Give social security it's walking papers

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This nation has a Social Security policy. If you don't like it and don't want to pitch in for it, then leave.

No one's forcing anyone to stay here if they feel oppressed by the way that our society has freely chosen to structure itself. There are a lot of American ex-pats in Mexico and happy with their pockets of "America" there. The west coast of Mexico has several such tax exile enclaves, and they're not hard to find and fit into if this place we have here sucks beyond your capacity to deal with it.

Quit crybabying about the way things are and are going to stay in our nation. Just leave. We'll manage without you.
edit on 10/8/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
A few non-important points about Soc Sec I saw discussed here. I lack a few months from turning 60 so not yet collecting SS, though I am retired and paid into the system for several decades and expect to draw it.

SS numbers were not given to us at birth as I understand is now perhaps the custom. At age 15 a friend and I were discussing getting part-time jobs to buy cars soon and heard we would need SS numbers so we took the bus downtown and got ours. And then we found jobs after school.

Social Security numbers were not meant as identification back then but fairly much are now. My draft card - yes, I had one of those too, you? - had a different selective service number but as a new policy when I joined the Army the SS number became our service numbers. We were among the first to have those that way.

In recent years a former President was talking a lot about "privatizing" SS and speaking of the glories about investing our SS money in the stock market and how much money we would have then. I was a bit skeptical about that based on past experiences. Lo and behold! 2008 came around and the stock markets did a strange thing. I had some of my retirement account invested in the market, fortunately a small amount, and it seems nearly half of that vanished overnight! Seemed to me a good thing all of my retirement and SS was not privatized then. All that money just vanished into thin air and NO ONE got to spend it, did they? I had retired and left the country a couple year before then so don't know what happened to it except that it vanished, so someone please tell me about it if there is more to the story. No one got to spend that vanished money, right?

If you are given an opportunity to opt-out of SS in the future it is most likely that you will still be required to park some money somewhere for your future. If they do not require you to do so it may come down to bailing your butt out through welfare and other programs. You folks talking about opting-out did support Ron Paul who was advocating that option?? Nevermind, just thinking out loud.

If the younger folks don't want to cut my SS check I would consider taking a lump-sum for what I paid in. I never made really big dough so that would only be about $150,000 or so, not considering adjustments for inflation or interest. That could be negotiable. And, yes, I live in Mexico now but not in one of those ex-pat havens, right here in the nitty-gritty with few veryAmericans for miles around.. And, yes, I am still eligible to draw my SS check here.

Off-topic a bit - I hear a lot of talk about people wanting to be given good-paying jobs. I worked a lot of crappy jobs before I found a good one THAT I WAS READY FOR. Like anything that is given easily, it is not always appreciated as well a something that is worked and sweated for. Good jobs often have good employees working them, ones that understand the value of giving their best effort. It is important to give your best effort even in a cruddy job just so you develop the self-discipline to do well and show up for work even when you would rather go fishing or surfing instead. [/rant]



edit on 8-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
social security owns a good part of the gov't debt, more than the fed does even....
it's not broke, the gov't is broke!!!
the fund has up till recently been taking in more money than it had been paying out, which would be put into the treasuries, a nice loan to the gov't....
now, a little more is being taking out and not so much is being taking in...
so, well...oh my god!! the gov't has to pay on some of that debt that is owed!!! how horrible!!
default on that debt the, and find out just who out there in the world will be willing to loan the gov't any money!! of course, not so many want to now...

I've seen people who are getting public assistance in far better shape than me who "can't work" and running around having a grand old time!! I'll be danged if I am gonna be working till I drop and still pitching in so they can still be enjoying thier carefree life and collecting their food stamps, hud vouchers, food stamps, plus whatever else is being given away now!!!

I think it's so ironic that the ss program was started after the last depression, because so many people had lost everything, because of basically the same reasons as this one!!! they wan't to ensure that the people were taken care of, so this was what they came up with...

now, we are in much the same predicament, so many people have lost so much, their homes has dropped in value, their ira's and such are sickening, and well, oh yes, that's what we need, we need to pull the social security!!

we need to get rid of social security just as soon as those people of working age, who haven't worked hardly at all all thier adult lives, lose their gravy train and get their butts out there and start fending for themselves!!!

and for your information, those wives out there who are collecting on their hubby's social security grew up in a world where it was expected that they wouldn't be working (outside of the home) unless it was just to supplement the hubby's income.. heck some of them might even remember an age when they couldn't even hold a bank account!! they earned less, and even in the mid 80's, in some parts of the country, an employer would hire any male that applied for a job before they would hire a female, regardless of her qualifications, since well, the man had a family to support!! the women, well, she had a man taking care of her, or darned should have one!!!
to say these women never worked is not true in the least bit, they did the job that the society assigned to them, they took care of the home, their hubbies, and their kids....
to be frank, after taking on that job 24/7, working as a die cutter was a vacation for me!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I don't think you understand how America works....just because a law or policy exists doesn't mean it's permanent.

Its voting and getting legislation changed.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
I'm just plain fed up with this stuff. They talk like social security matters to me. As far as I'm concerned it's the money I am robbed of every payday. NOTHING MORE! Let me opt out, because I'm sick of paying for other people's way. I'll gladly take care of the sick and the weak. I'm not going to give my hard earned money to the people that just give it to charity and get a tax deduction. I can do that with my money on my own thank you very much.


These baby boomers you complain about spent their whole lives paying into this system. YOU are not taking care of anyone. YOU are paying now to collect it back later.

The problem is that the Federal Government robs Peter to Paul. They continuously steal from the SS fund to fund other projects, then they never replace that money.

Secondly, not all baby boomers have pensions and not all give that money to charity. Do some? Sure. Do all? No, not even close. Fact is, in this country, the old usually end up living in Nursing Homes which allow for the fixed income, because they can not afford to live on their own anymore. My Grandmother did not own her own home, and her SS could not even cover her rent. She had to either find a way to make money on the side or move into a home. That is a reality for many people.

Now I do agree that young people should have the option to opt out of the program. Fact is the Federal Government is more irresponsible with money than I could ever be on my own, but unless the Government is prepared to pay back every single taxpayer, every single dime that they have paid in to date- it is just not possible. to cut the program and walk away.


Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
All I can take from this post is that you want the right to be selfish.

No wonder society's in the #ter when the younger folks don't want to pay to keep their grandparents off of the streets.


That is a completely unfair statement. Our Grandparents paid into that system. The way the system was intended to work was that you paid in, to receive it back later. Unfortunately, that is not what it has become. It is, as Neo96 has pointed out, become a Ponzi scheme.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The maximum amount one could collect with social security is for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21. I don't know about you but if $30,000 is the maximum ANYONE can get out of Social Security, I think that it would be wise to allow at least an option for people to privatize a good chunk of it. Remember, the AVERAGE Social Security check in 2012 is only $1,230 a month.

It can work. In some counties in Texas the Government employees opted out of Social Security going for a private "alternate" plan that had as a base, very conservative investments, with the option of letting people invest a portion in more risky investments.


In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account. First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, Mr. Gornto said. The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard
employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates. Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits. Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”



In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan. Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month.


Source

It's not a perfect plan, needs some tweaking, but Social Security is not perfect either. Allowing people to take a portion of their Social Security and invest it in fairly safe but better earning investments does not seem like a bad idea to me.

For example take someone 21 years old who will make $35,000 a year for the rest of their life.
They will contribute about $3,000 a year into Social Security between themselves and their employers.

49 years later, at age 70 if Social Security were to yield 4.25% a year during his 49 years of working he would have $516,990 with payments in and growth via interest.

Take that same person and allow him to invest privately (Assume a 6.5%/yr rate), they will end up with $1,136,808 in payments and interest. That's the power of a better interest rate and time.

Which option would you rather have..... that is, IF you had the option?

It should be a no-brainer. I'm not saying let people invest in wildly speculative investments, Just give them a handful of rather safe options to choose from. Don't even allow them to invest all privately, unless they reach a certain level of income. Just give people the option to earn more by investing the money a little more soundly than the government can. In case you haven't noticed...... the Government is HORRIBLE with money. Their only saving grace is that they get to magically make more money appear.
edit on 8-10-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You can exist without having a job.

You can pay off your cars, property and other major items, maybe even solar panels for long term energy cost reduction. Grow your own food and sell some at a farmers market. Barter with neighbors including labor for a skill you possess. Be debt free and just pay taxes.

You can become homeless and not pay anything in. You can beg for money at an intersection and live in a tent in the woods. Bonfires are great for cooking and you might even find an old grill to use. Cops usually only beat you up and drop you off so they don't have to feed you.

Cops also arrest anyone who tries to feed you in Florida so choose another state that is predominately warm, maybe Hawaii?

There is also the Amish way. You might even claim a new existence like Freeamericans or something that believes in a world of free men and women that don't owe any taxes because they use barter. Trade is subjective so you can make it what you need. Whatever the Amish do any other group can do.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Social Security is the best deal ever for 95% of Americans. Without it, you would never be able to retire. One lie - the trust fund has been looted - no it has not, the trust fund is still there, 2.7 Trillion dollars worth of bonds. It is intended to be the safe part of retirement. People can invest in 401ks as a more speculative investment to supplement their social security. The rush by Republicans and Obama to cut social security benefits makes sense only as theft. Note lifespans are now declining in the US for less educated whites.www.nytimes.com...
So why the rush to cut benefits from a program that is funded until the 2035 or so time frame? Only to provide more tax cuts for the 1%.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


There are also a lot of workers who cannot participate in SS such as federal workers.

IRS employees don't participate and do not collect any SS...they have alternatives for them, why aren't the rest of entitled to the same thing?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Matt1951
 


About 43% of working Americans as if 2010 have pension plans, they are also giving into SS.

People who have a good financial sense of have pensions coming should not be forced to participate in SS.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 

Problem I see with letting "the people " plan for their retirement is that most dont know how to save money. Then the other big thing is ws crooks who get to steal peoples retirement money every 10 years or so and call it market gyrations blah blah blah. Ws loved it when 401 ks were born. Yippeee hooray more money in the market to steal. we will tell them market goes up market goes down. what we wont tell them is we control the market and we make it go up or down. yeah give them all the ss money too!!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


my dad was a atc. had a pension of 6000 a month. he retired at 55 due to bladder cancer. He use to tell me well he didnt have SS he just paid into his pension. he wished he would have worked just 5 more years and he would have had 100000 a year pension instead of the 72,000. I asked him how much he put into his pension.

Any guesses???? 96,000 over 35 years. dad lived til 73. collected well you do the math. He made out on that deal. Now guess where that money came from.. us pawns who dont work for the govt. I need to get a govt job. but I think those days are gone too!!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I saw my boss retire and get so much money from social security even though he was already a multimillionaire. I got angry at how he used medicaid and medicare money for his medical needs when he had so much money. He did pay millions into it so I guess it is OK. But the youth, they are screwed no matter how rich they get. They won't give it back. They even force you to pay into it.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
I saw my boss retire and get so much money from social security even though he was already a multimillionaire. I got angry at how he used medicaid and medicare money for his medical needs when he had so much money. He did pay millions into it so I guess it is OK. But the youth, they are screwed no matter how rich they get. They won't give it back. They even force you to pay into it.


The young have not been screwed - YET.
If Obama is successful in pushing through the BS (Bowles-Simpson) plan during a lame duck session, then you will be screwed. BS cuts social security three ways, which will probably reduce your benefit by more than half by the time you retire. And you will be forced to keep paying the same high ss tax rate.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The way I see it is that social security should be optional. If you want in then you pay in. If not then you get nothing from the government when you reach retirement age. People who make millions should not be getting it in the first place. Second the social security fund was dropped into the general fund from what I read and all the wars we have been fighting the last two decades have taken a huge toll.

A government run by right wing lunatics is the problem. They allow everything to fail on purpose so they can have the perfect excuse to privatise. Privatising means making it profit orientated rather than a non-profit social service that is government operated.

Why don't other countries have a serious problem with social security and medicare/medicaid?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sd211212
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 

Problem I see with letting "the people " plan for their retirement is that most dont know how to save money. Then the other big thing is ws crooks who get to steal peoples retirement money every 10 years or so and call it market gyrations blah blah blah. Ws loved it when 401 ks were born. Yippeee hooray more money in the market to steal. we will tell them market goes up market goes down. what we wont tell them is we control the market and we make it go up or down. yeah give them all the ss money too!!


The days of Pensions are over..... mainly because they were based for the most part on bad predictions, which is why you see so many municipal governments and long time business in trouble. They made promises that they couldn't keep.

I agree....most people are stupid and will make bad financial decisions, that's true. That's why you limit people's options if you privatize Social Security. You give people options, while still providing the safety net for those who are financial buffoons.

1. Very safe low return normal Social Security as people know it.
2. 5 options of very safe investments which yield better than Social Security on Average, Slightly more risk for more reward. Most people would choose this. It would be similar in ways to how Indexed Annuities work, no loss during the bad years and decent but not spectacular growth during good times. Perhaps allow 10 to 15% of Social Security to be self invested as below in #3.
3. If you have higher income levels, you should be allowed to self invest maybe 50% of your Social Security benefits, knowing that the risk of that 50% is entirely on you as is the reward, which should be tax free upon retirement. That way, that 50% is working capital for business to use to invest and grow.

You can get a better overall yield that what Social Security gives you with relatively very low risk. Social security as a retirement investment (I know it's not that per se) is a pretty pitiful return on the money you invest in it. You do have to build safeguards into it so people don't do the stupid things people do financially when left to their own whims. It wouldn't be total privatization of the Social Security, but a blend.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by pavil
 


There are also a lot of workers who cannot participate in SS such as federal workers.

IRS employees don't participate and do not collect any SS...they have alternatives for them, why aren't the rest of entitled to the same thing?


Just for clarification -

Older federal employees were covered under CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) and paid into that plan and not Social Security. Anyone who became a career federal employee after 1984 are covered under the newer FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) which is three-tiered with Social Security, a retirement pension program, and an optional tax-deferred retirement savings plan. I retired under FERS and Social Security is part of my retirement, though at this time I am too young to receive the SS benefits yet.

Federal workers under the older CSRS who also worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security and are eligible for benefits may draw them but they are offset by their CSRS retirement.

edit on 8-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


This is bad advice but claim your fica withholdings as money stolen from you in a ponzi scheme on your tax return. What the heck are they going to do? Its the truth.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I am afraid that we are talking in vain . I believe the Globalist / Banksters will collapse the worlds economies if the Iran thing doesn't go global and destroy the world economies . All social programs and possibly governments will cease to function and the Banksters will be able to put their plan in effect . A Global Currency will be issued by a Global Government controlled by the Money Masters therefore their plan realized .



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
Well, its all just in perspective, I would say the government is of the people, and by the people. So its people, taking care of people. In theory at least. Much better than corporations are people, don't ya think?

Much like Greenspan found when he said the markets will regulate themselves (we see how that worked out), depending on citizens, charities, religious organizations, etc will ultimately fail due to greed. It is in all of us, and I think people will fall to this basic starting point each time. Just like wall street, greed would get the better of us.


Greed is not everywhere, and it has been a long time since the Government was "of the people". I still think communities can do better, but I can tell you this I have no issues with helping those in need, I just see a different agenda when the Government says they want to help those in need. Even if it was true, the federal Government is the most inefficient method and I would love to see my hard earn tax dollars be as efficient as they can be...

Silly me... I guess...





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join