djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 21, 2013 23:47:55 GMT -5
I am not aware of any current plan to do it either, but my impression from both Virgil's post and gdgyva's was that that was the point being argued against. i see. ok, well, count me in as being against this made up, imaginary, fictional idea, as well. while we are at it, i am against the idea of interring liberals, declaring war on chocolate, and mandatory concealed carry permits for the mentally ill, as well.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 21, 2013 23:51:34 GMT -5
As am I.
(But also based on how I read Virgil's post re: the CPP, they are doing it there. It's not out of the question that the idea would be tried here. And it's not a good one.)
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 878
|
Post by mollyc on Oct 22, 2013 1:43:24 GMT -5
There is more than an order of magnitude difference in scale, true. Not everybody is industrious, helpful, hard-working, mmhmm. Our (Canadian) equivalent of SS is called the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP). It's 100% fair to say that if you work a standard 40-hour week, even at a minimum wage job, are frugal, save judiciously from the time you enter the workforce, invest your money in safe assets like CDs and GICs, and retire at 65, you will have paid in your entire life to the CPP but won't qualify to get a penny out. Virgil, what are you talking about? CPP is based on how much you paid in during your working years. It isn't means tested unless this is a recent change I've missed. There is no mention of means testing on CRA's website. I believe OAS is means tested because it's the Old Age Security supplement meant to assist seniors who only have CPP. Are you confused by people bitching about it being taxable income?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 22, 2013 1:49:18 GMT -5
Oh crap. I hope this doesn't mean that I have to research it now.
I mean, I know most of Virgil's opinions and interpretations are wrong, but he at least usually gets facts right.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 878
|
Post by mollyc on Oct 22, 2013 1:59:33 GMT -5
Most often yes, Virgil does get his facts right even if he's looking at them funny. That's why I looked it up. I have a hard time believing I would miss that big of a change but I have a busy life.
I know people will bitch if their CPP, Pension(s), Investments, etc move them up to the next tax bracket but I think they forget it's been a tax credit all of the years they were paying in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 17, 2024 0:00:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 6:22:04 GMT -5
I think they should reduce future benefits equivalent to the future value of what was not collected during the SS tax "holiday". It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least undoes the damage that was recently done. But of course, that would be highly unpopular with the masses, so I don't expect Congress to have the stones to do that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2013 8:09:06 GMT -5
One of the original tenets of the Social Security concept was that anyone who paid in was also due their retirement benefit, based upon their contributions to it. This was and is important because it made the system one that dispensed an earned retirement pension rather than one that gave a welfare payment based upon need. This was an important distinction that made the concept more pallatable to many people. I don't think it has lost it's appeal in that regard today. While I appreciate mmhmm's and others willingness to accept a graduated payment based upon their own financial resources, the implementation of such a cap would degrade the popularity and social acceptance of the program, imo. While it is one way to partially address the current imbalance in the revenue stream, I would rather look at other means as possible first. There are several ways to balance the income with the pay out of benefits. One partial solution is to raise or lift the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. This essencially accomplishes the same thing, but from the other end, and also assures the residual income stream in full. So, in other words Social Security was sold as an annuity, or pension, but this was always a deception- because lying made it more politically acceptable. Means testing is coming- and it should because SS is just another tax-and-spend welfare program. Clinging to the original sales pitch for psychological reasons really isn't that impressive an argument.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 22, 2013 8:10:10 GMT -5
I think they should reduce future benefits equivalent to the future value of what was not collected during the SS tax "holiday". It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least undoes the damage that was recently done. But of course, that would be highly unpopular with the masses, so I don't expect Congress to have the stones to do that. They could do it. Nobody that would be affected by it thinks they're getting SS anyway.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 22, 2013 9:11:32 GMT -5
Thanks Angel for writing something well thought out and intelligent. I wish it was catching. It was well thought out and intelligent. Just does not make it correct
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 22, 2013 9:12:37 GMT -5
There is more than an order of magnitude difference in scale, true. Not everybody is industrious, helpful, hard-working, mmhmm. Our (Canadian) equivalent of SS is called the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP). It's 100% fair to say that if you work a standard 40-hour week, even at a minimum wage job, are frugal, save judiciously from the time you enter the workforce, invest your money in safe assets like CDs and GICs, and retire at 65, you will have paid in your entire life to the CPP but won't qualify to get a penny out. Virgil, what are you talking about? CPP is based on how much you paid in during your working years. It isn't means tested unless this is a recent change I've missed. There is no mention of means testing on CRA's website. I believe OAS is means tested because it's the Old Age Security supplement meant to assist seniors who only have CPP. Are you confused by people bitching about it being taxable income? No, I just thought OAS was a part of the CPP. It turns out that they're separate programs. Just to clarify for readers, the CPP refunds a small portion of income paid in (the pay-in is mandatory) during working years over retirement years. But if the CPP isn't enough and additional earnings (from RRSPs, etc.) aren't too high, the OAS program kicks in. Ergo the issue of potentially rewarding bad behaviour. But I stand corrected. Apparently you still do still get something out of the CPP as a whole if you paid in.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 22, 2013 9:16:15 GMT -5
No. Social Security is based off of your 35 highest years of earnings. The estimates you received utilized the assumption that you would continue to earn your most recent wage or salary until full retirement age. With your income dropping from previous years, the assumption changed. Not only do you now have lower earnings years figuring into the calculation but the projection of your earnings until FRA now uses the more recent (lower) number. That is why your estimate has dropped.
The rest of your post is a non sequitur. It does not address the original question which was means-testing based on assets instead of income.
Are you sure it is 35 years? I had always heard it was something like your 12, maybe 14 highest earning years.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 22, 2013 9:27:23 GMT -5
One of the original tenets of the Social Security concept was that anyone who paid in was also due their retirement benefit, based upon their contributions to it. This was and is important because it made the system one that dispensed an earned retirement pension rather than one that gave a welfare payment based upon need. This was an important distinction that made the concept more pallatable to many people. I don't think it has lost it's appeal in that regard today. While I appreciate mmhmm's and others willingness to accept a graduated payment based upon their own financial resources, the implementation of such a cap would degrade the popularity and social acceptance of the program, imo. While it is one way to partially address the current imbalance in the revenue stream, I would rather look at other means as possible first. There are several ways to balance the income with the pay out of benefits. One partial solution is to raise or lift the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. This essencially accomplishes the same thing, but from the other end, and also assures the residual income stream in full. I wonder how many millionaire/billionaires out there never apply for social security. Are there any statistics available on this? I agree, if you still have income of say, $500,000 dollars per year after retiring, and there are plenty of people who do, should not qualify for Social security payments at that time. After an age of say, 70, let it kick in regardless of income. Yes my numbers are arbitrary, but let's be honest the rich really never accepted SS as a pension plan for their golden years. Myself, if I ever hit the Powerball lottery (MINIMUM 60 MILLION PAYOUT) before retiring, I promise not to sign up for social security. Probably will take the Medicare though
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 22, 2013 9:57:05 GMT -5
OK then, so your CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) is a government mandated and controlled pension plan for all citizens. Your OAS (Old Age Supplement) is a welfare program for indigent elderly people. Apples and Oranges, it seems to me. Here in the good ole US of A we have Social Security, which was NEVER meant to be the sole means of retirement income. It is also a government mandated and controlled pension plan. Should an elderly person here depend solely on SSI, and not have enough SSI income to meet certain income guidlines, they are also eligable for supplemental help. We do not have an equivilent to your OAS, not being socialists and all, but we DO have, SNAP, LiHEAP, Meals on Wheels, and a myriad of other patchwork programs available to help such people. None of which are SSI. I just assumed they were a part of the same program because they're both pay-in/pay-out mechanisms that kick in at retirement age. The bottom line is that if you pay in a great deal and save up a decent nest egg (or have a good company pension), you get a very small percentage of your lifetime earnings refunded from the CPP and you get nothing from OAS. If you pay in very little and/or don't save, you get a larger percentage of your earnings refunded, and payouts are topped up to a minimum level by OAS, regardless. Hence the cuts we're talking about (i.e. disproportionately targeted at non-means-tested payouts) would be like lowering the retirement income cutoff in the OAS component and reducing the CPP payout cap. Any way you look at it, it targets the citizens who saved their money in an RRSP rather than spending it and the citizens who paid more into the program.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 17, 2024 0:00:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 10:27:15 GMT -5
I am not aware of any current plan to do it either, but my impression from both Virgil's post and gdgyva's was that that was the point being argued against. it was i have a real issue penalizing savers/investors most on this site understand how hard it is to build a nest egg....life always seems to get in the way when a couple sacrifices for years to do so....and they build something for themselves in retirement and to give their kids a step up, they shouldnt be squashed for doing so lets take that couple who over 45 years built a nice nest egg of 1 million......if invested fairly conservatively in high dividend stocks, they should be able to get an income of 30-40k annually never touching the principal.....and when you add in their ss benefits of say 20k annually, they can have a very nice retirement with an income in the 50-60k range that isnt exactly living high on the hog......but yes, i have read and seen articles where means testing would go by assets, not income and penalizing that couple would be asinine in my opinion..... but what do i know....i am just one of those crazy white old TP members
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 22, 2013 10:44:35 GMT -5
I am not aware of any current plan to do it either, but my impression from both Virgil's post and gdgyva's was that that was the point being argued against. it was i have a real issue penalizing savers/investors most on this site understand how hard it is to build a nest egg....life always seems to get in the way when a couple sacrifices for years to do so....and they build something for themselves in retirement and to give their kids a step up, they shouldnt be squashed for doing so lets take that couple who over 45 years built a nice nest egg of 1 million......if invested fairly conservatively in high dividend stocks, they should be able to get an income of 30-40k annually never touching the principal.....and when you add in their ss benefits of say 20k annually, they can have a very nice retirement with an income in the 50-60k range that isnt exactly living high on the hog......but yes, i have read and seen articles where means testing would go by assets, not income and penalizing that couple would be asinine in my opinion..... but what do i know....i am just one of those crazy white old TP members So the deficit is the most important thing....unless you are talking about cutting benefits to the wealthy. Totally worth it to cut the ACA and leave millions of lower-middle class uninsured. But, we can't possibly consider giving those with high assets slightly lower SS. Seems like the deficit is only important to you when it is a program you don't support. And yes, I realize that in theory the money is funded by separate taxes. But, in reality SS is going to start running with less incoming than outgoing and at that point we will basically have to repay ourselves all the borrowed money and that will increase the deficit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 10:57:12 GMT -5
One of the original tenets of the Social Security concept was that anyone who paid in was also due their retirement benefit, based upon their contributions to it. This was and is important because it made the system one that dispensed an earned retirement pension rather than one that gave a welfare payment based upon need. This was an important distinction that made the concept more pallatable to many people. I don't think it has lost it's appeal in that regard today. While I appreciate mmhmm's and others willingness to accept a graduated payment based upon their own financial resources, the implementation of such a cap would degrade the popularity and social acceptance of the program, imo. While it is one way to partially address the current imbalance in the revenue stream, I would rather look at other means as possible first. There are several ways to balance the income with the pay out of benefits. One partial solution is to raise or lift the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. This essencially accomplishes the same thing, but from the other end, and also assures the residual income stream in full. i agree with dem 100% here. if we take from some and give to others, SS fails it's original purpose. i think means testing makes total sense for preserving the system- but i think the fact that it recategorizes SS as a welfare programme is problematic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 10:58:09 GMT -5
I think they should reduce future benefits equivalent to the future value of what was not collected during the SS tax "holiday". It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least undoes the damage that was recently done. But of course, that would be highly unpopular with the masses, so I don't expect Congress to have the stones to do that. i think we should raise retirement age and index it to life expectancy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 10:59:40 GMT -5
One of the original tenets of the Social Security concept was that anyone who paid in was also due their retirement benefit, based upon their contributions to it. This was and is important because it made the system one that dispensed an earned retirement pension rather than one that gave a welfare payment based upon need. This was an important distinction that made the concept more pallatable to many people. I don't think it has lost it's appeal in that regard today. While I appreciate mmhmm's and others willingness to accept a graduated payment based upon their own financial resources, the implementation of such a cap would degrade the popularity and social acceptance of the program, imo. While it is one way to partially address the current imbalance in the revenue stream, I would rather look at other means as possible first. There are several ways to balance the income with the pay out of benefits. One partial solution is to raise or lift the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. This essencially accomplishes the same thing, but from the other end, and also assures the residual income stream in full. So, in other words Social Security was sold as an annuity, or pension, but this was always a deception- because lying made it more politically acceptable. Means testing is coming- and it should because SS is just another tax-and-spend welfare program. Clinging to the original sales pitch for psychological reasons really isn't that impressive an argument. i don't think so. i think our perception of SS is morphing. we will either resist those perceptions or succumb to them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 11:00:45 GMT -5
I think they should reduce future benefits equivalent to the future value of what was not collected during the SS tax "holiday". It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least undoes the damage that was recently done. But of course, that would be highly unpopular with the masses, so I don't expect Congress to have the stones to do that. They could do it. Nobody that would be affected by it thinks they're getting SS anyway. then everybody who thinks so is stupid, imo. we will ALL get SOMETHING, unless the system is dismantled.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 11:03:05 GMT -5
One of the original tenets of the Social Security concept was that anyone who paid in was also due their retirement benefit, based upon their contributions to it. This was and is important because it made the system one that dispensed an earned retirement pension rather than one that gave a welfare payment based upon need. This was an important distinction that made the concept more pallatable to many people. I don't think it has lost it's appeal in that regard today. While I appreciate mmhmm's and others willingness to accept a graduated payment based upon their own financial resources, the implementation of such a cap would degrade the popularity and social acceptance of the program, imo. While it is one way to partially address the current imbalance in the revenue stream, I would rather look at other means as possible first. There are several ways to balance the income with the pay out of benefits. One partial solution is to raise or lift the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. This essencially accomplishes the same thing, but from the other end, and also assures the residual income stream in full. I wonder how many millionaire/billionaires out there never apply for social security. Are there any statistics available on this? I agree, if you still have income of say, $500,000 dollars per year after retiring, and there are plenty of people who do, should not qualify for Social security payments at that time. After an age of say, 70, let it kick in regardless of income. Yes my numbers are arbitrary, but let's be honest the rich really never accepted SS as a pension plan for their golden years. Myself, if I ever hit the Powerball lottery (MINIMUM 60 MILLION PAYOUT) before retiring, I promise not to sign up for social security. Probably will take the Medicare though SOCIALIST! no matter. even Ayn Rand herself ended up on that programme.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 11:04:53 GMT -5
I am not aware of any current plan to do it either, but my impression from both Virgil's post and gdgyva's was that that was the point being argued against. it was i have a real issue penalizing savers/investors please clarify what you mean by this: are you suggesting that those with lots of investments will have a "wealth penalty"? if so, WHY? did you get this from some place, or did you simply IMAGINE it happening?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,619
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 22, 2013 11:32:12 GMT -5
... i think we should raise retirement age and index it to life expectancy. And you have a job that allows you to sit at a computer. Jobs of a more physical nature are a little tougher for a seventy year old to do. Also, if you are indexing it, will there be a different retirement age for males and females?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 11:35:39 GMT -5
... i think we should raise retirement age and index it to life expectancy. And you have a job that allows you to sit at a computer. Jobs of a more physical nature are a little tougher for a seventy year old to do. learn how to use a computer, i guess.Also, if you are indexing it, will there be a different retirement age for males and females? no. just aggregate it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,619
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 22, 2013 12:35:17 GMT -5
And you have a job that allows you to sit at a computer. Jobs of a more physical nature are a little tougher for a seventy year old to do. learn how to use a computer, i guess.... Love that the answer offered by white collar middle class America to economic challenges is always that people should become white collar middle class Americans.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 12:42:20 GMT -5
learn how to use a computer, i guess.... Love that the answer offered by white collar middle class America to economic challenges is always that people should become white collar middle class Americans. whatever. my life is riddled with blue collar workers. if you are claiming i have no sympathy for them, you would be gravely mistaken. this is why i think they should be paid better than many white collar workers. the same reason that NFL players make so much for their really short careers: so that they can LIVE after that. so, i view this mostly as a problem with wagescale, not retirement age, candidly. my lead welder has worked for this business for 30+ years. he makes more than i do. and he should.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 22, 2013 12:55:04 GMT -5
Sure, if we also roll back the FICA tax rate to the 1% it started at. I'm giving up 12.5% of my income to it. That's a big chunk of change for a paltry payment at the age of 87, which is approximately where the full retirement age would be if it had been indexed to life expectancy. When SS was implemented the majority of people died before reaching eligibility. It was a pension plan for those that lived an exceptionally (statistically speaking at the time) long time.
If people would save 12.5% of their income from the day they start working they'd be fine in retirement. I'm 31 and would already have over a quarter million between my 12.5% contributions from FICA and my 401k. FICA taxes aren't chump change anymore.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,619
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 22, 2013 13:00:06 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 13:03:47 GMT -5
Sure, if we also roll back the FICA tax rate to the 1% it started at. I'm giving up 12.5% of my income to it. only because you are self employed. if you were an employee, you would only be giving half that.That's a big chunk of change for a paltry payment at the age of 87, which is approximately where the full retirement age would be if it had been indexed to life expectancy. i didn't say "had". please calm down.When SS was implemented the majority of people died before reaching eligibility. It was a pension plan for those that lived an exceptionally (statistically speaking at the time) long time. and it still should be, imo. but i can tell you are in no mood for that debate.If people would save 12.5% of their income from the day they start working they'd be fine in retirement. I'm 31 and would already have over a quarter million between my 12.5% contributions from FICA and my 401k. FICA taxes aren't chump change anymore. stop it with the 12.5%, already. most people are not self employed, dark.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 22, 2013 13:06:34 GMT -5
I wasn't self employed for most of my career either, but I still paid 12.5%. I've been a hiring manager. Salary decisions are based on total cost to the employer. My boss paid me less because he was paying 6.25% to my FICA, he was paying unemployment insurance on me, etc., etc. Employers don't pay those things. The check might come from their account, but it's reflected in the amount they put in yours. Self employed or not, you're giving up 12.5% of your income just to FICA.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 22, 2013 13:08:45 GMT -5
I could go for it, but like I said, it better come with drastic cuts to the tax rate. I'm one of those that figures I'm going to get screwed out of SS one way or the other, and I'm alright with that, but not if I lose most of my benefit and have to continue giving up over 10% of my salary to it. What idiot would go for that deal? I'd rather see the whole thing collapse. If I'm getting screwed either way, I'd rather take you old bastards with me.
|
|