djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:13:36 GMT -5
Got a question for everyone. Do the megastars in Hollywood even pay into S.S.? Or the big hedge fund mgrs? IS THEIR PAY STRUCTURED AS SUCH, AS NOT BEING AN EARNED INCOME? everybody who actually works pays into SS. actors work. so do HFM's. i don't think the IRS looks kindly at "restructuring" your pay to avoid paying taxes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:15:08 GMT -5
Wouldn't the be independent contractors? Self employment tax is SS/Medi... I am not sure. Many have corporations that might somehow, someway supercede the laws...... That is why I am asking. corporations in no way supersede the law. most corporations are "flow through" entities. as an OWNER, you are going to end up paying the taxes when they make money. C corps are different, but are subject to double taxation, so i am sure they don't serve well as sheltering devices.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:15:55 GMT -5
I am not really sure I believe just removing the cap on earnings. If you make ten million a year, you would never get anything back compared to what you paid in, unless they raised the maximum payout to match your input, and that would just negate what we are trying to accomplish. I would think raising it to $500,000, maximum, than cut it off. there IS a logic to it, actually. but then again, there is a logic to the cap.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:22:19 GMT -5
i like the idea of a deficit tax, actually. i like it very very much. but i think we should also have a "paydown of principle tax". Then break it down into two separate taxes of "deficit spending tax" and "deficit repayment tax." However it should be noted that those taxes are specifically to pay on top of what is already being paid, but what I guess would happen is that the government would use that money for that purpose and then use the money it is currently using on something else...which defeats the purpose. you mean "DEBT payment tax". and i already said that. it SHOULD be two separate taxes. one would obviously go away fairly quickly. the other would take quite a bit longer. if the taxes were tied to the deficit and debt, then NO, they could not just be used for something else. if the money was diverted, it would increase the deficit and increase the tax. the tax is not a fixed amount. it would follow the deficit. so, if they deficit was say, a 7% tax one year, and they didn't use it to pay the deficit, then it would increase the debt, which would increase the debt tax and probably the deficit tax as well. eventually, the public would be so freaked out by the increased taxes that something would be done. it only continues because very few feel the pain. they just get the candy, and get to pretend it doesn't matter.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 9, 2015 12:13:50 GMT -5
It's driving me nuts (short trip I know) but there was a very well written article which explained why removing the cap alone would result in a net negative impact to SS. IIRC it had to do with the increased benefits that would be payable to wealthier people, who have a tendency to have longer life expectations.
Removing the cap alone is not a good idea, that would need to be coupled with a cap on benefits (again coming closer to means testing and making SS more like welfare and less like the supposed social insurance it was touted as).
At the end of the day lets be honest and call it what it is - a giant Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from one generation to another and which is sustainable only by having higher taxes and fewer benefits on later generations.
It's pathetic that such a large percentage of the population doesn't plan for an event that they have decades to prepare for, namely retirement (or being unable to work because of advanced age) and then expects everyone else (society) to provide because we lived in a civilized yadda, yadda, yadda. Yes, there are the legitimate exceptions why someone can't save, but if were to be honest with ourselves, that's really not the case in most instances. Americans are lousy at delaying gratification and planning for the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 12:37:04 GMT -5
It's driving me nuts (short trip I know) but there was a very well written article which explained why removing the cap alone would result in a net negative impact to SS. IIRC it had to do with the increased benefits that would be payable to wealthier people, who have a tendency to have longer life expectations. Removing the cap alone is not a good idea, that would need to be coupled with a cap on benefits (again coming closer to means testing and making SS more like welfare and less like the supposed social insurance it was touted as). At the end of the day lets be honest and call it what it is - a giant Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from one generation to another and which is sustainable only by having higher taxes and fewer benefits on later generations. It's pathetic that such a large percentage of the population doesn't plan for an event that they have decades to prepare for, namely retirement (or being unable to work because of advanced age) and then expects everyone else (society) to provide because we lived in a civilized yadda, yadda, yadda. Yes, there are the legitimate exceptions why someone can't save, but if were to be honest with ourselves, that's really not the case in most instances. Americans are lousy at delaying gratification and planning for the future. it actually doesn't meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme. most people who pay into the system will get out LESS than they put in, but not NOTHING. some will get MORE than they put in, but NOT above market rate returns. neither of those conform to the concept or execution of a Ponzi scheme. hearing that over and over again is very tiresome.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 21:34:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 12:48:01 GMT -5
Isn't insurance supposed to go to those who need it? I pay lots of insurances that I hope never 'Pay out'.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 9, 2015 13:01:03 GMT -5
It's driving me nuts (short trip I know) but there was a very well written article which explained why removing the cap alone would result in a net negative impact to SS. IIRC it had to do with the increased benefits that would be payable to wealthier people, who have a tendency to have longer life expectations. Removing the cap alone is not a good idea, that would need to be coupled with a cap on benefits (again coming closer to means testing and making SS more like welfare and less like the supposed social insurance it was touted as). At the end of the day lets be honest and call it what it is - a giant Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from one generation to another and which is sustainable only by having higher taxes and fewer benefits on later generations. It's pathetic that such a large percentage of the population doesn't plan for an event that they have decades to prepare for, namely retirement (or being unable to work because of advanced age) and then expects everyone else (society) to provide because we lived in a civilized yadda, yadda, yadda. Yes, there are the legitimate exceptions why someone can't save, but if were to be honest with ourselves, that's really not the case in most instances. Americans are lousy at delaying gratification and planning for the future. it actually doesn't meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme. most people who pay into the system will get out LESS than they put in, but not NOTHING. some will get MORE than they put in, but NOT above market rate returns. neither of those conform to the concept or execution of a Ponzi scheme. hearing that over and over again is very tiresome. From the SEC's website: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.
...
With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.
www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htmIs that not exactly what is happening now? The amount of outflows required to support the upcoming boomer generation is greater than the inflows even before the demographic peak has hit retirement age? Based on the above SS fits the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme very well I'd say. You may disagree but SS absolutely matches known definitions of a Ponzi scheme. That fact that you may get some return does not negate that. Between SS and medicare every generations in totality has received more in benefits than they have paid in. At some point that trend simply cannot continue or it will bankrupt future generations.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 9, 2015 13:34:51 GMT -5
SS is not an investment.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 9, 2015 13:50:43 GMT -5
I am not really sure I believe just removing the cap on earnings. If you make ten million a year, you would never get anything back compared to what you paid in, unless they raised the maximum payout to match your input, and that would just negate what we are trying to accomplish. I would think raising it to $500,000, maximum, than cut it off. If you make $10 million a year, I think you're doing well enough that you don't need to worry about getting your SS contribution. That's not the point. Regardless of what you make, you paid into the "system".were forced to in fact, and should receive your due. What the recipient decides to do with the money should be up to them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 14:18:55 GMT -5
it actually doesn't meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme. most people who pay into the system will get out LESS than they put in, but not NOTHING. some will get MORE than they put in, but NOT above market rate returns. neither of those conform to the concept or execution of a Ponzi scheme. hearing that over and over again is very tiresome. From the SEC's website: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.
you can stop right there. SS is not an "investment".
...
With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.
www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htmIs that not exactly what is happening now? The amount of outflows required to support the upcoming boomer generation is greater than the inflows even before the demographic peak has hit retirement age? no. it is NOTHING like what is happening now. what is happening now is that late entries into the system are getting paid maximum benefits, and early entries are getting paid the same amount. that is actually the OPPOSITE of how Ponzi schemes work.Based on the above SS fits the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme very well I'd say. You may disagree but SS absolutely matches known definitions of a Ponzi scheme. That fact that you may get some return does not negate that. then you either don't understand how SS works, or don't understand how Ponzi's work. how Ponzi's work is that the EARLY entries are paid above market returns, and the LATER entries are paid NOTHING. that has NOTHING in common with SS. NOTHING. ZIP. NADA.Between SS and medicare every generations in totality has received more in benefits than they have paid in. At some point that trend simply cannot continue or it will bankrupt future generations. again, you are not understanding the fundamental difference between the two. let me outline it again: Ponzi: early entries are paid above average returns, and draw other people into the scheme. later entries are paid NOTHING. SS: early entries are paid below average returns (in some cases negative). if funds are not sufficient to pay later entries the full amount, they are ALSO paid below average returns (in some cases negative). NO entries are paid NOTHING, unless you happen to DIE BEFORE COLLECTING, which is true of any "investment" (SS is not an investment, imo).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 14:21:58 GMT -5
you know, this is largely academic. most people don't understand the fundamentals of a Ponzi scheme, so they are continually making false comparisons. i just find it annoying. forgive me.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 9, 2015 15:11:27 GMT -5
If you make $10 million a year, I think you're doing well enough that you don't need to worry about getting your SS contribution. That's not the point. Regardless of what you make, you paid into the "system".were forced to in fact, and should receive your due. What the recipient decides to do with the money should be up to them. I'm not arguing for means-testing, but worrying about getting something back comparable to what you put in.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 9, 2015 15:29:09 GMT -5
you know, this is largely academic. most people don't understand the fundamentals of a Ponzi scheme, so they are continually making false comparisons. i just find it annoying. forgive me. Most people don't understand the purpose and scope of what SS does either. If one looks at it simply as I put in X and got Y- could have done better in the market- then they are truly lost on the concept.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 9, 2015 16:20:04 GMT -5
It's a social insurance that keeps people off the streets and beggars and thieves out of our stores, parking lots and homes. I've been to very poor areas of other countries and seeing somebody who looks like your grandma/grandpa or child or niece or nephew filthy dirty, sick, or starving is not what I want to encounter day to day. Having to clutch my purse or wallet and having filthy dirty, sick, or starving people grabbing at me or my stuff is not a society I'd like to be in either. Having a locked gated fence around my property and having to be armed to keep thieves at bay is not how I want to live my life. I am very hopeful social security issues will be worked out for everybody to benefit in some way to prevent that kind of society and I'm very thankful it was created and available in my lifetime. Besides - us Baby Boomers outnumber everybody and there is no way our greedy narcissistic fat ass (what I've read here how we are described) selves won't always keep it voted in until our dying breaths.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jun 9, 2015 16:26:58 GMT -5
SS was not supposed to be a retirement fund/plan but a safety net for unplanned events that kept people from working. Now people use SS disability after their unemployment runs out. Go after the doctors and lawyers who are filing false claims for these people. People need to save for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 21:34:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 18:24:58 GMT -5
Why does EITC need to be eliminated? If it does, could it not be better eliminated through minimum wage rules. EITC needs to be eliminated because it's an unnecessary drain on the government's coffers. If you are married with 2 kids and make between $13,650 and $23,350, you get a REFUNDABLE tax credit of $5,460. That's $5,460 from the government, fully "refundable" along with all the money you paid in over the year, just because you EARNED money. I could MAYBE see it as a "non-refundable credit, to reduce the tax you owe (if you owe any)"... maybe. But the way it is now? No. Sorry. I admit I'll take it myself as long as it's allowed... but it NEEDS to go away. Full disclosure... last year, I got $3,305... for being married, one kid, and earning somewhere between $13,650 and $23,350. So yes, losing it would HURT me financially. Doesn't mean it shouldn't still go away, or that I would oppose it going away. Heck I believe it should go away.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 21:34:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 18:38:32 GMT -5
If you make $10 million a year, I think you're doing well enough that you don't need to worry about getting your SS contribution. That's not the point. Regardless of what you make, you paid into the "system".were forced to in fact, and should receive your due. What the recipient decides to do with the money should be up to them. I would agree... except "your due" would be no more than 1.5x FPL... in my "perfect version of how SS should work". As someone already said: "SS is not an investment"... You pay into insurance and likely will NEVER have to use it. Does that mean you never "receive your due" from insurance? Or... more financially appropriate... a rich person might pay 10x what a poor person pays for insurance... but when they both break their legs, they both get a cast and then get sent home. Did the rich person not "get their due" because they got the same as the person paying 1/10th as much as they did? What about the rich guy and the poor uninsured guy that will NEVER pay his bill? his broken leg was set too... did the rich guy not get "his due" then? SS is not, nor was it ever meant to be, "an equalizer". It's supposed to be a safety net. That's it. It's even implied in it's name "Social SECURITY".
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 9, 2015 21:11:38 GMT -5
SS was not supposed to be a retirement fund/plan but a safety net for unplanned events that kept people from working. Now people use SS disability after their unemployment runs out. Go after the doctors and lawyers who are filing false claims for these people. People need to save for themselves. And that is so true- funny this thread happens when I just got my SS statement two days ago.
And I will quote from it:
"Social Security benefits are not intended to be your only source of income when you retire. On average Social Security will replace about 40% of your annual preretirement earnings. You will need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire"
Bolded- SSA
Pensions -rofl-Those are the old days- the days when the baby boomers walked away with it all.
So how much can a full time worker set aside for retirement if they work for minimum wage?
|
|
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 Jun 9, 2015 21:19:58 GMT -5
SS was not supposed to be a retirement fund/plan but a safety net for unplanned events that kept people from working. Now people use SS disability after their unemployment runs out. Go after the doctors and lawyers who are filing false claims for these people. People need to save for themselves.
Pensions -rofl-Those are the old days- the days when the baby boomers walked away with it all.
So how much can a full time worker set aside for retirement if they work for minimum wage?
Not quite true. Most baby boomers do not have pensions, unless they work in Government or education fields. Baby boomer's parents were the ones with actual pensions for basic workers.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 9, 2015 21:23:57 GMT -5
Removing the cap alone is not a good idea, that would need to be coupled with a cap on benefits (again coming closer to means testing and making SS more like welfare and less like the supposed social insurance it was touted as). Which is why you limit their benefit to 2 × FPL
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jun 9, 2015 21:27:51 GMT -5
Minimum wage jobs were supposed to be for the young as they were getting educated or into apprentice jobs to get into a good paying career. I know that has changed and many people are trying to raise families on minimum wage. At times I worked 3 jobs while in college. I feel like I worked hard yet somewhat lucky that I made it. I don't have the answer.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 9, 2015 21:28:14 GMT -5
I just got my SS statement two days ago. And I will quote from it: "Social Security benefits are not intended to be your only source of income when you retire. On average Social Security will replace about 40% of your annual preretirement earnings. You will need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire" Bolded- SSA Pensions -rofl-Those are the old days- the days when the baby boomers walked away with it all So how much can a full time worker set aside for retirement if they work for minimum wage? Fixed
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jun 9, 2015 21:32:15 GMT -5
The old defined pensions that our parents worked for all their lives are gone. On a good note 401k pensions can be taken from job to job. It's important to invest the minimum to get the company match if there is one. Otherwise you are giving up a "raise" in pay.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 9, 2015 21:56:27 GMT -5
SS was not supposed to be a retirement fund/plan but a safety net for unplanned events that kept people from working. Now people use SS disability after their unemployment runs out. Go after the doctors and lawyers who are filing false claims for these people. People need to save for themselves. And that is so true- funny this thread happens when I just got my SS statement two days ago.
And I will quote from it:
"Social Security benefits are not intended to be your only source of income when you retire. On average Social Security will replace about 40% of your annual preretirement earnings. You will need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire"
Bolded- SSA
Pensions -rofl-Those are the old days- the days when the baby boomers walked away with it all.
So how much can a full time worker set aside for retirement if they work for minimum wage?
Well, it's been pointed out several times that most people don't work for minimum wage and those that make a career of it for some reason, are in more trouble that social security can ever help-or should.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 9, 2015 23:13:01 GMT -5
Minimum wage jobs were supposed to be for the young as they were getting educated or into apprentice jobs to get into a good paying career. I know that has changed and many people are trying to raise families on minimum wage. At times I worked 3 jobs while in college. I feel like I worked hard yet somewhat lucky that I made it. I don't have the answer. They sure were
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 10, 2015 8:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 10, 2015 8:32:30 GMT -5
I don't think railroad employees pay into SS, either. I know they didn't used to do so.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 10, 2015 8:33:46 GMT -5
From the SEC's website: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.
you can stop right there. SS is not an "investment".
...
With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.
www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htmIs that not exactly what is happening now? The amount of outflows required to support the upcoming boomer generation is greater than the inflows even before the demographic peak has hit retirement age? no. it is NOTHING like what is happening now. what is happening now is that late entries into the system are getting paid maximum benefits, and early entries are getting paid the same amount. that is actually the OPPOSITE of how Ponzi schemes work.Based on the above SS fits the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme very well I'd say. You may disagree but SS absolutely matches known definitions of a Ponzi scheme. That fact that you may get some return does not negate that. then you either don't understand how SS works, or don't understand how Ponzi's work. how Ponzi's work is that the EARLY entries are paid above market returns, and the LATER entries are paid NOTHING. that has NOTHING in common with SS. NOTHING. ZIP. NADA.Between SS and medicare every generations in totality has received more in benefits than they have paid in. At some point that trend simply cannot continue or it will bankrupt future generations. again, you are not understanding the fundamental difference between the two. let me outline it again: Ponzi: early entries are paid above average returns, and draw other people into the scheme. later entries are paid NOTHING. SS: early entries are paid below average returns (in some cases negative). if funds are not sufficient to pay later entries the full amount, they are ALSO paid below average returns (in some cases negative). NO entries are paid NOTHING, unless you happen to DIE BEFORE COLLECTING, which is true of any "investment" (SS is not an investment, imo). Actually DJ, my ability to understand things is working just fine. Where we differ is what is the definition or nature of a Ponzi scheme. I provided a link to a neutral source that provided a definition that supported my understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is - which is something that pays out more to earlier particpants then they paid in, at the expense or need of additional later participants in order to avoid collapse. And yes, SS is an "investment" "We the People" make investments for the good of society all the time. We invest in education so our children can be productive citizens, we invest in programs that are for the public good such as public health, national highways, public transportation, military defense, and the like. We invest is social programs because we are a civilized society who will not allow the weakest to be without resources. Investments that are expected to generate returns are not always monetary in nature.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 10, 2015 8:41:53 GMT -5
Removing the cap alone is not a good idea, that would need to be coupled with a cap on benefits (again coming closer to means testing and making SS more like welfare and less like the supposed social insurance it was touted as). Which is why you limit their benefit to 2 × FPL FPL = Federal poverty Level? If so, then then I guess I could get on board with this. But again, let's call a spade a spade, it's becoming more like social welfare when the people who pay in much more don't get much more in return than those who may have only paid in the minimum. AND I'm ok with that, but let's be honest with ourselves as to what it is. Which, was not what is was originally sold as (and would never have been accepted by the public at the time).
|
|