I've had to work my arse off in two or more jobs most of my working life.
There is work out there. I don't care what anyone says, there is tons of work out there, it just may not be your dream job is all.
I agree there are huge issues with people working for practically no money, they drive down the wages. Alot of this work though, would just be sent off shore otherwise - which is just as bad.
There is a price to pay for cheap goods, as long as those with money continue to support these businesses - slave labour - then the market/cycle will continue. The way people are, I can't see this changing any time soon.
addit:
I wanted to mention the number of legal immigrants working in the US, and paying taxes {remember many of these are high income earners - that's how they got their green card}, who work there for years, pay tax, support the economy, then return to their home country in retirement. Surely this goes some way to negating the immigrants on SS?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 02:07 AM |
|
|
I don't have time to write much right now, but Kookie, it sounds like you don't know what Social Security is.
Social Security is income for retired people....essentially a pension plan, but it's not called that. Twice you've mentioned people would rather collect SS than work, when by definition they are retired. I think the minimum age is 62 to collect partial payments and 68 to get maximum payments. It's funded through a payroll tax.
Here's how it works. (I'm old enough to have a vested interest in this so I've read up on it. And I even made a spreadsheet to calculate my benefits)
This is a little confusing....well it's simple, I'm just not sure if I can explain it
To qualify a person must work a minimum of 40 quarters (10 years) with a minimum of $1000 income per quarter. Each quarter with the minimum income gives you credit for 1 quarter. Once you have the minimum 40 quarters of credit, then you qualify for SS benefits when you reach retirement age.
If you earn the minimum 40 credits at the age of 25 you stay qualified even if you never work a day for the rest of your life...but you can't collect benefits until you are at least 62.
Now the AMOUNT you receive at retirement age is a different story. Just because you have qualified doesn't mean you will get much of anything. For example a person who qualifies at age 25 with the absolute minimum $1000 per quarter will get benefits, but it will be a very small amount.
The amount you get is based on the TOTAL income over your lifetime. For example 100,000 over 10 years (10K per year) is the same as 100,000 over 2 years (50k per year).
The thing VF is talking about is this: Under some circumstances, if a person works illegally and LATER becomes a legal worker paying legal taxes, then the quarters when they worked illegally might count toward the minimum 40 quarters to qualify for benefits. I'm still looking into this part, but I'm 95% sure the INCOME does not count toward the AMOUNT they can get in benefits, it only counts toward qualifying them.
It took me several hours to find this damn thing because it's buried deeply. But here's the controversial legislation that everyone was complaining about. You have to look at this in the negative. It's an amendment to a larger piece of legislation. The vote which made the news was when they voted to get rid of the ammendment. The main bill passed, but the ammendment failed.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no quarter of coverage shall be credited for purposes of this section if, with respect to any individual who is assigned a social security account number on or after the date of enactment of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, such quarter of coverage is earned prior to the year in which such social security account number is assigned.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 03:54 AM |
|
|
Koochie star love button states: Quote:
If they are illegal, how can they claim money - if they haven't paid tax?
VF States: Well they can’t but a new law was put in place for those that have worked illegally and it allows them to collect Social security now. They must get legalized first in order to do so. Read the following:
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive112.htm
Quote:
TREA points to a gaping loophole in the Social Security law that
could result in millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on a Social Security Trust Fund that is nearing bankruptcy.
The plan is expected to be coupled with the Senate-sponsored guest-worker program. If an illegal worker working in the United States obtains a legitimate Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, that illegal worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met certain requirements.
Please read this carefully:
The part of the agreement that is sure to disturb Americans is that workers may be able to claim credits for work performed while illegally living and working in the US. The Social Security bureaucracy has what's known as an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages paid to workers by employers that cannot be posted to the workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number.[b/]
Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number – whether a legal citizen or not – wages earned while in the US unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.
In regards to people being on welfare, which is what I’m assuming your talking about since SS is a retirement plan for after the age of 65, this is a whole other story.
Ok, let’s say you are here illegally with kids; you have no job and no money so you go to apply for welfare. Well I worked in this system as an intern we are obligated to not ask questions of there status and with little to no paper work put them through the welfare line. This means they can receive a check (cash), food stamps (supplies them with food), and several other amenities (such as help with electricity, gas, and even new windows for your house.) We the legal taxpayers pay into this system for our use if we need it, not for others to come over illegally and just live off it.
So in regards to those that are here legally I have no problem with. You pay in, you work legally, and then we are like a apple pie and ice cream baby.
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 04:30 AM |
|
|
That is one whacked system. Why do they not ask questions to illegals, yet it is so hard to get a legitimate handout? Or are you saying that anyone can just go in and get handouts? I'm confused...
also:
Quote:
workers may be able to claim credits for work performed while illegally living and working in the US
 I wonder how often it happens...
That is just so bizzare - illegal is illegal right? Aren't they deported? I wonder what they have to do to become "legal".
Just read Bini's post - thanks for the research and clarification.
Hmmm
An odd system - keeps the rich rich and the poor poor I guess *shrug*
Here SS covers all gvt hand-outs btw, we call the over 65 thing a pension...
This may have confused me further:
Quote:
If I loose my job and need a grant to help pay my electric bill for a few months while searching for a job, the system is so overfilled with illegals and legals that suck up all these grants my tax paying ** is told sorry we can't help you.
Hang on
Do you people have SuperAnnuation there?
Compulsory?
The Australian gvt has moved this way, we/employer pays Superannuation and that is meant to support us in retirement... only the really poor/ long time unemployed will get the pension by the time I retire {everyone used to get it once}.
I guess I just see the world now as more of a global community, and am a bit of a socialist... hmmm I could do a lot more to make the world a better place, but am a bit lazy/self absorbed. I guess I don't think in the scheme of things that helping people live is a big bad. Really, pensions are only just enough to live on - they design them that way. I'm more concerned about how much money the gvt spends on wars, propaganda, junkets, mismanagement, their own wages, etc.
If I lived in the states I'd be frustrated at how little is invested in education too *shrug*
____________
uhuh
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 05:03 AM |
|
|
Yes koochie this is so true, our education program is just great if you have money. Otherwise I would have to say that it is less than to be desired. I would like to see a more fair educational system instead of the rich get well educated and the poor get what is left over.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 10:02 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 10:09, 25 Sep 2007.
|
Quote:
I wonder how often it happens
I don't know if it has EVER happened, or if it just has the potential to happen. And if it has happened, is the dollar amount anything significant? I'm still trying to untangle this. This type of thing is typical political spin with tons of misinformation out there.
Quote:
keeps the rich rich and the poor poor I guess
just the opposite
Quote:
Here SS covers all gvt hand-outs
Different terminology. There are hundreds of programs for government handouts in this country and they are administered by several different agencies. Many of the programs are federal programs, but administered by the states who put their own twist on it. Some programs vary dramatically from one state to another.
An example of state-to-state disparity is Worker's Compensation Insurance which pays medical bills if you get injured on the job. It's a federal program administered by the state. It's funded by payroll taxes which are transparent (not seen by the employee). The more dangerous the job, the higher the payroll tax. When I was a carpenter (one of the most dangerous jobs) the payroll tax in Ohio was around 6% of pay. In California it started at 28% and went up from there, depending on how many claims the company had. I knew about one company that sent their employees to the doctor for every little injury even if it wasn't serious....their tax went up to 70% and ended up literally driving them out of business.
Quote:
Hang on
Do you people have SuperAnnuation there?
Compulsory?
The Australian gvt has moved this way, we/employer pays Superannuation and that is meant to support us in retirement... only the really poor/ long time unemployed will get the pension by the time I retire {everyone used to get it once}.
It sounds like "SuperAnnuation" is the equivilent of our SS, only I wouldn't call our SS sytem an annuity because it's not an individual account.
The Social Security program we've been talking about is compulsory with certain exceptions, like if you are covered by another recognized pension plan. The employee and employer pay equal amounts into it.
As for only the poor getting it, that's what much of the controversy is about....the system is under-funded to pay out what it's obligated to pay. So the concern is that only the poor will end up getting it and the rest of us who paid thousands of dollars into it won't get a damn thing. Depending on whose numbers you believe, at the current rate the system is projected to go broke in about 30-40 years.
This debate is nothing new. When I was younger I never believed I would ever see a penny of SS. But now that I'm much closer to retirement age, I'm reasonably sure that I'll get SOMETHING out of it, maybe even the entire amount due to me. At this point I have already paid enough into the system to get enough to retire on, but it will BARELY be enough to live on.......assuming medical bills don't bankrupt me.....and um, assuming a lot of other things also
The worst part about medical bills is that the poor are covered by government insurance and go to the emergency room for a headache (literally). The rich buy their own insurance. And those of us in the middle go bankrupt. That wasn't nearly as true with those older than me because "real" pensions with medical insurance were far more common then.
To repeat what I said, this is nothing new. That's a very serious problem. I was concerned about SS going bankrupt 30 years ago. The politicians were doing the same damn thing back then that they are doing now. Talk Talk Talk Talk.....but do absolutely nothing about it. Same damn thing, the Democrats accused the Republicans of blah blah blah Social Security blah blah blah. And the Republicans were accusing the Democrats of blah blah blah Social Security blah blah blah.
The politicians don't want to do what needs to be done because the medicine tastes bad. They have a choice: raise the SS taxes, increase the retirement age, or decrease the benefits. This has been going on for 30 freaking years and they haven't done a damn thing about it.
The demographics of this can't be ignored any longer, the politicians MUST do something about it and they must do it right away. Much of what they talk about is controversial and they will never agree, therefore they should just quit discussing it. There is even one alternate plan I would support, but they will never agree on it, therefore it's not feasible.
There is one solution that will absolutely work, but it's really bad tasting medicine....raise the freaking tax rate and do it *NOW*. Raising taxes goes against everything Republican in me, but reality is reality. And last time I checked, reality takes precedence over ideology.
The system has never been a true pension plan. From the start it's been a pay-as-you-go system with the current work force funding the current retirees.
People might get tired of hearing about the "baby boomers", but again reality is hard to ignore. I might have heard it before and forgotten, but I was recently surprised to read that in the US during the 1960s, 50% of the population was under the age of 25. That's totally amazing.
Social Security for the current retirees is funded by a massive number of people in the prime of their earning years. The first of the boomers are just starting to reach retirement age. In a VERY short time, that massive population of boomers will stop paying into the system and begin collecting from it.
So who the hell is going to pay for this????? It's the generation that follows who will have to pay for it, that's who. Right now there is a large population paying for a small population's retirement. In 20 years it will be a small population paying for a large population's retirement.
I've been watching this unfold for 30 freaking years and the freaking politicians still are not doing what has to be done....raise the freaking taxes, and do it NOW. I'm willing to pay and I truly believe most others in my generation are willing to pay, Republicans and Democrats alike....but no politician wants to be the first to admit it....raise the god damn SS tax and do it NOW.
____________
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 10:30 AM |
|
|
Wow. I agree, 1% doesn't sound like much of a retirement fund. {hmm did you say it was only 1%... can't find that figure now  }
The compulsory Super payment that employers have to pay to aust workers is a min of 9%.
{So I guess when you look at Aust wages you need to add an extra 9%, plus we can access free medical for everything except dental and non-essential services}
Like you said, the population is aging, we are living longer and not having as many kids.
There's a real push by the Australian gvt to get people to have more babies btw, I thought it was to negate some of the immigration blah, but I guess it really is about not enough young people paying taxes.
It sounds like this is what happened in Aust, why they introduced Superannuation.
wow it's only really been around for a decade or so:
Quote:
After over a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1010 billion[3] in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy[
We can make co-contributions - this is rewarded by the government: Eligible, working individuals can receive up to $1,500 if they contribute $1,000 of their own savings into super resulting in a total contribution of $2,500.
Also if you make voluntary super contibutions above the 9% that you don't see, you can "salary sacrifice", in other words that money gets subtracted from your gross wage, therefore you aren't taxed on it the same way.
btw Superannuation isn't part of your salary, it is just paid by the employer into a super fund of your choice {you can also choose how you want these funds managed - it is your money, there are just limitations on when you can access it}.
I haven't got the volition to find a calculator right now, but the amount of money they are predicting you need to live comfortably in retirment is huge. 100s of thousands of dollars. I can't see how 1% can cover that.
The pension here {your SS} just comes out of taxes like any other welfare payment - there is no special fund that is broadcast to the community anyway...
____________
uhuh
|
| |
|
|
