A glance into SS and Medicare

Not every working American will draw social security. Fire Fighters and Teachers won't just to name a few.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That pertains to Texas. My retirement comes from the State of Louisiana.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

With all due respect, I was referring to your original factual statement and not your personal anecdotal circumstances.

My example pertained to Texas, but the "rules" with respect to SS have to do with Federal regulations, because they State (regardless of which one) cannot take away that which the Feds have given. The States "dove tail" the benefits to avoid the "double dipping" but if a person has made the requisite contributions over their lifetime they will not "forfeit" their benefits just because they have "public service" retirement benefits.

The Country of Louisiana seems to do things "differently" on occasion!

I can recall $12,000 a year police officers in New Orleans retiring with $500,000 homes PAID! Originally Posted by LexusLover

"The Country of Louisiana seems to do things "differently" on occasion! .... I can recall $12,000 a year police officers in New Orleans retiring with $500,000 homes PAID!"

My point was (and is) you made a general statement about ... public servants .... NOT RECEIVING SS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You referenced "Americans" in your original statement and

.... not "Lousianans"!

Texas doesn't regulate who gets Social Security ... the Feds do.

You referenced "Americans" in your original statement and

.... not "Lousianans"!

Texas doesn't regulate who gets Social Security ... the Feds do. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's correct the Feds regulate SS. But if someone is a member of a State Retirement System and SS isn't deducted from their paycheck they won't draw SS. Not unless SS was deducted from the salary or wages from previous employments and they have compiled at least 40 credits.


Jim

That's correct the Feds regulate SS. But if someone is a member of a State Retirement System and SS isn't deducted from their paycheck they won't draw SS. Not unless SS was deducted from the salary or wages from previous employments and they have compiled at least 40 credits.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Like a lot of folks on here who struggle to look "correct" so you keep adding facts to your original announcement ... and THE FACT is there are a lot of public servants who had previous careers and/or subsequent careers ... and ... some of those careers have even been "self-employed"! As long as they pay in enough 1/4's then they will get SS ... and there are some "public servants" whose employers as a public servant withhold SS contributions.

You made a blanket statement. Your statement was wrong. Move on.

I don't understand. The original article concerned a Union organized, progessive envisioned, pension plan that was built on quicksand that is destined to fail.

Social Security is a tax(not investment) based system that extracts money from current workers and delivers it to past workers. It is effective because the collection part occurs at the point of a gun.

SS will never go "broke" because it doesn't guarantee anything. In a couple of decades, I am going to retire. I am not planning on receiving anything from SS. If I do, it will be gravy(my mother calls it mad money, but it is only a couple hundred dollars a month).

People need to plan to take care of themselves. We are all capable of doing so, no matter what the race baiting fascist bigots say.

We are all capable of doing so, no matter what the race baiting fascist bigots say. Originally Posted by kehaar

.

I don't understand. The original article concerned a Union organized, progessive envisioned, pension plan that was built on quicksand that is destined to fail.

Social Security is a tax(not investment) based system that extracts money from current workers and delivers it to past workers. It is effective because the collection part occurs at the point of a gun.

SS will never go "broke" because it doesn't guarantee anything. In a couple of decades, I am going to retire. I am not planning on receiving anything from SS. If I do, it will be gravy(my mother calls it mad money, but it is only a couple hundred dollars a month).

People need to plan to take care of themselves. We are all capable of doing so, no matter what the race baiting fascist bigots say. Originally Posted by kehaar

I look at SS as forced savings. When we embark on our various careers, very few of us look 40+ years into the future and ask whether or not we will have enough money in retirement. Farthest thing from our minds. Well, for me, the federal government did exactly that -- set up a fund into which I and my employer would contribute a percentage of my pay so that when retirement day came, or even prior to that day, I could start drawing from that fund and HELP pay some of my expenses when there is no income from a job.

You can say that the SS deductions occur at the point of a gun, but I am VERY happy at this point in my life that it was done. If SS did not exist, how many of us would have been smart enough to put aside a small portion of our pay for a return 40 years in the future? You seem to think that people need "to plan to take care of themselves." Good luck with that. Some people can do that. Most would not.

Social Security is a tax(not investment) based system that extracts money from current workers and delivers it to past workers. It is effective because the collection part occurs at the point of a gun.

SS will never go "broke" because it doesn't guarantee anything. Originally Posted by kehaar

A lot of opinion. For one you failed to factor in all those SS contributors who died before they were eligible for benefits other than the humongous "death benefit" of $245....perhaps. You also failed to factor in the potential "growth" of the funds paid into the SS program over the years of contribution. And finally SS wasn't meant to be a "pension" or "retirement" plan.

The social security trust fund is a paper entity. It is no different than a Ponzi scheme. Lots of ponzi scheme enrollees get nothing out of their contributions. Ponzi schemes, inherently, are not interested in value producing assets. This ponzi scheme works because people can show up at your door carrying guns demanding productive people pay the vig.

The government has the ability to create and destroy money. It does so at its whim. Investing in government securities is not investing in productive assets. The reason governments use borrowed money(rather than created money) is that the money supply has to remain in balance to avoid inflation and deflation, and to control the relative value of the dollar to other currencies.

I would note that no one has a piece of paper that promises the social security admininstration will give them a given amount of money when they retire. If that were so, they would not have been able to raise the retirement age for people mid career.

I look at SS as forced savings. When we embark on our various careers, very few of us look 40+ years into the future and ask whether or not we will have enough money in retirement. Farthest thing from our minds. Well, for me, the federal government did exactly that -- set up a fund into which I and my employer would contribute a percentage of my pay so that when retirement day came, or even prior to that day, I could start drawing from that fund and HELP pay some of my expenses when there is no income from a job.

You can say that the SS deductions occur at the point of a gun, but I am VERY happy at this point in my life that it was done. If SS did not exist, how many of us would have been smart enough to put aside a small portion of our pay for a return 40 years in the future? You seem to think that people need "to plan to take care of themselves." Good luck with that. Some people can do that. Most would not. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have no problem with the government providing a low, base level of retirement/disability/old age medical benefits. I have a strong problem with people who claim they are inherently entitled to that money.

The fundamental problem is that people think that they are "owed" money from SS because the paid into the system. The money they paid is long gone. It is unreasonable to say to my descendants that they are required to pay a bunch of old farts a large amount of money because the old farts paid a small amount of money into a system that paid a lot money to even older farts who paid almost nothing.

The ratio of number of workers supporting the number of entitlees is dramatically shrinking. This has been enhanced by the fact that government pension systems don't pay into the SS system, and the proportion of government workers is growing(Pelosi: Government jobs are the best kind!!!).

I'd also point out that the SS/medicare tax is hugely regressive. The leftwing fascist thugs ought to hate it, but they don't, because most don't have capability for abstract thought. SS truly screws over the middle class. Perhaps the leftwing fascist thugs don't hate it because they don't give a rats ass about the middle(productive) class

The return on incremental contributions to ss of over 18,000 of income per year is negative.

I look at SS as forced savings. When we embark on our various careers, very few of us look 40+ years into the future and ask whether or not we will have enough money in retirement. Farthest thing from our minds. Well, for me, the federal government did exactly that -- set up a fund into which I and my employer would contribute a percentage of my pay so that when retirement day came, or even prior to that day, I could start drawing from that fund and HELP pay some of my expenses when there is no income from a job.

You can say that the SS deductions occur at the point of a gun, but I am VERY happy at this point in my life that it was done. If SS did not exist, how many of us would have been smart enough to put aside a small portion of our pay for a return 40 years in the future? You seem to think that people need "to plan to take care of themselves." Good luck with that. Some people can do that. Most would not. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

People saved well enough on their own before SS came along..

When i was assisting several command's Financial advisors, i often heard people mention "Why should i save now, i will ave SS to lean on when i retire, and if i stay the 20 (assuming they will make it that long), i get my mil retirement. BUT 80% of those who came in our offices, never DID retire, hell most got out after 4-6 yrs..
I honestly DO feel, if they KNEW that there was NO SS to save their butts, more would save..

A lot of opinion. For one you failed to factor in all those SS contributors who died before they were eligible for benefits other than the humongous "death benefit" of $245....perhaps. You also failed to factor in the potential "growth" of the funds paid into the SS program over the years of contribution. And finally SS wasn't meant to be a "pension" or "retirement" plan. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nor was it supposed to be covering those who had disabilities. BUT look at how much of a chunk SSDI covers these days..

I have no problem with the government providing a low, base level of retirement/disability/old age medical benefits. I have a strong problem with people who claim they are inherently entitled to that money.

The fundamental problem is that people think that they are "owed" money from SS because the paid into the system. The money they paid is long gone. It is unreasonable to say to my descendants that they are required to pay a bunch of old farts a large amount of money because the old farts paid a small amount of money into a system that paid a lot money to even older farts who paid almost nothing.

The ratio of number of workers supporting the number of entitlees is dramatically shrinking. This has been enhanced by the fact that government pension systems don't pay into the SS system, and the proportion of government workers is growing(Pelosi: Government jobs are the best kind!!!).

I'd also point out that the SS/medicare tax is hugely regressive. The leftwing fascist thugs ought to hate it, but they don't, because most don't have capability for abstract thought. SS truly screws over the middle class.

The return on incremental contributions to ss of over 18,000 of income per year has a negative return on investment. Originally Posted by kehaar

Some of what you say is correct, some incorrect.

Directly from the Social Security website:

"Social Security is social insurance program. Workers pay in while they are employed and employers pay matching contributions. The Social Security's guaranteed benefits are available to support workers and their families in retirement, or when they lose their livelihood due to career-ending disability or the death or a family worker."

So it is obvious from that statement that by paying into Social Security, I have guaranteed benefits now that I am retired. Actually I started receiving my guaranteed benefits before I retired. Other than that I agree with what you say. The money I personally paid into the system is long gone. That is how the system has worked from the beginning and yes, eventually the money in the Social Security coffers will run dry if something is not done about it. And yes, SS tax is regressive.

You are alos correctin that the number of federal employees is going up, further eroding the base of people supporting Social Security payments.

From your posts,, you sound like a Libertarian when it comes to Social Security. Like I said, replacing Social Security with a voluntary program scares me. Yes, if I socked away the same amount that my company and I paid into SS, I probably could have invested that money and have a larger source of income. But would I have saved the same amount of money voluntarily starting way back when I began working as I and my company paid into SS? I'd like to think so but I doubt it. All I can say is Social Security worked wonderfully for me.

Some of what you say is correct, some incorrect.

Directly from the Social Security website:

"Social Security is social insurance program. Workers pay in while they are employed and employers pay matching contributions. The Social Security's guaranteed benefits are available to support workers and their families in retirement, or when they lose their livelihood due to career-ending disability or the death or a family worker."

So it is obvious from that statement that by paying into Social Security, I have guaranteed benefits now that I am retired. Actually I started receiving my guaranteed benefits before I retired. Other than that I agree with what you say. The money I personally paid into the system is long gone. That is how the system has worked from the beginning and yes, eventually the money in the Social Security coffers will run dry if something is not done about it. And yes, SS tax is regressive.

You are alos correctin that the number of federal employees is going up, further eroding the base of people supporting Social Security payments.

From your posts,, you sound like a Libertarian when it comes to Social Security. Like I said, replacing Social Security with a voluntary program scares me. Yes, if I socked away the same amount that my company and I paid into SS, I probably could have invested that money and have a larger source of income. But would I have saved the same amount of money voluntarily starting way back when I began working as I and my company paid into SS? I'd like to think so but I doubt it. All I can say is Social Security worked wonderfully for me. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

My quibble is that the word "guarantee" is meaningless. If a law was passed halving the rates, nobody would have any recourse except to riot. No one can provide a bulk "guarantee" anything 30 years from now. By law, they increased the retirement age. That increase in age affected me. There is nothing I can do.

I don't think we ought to do anything with social security except admit that it is a tax, not investment, system, and treat it as such. If we did so, we would quickly come to a much more rational system.

There are no ss coffers. There is an entry in a database that controls the money supply that says an internal government account has this much money it. There is no mechanism that could take that accounting entry and turn it into anything of value. The shear stupidity of LockBox Al Gore, and his minions, is beyond comprehension.

No one has mentioned why it isn't solvent now, because of both parties raiding it to balance their budget. Politicians can't see money lying around without dipping into it.

The argument could be made that people would be better off financially if they didn't pay the tax and instead invested the funds. However, people aren't good investors generally. The avg investor has a 2.3% annualized return from 1997-2016 while the S&P avg was 7.7% and bonds was 5.3%. People can't help but get too excited about the hot investments and too scared during downturns.

The elimination of SS conversation is a non-starter, too many people are users. IMO, privatizing it, although Bush41 wanted to, is probably a non-starter as well because again, people aren't good at it in mass. Sure, some would be a lot better off, but the welfare cost for the others would be too massive. Basically, SS provides enough income for most who qualify to keep them off the welfare rolls.

Fixing the current system can be accomplished by pushing full retirement age up a few years. Yeah, it will suck if you want to retire early, but people didn't live until their mid 80's when it came on either.

Nor was it supposed to be covering those who had disabilities. BUT look at how much of a chunk SSDI covers these days.. Originally Posted by garhkal

That's because the Liberals continually expand the definition of "disabilities" to include "conditions" that are avoidable and hardly prevent someone from working and the medical profession "plays along" with quakes writing reports to assist in the SSWelfare system .... as the recipients depart in their Caddies.