Recent tax increase on the 2 percent

[gatormike51]

At the time this was passed, little known was that the 2% payroll tax cut was expiring. According to the Congressional Budget Office. The repeal of the 2% payroll tax cut will raise $138 B in new revenue in 2013. The tax increases on the Two percent will raise only $62 B in 2013.

If my math is correct the tax increase on working stiffs is twice as much as the ultra rich.

Watch what Obama does, not what he says.

If you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN (unless you want to know the latest on the celebrity stars) or MSNBC, you are getting no news at all and you are being sucked into the leftist talking points.

[trekcid]

That could be accurate, I read somewhere that taxes went up on 77% of Americans.
There are 23 or so taxes in the affordable health care Act. I love that title. My families
insurance has gone up 50% in the last 3 years and we hardly reach the annual deduction
each year. The idea of health care cost going down is a big joke .

[fredsanford]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

[g8orbill]

BS shab- you libs have used pubs wanting to cut out the automatic increase that is built in every line item in the budget due to baseline budgeting as pubs wanting to cut SS and medicare

[gator0254]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

Funny - that is exactly the same situation as the Bush tax cuts - a temporary set of cuts (which have been renewed multiple times).

The Democrats characterized those as a tax increase

Sauce for the goose - glad you came out on record that that is not a tax increase

[jimgata]

Obama trying to take credit for the Bush tax cuts. The left demonized Bush for everything. What has Obama done differently. Gitmo still open, Bush tax cuts now save the economy, personal liberties are being trampled.. One change, the drone strikes have now killed 2500, how many were children, Obama?
Pay attention to what Obama does instead of what he says. I don't think he knows what he says day to day.

[brainstorm]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

It was less. Now it's more. It feels like an increase. But maybe it's not.

[gatordowneast]

Was it Emerson who said, "What one does thunders so loudly, I cannot hear what they say?" Me thinks this applies to Obama on virtually every issue. No need to turn on the sound...look at the action. This clown is destroying America with the backing of the mooches, slackers and misfits and the libbie, lefty, Prius driving, Birkenstock wearing granola crunchers that enable the "something for nothing" crowd.

[108]

if the tax cut paid for itself it would be one thing, but the lost revenue is going straight to the credit card

[QGator2414]

I just wish they would actually address the benefits side of the FICA equation...

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

if the tax cut paid for itself it would be one thing, but the lost revenue is going straight to the credit card

Indeed. We need a lot more spending cuts

[DaveFla]

Well. At last, once and for all, it proves that the tax cuts were not just for the wealthy as many on the left had claimed for the past 10 or so years.

Now, don't you feel foolish after parroting that lie for so long?

[llm85]

Well, if it's not a tax increase now then it can't have been a tax cut when it was implemented.

[108]

Indeed. We need a lot more spending cuts

so that's it...anytime a temporary tax cut is needed, don't raise it back?

[PIMking]

if the tax cut paid for itself it would be one thing, but the lost revenue is going straight to the credit card

I have to agree with this. (now we need to all go into our bomb shelters because the world is going to end)

[neisgator]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

Fox World?

You mean the real world?

[dangolegators]

Actually, it was Reagan and Bush 1 who raised the payroll tax to its current level. Obama temporarily decreased it to help stimulate the economy. So you guys should be complaining about Reagan and Bush 1 rather than Obama.

[QGator2414]

If one wanted to stimulate or create jobs for the economy as was the reason for lowering the payroll tax they should have lowered the employer portion.

Now we need to address the real problem "benefits" so we can get our future generations having similar liabilities to those receiving SS benefits now and create a "safety net" instead of a burden on our kids...

[bluelang]

The assertion that the payroll tax holiday was sunsetting was "little known" is completely ridiculous.

[fredsanford]

Fox World?

You mean the real world?

No, the place that told lemmings that Romney was winning in a landslide--the alternative reality that pubs prefer.

[corpgator]

If one wanted to stimulate or create jobs for the economy as was the reason for lowering the payroll tax they should have lowered the employer portion.

Now we need to address the real problem "benefits" so we can get our future generations having similar liabilities to those receiving SS benefits now and create a "safety net" instead of a burden on our kids...

We're a demand driven economy. Giving more money to businesses has not helped. There have been record profits and cash hoards every year since the crash and they still aren't hiring. Obviously it needs to be on the employee side.

[QGator2414]

We're a demand driven economy. Giving more money to businesses has not helped. There have been record profits and cash hoards every year since the crash and they still aren't hiring. Obviously it needs to be on the employee side.

No. Obviously it does not...

As said though. The real fix for our problems is on the benefit/promises/spending side of the equation...

[corpgator]

No. Obviously it does not...

As said though. The real fix for our problems is on the benefit/promises/spending side of the equation...

Ok, why does it obviously not since I'm obviously missing it?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

so that's it...anytime a temporary tax cut is needed, don't raise it back?

You mean like the Bush tax cuts. Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

I have said before, and I will say it again; any liberal that is intellectually honest will rally for an end to ALL the Bush tax cuts. That will expand the tax base, which means more people will be on the tax roles.

Another thing to do will be to insist that government spending go back to that when the Bush tax cuts were first implemented. Including military spending.

Problem solved, just that simple.

[QGator2414]

Ok, why does it obviously not since I'm obviously missing it?

While there is a benefit to employees keeping more of their money espeically the younger people since they are having their FICA taxes redistributed more than the older generations one of the points was to create jobs.

Who has a better chance of creating a job? An employee keeping an extra $800 or a business with 50 employees keeping $40K...

But again the real issue is the part of the equation that was not addressed...Benefits/Promises/Spending

[neisgator]

No, the place that told lemmings that Romney was winning in a landslide--the alternative reality that pubs prefer.

Keep mixing up reality. It amuses me, and Im sure many others.

[dangolegators]

If one wanted to stimulate or create jobs for the economy as was the reason for lowering the payroll tax they should have lowered the employer portion.

Just more failed supply side thinking. A temporary lowering of the payroll tax on the employer portion would have done little or nothing, except increase the record levels of corporate profits even more. Employers, knowing that the cut was only temporary, would not have hired more workers only to see the cost of hiring more employees go up as soon as the tax was restored to its normal rate.

[Gatoragman]

So 108 why are you ok with the fact that the bush tax cuts have remained for 98% of tax payers? Is it now being paid for?

[dangolegators]

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see taxes rise for everyone. As the economy strengthens, hopefully we will see some additional increases.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see taxes rise for everyone. As the economy strengthens, hopefully we will see some additional increases.

How about spending cuts? How do you feel about them?

[dangolegators]

How about spending cuts? How do you feel about them?

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense -- lets cut 100 billion from defense.

[QGator2414]

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense -- lets cut 100 billion from defense.

Why not start with the two largest expenditures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

[dangolegators]

Why not start with the two largest expenditures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Sure. Lets cut Medicare -- stop spending so much to keep old folks alive for a few more months. I'm all for that. I am not in favor of cutting SS.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Just more failed supply side thinking.

You are of the opinion that money left in the pocket of the person(s) who earned it is worse for the economy than putting it in the pocket of the government?

If so, please explain.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense --

No argument from me. I have a great idea. Roll back ALL the Bush tax cuts and roll back ALL government spending to the spending at the time the Bush tax cuts were implemented.

How about that?

[dangolegators]

You are of the opinion that money left in the pocket of the person(s) who earned it is worse for the economy than putting it in the pocket of the government?

If so, please explain.

So you think it would be a good thing to just eliminate government all together then? That would be the best thing for the economy, with no government to take the money you earned out of your pocket?

[Gatoragman]

You know the more I read THFSG and see how the arguments are being made by the left, if that is any indication of what it is like trying to negotiate a deal in Congress and with Obama, the more I understand why nothing is getting done. Some on the right have the same problem, but the left leads the way with idiotic statements

[QGator2414]

Sure. Lets cut Medicare -- stop spending so much to keep old folks alive for a few more months. I'm all for that. I am not in favor of cutting SS.

Why not SS?

Why should we continue to force the younger generations to subsidize the older ones?

Why not reform it so it is a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So you think it would be a good thing to just eliminate government all together then?

Straw man, thy name is dangolegators.


Why is it than when substantive discussion is offered, those that are back themselves into a intellectual cul-de-sac are so prone to hyperbole? Could it be that they are incapable of furthering their own arguments?

That would be the best thing for the economy, with no government to take the money you earned out of your pocket?


Even a small government type such as myself sees a strong need for limited government. As our forefathers intended.

[dangolegators]

Why not SS?

Why should we continue to force the younger generations to subsidize the older ones?

Why not reform it so it is a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement?

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

[philobeddoe]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

ROTFLMAO.

If a tax increases ... er, "goes up" .... it is not an "increase"? :huh:

[g8orbill]

For years the libs were able to demonize the pubs because they wanted to cut the built in increase caused by baseline budgeting - now when taxes go up it is mot an increase but merely an expiration of a previous cut

[QGator2414]

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

It is not a "safety net" it is an "entitlement" that has redistributed younger generations wealth to older ones since inception back in 1937.

If we turned it into a "safety net" we may actually leave our kids a program with liabilities in line with what ey were in 1937...

Unfortunately we are to selfish and each generation justifies screwing the younger ones because they were screwed. Sadly we have hit the point where future generations will not get back what they paid in and we are not able to fix that because people like you want to tweak (let me guess: increase retirement age aka reduce benefits for future generations and increase revenues by removing the already more than 3 times inflation max taxable income aka increase costs) the program so you can get yours...

[QGator2414]

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

btw...Please define successful!

If you mean people find getting more than they paid is seen as success then I agree.

However when you face reality and realize no one gets to start working with a FICA rate of 1%, 2%, 3%,...anymore...We nail them for 6.2% now on a max taxable that is approaching 4 times inflation (using 3.24% from inception even though there was no increase in the max taxable for 14 yeaars).

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Please explain how we are leaving "success" to our kids and grandkids as we ask them to work longer and receive less while paying more.

[dangolegators]

It is not a "safety net" it is an "entitlement" that has redistributed younger generations wealth to older ones since inception back in 1937.

If we turned it into a "safety net" we may actually leave our kids a program with liabilities in line with what ey were in 1937...

Unfortunately we are to selfish and each generation justifies screwing the younger ones because they were screwed. Sadly we have hit the point where future generations will not get back what they paid in and we are not able to fix that because people like you want to tweak (let me guess: increase retirement age aka reduce benefits for future generations and increase revenues by removing the already more than 3 times inflation max taxable income aka increase costs) the program so you can get yours...

SS is an insurance program. You were never guaranteed to get back what you paid in and that was never the intention of it. It's a good program that has made this a better country. Sorry you don't like it, but that's just how it goes in a democracy. Most of the country favors it, therefore we have it.

[QGator2414]

SS is an insurance program. You were never guaranteed to get back what you paid in and that's was never the intention of it. It's a good program that has made this a better country. Sorry you don't like it, but that's just how it goes in a democracy. Most of the country favors it, therefore we have it.

Unfortunately you are right that a "democracy" will screw others. It is too bad we lost the "republic" in us...

[QGator2414]

So please explain how we have a good "insurance" program that cannot stay solvent without screwing younger generations continuously.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

[QGator2414]

The facts are right from the Social Security Administrations website dangolegators.

And a "safety net" as you try to claim this is does not provide benefits to those who can take care of themselves. An "entitlement" does. And we do so at our kids expense.

We are a selfish arrogant bunch. I just wish I could get more to see reality and accept what we are as a Nation or "democracy"...

[dangolegators]

So please explain how we have a good "insurance" program that cannot stay solvent without screwing younger generations continuously.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

SS is solvent and can remain so with some fairly minimal adjustments.

[dangolegators]

The facts are right from the Social Security Administrations website dangolegators.

And a "safety net" as you try to claim this is does not provide benefits to those who can take care of themselves. An "entitlement" does. And we do so at our kids expense.

We are a selfish arrogant bunch. I just wish I could get more to see reality and accept what we are as a Nation or "democracy"...

Feel free to reject your SS checks then if you are well-off enough that you don't need them. That's one of those tweaks we could look at -- reducing payments to wealthy seniors who don't need it. I doubt your side would want that though.

SS is a safety net.

[QGator2414]

SS is solvent and can remain so with some fairly minimal adjustments.

What adjustments?

The same ones enacted throughtout history since inception?!?!?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

The ones that burden younger generations more and reduce benefits?

[QGator2414]

Feel free to reject your SS checks then if you are well-off enough that you don't need them. That's one of those tweaks we could look at -- reducing payments to wealthy seniors who don't need it. I doubt your side would want that though.

SS is a safety net.

I don't disagree that both pubs and dems do not want to accept reality.

We are a greedy bunch. I don't blame people for taking the check. I blame them for not being willing to sacrifice and only dump burdens onto future generations.

[dangolegators]

What adjustments?

The same ones enacted throughtout history since inception?!?!?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

The ones that burden younger generations more and reduce benefits?

Yeah, those ones. You either increase revenue or reduce spending by cutting benefits. I favor increasing revenue.

[QGator2414]

Yeah, those ones. You either increase revenue or reduce spending by cutting benefits. I favor increasing revenue.

Did you at least begin working after 1990?

And why are you opposed to turning it into an actual "safety net" that provides food and shelter for those who cannot regardless of age?

(my only beef then would be it should be done from the state or even more local level)

[Matthanuf06]

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.

Is this a joke? How is it working well? You are loaning money to the US Govt at under a 1% rate. That is terrible.

If that is such a good deal why don't you give me some money, and ill straight up guarantee you 2% annualized in 50 years. How about that? What about 3%? 4%? Easy as pie over 50 years.

We are getting ripped off beyond belief.

[Matthanuf06]

btw...Please define successful!

If you mean people find getting more than they paid is seen as success then I agree.

However when you face reality and realize no one gets to start working with a FICA rate of 1%, 2%, 3%,...anymore...We nail them for 6.2% now on a max taxable that is approaching 4 times inflation (using 3.24% from inception even though there was no increase in the max taxable for 14 yeaars).

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Please explain how we are leaving "success" to our kids and grandkids as we ask them to work longer and receive less while paying more.

People should get WAY more than what they pay in. It's effectively a 50 year loan.

The biggest error in the history of the United States was not starting SS with personal accounts. Our economy would probably be triple what it is today, and every older person would be pretty damn well off.

[dangolegators]

Is this a joke? How is it working well? You are loaning money to the US Govt at under a 1% rate. That is terrible.

If that is such a good deal why don't you give me some money, and ill straight up guarantee you 2% annualized in 50 years. How about that? What about 3%? 4%? Easy as pie over 50 years.

We are getting ripped off beyond belief.

No it's not a joke. And you aren't loaning money to the federal government. It's a tax. It's not meant to be your 401k.

[DeanMeadGator]

Obama trying to take credit for the Bush tax cuts. The left demonized Bush for everything. What has Obama done differently. Gitmo still open, Bush tax cuts now save the economy, personal liberties are being trampled.. One change, the drone strikes have now killed 2500, how many were children, Obama?
Pay attention to what Obama does instead of what he says. I don't think he knows what he says day to day.

I find it appalling that Obama sees his main role as attacking Republicans and characterizing the successful as "bad," rather than acting as a president who brings Americans together.

I predict that Obama will never have a "fireside chat" when he addresses the American people in a straight forward and honest manner.

For someone who is so concerned about the judicial system (he taught constitutional law at Harvard), he seems to be more than happy to appoint "czars" without the advice and consent of the Senate, issue an "executive order" to control gun rights and continues to be the "Commander in Chief" conducting wars that he railed against. He so-called "transparent administration" is a fiction.

The Ego has landed.

[Matthanuf06]

No it's not a joke. And you aren't loaning money to the federal government. It's a tax. It's not meant to be your 401k.

Wow you don't understand how it works.

Yes it is a loan. They tricked you into thinking its a "tax" because even the most financially illiterate would then know its a terrible deal.

The govt takes in gobs of cash for SS, not in a lock box, that they spend today. They know in 30-50 years, depending on the person they will give them their contribution plus .75% annualized. Some admin fees and other safety net functions probably pushes the IRR to 1%

Take a look at the yield curve. The us govt can't sniff that with selling LT debt to the Chinese.

If we had a lockbox with the "tax" invested in domestic companies we'd be the richest. Strongest, least poor country in the world. 10x over really.

But the govt doesn't want a wealthy well off populace. They want one they can control. And of course they are so addicted to spending they'd make us all much much worse on purpose.

[sappanama]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

i'll give you that if you admit, that a spending increase of 3% instead of planned 4% is a spending increases and not a spending cut.
By the way, my lil bro, a hard core dem, sees the money taken out of his check as an increase, as do I. Makes no difference that it was a temp cut, or not, it is currently an increase in money taken out of everyone that works checks, party affiliation be damned. Lets say I was punching you in the face 10% of the time, and now I punch you 12% of the time, would you find solace in the fact that I was just returning to a previous rate of punching, or might you see that as a current 2% increase in the number of punches your face absorbs irregardless of what I did 3 years ago.

[dangolegators]

Wow you don't understand how it works.

Yes it is a loan. They tricked you into thinking its a "tax" because even the most financially illiterate would then know its a terrible deal.

The govt takes in gobs of cash for SS, not in a lock box, that they spend today. They know in 30-50 years, depending on the person they will give them their contribution plus .75% annualized. Some admin fees and other safety net functions probably pushes the IRR to 1%

Take a look at the yield curve. The us govt can't sniff that with selling LT debt to the Chinese.

If we had a lockbox with the "tax" invested in domestic companies we'd be the richest. Strongest, least poor country in the world. 10x over really.

But the govt doesn't want a wealthy well off populace. They want one they can control. And of course they are so addicted to spending they'd make us all much much worse on purpose.

You think your SS taxes are a loan? And you're trying to tell me I don't know how it works? Humorous.

[QGator2414]

People should get WAY more than what they pay in. It's effectively a 50 year loan.

The biggest error in the history of the United States was not starting SS with personal accounts. Our economy would probably be triple what it is today, and every older person would be pretty damn well off.

Hey I am still a youngen just reaping the benefits of 6.2% on a max taxable of $113,700 that our elders have dumped on us... :)

[g8orbill]

it went up on me double-not only did it go up on my personal paycheck-but as an employer too

[dangolegators]

it went up on me double-not only did it go up on my personal paycheck-but as an employer too

The employer contribution never went down in the first place, only the employee contribution did. So I don't see how it affected you as an employer, other than the fact that you might have to explain to your employees why their take home pay went down.

[QGator2414]

dangolegators...Why are you opposed to turning it into a real "safety net" or "insurance" for those who cannot provide food or shelter for themselves?

One is not owed a certain standard of living just because they worked for 45 years. Especially when they want that certain standard by forcing others to work 50 years or more...

[dangolegators]

dangolegators...Why are you opposed to turning it into a real "safety net" or "insurance" for those who cannot provide food or shelter for themselves?


Because it already is a real safety net. It's public insurance.

[Matthanuf06]

You think your SS taxes are a loan? And you're trying to tell me I don't know how it works? Humorous.

You need to analyze the program.

What is the purpose of the program? Do you understand how it works? You pay money now, you get money later.

What are the assets and liabilities of the program from the perspective of the citizen and the government?

Think about it.

It is clear. The citizen gives X dollars today and gets back X at less than 1% annualized over 50 years.

Now it's not technically a loan, but it's an easy to understand terminology that is close enough to the truth.

Now it appears one portion of your argument that it is a "tax" from the perspective of the government is that they can screw people and not pay. While that is true, that optionality on the "loan" makes it worth EVEN LESS.

Heck you can make the case the EV is deep in the red for the majority of Americans.

Now tell me, how is that a good program? How is a program that is deeply in the red for the majority of the nation a good program? How is a program that has an ENORMOUS opportunity cost a good program?

If today's seniors didn't have Uncle Sam raping their paycheck with this "tax" and giving them back 1% and instead forced them to invest they wouldn't be living on fixed incomes. They'd all be freaking wealthy.

How on earth is it a good program that has made poor/lower middle class out of an entire subset of the population when if they had a freaking monkey picking stocks for them 50 years ago they'd be upper middle class? How is that a good program? You'd rather be poor than upper middle class?

[QGator2414]

Because it already is a real safety net. It's public insurance.

It is not a "safety net" or "insurance"...

It is an entitlement. If you do not need it you still get paid at someone else's expense.

A "safety net" or "insurance" would only pay you benefits in a time of need.

So why are you not for reducing our burdens so we can help those in "NEED" rather than let us enjoy an extra vacation, data plan, cable, etc etc etc???

[dangolegators]

You need to analyze the program.

What is the purpose of the program? Do you understand how it works? You pay money now, you get money later.

What are the assets and liabilities of the program from the perspective of the citizen and the government?

Think about it.

It is clear. The citizen gives X dollars today and gets back X at less than 1% annualized over 50 years.

You really don't understand how Social Security works. You seem to be under the illusion that it is supposed to be like a 401k.

[QGator2414]

You really don't understand how Social Security works. You seem to be under the illusion that it is supposed to be like a 401k.

You don't either...

You seem to be under the illusion it is suppose to pay benefits when there is not a "need" or "loss"...

Just using your terms...As I get it is an Entitlement you don't want to give up...

[Matthanuf06]

You really don't understand how Social Security works. You seem to be under the illusion that it is supposed to be like a 401k.

No I don't. I'm saying that is precisely what it should be if run semi competently.

So please enlighten me. How does SS work? You said it is insurance. How is it possibly insurance by any definition of the word? I'm talking about the elderly component, not the welfare component. Please enlighten me.

I'm really curious what you think the purpose is. And don't give me some bs vague term like insurance. Describe it.

[QGator2414]

No I don't. I'm saying that is precisely what it should be if run semi competently.

So please enlighten me. How does SS work? You said it is insurance. How is it possibly insurance by any definition of the word? I'm talking about the elderly component, not the welfare component. Please enlighten me.

I'm really curious what you think the purpose is. And don't give me some bs vague term like insurance. Describe it.

They can't let it be what you say it should. They are too caught up in getting theirs rather than accepting reality...

[Matthanuf06]

You don't either...

You seem to be under the illusion it is suppose to pay benefits when there is not a "need" or "loss"...

Just using your terms...As I get it is an Entitlement you don't want to give up...

It's not an entitlement since they've paid into it. Getting a nickel for your dollar isn't an entitlement.

From your vantage point I get why you think so. The PV of your SS contributions are negative, both on a real and nominal basis. So you are effectively funding a social welfare program in your eyes.

From a senior they see it as paying in their whole life and getting it back. That is certainly valid. Government funds has always been a shell game, it isn't necessarily being funded by your contribution. Your contribution could be going into buying a MBS with a considerably higher yield than what they will pay you.

From the govt point of view, and the correct point of view they are receiving a loan that they can pay back (if they want) in 30-50 years at 1%. It will always be solvent because of the length of time to payment and the low return.

[QGator2414]

It's not an entitlement since they've paid into it. Getting a nickel for your dollar isn't an entitlement.

From your vantage point I get why you think so. The PV of your SS contributions are negative, both on a real and nominal basis. So you are effectively funding a social welfare program in your eyes.

From a senior they see it as paying in their whole life and getting it back. That is certainly valid. Government funds has always been a shell game, it isn't necessarily being funded by your contribution. Your contribution could be going into buying a MBS with a considerably higher yield than what they are paying you.

From the govt point of view, and the correct point of view they are receiving a loan that they can pay back (if they want) in 30-50 years at 1%.

They are going negative. I think your numbers are pretty much right on for the current group heading into SS. But for the younger generation there is just no way unless they work longer and pay more in.

My grandfather who could have survived without a SS check easily (retired E-9) received a return that is off the charts...An fdr democrat he would have fought for that check regardless of the fact others were paying for the vast majority of the ones he received...

But I get where you are coming from as The scary part is so many get nothing from SS yet it still needs to redistribute the younger generations wealth.

I hope I would never be in a position to need help to provide food or shelter. But that is what the program should be. And I am fine supporting a program (I believe it should be from the state or local level but understand the situation). The best scenario would be a private account as you say if we are not going to let the states handle it...

[dangolegators]

It is not a "safety net" or "insurance"...

It is an entitlement. If you do not need it you still get paid at someone else's expense.

A "safety net" or "insurance" would only pay you benefits in a time of need.

So why are you not for reducing our burdens so we can help those in "NEED" rather than let us enjoy an extra vacation, data plan, cable, etc etc etc???

It is a safety net. If you want to call it an entitlement as well, fine with me, as I don't see anything wrong with 'entitlements'. Our country has decided that if you work all of your life and have paid into SS, that you are 'entitled' to the income that the Social Security system provides when you reach a specified age. You may or may not need it to survive, but you are entitled to it.

Your claim that a 'safety net' would or should only pay you benefits in a time of need is silly. Trapeze artists perform over a safety net. By your definition, the net should only be there when the trapeze artist actually needs it -- when he's falling to his death. No, the safety net is there in case he needs it. SS is there in case you need it. If it turns out that you did well and had no major unlucky breaks in life, all the better for you. You did your trapeze performance without falling. The net was still there, just in case.

[QGator2414]

The problem is the only way we can do private accounts is for people to not get all they paid because of "promises" and the necessary redistribution to cover them...

[QGator2414]

It is a safety net. If you want to call it an entitlement as well, fine with me, as I don't see anything wrong with 'entitlements'. Our country has decided that if you work all of your life and have paid into SS, that you are 'entitled' to the income that the Social Security system provides when you reach a specified age. You may or may not need it to survive, but you are entitled to it.

Your claim that a 'safety net' would or should only pay you benefits in a time of need is silly. Trapeze artists perform over a safety net. By your definition, the net should only be there when the trapeze artist actually needs it -- when he's falling to his death. No, the safety net is there in case he needs it. SS is there in case you need it. If it turns out that you did well and had no major unlucky breaks in life, all the better for you. You did your trapeze performance without falling. The net was still there, just in case.

I need to not pay for car repairs but "insurance" does not cover that.

You just want yours. Sadly at your kids and grandkids generations expense...

[QGator2414]

It is a safety net. If you want to call it an entitlement as well, fine with me, as I don't see anything wrong with 'entitlements'. Our country has decided that if you work all of your life and have paid into SS, that you are 'entitled' to the income that the Social Security system provides when you reach a specified age. You may or may not need it to survive, but you are entitled to it.

Your claim that a 'safety net' would or should only pay you benefits in a time of need is silly. Trapeze artists perform over a safety net. By your definition, the net should only be there when the trapeze artist actually needs it -- when he's falling to his death. No, the safety net is there in case he needs it. SS is there in case you need it. If it turns out that you did well and had no major unlucky breaks in life, all the better for you. You did your trapeze performance without falling. The net was still there, just in case.

If I am entitled to it why do you need to change the rules?!?!?!?

[QGator2414]

Why should the person living paycheck to paycheck from my generation have to work longer than someone retiring now paying a higher rate on more income to receive less if they are "entitled" to it.

And you want to change the rules for them?!?!?!?

To make it worse for them?!?!?!?

[QGator2414]

Good grief we are an "Entitled" selfish bunch...

[dangolegators]

You don't either...

You seem to be under the illusion it is suppose to pay benefits when there is not a "need" or "loss"...

Just using your terms...As I get it is an Entitlement you don't want to give up...

Well, it is supposed to pay benefits when there is not a need, so that is certainly not an illusion. Millionaires collect SS benefits same as poor people do. Doesn't mean it's not also a 'safety net'.

[dangolegators]

Why should the person living paycheck to paycheck from my generation have to work longer than someone retiring now paying a higher rate on more income to receive less if they are "entitled" to it.

And you want to change the rules for them?!?!?!?

To make it worse for them?!?!?!?

And you want to change the rules for people who have already worked all their lives and have paid into the system. You want to decide who needs SS and who doesn't.

[g8orbill]

danglo- if anyone has only planned for SS to be there retirement income then they are pretty stoooopid

but so that all the bleeding hearts won't think it unfair-there will have to be a cutoff age-anyone over that age will still get their SS-anyone under that age will continue to pay the tax but will be told they will receive zip-if a person who is 40 knows that it is merely another tax they are paying and is told they will have to start planning right now for their retirement-then there should be no problems

[bakaduin]

What do you guys mean a tax increase?

Didn't Obama say the following:

"If you make 250,000 or less you will not see your taxes increase a dime....not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gaines taxes".

You mean he lied?

[g8orbill]

yeppers he did

but they will say it wasn't hsi fault

[fredsanford]

What do you guys mean a tax increase?

Didn't Obama say the following:

"If you make 250,000 or less you will not see your taxes increase a dime....not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gaines taxes".

You mean he lied?

Find the quote please.

[QGator2414]

And you want to change the rules for people who have already worked all their lives and have paid into the system. You want to decide who needs SS and who doesn't.

You are darn right I want to turn it into something that does not steal from our kids so they one day they "ALREADY WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND HAVE PAID INTO THE SYSTEM" only to receive less so another generation can have a standard of living it thinks it is owed.

Look I get the frustration that the government has made promises it cannot keep at each younger generations expense since inception. But the "people have worked all their lives" justification is a selfish justification of the situation when you realize the kids and grandkids of those people will be forced to work longer and just as hard so someone else can get more than they paid and soon to be what it paid into the system.

IT STINKS. I KNOW. But let's stop justifying our greed and try to leave those who cannot even vote a program that helps people in need or at least get to put a name to their wealth and ALL sacrifice for them! Rather than do what has happened since 1937 and screw the younger generations again...

[llm85]

Find the quote please.

From your friends at the New York Times, paragraph 11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/business/obamas-tax-plan-would-spare-many-affluent-families.html?_r=0

[QGator2414]

Well, it is supposed to pay benefits when there is not a need, so that is certainly not an illusion. Millionaires collect SS benefits same as poor people do. Doesn't mean it's not also a 'safety net'.

It seems you are starting to understand it is an ENTITLEMENT and not a "safety net".

Now if we can just get everyone to sacrifice our next issue could be figuring out what our definition of "safety net" is...

Unfortunately I have a feeling it will be ridiculous but hey...We are AMERICANS after all and we certainly are owed something for that. Right?!?!?!?!

[Matthanuf06]

It is a safety net. If you want to call it an entitlement as well, fine with me, as I don't see anything wrong with 'entitlements'. Our country has decided that if you work all of your life and have paid into SS, that you are 'entitled' to the income that the Social Security system provides when you reach a specified age. You may or may not need it to survive, but you are entitled to it.

Your claim that a 'safety net' would or should only pay you benefits in a time of need is silly. Trapeze artists perform over a safety net. By your definition, the net should only be there when the trapeze artist actually needs it -- when he's falling to his death. No, the safety net is there in case he needs it. SS is there in case you need it. If it turns out that you did well and had no major unlucky breaks in life, all the better for you. You did your trapeze performance without falling. The net was still there, just in case.

So does this mean you are admitting SS is a program in which a senior receives periodic payments from?

It doesn't matter what feel good or negative spin you put on that. Seniors get money periodically. That's the program.

It's "funded" by workers.

Those workers receive those payments once they hit age.

That is pretty close to what a loan is.

I'm not sure why you would rather people be poor. Turn it into a "401k", which you just admitted is what people use it for. You just admitted its a retirement account. It shouldn't be your main one because the government doesn't give you anywhere near the return you deserve.

Isn't it a shame that in the retirement accounts you handle that you probably put in far less than what you put in SS, but ended up with far more? Again, how is that a good program?

[Matthanuf06]

The problem is the only way we can do private accounts is for people to not get all they paid because of "promises" and the necessary redistribution to cover them...

Not really. SS isn't funded out of contributions. They try to frame it that way just so they can scare less return out of us. Many government programs don't return anything and have a far lower return (from the govt) perspective than SS. SS is a pot of gold to the government.

The govt printing press can cover the SS benefits if we transition to a good program. Initially some of the contributions can still enter the general fund to take the burden off the press.

[Matthanuf06]

I just don't understand why Danglo would prefer a smaller "safety net" over a larger one for the same contributions paid.

[QGator2414]

Not really. SS isn't funded out of contributions. They try to frame it that way just so they can scare less return out of us. Many government programs don't return anything and have a far lower return (from the govt) perspective than SS. SS is a pot of gold to the government.

The govt printing press can cover the SS benefits if we transition to a good program. Initially some of the contributions can still enter the general fund to take the burden off the press.

This is with your printing idea which as part of the solution to correct the issue is an intriguing idea. Though we already have QEi going on and I am not sure more printing is a great option right now.

We all need to sacrifice so those with no vote will be burdened less or not at all (can have ALL their money go to them or provide for an actual "safety net"). I just don't think we have it in us to do so.

[QGator2414]

I just don't understand why Danglo would prefer a smaller "safety net" over a larger one for the same contributions paid.

I agree with you on that.

I prefer to let the states handle a "safety net" but if the Feds are going to force us to participate there is no doubt letting people control their wealth is the way to go. If they want to invest in zero returns with the government let them. But let others do as they please...

[g8orbill]

I just don't understand why Danglo would prefer a smaller "safety net" over a larger one for the same contributions paid.

because she like most libs are conditioned to think only guvment is the answer and only guvment can make it fair

[GatorAvatar]

Sure. Lets cut Medicare -- stop spending so much to keep old folks alive for a few more months. I'm all for that. I am not in favor of cutting SS.

I'm all for gutting Medicare too. Old people are not benefiting the economy.

[Matthanuf06]

This is with your printing idea which as part of the solution to correct the issue is an intriguing idea. Though we already have QEi going on and I am not sure more printing is a great option right now.

We all need to sacrifice so those with no vote will be burdened less or not at all (can have ALL their money go to them or provide for an actual "safety net"). I just don't think we have it in us to do so.

It's not the best option, but it is an option. Reduced spending elsewhere could also fund it. Lets also not diminish the impact the SS being invested in public companies have on the capital markets. It would create an era of prosperity

[Matthanuf06]

I agree with you on that.

I prefer to let the states handle a "safety net" but if the Feds are going to force us to participate there is no doubt letting people control their wealth is the way to go. If they want to invest in zero returns with the government let them. But let others do as they please...

I'm for ditching SS totally. People should be responsible for their own lives. But if the mob wants a pseudo retirement account run by the Nanny then id prefer a good one over a bad one. Id prefer one that returned a respectable rate of return that put good money in the pockets of our seniors rather than a pittance that doesn't even keep up with inflation.

I do think such a private account program should be federal for various reasons.

I do think we should strip out any of the welfare components and give those programs to the states.

[QGator2414]

It's not the best option, but it is an option. Reduced spending elsewhere could also fund it. Lets also not diminish the impact the SS being invested in public companies have on the capital markets. It would create an era of prosperity

Unfortunately there is no great option because of how it is set up and implemented currently.

[QGator2414]

I'm for ditching SS totally. People should be responsible for their own lives. But if the mob wants a pseudo retirement account run by the Nanny then id prefer a good one over a bad one. Id prefer one that returned a respectable rate of return that put good money in the pockets of our seniors rather than a pittance that doesn't even keep up with inflation.

I do think such a private account program should be federal for various reasons.

I do think we should strip out any of the welfare components and give those programs to the states.

Agreed!

[g8orbill]

I think we have to cut everything a minimum of 10% across the board and do away with baseline budgeting

[QGator2414]

I think we have to cut everything a minimum of 10% across the board and do away with baseline budgeting

How dare you suggest such a thing?

Increase the debt limit and dump it on our kids is the correct answer...

[philip214]

From your friends at the New York Times, paragraph 11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/business/obamas-tax-plan-would-spare-many-affluent-families.html?_r=0

Hysterical. Got awfully quiet after you posted this link.

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN. Obama does no wrong. SPIN SPIN. Obama doesn't lie. SPIN SPIN It's all Bush's fault, Congress fault, Obama had a cold that day and was on decongestants.

[dangolegators]

It seems you are starting to understand it is an ENTITLEMENT and not a "safety net".

Now if we can just get everyone to sacrifice our next issue could be figuring out what our definition of "safety net" is...

Unfortunately I have a feeling it will be ridiculous but hey...We are AMERICANS after all and we certainly are owed something for that. Right?!?!?!?!

No, it's a safety net. It's there in case you need it. Many people do.

[dangolegators]

You are darn right I want to turn it into something that does not steal from our kids so they one day they "ALREADY WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND HAVE PAID INTO THE SYSTEM" only to receive less so another generation can have a standard of living it thinks it is owed.

Look I get the frustration that the government has made promises it cannot keep at each younger generations expense since inception. But the "people have worked all their lives" justification is a selfish justification of the situation when you realize the kids and grandkids of those people will be forced to work longer and just as hard so someone else can get more than they paid and soon to be what it paid into the system.

IT STINKS. I KNOW. But let's stop justifying our greed and try to leave those who cannot even vote a program that helps people in need or at least get to put a name to their wealth and ALL sacrifice for them! Rather than do what has happened since 1937 and screw the younger generations again...

So rather than steal from kids you want to steal for the older generations.

I'm fine with the system and I always have been. And I've paid way more into the system than you have. If you don't like it, then vote for politicians who want to change it to what you want. That, and you can continue to whine about it on message boards.

[GatorAvatar]

So when Obama was saying he had cut taxes for middleclass and people didn't believe him, he was right. Now people start noticing the expiration of the temporary tax cut and they are mad. SMH

[dangolegators]

So does this mean you are admitting SS is a program in which a senior receives periodic payments from?

It doesn't matter what feel good or negative spin you put on that. Seniors get money periodically. That's the program.


Yes, you got me. I am 'admitting' SS is a program in which seniors receive periodic payments from.

It's "funded" by workers.

Those workers receive those payments once they hit age.

That is pretty close to what a loan is.

No, it's not loan. It's insurance. When you pay your money to the insurance company, do you think that's a loan too?

I'm not sure why you would rather people be poor. Turn it into a "401k", which you just admitted is what people use it for. You just admitted its a retirement account. It shouldn't be your main one because the government doesn't give you anywhere near the return you deserve.

Isn't it a shame that in the retirement accounts you handle that you probably put in far less than what you put in SS, but ended up with far more? Again, how is that a good program?

You want a 401k then start one. SS isn't meant to be a 401k and it isn't meant to be affected by the whims of the financial markets. Bush found out how the country feels about converting SS to private accounts. But keep trying, maybe you'll get the country to agree with you some day.

[Matthanuf06]

Yes, you got me. I am 'admitting' SS is a program in which seniors receive periodic payments from.

No, it's not loan. It's insurance. When you pay your money to the insurance company, do you think that's a loan too?

You want a 401k then start one. SS isn't meant to be a 401k and it isn't meant to be affected by the whims of the financial markets. Bush found out how the country feels about converting SS to private accounts. But keep trying, maybe you'll get the country to agree with you some day.

Saying its insurance makes no sense. Insurance from what? Getting old?

Insurance is protection against tail risk. Getting old is not tail risk.

Insurance is more closely aligned with welfare programs. You pay in as insurance against disaster.

And the reason people are against "private accounts" is because they are uneducated. It's as simple as that.

There is no logical reason why someone would want less for retirement. Yet, that is exactly what you want. The only logical reason is that the public is partisan and uneducated (again, why would you want less money? for your contribution with no downside) and the politicians want people to be poor for control purposes.

[malligator]

Yes, you got me. I am 'admitting' SS is a program in which seniors receive periodic payments from.



No, it's not loan. It's insurance. When you pay your money to the insurance company, do you think that's a loan too?



You want a 401k then start one. SS isn't meant to be a 401k and it isn't meant to be affected by the whims of the financial markets. Bush found out how the country feels about converting SS to private accounts. But keep trying, maybe you'll get the country to agree with you some day.

SS is not insurance. Insurance companies take in premiums and put them into a large investment pool and then (hopefully) pay out less than their investment pool returns. They receive ratings based on how well they do that so everyone knows up front how safe it is to buy a policy from them. The government takes premiums in the form of FICA from working individuals and uses the money immediately to pay for anything it wants. That is a Ponzi scheme.

[QGator2414]

No, it's a safety net. It's there in case you need it. Many people do.

You are right. You still don't understand.

In our "Entitlement" we redistribute you get generations wealth to older ones regardless of "need".

A "safety net" would only provide for those in "need" and not require the redistribution of our future generations wealth so you and I one day can have the standard of living we are owed (I am being presumptuous that we would be able to provide food and shelter for ourselves without help). It is apparent to me you are unwilling to sacrifice. Maybe I am wrong but the picture has been painted awfully black to me...Sad for our kids and grandkids generations.

[QGator2414]

So rather than steal from kids you want to steal for the older generations.

I'm fine with the system and I always have been. And I've paid way more into the system than you have. If you don't like it, then vote for politicians who want to change it to what you want. That, and you can continue to whine about it on message boards.

What are you talking about? If we do what I call for my generation (sadly maybe the one following now) will take the brunt of the damage and sacrifice.

I am calling for someone like me to get nothing and slowly reduce the rate to be in line with what older generations paid during their working years.

At least then the ones with no ability to vote are left a program that provides for those in "need" and does not cost that much instead of paying for you or I to enjoy an extra vacation, cable tv etc etc etc on their dime!

Unfortunately most are too selfish to accept this and want THEIRS!

I want MINE too...But understand reality and just want others to help fix it.

[dangolegators]

SS is not insurance. Insurance companies take in premiums and put them into a large investment pool and then (hopefully) pay out less than their investment pool returns. They receive ratings based on how well they do that so everyone knows up front how safe it is to buy a policy from them. The government takes premiums in the form of FICA from working individuals and uses the money immediately to pay for anything it wants. That is a Ponzi scheme.

Nah, Social Security is a social insurance program.

[Matthanuf06]

Nah, Social Security is a social insurance program.

You are literally making up definitions as you go along.

And even if it is called "insurance" that doesn't change the fact that it is a terrible deal. Is there any other insurance products do you only get what you paid (your premiums)? Not at all. In every insurance product you get hundreds of times, if not thousands of times more than what you put in.

[gatorman_07732]

Nah, Social Security is a social insurance program.

Let me guess, this new label that is inaccurate makes the "lock box" that was sold to the public no longer arguable

[dangolegators]

You are literally making up definitions as you go along.

And even if it is called "insurance" that doesn't change the fact that it is a terrible deal. Is there any other insurance products do you only get what you paid (your premiums)? Not at all. In every insurance product you get hundreds of times, if not thousands of times more than what you put in.

This is obviously not true or there would be no private insurance companies. Most folks who pay for insurance get less than they put in. This is the only way an insurance company can ultimately turn a profit. You are the one who is making stuff up.

[Matthanuf06]

This is obviously not true or there would be no private insurance companies. Most folks who pay for insurance get less than they put in. This is the only way an insurance company can ultimately turn a profit. You are the one who is making stuff up.

We are talking about pay out. Every senior gets a pay out. That is precisely why it's not insurance. SS isn't insurance by any definition of the word.

So why do you prefer SS as currently structured compared to a retirement system invested in the market? What do you see as the pros and cons of each? It doesn't have to be private accounts, it can be similar to a pension structure.

For me you'd get a higher return, seniors would get a bigger "safety net", capital infusion into the markets, increase the government coffers, less risk in plan adjustments/government reneging. The only con is volatility and financial market risk but that is more perception than reality especially compared to the current system if you utilize a pension type structure. You can easily guarantee an ok rate of return, say 5%, and something like 2008 wouldn't make a dent in it.

So why do you prefer this structure over something more resembling a fair retirement plan?

[g8orbill]

The original intent of this Act being passes was to take care of those who couldn't take care of themselves. It was based on a required pension fund like that of the Railroad at the the time. We have used it as a social reform instrument ever since. We have added so many to these benefits that it is consuming the largest part of our national budget. Fraud is rampant, survivor benefits are going to 3rd and 4th generations, amendments, addendums, and reclassifications for benefits are being used for any and all political gains, the system has run a muck

http://whatbigjohnthinks.hubpages.com/hub/Fixing-Social-Security

[dangolegators]

We are talking about pay out. Every senior gets a pay out. That is precisely why it's not insurance. SS isn't insurance by any definition of the word.

So why do you prefer SS as currently structured compared to a retirement system invested in the market? What do you see as the pros and cons of each? It doesn't have to be private accounts, it can be similar to a pension structure.

For me you'd get a higher return, seniors would get a bigger "safety net", capital infusion into the markets, increase the government coffers, less risk in plan adjustments/government reneging. The only con is volatility and financial market risk but that is more perception than reality especially compared to the current system if you utilize a pension type structure. You can easily guarantee an ok rate of return, say 5%, and something like 2008 wouldn't make a dent in it.

So why do you prefer this structure over something more resembling a fair retirement plan?

More nonsense. Not everyone gets a pay out. If you die before reaching retirement age, you get nothing. If you die soon after reaching retirement age, you get way less than you put in. If you die 40 years after you retire, you get way more than you put in. It's a public insurance policy, not only for individuals, but for our country as a whole. We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors. It's not a 401k and it isn't intended to be.

[bakaduin]

Find the quote please.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/bu...lies.html?_r=0

It was posted once but here it is again as I see you didn't comment on it yet.

Thoughts?

I know I was shocked to find out that Obama would lie to the people to get elected again... :roll:

[QGator2414]

So rather than steal from kids you want to steal for the older generations.

I'm fine with the system and I always have been. And I've paid way more into the system than you have. If you don't like it, then vote for politicians who want to change it to what you want. That, and you can continue to whine about it on message boards.

I want to get back to this ridiculous assertion.

Let's play a game to see who is stealing from who.

Let everyone under 55 stop paying into SS and plan to receive nothing (realize this is a game to show who is stealing from who). Then we will let the $2.6 trillionish trust fund and the payments from those 56 and older who are working pay the "promises" of the government.

How long before SS goes bankrupt without stealing from younger generations at $725 billion and growing in expenditures with a much smaller and dwindling contribution (people retiring)?

It very well would be gone before a single 56 year old would even qualify for early retirement. That is a lot of obligations for others to pay!

[dangolegators]

I want to get back to this ridiculous assertion.


You sure are protesting. Maybe a little too much? But you are the one who wants to change the rules and the rule changes you've proposed would amount to 'stealing' from people who have paid into SS all their adult lives. Now you want to tell them they don't need it so they aren't going to get it.

[dangolegators]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/bu...lies.html?_r=0

It was posted once but here it is again as I see you didn't comment on it yet.

Thoughts?

I know I was shocked to find out that Obama would lie to the people to get elected again... :roll:

My thoughts are that your link doesn't work.

[QGator2414]

You sure are protesting. Maybe a little too much? But you are the one who wants to change the rules and the rule changes you've proposed would amount to 'stealing' from people who have paid into SS all their adult lives. Now you want to tell them they don't need it so they aren't going to get it.

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)

[dangolegators]

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)

How old are you?

[QGator2414]

I get peoples frustration with the reality of the situation. It stinks our government implemented a disasterous program that has stolen from younger generations since inception. It is obvious people define success through the lens of ME and not what reality is in this case as well.

I just want everyone to sacrifice to leave our kids something respectful instead of a burden. Sadly we are too selfish to do that.

[QGator2414]

How old are you?

32

[QGator2414]

And you?

[Matthanuf06]

More nonsense. Not everyone gets a pay out. If you die before reaching retirement age, you get nothing. If you die soon after reaching retirement age, you get way less than you put in. If you die 40 years after you retire, you get way more than you put in. It's a public insurance policy, not only for individuals, but for our country as a whole. We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors. It's not a 401k and it isn't intended to be.

It's "insurance" for old age. Every senior for all intents and purposes get it's. Old age is NOT tail risk. Getting insurance that will pay your family if you die young is what insurance is, it protects against tail risk. Insurance does not protect against normalcy.

You again are messing up definitions. You said, and I quote, "We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors". That is a retirement account. I'm not saying it should be your only retirement account. But your own words defines what a retirement account is.

Again you have not answered my question. Why do you prefer SS over some sort of a real retirement account that invests in securities? You mentioned SS "ensures" (not true btw) a basic quality of life. Well my counter is any system that invests in securities is GUARANTEED to produce a higher return.

So if your goal is to ensure seniors have a basic quality of life, wouldn't you want them to have a little more?

[QGator2414]

It's "insurance" for old age. Every senior for all intents and purposes get it's. Old age is NOT tail risk. Getting insurance that will pay your family if you die young is what insurance is, it protects against tail risk. Insurance does not protect against normalcy.

You again are messing up definitions. You said, and I quote, "We as a country have decided we want this program in place to help ensure a basic quality of life for seniors". That is a retirement account. I'm not saying it should be your only retirement account. But your own words defines what a retirement account is.

Again you have not answered my question. Why do you prefer SS over some sort of a real retirement account that invests in securities? You mentioned SS "ensures" (not true btw) a basic quality of life. Well my counter is any system that invests in securities is GUARANTEED to produce a higher return.

So if your goal is to ensure seniors have a basic quality of life, wouldn't you want them to have a little more?

Because the younger generations are "needed" to fund the government "promises" and people do not want to sacrifice.

***this includes younger generations many of whom have no clue about what is going on

[llm85]

Hysterical. Got awfully quiet after you posted this link.

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN. Obama does no wrong. SPIN SPIN. Obama doesn't lie. SPIN SPIN It's all Bush's fault, Congress fault, Obama had a cold that day and was on decongestants.

And then, as President, he doubled down, stood before congress and told us: "But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress

[philobeddoe]

................ I'm still trying to figure out why an increase in taxes ...... is not a tax increase? I guess it's the "reversal of a decrease" ..... which would be an increase, no??

[dangolegators]

32

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. Everyone else is selfish.

[QGator2414]

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. Everyone else is selfish.

Obviously you do not understand what I have called for and are using the example I gave as what I think should happen...

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)



I put the bolded in there on purpose as I was trying to prove a point and not putting forth my ideas on SS

[108]

You mean like the Bush tax cuts. Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

I have said before, and I will say it again; any liberal that is intellectually honest will rally for an end to ALL the Bush tax cuts. That will expand the tax base, which means more people will be on the tax roles.

Another thing to do will be to insist that government spending go back to that when the Bush tax cuts were first implemented. Including military spending.

Problem solved, just that simple.

i agreed with raising the whole damn thing, but I also know we are in a fragile economy right now and raising the bottom half ones would hurt demand too much

the payroll one isn't significant enough

[QGator2414]

We need everyone to sacrifice. I would love to get back everything I have paid in. I would love to be able to leave the program and I would let e government keep everything they confiscated so far. But those are unfortunately not possible.

So instead I call for creating a true "safety net" where dangolegators, I and everyone else on here continues to contribute if we are working. Benefits are reduced for current seniors and everyone approaching there time to receive them. If you are younger than 40-45 you should expect to receive nothing unless you cannot provide food or shelter for yourself (then you get the "safety net"). In doing so we can slowly reduce the rate and max taxable for everyone over time.

It will take years to implement as well.

[dangolegators]

Obviously you do not understand what I have called for and are using the example I gave as what I think should happen...

Are you flipping kidding me?

I have already said the rules I would impose would steal from me if we are going to look at it this way.

So again.

How long could the trust fund pay for retirees if we allowed everyone under 55 to start keeping their money?

***Note everyone under 55 will receive Nothing for all their contributions theoughout the years (yes this is an example and not a real solution)



I put the bolded in there on purpose as I was trying to prove a point and not putting forth my ideas on SS

No, I'm not flipping kidding you. The one solution you have presented calls for others to sacrifice way more than you would. But you are calling everyone else selfish and holding yourself up as someone who is willing to make the tough choices and sacrifice.

I'd guess the trust fund would run out in 3 or 4 years if the federal government were to stop collecting SS taxes.

[malligator]

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. The boomers are selfish.

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

[dangolegators]

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

I do? How do you know this?

[QGator2414]

No, I'm not flipping kidding you. The one solution you have presented calls for others to sacrifice way more than you would. But you are calling everyone else selfish and holding yourself up as someone who is willing to make the tough choices and sacrifice.

I'd guess the trust fund would run out in 3 or 4 years if the federal government were to stop collecting SS taxes.

So do you now understand people cannot get back what the government "promised" unless it takes from younger generations?

That is redistribution for an ENTITLEMENT!

And assuming we passed what I called for in 8 years my guess of how long it would take I would be 40 right at the age of receiving nothing. I WANT TO BE THE GENERATION THAT IS SCREWED THE MOST SO THOSE BEHIND MINE ARE NOT!

Please explain how others are being asked to sacrifice more. I will happily adjust to make mine the most screwed if we can turn this thing into an actual "safety net"!

[QGator2414]

At 49 you might get something in return from your SS withholdings. I doubt a 32 year old will get anything in its current form. Go ahead...keep taking his money. You obviously need it more than him.

(fixed your last sentence for you)

Exactly. And I just want to do something to stem the tide so my generation is not leaving our greed plus others greed to my kids and grandkids generation.

[QGator2414]

I do? How do you know this?

Something tells me neither of us need more but only one is willing to create an actual "safety net" in case we ever hit hard times. The other wants their check.

[QGator2414]

I am good with privatized accounts as well as an alternative even though I don't like being forced to participate. But at least the future generations can be certain to get something back.

Not sure what it will be worth when we are done with inflation....:)

[dangolegators]

Something tells me neither of us need more but only one is willing to create an actual "safety net" in case we ever hit hard times. The other wants their check.

Nah, we already have a safety net. It's called Social Security.

[malligator]

Nah, we already have a safety net. It's called Social Security.

'We' must mean the Boomers, because us Gen X'ers that have been paying into it for 25+ years now with no end in sight will never get a penny in return. You're welcome for the hand out...errrr...safety net.

And while the Boomers reap all the benefits they also get to make higher 401(k) and IRA contributions than the rest of us increasing their nest egg and reducing their tax burden even further. Again...you're welcome.

[dangolegators]

'We' must mean the Boomers, because us Gen X'ers that have been paying into it for 25+ years now with no end in sight will never get a penny in return. You're welcome for the hand out...errrr...safety net.

And while the Boomers reap all the benefits they also get to make higher 401(k) and IRA contributions than the rest of us increasing their nest egg and reducing their tax burden even further. Again...you're welcome.

Too funny. A member of the spoildest generation complaining. But don't worry. SS will be there for you unless you get your way and the country kills it.

[QGator2414]

Nah, we already have a safety net. It's called Social Security.

So sad...

:smoke:

[QGator2414]

I'd guess the trust fund would run out in 3 or 4 years if the federal government were to stop collecting SS taxes.

This is what is absolutely amazing.

You acknowledge the trust fund is insolvent without you and I contributing but you just want to kick more of the burden onto your kids and grandkids generation.

Can you not see the Ponzi in the "successful" program?

Again I get that it stinks our government made "promises" it cannot keep. But let's accept that and work to not burden the future generations!

[malligator]

Too funny. A member of the spoildest generation complaining. But don't worry. SS will be there for you unless you get your way and the country kills it.

If you honestly think it will be there you're a fool. Oh, there may be social security, but the retirement age will be extremely high and there will be needs requirements placed on it. And, of course, the FICA percentage will go up placing more burden on the upcoming generation.

Oh, and by the way, if you're 49 you're a Gen X, Mr. Spoiled.

[dangolegators]

This is what is absolutely amazing.

You acknowledge the trust fund is insolvent without you and I contributing but you just want to kick more of the burden onto your kids and grandkids generation.

Can you not see the Ponzi in the "successful" program?

Again I get that it stinks our government made "promises" it cannot keep. But let's accept that and work to not burden the future generations!

Of course I acknowledge it. When have I said otherwise? I have said it over and over again. SS is not like a 401k, it is a social insurance policy. Please do us both a favor and try to learn more about SS and how it works, what it is meant to be, and what it is not meant to be. Do you even understand why we have a trust fund? No, it's not meant to hold your money there until you retire.

[dangolegators]

If you honestly think it will be there you're a fool. Oh, there may be social security, but the retirement age will be extremely high and there will be needs requirements placed on it. And, of course, the FICA percentage will go up placing more burden on the upcoming generation.

Oh, and by the way, if you're 49 you're a Gen X, Mr. Spoiled.

Yes, I honestly think it will be there for you, unless you and others like you get your way. Fortunately, it is very unlikely you will get your way.

As for me being Gen X, nope. You can't even get that right. I was born in the last year of the baby boom.

[malligator]

Yes, I honestly think it will be there for you, unless you and others like you get your way. Fortunately, it is very unlikely you will get your way.

As for me being Gen X, nope. You can't even get that right. I was born in the last year of the baby boom.

My way is for SS to be accountable, solvent, and transparent. Oh, the horror.

Gen X is early 60's to early 80's. Close enough. One of us. One of us.

[QGator2414]

Of course I acknowledge it. When have I said otherwise? I have said it over and over again. SS is not like a 401k, it is a social insurance policy. Please do us both a favor and try to learn more about SS and how it works, what it is meant to be, and what it is not meant to be. Do you even understand why we have a trust fund? No, it's not meant to hold your money there until you retire.

LOL!

I will think about this for a good laugh as our employees and our money is wired to the government Thursday...

[dangolegators]

My way is for SS to be accountable, solvent, and transparent. Oh, the horror.

Gen X is early 60's to early 80's. Close enough. One of us. One of us.

Nah, Baby Boom ends in 1964, Gen X starts with 1965. I'm not part of the spoildest generation. I'm part of the generation that spoiled you. I didn't get trophies just for playing like you did. You actually had to win something to get a trophy in my day. I didn't expect everything to be given to me like the Gen Xers and beyond do. I do apologize on behalf of my generation for turning yours into a bunch of spoiled brats. We should have been tougher on you kids.

[QGator2414]

My way is for SS to be accountable, solvent, and transparent. Oh, the horror.

Gen X is early 60's to early 80's. Close enough. One of us. One of us.

What a concept. But only if we do it at our kids expense...;)

[QGator2414]

Nah, Baby Boom ends in 1964, Gen X starts with 1965. I'm not part of the spoildest generation. I'm part of the generation that spoiled you. I didn't get trophies just for playing like you did. You actually had to win something to get a trophy in my day. I didn't expect everything to be given to me like the Gen Xers and beyond do. I do apologize on behalf of my generation for turning yours into a bunch of spoiled brats. We should have been tougher on you kids.

Don't worry. You will hand them a worse situation than you were if you get your way.

[malligator]

Nah, Baby Boom ends in 1964, Gen X starts with 1965. I'm not part of the spoildest generation. I'm part of the generation that spoiled you. I didn't get trophies just for playing like you did. You actually had to win something to get a trophy in my day. I didn't expect everything to be given to me like the Gen Xers and beyond do. I do apologize on behalf of my generation for turning yours into a bunch of spoiled brats. We should have been tougher on you kids.

Haha. Go adjust your sock garters and turn up Wheel of Fortune.

[corpgator]

If you have siblings, and most of them are from Gen X, then you are Gen X too.

How is Gen X the most spoiled? What did the baby boomer generation ever do except live off of the greatest generation and now off of the government? They are the ones running congress and killing the country.

[malligator]

This thread has gotten pretty far off topic which was taxes went up on the working class even though Obama promised that wouldn't happen. :)

[Matthanuf06]

I'm 49. So you're complaining about getting cheated by the older generation, yet you have no problem telling a 54 year old that they aren't going to get any SS even though they paid into it at least 22 years longer than you have. And you're accusing others of being selfish? You would have 22 years with with to take that 6.2% you are currently paying into SS and and invest it elsewhere compared to that 54 year old, and an additional 17 years compared to me. Yeah, you are so selfless and willing to make the tough sacrifice. Everyone else is selfish.

Wait, why does it matter how long you've paid into it if its a tax and not a retirement account?

[Matthanuf06]

I think it's pretty clear Danglo prefers SS in its current form over any of the vastly superior alternatives due to being partisan. The "party" doesnt want change so therefore we cannot have change. And by superior I mean in Danglo's goal of a safety net for seniors

[QGator2414]

Wait, why does it matter how long you've paid into it if its a tax and not a retirement account?

It's all about the entitlement check...

[wargunfan]

If you have siblings, and most of them are from Gen X, then you are Gen X too.

How is Gen X the most spoiled? What did the baby boomer generation ever do except live off of the greatest generation and now off of the government? They are the ones running congress and killing the country.

Uh oh. I agree with you. I must be coming down with something.

[wcj786]

Only in Fox world is the expiration of a temporary cut an increase.

Talk about hypocritical!!! When the Demcrats demand a 15% increase in a portion of the budget, yet the Republicans only agree to a 10% increase, the Democrats are out screaming that the Republicans are trying to cut the budget.

They also scream that they are trying to kill old people, starve our children, destroy all our natural resources, etc. But, God forbid, Fox attempt to use the same tactics as the Dems or their cronies (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, etc.) in the media.

For Fox to reciprocate and use the same tactics is the height of journalistic malpractice, even though the rest of the media has been doing it since Kennedy was in office.