Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Give social security it's walking papers

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So my Uncle started working in say 1940 (average salary was $1200 a YEAR) he worked about 45 years as a mailman retiring in about 1985 (average salary was $16,000 a YEAR). He died 5 years later.

I don't know what a mailman's salary was at the time.

My 87 year old aunt has been collecting his SS for all these years. She worked maybe 10 years her whole life mostly part time in her later years.

She collects $1500 plus a month in addition to his pension.

Approximately 15% is put towards FICA, but half is paid by the employer. So, just off the top of my head I don't think the numbers add up.

So his first year he paid about $180 in FICA and about $2475 his last year....does that look right to you? Even at 40 years and 6% interest...my aunt is getting alot of money from somewhere else....not my uncles SS. She probably broke even (just a guess) close to the time he died...40 to 80 months maybe?



This is all off the top of my head to prove the point that people earlier on in the system get way more out than they ever put in...so more money has to come from somewhere for those of us that will be retiring in the future or the system will collapse. Ponzi scheme..it will keep going only until the money runs out. So those that put in for 50 years when the system collapses will get nothing. What about there money??


Social Security Paid Out More Than It Took In Last Year
online.wsj.com...


WASHINGTON—Social Security paid out more to retirees and other beneficiaries than it collected in tax revenue in 2011, the second straight year that was the case, according to a Congressional Budget Office report that projects the gap will continue widening as more baby boomers retire.
edit on 7-10-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN

Or life F'ed you up. It happens, not everyone lives a fairytale life.


Could be, but you got 50 years of working to fix it...hehe

The bottom line is SS and other programs were put into place because the Government felt that ALL of America is too ignorant and lazy to take care of themselves. We surely need SS and healthcare etc because we can't wipe our own @sses without the Government holding the toilet paper.

SS program came out of an era where big Government was thought to be needed...we are entering into another Big Government period where over reaching programs will touch every American. It pisses me off, but you know what? Looking around I 'm starting to think they are right in Americans can't do anything on their own without big Government right there to lead us by the hand, or to wipe our.....



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I just wanted to warn the youngsters on here.
I have a dumb phone,
and it needs to ring,
before they can start to collected info about me.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





That same 1000 bucks that is worth less than they paid in due to infation.


And is that 0 bucks a month from your tanked 401k worth more, or keeping up with inflation?

Look into the history of 401k, it wasn't even meant to be a primary retirement vessel.

And for gods sake , TURN OFF THE FAUX NEWS AND AM RADIO!!

Please.....



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I thought SS was paid with interest on the trust fund.
How many years now have we been at,
0% interest payments.

At what point will it be negative interest payments?

It is easier to blame old people then change the FED.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Well people will be saying the same thing about you when you retire. It linear in nature. Today a mailman earns about 55k for the same job and the same percent is taken out as your grandfather. Your grandfather put in 6.5% and you put in 6.5% so you both are equal even though the amounts are different due to inflation.




edit on 7-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So is this the figure on your SS statement? Not to call you a liar...but that doesn't add up...you pay 5% up to 100,000. And wages were very low when you started working...so I am confused...but it is none of my business...it's just that you put it out there.

And if you have been working for 50 years...why the heck are still working?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





The bottom line is SS and other programs were put into place because the Government felt that ALL of America is too ignorant and lazy to take care of themselves. We surely need SS and healthcare etc because we can't wipe our own @sses without the Government holding the toilet paper.


Ummmmm, no. You just made that up. That's an opinion. Let's see why they put Social Security in place, although I have a feeling the words 'Social' and 'Security' give us a clue. But I digress for the rush/Fauxnews crown that seem to have gathered here...


A limited form of the Social Security program began, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.[8] The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.


From wiki

Wow, don't see anything there about ignorant, lazy or toilet paper. I see 'limit the dangers of old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.' I put 'limit' in bold to emphasize this, as opposed to prevent, which many people mistakenly think.

Well those are good solid Christian values, don't ya think?

Your not one of those.....gasp!........Sharia law believing critters, are you?

Think Jesus was a Socialist?

Well, you may just need to TURN OFF FAUXNEWS!!!!!
edit on 7-10-2012 by ErEhWoN because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I am agreeing with the young ones.

All they have to do is bomb Iran,
get rid of old people,
and pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas.
And their life's will be so much better.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


But it is coming to a tipping point...it cannot go on forever...read the article I posted.

The point is I just want to be able to protect what was put in that was promised tome, so why not let us opt out and get a buy out...it actually saves the government money to give us the money now rather than later, but see they need the flow of the money to prop it up a little longer. Vicious circle.

The snake eating itself.

Luckily we took care of things so we don't depend on it, but still...it was hard earned money that is ours. Right? So what's wrong or selfish about that?





As far as the trust fund thing...I just did research on that for another thread a couple of weeks ago...it is not a trust fund in the legal sense of the word...it's a big mess and a lie.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So is this the figure on your SS statement? Not to call you a liar...but that doesn't add up...you pay 5% up to 100,000. And wages were very low when you started working...so I am confused...but it is none of my business...it's just that you put it out there.

And if you have been working for 50 years...why the heck are still working?


I started working at 17 I'm 53 now and I will be working until 67 most likely. I have long ago maxed out my contributions to SS, SO if I stopped working 10 plus years ago I would still collect max at age 67...if I lived that long. Though I maxed out my SS I'm still paying into it for 25 plus years.

My numbers are based on working another 14 years to get to 50 total. Also remember SS is 10.4% and for a max of 110k that is what 11k put into it? I can't say those are small numbers...do you pay 11k into SS every year as a young person?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


By the way I am not young, only 20 years to collect SS...I am sure it will be gone by then.

Why do you keep talking so silly?

SS is not for the collective....don't compare it to taxes and money for war.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I was not able to enter into a SS contract till I was 16.
But I became a paperboy at 10 years old and did have to pay,
a bond of 25.00 per year,
in-case I ran off with newspaper funds.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
SS was never set as a "welfare" system, it was always connected to your earnings and what you put into it.



The law provided a monthly benefit to individuals age 65 and older and no longer working.

The monthly benefit was paid to the primary worker when he retired; the amount received was based on the individual’s payroll tax contributions.

The SSA also provided unemployment insurance, aid to dependent children, and grants to states for medical care.



Under the initial SSA, monthly benefits were to begin in 1942; from 1937 until 1942, Social Security would pay out a single lump sum to anyone retiring. This “payback” sum was given to those paying into Social Security but not having sufficient contributions to vest in monthly benefits.


Here's where it all started.


Interestingly, the first monthly retirement check was issued to an individual who had paid a total of $22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime!




the 1972 amendment: automatic COLAs were instituted, a minimum monthly benefit was established, monthly benefits were significantly increased to those individuals waiting until age 65 to retire, and a system for automatic increases in the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation was developed.


The first warning sign came in the 70's...the gov't adjusted the SS Law:


in 1975. A report developed by the Treasury Department indicated that Social Security payroll taxes collected would be insufficient to meet Social Security payments by 1979. In response,

Congress increased the tax rate, reduced benefits, and made the automatic adjustment to the amount of earnings subject to Social Security independent of the COLA.


This report was off by three years..but the time is here....the decline started in 2011 (see my previous post):


The March 23, 2005, report of the Trustees of the Social Security Fund painted a grim picture.

The report indicated that Social Security contributions would peak in 2008 and decline thereafter.

By 2018, the report stated, the government will begin paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes,

with the deficiency growing each year: $200 billion deficiency by the year 2027, $300 billion by the year 2033, and then the system would be bankrupt.


www.nysscpa.org...


reply to post by ErEhWoN
 




And yea as it says above, people did worry in the 70's and it was a real problem that the government had to fix.

So why does that mean it's not a problem now? the 2 do not connect. Yes, problem then, problem in the 80's and the worst is yet to come.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
poverty, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.


I took out old and unemployed since they do not mean "need" too. That is the problem, why not just pay out of our tax hide to help "poverty, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children." No we can't let people take care of people, we need the Government to dump EVERYONE in the same bucket whether they need it or not.

There was a time when the family took care of old people, and the community took care of widows and fatherless childern, but that is just crazy talk.

I have a problem when the Government dumps EVERYONE in one big bucket...it is not efficient and sooner or later it fails. Just tax me... no need to call it a bunch of different names, as if I would see it as something else...



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


By the way I am not young, only 20 years to collect SS...I am sure it will be gone by then.

Why do you keep talking so silly?

SS is not for the collective....don't compare it to taxes and money for war.



If you are 47 then you will see SS....



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I am 46 years old..is that young? But you didn't put 11k in every year you worked..I doubt you were making $100,000, 25 years ago when you had your first job...unless you are Bill Gates. Is this Bill Gates?

So, the numbers do not add up.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I was not able to enter into a SS contract till I was 16.
But I became a paperboy at 10 years old and did have to pay,
a bond of 25.00 per year,
in-case I ran off with newspaper funds.


So by performing child labor 4 years,
before I could enter a government contract.
Was I a child worker, or just a white slave?

My mind says by 14,
I could get a SS number,
because I could work 3 hours a day max on school days.

Child labor, I was cheap they would pay.


edit on 7-10-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Read the report I just posted from the 2005 report by the Treasury Dept.




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


Delivering the paper doesn't make you a white slave.

My grandfather was in the coal mines at 9 years old...that's slavery.

And no it doesn't count towards your SS.









 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join