Post by: mountainclmbr on January 03, 2007, 07:43:30 AM
Post by: 280plus on January 03, 2007, 07:55:16 AM
Post by: HankB on January 03, 2007, 08:07:53 AM
Some years back Fortune magazine had a column called "Keeping Up." I remember one topic was the rate of return on Social Security.
They assumed a guy retiring that year, had he paid the maximum amount annually during his entire working life, would have contributed a hefty chunk of money . . . matched by his employer, of course.
If the money had been invested at a 3% rate of return, the accumulated sum (contributions plus compound interest) would allow the new retiree to purchase a lifetime annuity which would pay him 75% more than the maximum Social Security benefit - for life!
If anyone OTHER than the government were running this kind of a Ponzi scheme, they'd be locked up. And now there are rumors that the Bushmen want to extend SS benefits to foreigners, including illegal aliens! :cuss: :barf: :banghead:
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 03, 2007, 08:13:02 AM
Myself, I think this is the year I'm going to invest in the Vice Fund. Last year it returned 23%.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: 280plus on January 03, 2007, 08:13:39 AM
Post by: Guest on January 03, 2007, 08:20:35 AM
My total contributions to SS and Medicare, including employers matching, is $216,000.00. If I were able to invest and get the returns I have gotten on my 401K, this amount would be worth close to $2M today. My monthly SS benefit, in 15 years when I could first collect, would not even make my house payment even if income taxes were not taken out. Does anyone except me think this is a lousy system?
I'm saddened that you are only now realizing this. After all, it has the word "social" right in the title.
Post by: Art Eatman on January 03, 2007, 08:34:26 AM
Thanks, guys...
, Art
Post by: Sindawe on January 03, 2007, 08:35:38 AM
Yea, I review my SS statements every year. Never fails to make me angry enough to end up on the roof, naked, with a loaded deer rifle.
Quote
And now there are rumors that the Bushmen want to extend SS benefits to foreigners, including illegal aliens!
Here's a bit about THAT bit of odious dren from todays World Net Daily (yea, I know how folks feel about that source)
Quote
INVASION USA
Social Security billions could go to Mexicans
Critics say benefits would lure illegals to U.S. while giving employers marginal help
Posted: January 2, 2007
11:44 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
An organization of retirees has announced the release, after three years of arguments and a Freedom of Information request, by the Social Security Administration of a copy of the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.
The TREA Senior Citizens League said the document reveals what was expected, a huge threat to the future of Social Security, because any Mexican worker who has as little as 18 months of employment history in the United States could end up qualifying for some Social Security retirement benefits.
The organization of retirees, whose leaders have tried to convince Congress to prevent Social Security benefits from being awarded for work done by people in the United States illegally, said the exact financial impact cannot be calculated immediately, because the number of illegals working in the country isn't clear.
But with estimates ranging to 20 million illegals in the country, even a portion of them qualifying for Social Security benefits could move the costs into the range of billions quickly.
An analysis of the plan by the Center for Immigration Studies noted that at the end of 2003, the Social Security System owed retirees and current workers benefits valued at $14 trillion, with assets of only $3.5 trillion.
"Ominously, these assets include not only the trust fund's current reserves ($1.4 trillion), but also the present value of the taxes that current workers will pay for the rest of their working lives ($2.1 trillion)," the organization said.
The TREA organization, which represents more than 1.2 million people, said the government agreement between the United States and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and now is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once that signature is in place, which can be done without a vote in Congress, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate would have only 60 days to disapprove it by voting to reject it.
"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy – yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, chairman of the league.
It's not the first such agreement; the U.S. already has nearly two dozen other agreements with other nations. They are intended to eliminate dual taxation for people who work outside their country of origin. But the other agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S., the league said.
For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under the cross-country agreements, workers can combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits in the U.S.
The agreements generally provide that workers need only 18 months of coverage in the U.S. to qualify.
However, the league said Mexico's retirement system is "radically" different from other nations, the group said. "There, only 40 percent of the non-government workers participate in the system, as opposed to 96 percent of America's non-government workers. Additionally, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower-income workers get back much more than they paid into the system. But in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus interest."
"I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. Government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security totalization Agreement," noted Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long."
The CIS said the plan should not be approved in this form.
"It represents a sell-out of American workers and their families," the group's analysis said. "Such a one-sided pact with its enormous financial risks should never have been negotiated in the first place."
"It is unfortunate that the Commissioner of Social Security signed it despite the serious and specific concerns expressed in the GAO report and again in Congressional hearings in 2003. It would have been far better to pull the plug then rather than extend negotiations with Mexico, which now has every reason to believe the agreement will be accepted. We owe Mexico an apology for leading it on. But embarrassment over a diplomatic blunder should not get in the way of extricating ourselves from an agreement that is not in our national interest," the analysis said.
The CIS said the circumstances could attract illegals to the U.S., while providing only marginal benefits to any U.S. workers or employers.
The retirees' organization is made up of active senior citizens who are concerned about protecting their Social Security, Medicare and veteran or military retiree benefits.
It is working on changing the way Cost-of-Living Adjustments are made, obtaining reforms in the system for those people born in the "Notch" years of 1917-1926, and resolving threats to civilian or military work force retiree benefits.
The cost of Social Security is just one of the concerns being raised by those who oppose the "Premeditated Merger" of North America, a subject fully explored and explained in the newest issue of WND's Whistleblower Magazine.
It also raises the issues of plans to scrap the dollar in favor of an "amero," eliminate U.S. sovereignty and create a "brave new world."
The issue documents 1,000 pages of government forms on assembling a "shadow government," shows how NAFTA superhighways would facilitate the economic changes demanded by the revolutionary concepts and highlights revealing excerpts from the Council on Foreign Relations' radical 59-page blueprint for "North American community."
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53613
Social Security billions could go to Mexicans
Critics say benefits would lure illegals to U.S. while giving employers marginal help
Posted: January 2, 2007
11:44 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
An organization of retirees has announced the release, after three years of arguments and a Freedom of Information request, by the Social Security Administration of a copy of the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.
The TREA Senior Citizens League said the document reveals what was expected, a huge threat to the future of Social Security, because any Mexican worker who has as little as 18 months of employment history in the United States could end up qualifying for some Social Security retirement benefits.
The organization of retirees, whose leaders have tried to convince Congress to prevent Social Security benefits from being awarded for work done by people in the United States illegally, said the exact financial impact cannot be calculated immediately, because the number of illegals working in the country isn't clear.
But with estimates ranging to 20 million illegals in the country, even a portion of them qualifying for Social Security benefits could move the costs into the range of billions quickly.
An analysis of the plan by the Center for Immigration Studies noted that at the end of 2003, the Social Security System owed retirees and current workers benefits valued at $14 trillion, with assets of only $3.5 trillion.
"Ominously, these assets include not only the trust fund's current reserves ($1.4 trillion), but also the present value of the taxes that current workers will pay for the rest of their working lives ($2.1 trillion)," the organization said.
The TREA organization, which represents more than 1.2 million people, said the government agreement between the United States and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and now is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once that signature is in place, which can be done without a vote in Congress, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate would have only 60 days to disapprove it by voting to reject it.
"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy – yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, chairman of the league.
It's not the first such agreement; the U.S. already has nearly two dozen other agreements with other nations. They are intended to eliminate dual taxation for people who work outside their country of origin. But the other agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S., the league said.
For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under the cross-country agreements, workers can combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits in the U.S.
The agreements generally provide that workers need only 18 months of coverage in the U.S. to qualify.
However, the league said Mexico's retirement system is "radically" different from other nations, the group said. "There, only 40 percent of the non-government workers participate in the system, as opposed to 96 percent of America's non-government workers. Additionally, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower-income workers get back much more than they paid into the system. But in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus interest."
"I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. Government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security totalization Agreement," noted Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long."
The CIS said the plan should not be approved in this form.
"It represents a sell-out of American workers and their families," the group's analysis said. "Such a one-sided pact with its enormous financial risks should never have been negotiated in the first place."
"It is unfortunate that the Commissioner of Social Security signed it despite the serious and specific concerns expressed in the GAO report and again in Congressional hearings in 2003. It would have been far better to pull the plug then rather than extend negotiations with Mexico, which now has every reason to believe the agreement will be accepted. We owe Mexico an apology for leading it on. But embarrassment over a diplomatic blunder should not get in the way of extricating ourselves from an agreement that is not in our national interest," the analysis said.
The CIS said the circumstances could attract illegals to the U.S., while providing only marginal benefits to any U.S. workers or employers.
The retirees' organization is made up of active senior citizens who are concerned about protecting their Social Security, Medicare and veteran or military retiree benefits.
It is working on changing the way Cost-of-Living Adjustments are made, obtaining reforms in the system for those people born in the "Notch" years of 1917-1926, and resolving threats to civilian or military work force retiree benefits.
The cost of Social Security is just one of the concerns being raised by those who oppose the "Premeditated Merger" of North America, a subject fully explored and explained in the newest issue of WND's Whistleblower Magazine.
It also raises the issues of plans to scrap the dollar in favor of an "amero," eliminate U.S. sovereignty and create a "brave new world."
The issue documents 1,000 pages of government forms on assembling a "shadow government," shows how NAFTA superhighways would facilitate the economic changes demanded by the revolutionary concepts and highlights revealing excerpts from the Council on Foreign Relations' radical 59-page blueprint for "North American community."
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53613
Would that there was a way to opt-out of the Ponzi scheme. Just keep the money you've stolen already and let me OUT! Of course, there is not. And IIRC the tax laws have been changed so that now, if you wish to declare minors on your tax return THEY have to have a Socialist Slave number. I don't have kids, but I've thought about getting numbers for my cats and taken the deductions for them.
Post by: Art Eatman on January 03, 2007, 08:53:51 AM
"78 million is the number of baby boomers who are in or approaching retirement. Thats the biggest demographic bulge in U.S. history, fully 26% of the population.
And many of those 78 million are in a jam. As they approach retirement, they are still carrying historic levels of debt and, on average, have woefully inadequate net worthand much of that based on shaky housing prices.
In fact, 25% of the retiring boomersnearly 20,000,000 in allare facing retirement with a net worth of less than $50,000. You dont need to be an accountant to see that, with todays degraded currency and longer life expectancies, they wont get very far on so little."
AND:
"U.S. government debt now tops $9 trillion, before taking into account its unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicaredebts that the retiring boomers will soon have their hands out to collect.
After adding in Social Security, Medicare and all the governments other pay-later obligations, the current debt actually comes in at over $60 trillion..."
This comes from the Doug Casey email newsletter, "What We Now Know". This bunch doesn't take political positions on anything; they just look at ways to make money. So, all them cold-blooded but they put their money where they think their facts are.
Art
Post by: InfidelSerf on January 03, 2007, 10:19:04 AM
By merely asking the question and suggesting a revolt may be the only means of correcting the tyranny, our forefathers predicted would happen if we didn't watch our P's and Q's, I become a felon of the law. Thanks
So what next?
It seems nearly every generation from here on will all be born with their heads in the sand.
At what point do we say .. "Hey!, Enough is enough!" End the excessive taxation and atrocious attacks on our liberty.
All I need to do is read the Declaration of Independence and I feel like I'm reading my own thoughts and feelings.
No I fear the New World Order is our future. And those that value true liberty will be relegated to the fringes of society, forced to choose true freedom and liberty, over prosperity. JMHO
Post by: drewtam on January 03, 2007, 05:25:57 PM
But realize this, YOU HAVE SCREWED THE NEXT GENERATION! When I retire, there won't be a dime of the money I'm currently paying you left for me. This is the legacy your generation has left us.
So cry to me all day about how your only getting $650/mo.
But I can tell you how much I'll get in about 40yrs ~$0.000/mo
And when any politician even thinks about reform, it political suicide, because the old folks freak out.
(obviously this isn't directed as much to the members of this board, but the retiring generation in general)
After all, it has the word "social" right in the title.
Drew
Post by: SomeKid on January 03, 2007, 06:00:37 PM
You hit on the very reason I refuse to call old people the greatest generation. They aren't.
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 03, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
Hey, I didn't ask for this. My most recent statement shows that I've paid in somewhere around $130,000+ since I really started earning money after college in the late 1970's.
If the government were to offer that $130K to me today and call it a deal, I'd grab it. That's not going to happen, though, because SS funds are used as part of general revenues, and have been since the 1960's.
There's really only a few options available for Social Security: 1) leave the system as it is; 2) increase the age at which people can collect; 3) decrease the "benefit;" 4) increase taxes on those working; or 5) privatize the system for those still in the work force while maintaining existing benefits for those nearing the age when they will collect.
Option #1 means that the young workers today won't see a dime from what they've paid in. Option #2 will be fought tooth and nail by those of us who've already been fleeced by the system. Option #3 will definitely be fought by us "old codgers," even if it means picking up a rifle. Option #4 is totally unacceptable, but I'm betting it's the way the politicians will go. Option #5 was pressed by GW, but nobody wanted to touch it.
Post by: brimic on January 03, 2007, 08:10:25 PM
Quote
There's really only a few options available for Social Security: 1) leave the system as it is; 2) increase the age at which people can collect; 3) decrease the "benefit;" 4) increase taxes on those working; or 5) privatize the system for those still in the work force while maintaining existing benefits for those nearing the age when they will collect.
Whatever the Baby Boomers want, the baby boomers will get. There are significant enough numbers of the 'me' generation going into retirement in the next decade to vote themselves anything they want.
Post by: Sindawe on January 03, 2007, 10:10:41 PM
Quote
Whatever the Baby Boomers want, the baby boomers will get. There are significant enough numbers of the 'me' generation going into retirement in the next decade to vote themselves anything they want.
Unless of course, "something" is done about them. Aren't they due for for Carrousel or some such nonsense?RENEW!! RENEW!! RENEW!!
Option 5 above would be my choice, though IIRC the Bush proposal still put the funds extracted at gunpoint under government control, not that of the account holder. I expect that the boomers will get their way and we'll see higher taxes for all.
Provided the current form of government lasts that long.
Post by: Standing Wolf on January 03, 2007, 10:18:47 PM
Post by: Leatherneck on January 04, 2007, 02:42:23 AM
TC
Post by: 280plus on January 04, 2007, 03:31:48 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on January 04, 2007, 05:11:27 AM
I'm sure not bitching about my $650. It covers my property taxes, insurance, utilities, food and booze. Since I have no debt, I have no complaints.
Art
Post by: brimic on January 04, 2007, 05:30:01 AM
Quote
Since so few really understand the deal, all efforts to "get real" draw screams of rage from the scared voters. Since it's a Social Program, the Democrats are inherently supporters, regardless of the fiscal idiocy.
Exactly. The democRATS use social security in every election to depict their opponents as the bogeyman who would want the elderly out in the streets eating dogfood and people believe it. We even had an Al Gore supported a few elections ago drive her 1/4 million$ winnebago 1/2 way across the country to be an example of an elderly person who has to eat dog food to pay for her prescription drugs- and people believe3d it
Post by: mountainclmbr on January 04, 2007, 06:19:07 AM
Post by: Guest on January 04, 2007, 06:58:25 AM
Quote
There's really only a few options available for Social Security: 1) leave the system as it is; 2) increase the age at which people can collect; 3) decrease the "benefit;" 4) increase taxes on those working; or 5) privatize the system for those still in the work force while maintaining existing benefits for those nearing the age when they will collect.
Whatever the Baby Boomers want, the baby boomers will get. There are significant enough numbers of the 'me' generation going into retirement in the next decade to vote themselves anything they want.
...proving that "democracy" sucks A$$.
Post by: InfidelSerf on January 04, 2007, 07:22:42 AM
Interesting that nearly ALL retirement accounts (401K, mutual funds etc)
Are all based in the stock market.
So since nearly all retirees rely on various investment accounts that invest in the stock market.
Then how is it that it's somehow more risky for the government to invest the money they took from you by force, in the stock market.
Then if you were to invest as an individual?
But don't worry, pretty soon our cash will be obsolete if not outlawed. Giving the government even more control over our lives.
And the excuse will be "it's for the children" or "in the interest of security" Since we all know criminals are the only ones that use cash now.
For all those that read "Atlas Shrugged" I think a "stirke" of the minds is a good idea.
Post by: Eleven Mike on January 04, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
I'm saddened that you are only now realizing this. After all, it has the word "social" right in the title.
I missed the part where he said he had always been a big fan of the system. Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? Or do you just assume that everyone on the board is an abject leftist or an idiot? Either way, quit.
Post by: Guest on January 04, 2007, 08:54:51 AM
I'm saddened that you are only now realizing this. After all, it has the word "social" right in the title.
I missed the part where he said he had always been a big fan of the system. Jumping to conclusions, aren't you? Or do you just assume that everyone on the board is an abject leftist or an idiot? Either way, quit.
Say "please".
If mountainclmbr has not only recently realized that SS is a lousy system, then I am sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Post by: brimic on January 04, 2007, 08:58:02 AM
Art is only collecting what the government 'promised' to pay him. Its not his fault. The rub lies in the fact that in about 30 years, government will no longer be able to keep its 'promises' without significantly increasing payroll taxes, or breaking its contract with those who have payed in all of their lives.
I still have a good 30 years of work ahead of me before I can even consider retiring. If I could forfeit everything I've paid in so far to take myself off the SS rolls, I would in a heartbeat, as would millions of other productive people in this country- but that would only cause the system to collapse sooner rather than later. I hope to live long enough myself to see SS collapse.
Post by: brimic on January 04, 2007, 09:00:46 AM
Quote
I don't understand why free money never is.
SW- you have some good one-liners, but that one is definately signature material 
Post by: Ben on January 04, 2007, 09:06:42 AM
Quote
If you had a shred of character, you wouldn't collect it, and you wouldn't smear it in our faces with a smarmy "thanks, guys!" I hope that you choke on your bread bought with stolen coin.
So you're suggesting that he just forget about all the money he paid into it? I don't like the fact that I have to pay into it either, but if I'm not going to be allowed to invest that money on my own, you can damn well bet that when I turn 62 I'm going to start taking out to recover at least some of what I contributed. It's my damn money.
Post by: mountainclmbr on January 04, 2007, 09:12:32 AM
Post by: cosine on January 04, 2007, 09:46:42 AM
Post by: Car Knocker on January 04, 2007, 05:03:44 PM
Post by: Brian Williams on January 04, 2007, 05:19:51 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 04, 2007, 08:25:11 PM
At that time, he was working for FDR's WPA, and paid maybe ten cents a week or even a month toward SS.
My dad was forced into retirement back in the very early 1970's, according to General Motors rules.
He continued to work for a few more years as a consultant, until the tax on his SS "benefits" were more than the income he brought in.
He's now been collecting the full amount from SS for over thirty years. And he's only paid a few hundred, or perhaps just a few thousand, into the fund since 1933.
Meanwhile, I've been paying $1000 a month or more for my "contribution" for years. Everytime I make more money, the system raises the FICA ceiling. Everytime I've made more money, they took more.
The government has been taking 20% or more of my earnings for federal withholding, the state has been taking about 6%, and the SS system has been taking 12.5%.
Sure makes it hard to save your own money for your own retirement.
For those of you who are in your 30's or early 40's: your generations and mine are going to go to war. I don't mean that antagonistically. It's just a fact.
The Baby Boom generation (God, how I hate that term) will dwarf the current AARP movement. The number of stumbling, drooling fools like me will hit record numbers.
Do you really think that I'm going to give up the money that was stolen from me? Do you really think that I'm going to say, "yeah, I like cat food better than dog food?"
Two years ago, GW was doing his absolute best to sell the country on the idea of incrementally privatizing Social Security. It was a bold step on his part, and I tried to talk to the people I know about the idea.
I didn't talk to them in terms of what it would do for me, because his plan would have done nothing for me. Instead, I tried to talk to my friends and relatives about what this kind of new plan could mean for our nieces, nephews, and great-nieces and great-nephews. The children of my brothers, and the children of those children, could look forward to retirement with real money. Not the chicken-squat that .gov is going to "award" me.
I might as well have been talking to a rock.
For those of you in your 30's and 40's, start talking to your legislators now. You're going to have to concede that those of my generation get the "benefits" we've been assured. And you're going to have to pay for that.
Or, you can do nothing, and wait until you're 65.
This crisis is one of the most serious I can see in the distance. And nobody in government wants to touch it.
Better that you young people address the crisis now, rather than wait until you're being hit with a 25% SS tax, and no guarantee that you'll ever see your money.
Or, maybe, you'll just decide to take your legislators outside and shoot them. That would be fine with me.
Post by: Twycross on January 04, 2007, 09:00:20 PM
Or, maybe, you'll just decide to take your legislators outside and shoot them. That would be fine with me.
Fine by me too. I've been paying for a couple years now, and I realize that being all of 19 years old:
1). I will wind up paying a lot more.
2). I will never, ever, see a single penny of it back.
3). There is nothing I can do about it, because people in general will always take the immediate carrot rather than avoid the future stick.
Post by: brimic on January 04, 2007, 09:24:02 PM
Quote
This crisis is one of the most serious I can see in the distance. And nobody in government wants to touch it.
Better that you young people address the crisis now, rather than wait until you're being hit with a 25% SS tax, and no guarantee that you'll ever see your money.
Better that you young people address the crisis now, rather than wait until you're being hit with a 25% SS tax, and no guarantee that you'll ever see your money.
The only good thing about SS is that currently there is still more money going into the system than being paid out. Medicare on the other hand is going to swallow us whole before SS becomes an unbearable burden.
The only good thing I can see comingis that the system will implode sooner than later- its inevitable. Combine skyrocketing medicare costs with rapidly climbing healthcare costs, I can easily see Medicare payroll taxes eclipsing, even doubling that of SS. There's going to be a magic limit somewhere along the way where either Atlas Shrugs or the streets of DC will be lined with heads on pikes. I can only hope to have the satisfaction of the latter happening if Teddy Kennedy is still alive at that point.
Post by: brimic on January 04, 2007, 09:29:11 PM
Quote
3). There is nothing I can do about it, because people in general will always take the immediate carrot rather than avoid the future stick.
Yep, and therein lies the reasoning for the democratic party to exist- people have a strong drive for instant self gratification and the democratic party the one to deliver it. The Republicans aren't the best either, but hearing about the Sugar Momma Pelosi wants to be in her first '100 hours' of office is a perfect example of what the democratic party stands for- taking money away fromthose who earned it and turning it over to those who have done nothing to earn it.
Post by: Sindawe on January 04, 2007, 09:34:36 PM
Quote
For those of you in your 30's and 40's, start talking to your legislators now. You're going to have to concede that those of my generation get the "benefits" we've been assured. And you're going to have to pay for that.
I've never had an issue with that fact. 16 some years ago I had the same sort of idea that Mr. Bush was pushing, privitization of SS, with the cut off point being some place a few years older than I was so that those who have less time to plan get some of the money back, us younger folks get to opt out entirely. I still feel that way, and I've made plans for SS to NOT be there when I reach "retirement age". Even if it IS there, I'll not take it since it would not be my money anyway but fund extracted from younger workers on the way up.
So make the cut off something like 45 y/o. Younger, you're out of the system and its up to YOUR to make plans. I'd be out all the funds I've had stolen from my paychecks over the years, but if the stealing stops I cool with the feds keeping that "trust" for the older folks.
Quote
Or, maybe, you'll just decide to take your legislators outside and shoot them. That would be fine with me.
Works for me as well.
Post by: LAK on January 05, 2007, 12:43:12 AM
Quote
My total contributions to SS and Medicare, including employers matching, is $216,000.00. If I were able to invest and get the returns I have gotten on my 401K, this amount would be worth close to $2M today. My monthly SS benefit, in 15 years when I could first collect, would not even make my house payment even if income taxes were not taken out. Does anyone except me think this is a lousy system?
It's called racketeering, and just one of the ongoing criminal enterprizes in this country under the color of law.
And you just can not trust people that steal from you.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Art Eatman on January 05, 2007, 03:26:40 AM
I didn't crdeate the system. I didn't make the rules. I just learn the rules of life and use them for my own benefit. I don't think that's terminal stupidity, not by one iota.
I dropped out of the system of organized working in 1979. Made my hobbies my fulltime business: Coin and gun show tables, and car repair. Buy, sell and trade; anything of value. Me, socialistic? I'd say, more entrepreneurial capitalist...
And my check is about half of what a helluva lot of folks get. I'm just amused by it all because I PLANNED on not having any debt. I PLANNED on having a low-overhead world.
I don't tell folks what to do or how to do. All I do is point out that if you work smart as well as hard, you can pretty much have what you want, do what you want. If I can do it, why can't anybody else?
, Art
Post by: 280plus on January 05, 2007, 03:32:06 AM
Quote
I'm just amused by it all because I PLANNED on not having any debt. I PLANNED on having a low-overhead world.
I'm right there with you Art. 
Post by: Ben on January 05, 2007, 04:34:57 AM
Quote
I PLANNED on not having any debt. I PLANNED on having a low-overhead world.
Exactly what I've done too. Except for once in a while when I'm buying invetment real estate to turn over, I carry zero debt. My retirement plans are all based on my personal investments -- SS does not figure into them at all. But if SS is still around when I'm 62? You can damn well bet I'll be trying to get back as much of my money that the program stole from me as I can.
I haven't been really pleased with some of the directions Bush has taken on several big issues the past couple of years, but his attempt to let me be responsible for my own retirement was something I truly thank him for. The fact that such a great percentage of the population was against that plan showed me just how far socialist ideas have progressed in our country.
Post by: mountainclmbr on January 05, 2007, 06:27:13 AM
Post by: tokugawa on January 05, 2007, 06:36:14 AM
Inflation- the most insidious tax.
Post by: InfidelSerf on January 05, 2007, 07:28:44 AM
I suggest you completely alter your own lifestyle to reflect a completely autonomous life void of the gubermint ponzi schemes.
So I'll ask again.
There isn't a soul on here who can't admit we are being fleeced from every angle.
Income Tax
Property Tax
Estate Taxes
Sales Tax
City Taxes
County Taxes
State Sales Taxes
State Income Taxes
911 emergency Tax
You name it.. there is a tax attached.
When do we all say enough is enough?
Or do we just continue as sheeple, bend over and take it up the ...??
I feel just as helpless as the rest of you. But I am motivated to make a change.
If we all complain but never unite to eliminate the tyranny. Then we deserve what we get.
I'm willing to give it all up.. the nice house, the cable tv, the regal lifestyle even the poorest of Americans enjoy.
If it would mean a chance to overthrow the elite that enslave us with tons unintended consequenses.
*hmmm what's that thumping sound I hear outside?*
Post by: mdhunter on January 05, 2007, 06:59:30 PM
Saw 2-3 posts from what sounded like very young adults, criticizing the older generation as if Social Security was THEIR idea.
I have a couple of suggestions for you:
1) If you don't like it, start raising a fuss with all of your friends, and come up with a better solution, and then go sell it to your legislators (HINT: I believe the majority of young voters went democrat, so maybe you better work on your own age group before flaming your elders)
2) Don't trust someone else to fund your retirement - start saving EARLY and stop buying so much consumer trash, and stop running up needless credit debt, and you can retire in relative comfort wiithout counting on Social Security.
I know I'm making a few assumptions, but you did too, so just trying to play under your rules on this one.
Michael
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 05, 2007, 07:22:26 PM
Back in 2, I was forced to sell my business and give whatever money I raised to my creditors. I could have filed for bankruptcy, but I just didn't like the idea of stiffing people to whom I owed money.
Anyway, the equipment I sold went for dimes on the dollar. So, I needed to cash in all of my retirement savings to pay the creditors.
Stuff happens, as the popular phrase goes.
Here's what really sticks in my craw, though: somewhere around 1992, I started buying whole life insurance policies from probably the best-known life insurance company around. By the time I'd bought $500,000 worth of life insurance, my premiums were about $450 a month.
All during that time, I was paying $971.84 in FICA and co-FICA. Every month.
If I hadn't been forced to surrender the cash value of the whole life policies in 2, the annuity portions alone would have paid me $1600 a month when I turn 65. Plus, I would have still had life insurance.
And that was only after paying $450 or so a month for eight or so years.
I've been paying SS for all these years, and I won't even get $1600 a month when I turn 65.
This insurance company ("The Quiet Company") is very conservative in their investing, and in their returns.
Yet, in just eight years of paying to them half of what I was paying to SS, they were going to give me more at age 65 than the SS system will for what I've paid in for my entire life.
If ever there was an argument for the privatization of Social Security, there's a prime example.
Post by: mdhunter on January 05, 2007, 07:29:31 PM
I may not have stated myself very clearly - I was tossing out points to what I presumed (bad idea, I know guys and gals) were fairly young workers just getting into their career. At the consulting company I just left I heard too many complaints of "not having enough money to live in this area" and "debt management is just a part of personal finance now." I tried to convince them that they COULD easily afford to live in our area, if they stopped buying every new gadget that someone told them they should but, and quit running up more debt than anyone should.
I apologize to all for generalizing, and my comments certainly didn't fit for your situation Monkeyleg. I'm sorry to hear of your predicament.
Michael
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 05, 2007, 08:27:43 PM
Your advice to your young co-workers is spot-on. Save what you can, and do so as early as you can.
My wife and I have always lived very modest lifestyles. We were approved in 1992 for a $300,000+ mortgage. Instead, we bought an $85,000 fixer-upper. I've never laid down "the law" with regard to money, except that one time. I said that we would not spend more than $100,000 on a house.
I'm glad I made that demand. And, now, so is my wife.
Life has its unexpected twists and turns: medical problems, job problems, business problems.
"Be prepared," as the old Boy Scout motto goes.
I lay out a lot of personal stuff on APS because I'm not ashamed of it.
But I can just hear some people saying, "well, if he had to liquidate his retirement savings back in 2, what would have happened to anything he'd had in a privatized SS account?"
The answer is that I had enough in personal retirement savings to pay off my creditors, avoid bankruptcy, and still be able to say today that I never stiffed anybody.
As for our congress? They've been stiffing me and you every day for decades by taking our FICA and co-FICA payments and using them for all sorts of pork-barrel projects.
SS is supposed to remain solvent until 2035. I'll likely be dead by then.
But you younger folks can help head off that insolvency now. Start by being politically active. Demand hard answers from the candidates.
Demand that they stop raiding SS funds for general revenues.
Demand that the money that is taken from your paycheck be pegged to you. I so often hear, "oh, that social security money isn't yours, it's the government's."
Bullfeathers! They took it from you, and it's yours!
Here's how screwed up the system is. When I received my first SS report when I turned fifty, I noticed something unusual: they showed me as having no income for the years 1983 and 1985.
Those two years were very good years for me, ones in which I hit the FICA ceiling.
So, I called the SS office. (I'm going to continue to use the term "SS" until it becomes synonymous with the Nazi SS).
"Hello. I just received my SS report, and there's two years of income missing."
"Well," the SS Unterscharführer replied, "all you need to do is send us your W-2 forms for those years, and we'll make the adjustments."
"Miss, that was over 15 years ago. I don't have my W-2's"
"In that case," said SS Unterscharführer, "you'll need to contact the IRS and get copies of your tax returns and W-2's for those years. We don't keep those records."
OK, off to the IRS. And the Unterscharführer at the IRS told me that they don't keep tax returns longer than seven years.
"Perhaps you might contact your former employer," the Unterscharführer suggested.
"He's been out of business for over ten years," I said.
"Well, then, it seems like you're just out of luck."
It was their mistake, their (for Art's Grammaw's sake, I won't insert the word I want to use here), but I have to take the loss?
But I wasn't through with Herr Unterscharführer yet.
"Ok, so you don't keep tax returns for longer than seven years? How is it that you're able to nail gangsters for tax evasion decades after the fact?"
There was a silence on the other end of the line.
"OK, pal," I said. "This is your job, and I'm not going to ream you for it."
Instead, I called my congressman and senators, and asked that they resolve the problem.
Five years and counting.
And somebody who's faking a disablility, or who's in the US illegally, is getting the money I paid in for those two years.
Maybe it's time to lock and load.
Post by: Lee Lapin on January 06, 2007, 03:05:56 AM
You're most welcome. Hope you keep drawing it till the checks don't cash any more.
Oh yeah, i look at every one they send me. And don't believe I will ever see a dime of it.
I opted out of SS in the early 1980s when i went to work for Uncle Scam as an uncivil serpent. At that time they were just rolling out a new retirement program for federal employees which made them a part of the SS system. The old retirement system was not a part of SS and was independent from it. I opted for the old system and quit paying into SS. I knew then it wasn't likely I'd ever get back the $$$ I had already put in, so after paying in for 30 quarters before going to work for the Feds I said bye-bye. I'll never draw SS, I never planned to. Anyone wants to say "thanks" for that free 30 quarters I donated to the biggest Ponzi scheme of the era, you're welcome.
You expect the fedgov to keep ANY promise it has made? Then I have some beachfront property in nebraska for sale cheap. You still believe in Sandy Claws too? The Tooth Fairy? Time to grow up and smell the coffee. Politics is the art of lying, the bigger the lie the better it goes over. Best get used to the idea, things aren't due for a change until the lies can no longer be hidden. But you'll notice when that happens, I promise you...
lpl/nc
Post by: Lee on January 06, 2007, 04:37:16 AM
at least a trillion dollars in retirement funds in the next deacde or two, none of which has been taxed yet. THAT is the money that will fund every whim of the government down the road. And those are the funds that the young and not- so -young voters should hold the Feds accountable for - Right Freakin Now.
Post by: JohnBT on January 06, 2007, 07:22:09 AM
And you want the Feds to tax my retirement accounts BEFORE I take the money out? Ha, good luck getting that passed.
An unrelated story. My uncle worked for General Electric for 35 years as an engineering assistant (no degree) and bought a little stock along the way. His wife hasn't worked since WWII. He died 30 years ago. She now collects about $1000/mo. from Social Security and the GE stock (and a much smaller amount of Phil. Gas & Elec.) is now worth almost a million. Of course she's taxed on part of her SS check.
I know GE stock has been especially successful over the years, but imagine what she'd have if all of his SS taxes had been invested in GE stock.
I'd like to have the $800k in estate taxes my other aunt and uncle's estate paid even though their money was tied up in 2 trust accounts. Good thing Delaware law allowed them to shelter a lot of it. He worked blue collar tech jobs for DuPont and also bought GM stock during WWII. They bought a little house in 1951 and stayed in it. (The trusts are sitting there in case, if, ever, my mother and her twin, the one with the GE stock, ever need the money. Doesn't look like they will, although my mom has just been diagnosed with mid-level Alzheimer's and secure care will chew through savings at $4k or $5k a month.)
John...still living the $41k fixer-upper I bought in 1980. The real estate taxes on the new assessment of $320k should be right around $325/mo., almost the size of my first mortgage payment. Good thing I only bought a 1350 sq.ft. house on a 25.5' x 90' lot.
Post by: Fly320s on January 06, 2007, 11:04:16 AM
Good point. But, those taxes will be on long term investments (for the most part) for people who's gross income has dropped considerably. So, the overall tax collected just might go down (I'm not Greenspan or Friedman so correct me if i'm wrong).
Another thing to consider: Those millions of baby boomers have the vast majority of their money invested in the stock market in some form or another. The retirees make up about 25% of the total US population. They will all retire over a 20 year span. During that 20 years, they will cash-out their investments. That's 25% of the population cashing in their stocks over a short time.[\B] What will that do to the stock market?
Post by: mdhunter on January 06, 2007, 11:39:19 AM
Good points, and right on except one: I gotta admit to still believing in Santa Claus...I've never seen him and I know he doesn't reside in the DC/Maryland area, but I'm still a believer....
Fly: You makea good point about the stock market, and about what will happen when all of us boomers retire. That's the same reason I keep harping on everyone under 35 to STOP spending so much, and start saving more - when we all retire, we will likely get more conservative in our consumption, which will have a significant impact on both the economy and the market. The youngers adults will be in a much better financial position, if they don't rack up a lot of debt.
I keep telling people if they're REALLY concerned about the environment, stop buying a bigger house and car every time they think thay can afford it, and stick that cash into the market instead. People are slow to convert, but the ones who do, are really glad after a year or two.
Michael
Post by: Art Eatman on January 06, 2007, 04:16:21 PM
The COLA increase for SS is the same as the official inflation rate. Just under 3%. Trouble is, lotsa stuff is climbing in costs at a rate well above 3%. So, that "guaranteed" check will buy less and less and less...
Do some googling on "unfunded liabilities" of the Fortune 500 retirement programs. For the feds, it's around 60 trillion. (Aw, what's five or ten trillion, one way or the other?
)Also look at the number of people who contribut to SS, per recipient. Compare the decline in that number, through the years.
Interesting times, these next ten or fifteen years.
Art
Post by: Ben on January 06, 2007, 06:20:32 PM
Social Security for illegal aliens
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070104-120950-4277r.htm
Post by: Lee on January 06, 2007, 06:23:31 PM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/cda05-06.cfm
My mother turns 79 this year. She still lives in the house where I was raised, and most of the old neighbors still live there there as well. Every time we talk, I get a collective update on all the latest illnesses, injuries, and surgeries the hood has had. I'd guess that those 10 or so people go through about a million bucks worth of medical procedures a year...and that is on top of SS and whatnot. Yet, they still gripe about the cost of the co-pay on the meds that keep them alive and the profits the drug companies make. I work for a drug company. We haven't had a decent raise in years, we've had a hiring freeze for years...and we get heart palpitations every time Hillary's name is mentioned.
And never mind the fact that tens of millions of dollars are spent on research to develop the drugs that they want for cheap...or... that the money simply goes down the tube if the clinical trial doesn't pan out...or if they sue us when they lose vision instead of getting an erection.
Sorry to ramble...but SS will not be the only thing the upcoming generations will pay for and not receive. If and/or when socialist medicine hits town, there will be no more great advances in medicine...not here in the US anyway.
Post by: Art Eatman on January 07, 2007, 05:43:04 AM
Art
Post by: 280plus on January 07, 2007, 05:46:41 AM
Quote
they sue us when they lose vision instead of getting an erection.
They shouldn't take that stuff when they're alone! Post by: brimic on January 07, 2007, 09:26:58 AM
Quote
I work for a drug company. We haven't had a decent raise in years, we've had a hiring freeze for years...and we get heart palpitations every time Hillary's name is mentioned.
And never mind the fact that tens of millions of dollars are spent on research to develop the drugs that they want for cheap...or... that the money simply goes down the tube if the clinical trial doesn't pan out...or if they sue us when they lose vision instead of getting an erection.
Sorry to ramble...but SS will not be the only thing the upcoming generations will pay for and not receive. If and/or when socialist medicine hits town, there will be no more great advances in medicine...not here in the US anyway.
And never mind the fact that tens of millions of dollars are spent on research to develop the drugs that they want for cheap...or... that the money simply goes down the tube if the clinical trial doesn't pan out...or if they sue us when they lose vision instead of getting an erection.
Sorry to ramble...but SS will not be the only thing the upcoming generations will pay for and not receive. If and/or when socialist medicine hits town, there will be no more great advances in medicine...not here in the US anyway.
Having formerly worked for a pharmaceutical company I completely agree with what you said. We mostly specialized in generics and had to develop new technologies just to get around process patents already in place. earlier this year, the company cut 3/4 of the production staff (including me) and about 1/3 of the administrative and support staff. The reasoning was that the comapny was hemmorhaging money waiting on the FDA to approve 2 of our drug master files so that the drugs me were producing could be saleable. The FDA was dragging their feet and sent a letter to our comapny stating that they are expecting a backlog of at least another year, when they originally should have had the filing done in 6 mo time. We spent millions$$ on developing the new technologies only to be thwarted by the .gov. I can't even begin to imagine the cost to originally develop and approve the drugs that we made generic versions of.
Post by: drewtam on January 07, 2007, 12:08:19 PM
I have a couple of suggestions for you:
1) If you don't like it, start raising a fuss with all of your friends, and come up with a better solution, and then go sell it to your legislators (HINT: I believe the majority of young voters went democrat, so maybe you better work on your own age group before flaming your elders)
Check,
and even the democratic friends I have my age (20-24); they know SS is in BIG trouble. They either try to quietly change the subject or agree with me.
2) Don't trust someone else to fund your retirement - start saving EARLY and stop buying so much consumer trash, and stop running up needless credit debt, and you can retire in relative comfort wiithout counting on Social Security.
Check,
Good advise that I live by. But I just imagine how much money I could make if I could take those SS dollars and put against the mortgage or any other smart long term investing and it just makes so angry. And I don't mean the internet angry where you type in all caps and blow off steam. But it makes me the real, all worked up, for the rest of the day angry.
Now you've gotten me all spittin and hissin on a perfectly good Sunday afternoon, a day I would rather be focused on spiritual things.
Drew
Post by: Lee on January 07, 2007, 03:46:12 PM
Quote
I can't even begin to imagine the cost to originally develop and approve the drugs that we made generic versions of.
I don't work for Pfizer...but here is an example of the cost of doing business.
If they has succeeded, they would have had seventeen years to recoup the investment before a company like yours would be able to market it...probably much less time overseas.
From Yahoo:
"The world's largest drugmaker said it was told Saturday that an independent board monitoring a study for torcetrapib, a drug that raises levels of HDL, or what's commonly known as good cholesterol, recommended that the work end because of "an imbalance of mortality and cardiovascular events."
The news is devastating to Pfizer, which had been counting on the drug to revitalize stagnant sales that have been hurt by numerous patent expirations on key products. It has said it was spending around $800 million to develop Torcetrapib."
Post by: mountainclmbr on January 10, 2007, 09:07:25 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/baby_boomers_are_selfishly_sil.html