It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social Security Surplus... Huh?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000
It could be worse - in Hungary and Bulgaria they've started a new program where they require retirees to turn-over the contents of their bank accounts or be cut-off from the Old Age Pension (the equivalent of social security).

Hungary's raised $14 billion this way to shore-up their flagging treasury:

www.csmonitor.com...


That's close but not quite what it says.

Retirees have a choice.

A) They can turn over their private savings to the government and receive goverment benifits

or

B) They can refuse to turn over thier assets to the state and receive a bill in the mail to pay for someone elses government benefits instead.



The most striking example is Hungary, where last month the government made the citizens an offer they could not refuse. They could either remit their individual retirement savings to the state, or lose the right to the basic state pension (but still have an obligation to pay contributions for it). In this extortionate way, the government wants to gain control over $14bn of individual retirement savings.

www.csmonitor.com...

edit on 2-1-2011 by In nothing we trust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by zuul000
It could be worse - in Hungary and Bulgaria they've started a new program where they require retirees to turn-over the contents of their bank accounts or be cut-off from the Old Age Pension (the equivalent of social security).

Hungary's raised $14 billion this way to shore-up their flagging treasury:

www.csmonitor.com...


That's close but not quite what it says.

Retirees have a choice.

A) They can turn over their private savings to the government and receive goverment benifits

or

B) They can refuse to turn over thier assets to the state and receive a bill in the mail to pay for someone elses government benefits instead.


Uhhh ... yes, that's what I said. (With fewer misspelled words.)
edit on 2-1-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
What about all of the 'fake' social security cards drawn on by illegal aliens? They have been using the fake social security numbers and never able to withdraw the amounts owed them or risk getting caught, and truthfully, one number can and is used by multiple people so that they can work in the US.

Where is that money? Do that math...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
The employer does also pay 6.4 percent however which gets closer to their numbers, but the article is still complete garbage when it tries to claim SS is solvent. However I heard that in the tax cut bill they were actually in their seeming infinite ability to screw us going to cut the employee SS tax to 4.4% for the next 2 years to supposedly stimulate the economy. Not sure if this actually got passed - but I hope not.

First off, there is zero money anywhere collected from social security or medicare taxes all of the surplus from the tax, and it has been running a surplus until just this year, has been spent. 100% has been spent, it is a fact.

We are running a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit - we are spending 3.9 trillion and only bringing in 2.3 trillion. Cutting defense spending to zero about 800 billion a year still leaves us over 800 billion short - and defense will not even be cut by half realistically let alone 100%. Defense is 18% of the budget, 60% is spent on SS, medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. There has to be cuts to these programs period, I don't care how entitled people feel or how many riots happen - they will eventually be cut.

Second the article does not even mention as people move out of the workforce fewer and fewer younger American's have to pay for more and more people on social security. Since there is zero saved this is very important, it means less money is going to be coming in to cover paying more out.

Third I am convinced if it comes down to the government cutting social security or medicare, social security will be what gets cut because people will get angrier about not getting medical care.

Forth our government's current solution (which will not work) for our deficit is to print more money - this makes medical care costs and SS benefits go up if they adjust them for inflation like they are supposed to. They have already been going up, but they are going to be going up by a hell of a lot more if they really intend to continue to print 1.5 trillion dollars per year.

Fifth as medical technology and drugs improve, life expectancy keeps rising - that means higher costs for both SS and Medicare as people live longer.

I will make this guarantee, if you are under 50 now you have ZERO chance of ever getting a dime from social security in retirement benefits. You better be saving now, cause if not you will be working or begging till the day you die.
edit on 2-1-2011 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar

What about all of the 'fake' social security cards drawn on by illegal aliens? They have been using the fake social security numbers and never able to withdraw the amounts owed them or risk getting caught, and truthfully, one number can and is used by multiple people so that they can work in the US.

Where is that money? Do that math...


Where do you think it is?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by proximo

Second the article does not even mention as people move out of the workforce fewer and fewer younger American's have to pay for more and more people on social security. Since there is zero saved this is very important, it means less money is going to be coming in to cover paying more out.


This is why invading Canada and Central America makes sense.

We need their population to pay into our system to keep it solvent.

It's either that or start having sex with every woman you see.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
My issue with what I have read here is that it appears a program which we are told hemorrhages money, is not actually doing so. So I am left to wonder... Have we been lied to about how sustainable social security really is? Is the information in this article spin? Is any of it true at all



I have read that if the income cap tax on social security was removed, the program would be solvent until the year 2070 or something. I don't know where the line is now, but I think it's right around $100,000. Any income after that does not pay FICA. So if we make everyone pay full FICA taxes, even those with incomes that suggest they won't need to depend on it in retirement, social security will be ok for a long time.

edit on 2-1-2011 by Schaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Okay, after croweboy's post, I've looked for more info. Here's what I found


Self employment taxes are comprised of two parts: Social Security and Medicare. For 2011, you will pay 4.2 percent and your employer will pay Social Security taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $106,800 of your covered wages. You each also pay Medicare taxes of 1.45 percent on all your wages - no limit. If you are self-employed, your Social Security tax rate is 10.4 percent and your Medicare tax is 2.9 percent on those same amounts of earnings but you are able to deduct the employer portion. Use this calculator to estimate your self-employment taxes.
www.calcxml.com...

So, the total of the employee/employer or the self-employed contributions are 10.4 %. Using that rate, the couple earning $89,000 (again discounting they were not likely to have earned that amount for 40 years and discounting the 10.4 % rate is higher than it was 40 years ago) in combination with their employer, would have contributed $370,240. This is still far short of the $555,000, speculated to be their benefit.

Thanks again, croweboy, for correcting me. Maybe I got it right, this time.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Hefficide
My issue with what I have read here is that it appears a program which we are told hemorrhages money, is not actually doing so. So I am left to wonder... Have we been lied to about how sustainable social security really is? Is the information in this article spin? Is any of it true at all



I have read that if the income cap tax on social security was removed, the program would be solvent until the year 2070 or something. I don't know where the line is now, but I think it's right around $100,000. Any income after that does not pay FICA. So if we make everyone pay full FICA taxes, even those with incomes that suggest they won't need to depend on it in retirement, social security will be ok for a long time.

edit on 2-1-2011 by Schaden because: (no reason given)


If we removed the fillings from the teeth of all the thousand-aires and melted it down for the metal content, then sold that and put it toward social security, that might also help.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000
If we removed the fillings from the teeth of all the thousand-aires and melted it down for the metal content, then sold that and put it toward social security, that might also help.


Dumb joke.

Care to dispute the fact that the top 2% are taking in far more of their historical share of all national income ?
Hasn't been then skewed since right before the great depression.

Some wealthy people might have to pay some more taxes so senior citizens aren't stuck eating dog food. Big deal.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by zuul000
If we removed the fillings from the teeth of all the thousand-aires and melted it down for the metal content, then sold that and put it toward social security, that might also help.


Dumb joke.


It's not a joke. You suggested the state should seize the assets of one group to pay for the comfort of another. I suggested the same thing.


Care to dispute the fact that the top 2% are taking in far more of their historical share of all national income ?


Not particularly. It's a non sequitur.


Hasn't been then skewed since right before the great depression.


I care not at all.


Some wealthy people might have to pay some more taxes so senior citizens aren't stuck eating dog food.


Alternatively, some younger people might have to spend less on iPhones and porn so that they don't have to eat dog food when they're senior citizens.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000
It's not a joke. You suggested the state should seize the assets of one group to pay for the comfort of another. I suggested the same thing.


Because taking gold fillings out of teeth is really as practical as changing a tax law ?


No they are not the same thing.

One suggestion was a serious proposal to extend the solvency of social security, and one was a poor attempt at being a smart aleck.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by zuul000

You suggested the state should seize the assets of one group to pay for the comfort of another. I suggested the same thing.


... taking gold fillings out of teeth ...


The nazi's did that didn't they.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
The nazi's did that didn't they.


I believe you are correct sir.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by zuul000
It's not a joke. You suggested the state should seize the assets of one group to pay for the comfort of another. I suggested the same thing.


Because taking gold fillings out of teeth is really as practical as changing a tax law ?



Absolutely. After 26 July, the Cuban government had dentists waiting at the airports to remove gold fillings of Batistas leaving the country. If we can get "X" out of changing the tax law, why should we not get "X" + "Y" out of changing the tax laws and removing gold fillings of everyone making over $30K a year? Senior citizens will have to live in tents under the freeway unless we have X+Y. Do you just not care about people?

I guess I just have a bigger heart than you.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The article assessment of SSI is complete BS! There is no SS Trust fund.


Correct. The Social Security Trust Fund consists of a file drawer with I.O.U.'s in it. Those IOU Bonds are non-tradeable and have NO monetary value.

Social Security revenue was used by the Federal Government to fund the 11 carrier battle groups and global politics playing.


Adjusted for lost value of the dollar we will never, ever, ever see the money we put in the Social Security Trust Fund. 1990 dollars are not the same as 2011 dollars.

We've all been robbed. What I want to know is where is all of the Car Insurance Bond money?

There should be Hundreds of Trillions from people paying Car Insurance companies to Bond them. Where are those bonds? There's the bigger robbery.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


Nope. Whats more is a self-employed person is responsible for the entire amount. There is a cap somwhere around 100k+.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


LOL, Black ops...or at least I would like to think so.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by RedPill

You don't get back what you pay in, the money you pay in today is going to retirees today, and when you retire the workers of that time will be paying your monthly SS check.

So when the baby boom retires there will be many retirees compared to few wage earners who pay.


Two things need to happen then.

They need to convince the younger generation to have more sex and have more babies and/or we need to invade and occupy Central America and Canada so that we can seize their resources and get thier people to pay into our system.
edit on 2-1-2011 by In nothing we trust because: (no reason given)



Well if the witch hunt for illegals wasn't on, you could have been raking in the billions they have been paying into it, but Noooooooooooooo you had to jack it all up (not you specifically) the government knew what was going on why do you think they didn't try to stop the the immigrants illegal or not, they were pumping BILLIONS into the system and the cool thing is they COULDN'T TAKE IT OUT!!!!! regardless of the BS people say they were able to and were ......



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

Social Security revenue was used by the Federal Government to fund the 11 carrier battle groups


We have that many flotillas of warships?


Really?

That's incredible.

We can bring the war to any corner of the planet that we need to at any time.
edit on 4-1-2011 by In nothing we trust because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join