zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 10, 2015 10:39:24 GMT -5
I get there's a cap on what they pay out. It's wrong but I can live with that What pisses me off is that if you saved you get screwed. This is no different than rewarding poor behavior and screwing those who behaved. It had consequences that are farther teaching than you think.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 10, 2015 10:39:39 GMT -5
Has
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,947
|
Post by bean29 on Jun 10, 2015 11:02:32 GMT -5
Zib,
I agree with what you are saying, but I am not sure how much we can expect those at poverty level to save...then again, my family that has very little saved goes on more vacations than I do. Their kids get more financial aid for school than mine do too.
My EFC for my Kids college next year (2) is $15,000 (I think). I have to apply for a parent plus loan soon b/c I can't imagine where I can come up with those kind of $$. Do you think I could stop my $4,000 a month estimated federal tax payment? I guess they wouldn't like that too much.
I did think Mr. OpEd had a point about having job classifications similar to WC Classifications where if you had more of a manual labor job the # of years you were expected to work was less. Maybe the credits you get for more manual work would be weighted? And I agree that we should increase the quarters you need to work to retire with SS. We might want to keep the lower # for disability.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2015 13:11:47 GMT -5
I like the idea of job classifications as well- SSA uses them in disability cases all of the time along with education level.
Kind of easy to be a politician with a law degree and work until you are 70, a roofer with a high school education not so much.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2015 13:58:21 GMT -5
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. i read your definition, and it doesn't conform to either Ponzi or to SS. Ponzi is inherently unstable by design. they will always fail, and leave the last participants without ANYTHING. so, it is not simply that later investors will get LESS, it is that later investors will get NOTHING. but that is not how SS will work. and i think this is why i am bothered by the comparison.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. no, it really is NOT an investment, as i and several others have said.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. i was not using the term investment in that way. the way i was using it was STRICTLY financial. as far as i know, that is the ONLY sense in which Ponzi schemes are discussed. please let me know if i am wrong about that.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 10, 2015 19:40:36 GMT -5
I'm dead set AGAINST job classifications for early SSA. Makes absolutely no fiscal sense for the ordinary taxpayer. They already have SSDI if unable to work due to disability prior to 62. They already have SSA at 62 if they want (and stepped up benefit from 62 -67). That's enough IMO
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 10, 2015 22:56:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure that is necessary. The number of quarters only means that one is qualified to receive "something." The benefit amount is calculated over the highest 35 years of adjusted earnings. If they only work the ten years to get the 40 quarters to qualify, they will still have 25 years of zero earnings dragging down the benefit level.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 11, 2015 8:18:26 GMT -5
All this talk about SSA got me to check my record & it is in error. Apparently not all my 1993 earnings were reported. Shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things?
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,731
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jun 11, 2015 10:12:53 GMT -5
And people wonder why I took early benefits. Figured they would keep moving the dates/age around so I just said piss on this and filed for early benefits. Never regretted it for one minute. SS has always been a hot topic among politicials as long as I can remember. Heck, I was working for CPA in the mid 70's and we would have clients in their 50's worried that SS wouldn't be there when they turned 65. SOS - just a different day
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 11, 2015 13:37:41 GMT -5
Yes, it'll be interesting for us. We want to retire early, but since i started working at 16, even retiring at 50 would give me 34 years of some earnings and most years i was hitting the cap.
but it's scary and "angrifying" that I don't have assurance that this money will come in at 65, forcing me to work more than i would like before retiring. I wish we could face this head on and agree on what the new deal is
ie, perhaps something like
1. current retirees will see a 3% decrease, or no cola for 4 years 2. working people will see the employee rate increase 1% (an effective increase of 17% of employee or 8% of combined 12.4% employer+employee) 3. the cap on income will be removed, but with a twist. anything made over the current, inflation adjusted cap will not earn you more benefits, but will also not have SS taxed at the full rate. It will be 3% on employer only, 0% on employee
#3 is in there for the commies, but would probably have to have something like this in there to get it through. you'll be getting money, always. you just might not be getting the full amount that you once expected. it really depends on what is done.
|
|
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 11, 2015 13:39:16 GMT -5
All this talk about SSA got me to check my record & it is in error. Apparently not all my 1993 earnings were reported. Shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things? I'd do what I could to correct that record. It could result in a higher payout when you do start drawing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 11, 2015 13:48:05 GMT -5
you'll be getting money, always. you just might not be getting the full amount that you once expected. it really depends on what is done. would you bet your life and livelihood on that?
yep. i would. but if you want to make it interesting, let's just go for $1,000. i will bet you $1,000 that SS will pay you SOMETHING should you reach the qualifying age.
see, that's the problem. I agree I'll "probably" get "something". I bet you wouldn't build your business plan on something like "we might pay taxes next year"
i didn't say probably. you will DEFINITELY be getting something. if you don't think so, then insure yourself for $1,000. if you want to stake more, just let me know. i am feeling about $10k to $100k certain, in this case. name your amount.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,731
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jun 11, 2015 14:12:28 GMT -5
would you bet your life and livelihood on that?
yep. i would. but if you want to make it interesting, let's just go for $1,000. i will bet you $1,000 that SS will pay you SOMETHING should you reach the qualifying age.
see, that's the problem. I agree I'll "probably" get "something". I bet you wouldn't build your business plan on something like "we might pay taxes next year"
i didn't say probably. you will DEFINITELY be getting something. if you don't think so, then insure yourself for $1,000. if you want to stake more, just let me know. i am feeling about $10k to $100k certain, in this case. name your amount. I'll cover half your bet for you. Guess I should amend my will just in case I croak before alwaysbeoptimizing reaches the full benefits age. Well on second thought I'll cover half the $10K bet. $50 grand will eat into my gambling money
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 11, 2015 14:16:13 GMT -5
Yes, it'll be interesting for us. We want to retire early, but since i started working at 16, even retiring at 50 would give me 34 years of some earnings and most years i was hitting the cap.
but it's scary and "angrifying" that I don't have assurance that this money will come in at 65, forcing me to work more than i would like before retiring. I wish we could face this head on and agree on what the new deal is
ie, perhaps something like
1. current retirees will see a 3% decrease, or no cola for 4 years 2. working people will see the employee rate increase 1% (an effective increase of 17% of employee or 8% of combined 12.4% employer+employee) 3. the cap on income will be removed, but with a twist. anything made over the current, inflation adjusted cap will not earn you more benefits, but will also not have SS taxed at the full rate. It will be 3% on employer only, 0% on employee
#3 is in there for the commies, but would probably have to have something like this in there to get it through. I've been thinking something along the lines of #3 for some time now. I guess I'm a commie! (Don't tell my family back in Eastern Europe.) Actually, there is another benefit--less incentive to work higher earners to death instead of hiring more people to do the work, assuming the higher earners are working a lot of hours.
|
|
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 11, 2015 14:20:54 GMT -5
mmhmm you were a Nurse right? Isn't it unusual for Nurses to work that long?
I know it is more then norm for people to continue working in offices, people that have physical jobs tend to need to retire earlier.
I plan to work as long as I am physically able, but I am trying to save b/c I don't want to feel I have to continue to work b/c I have no savings to fall back on. Yes, it is unusual. I was the oldest working nurse in our two facilities. A staff nurse has a pretty physical job, what with turning paitients, pushing/pulling heavy beds and equipment, lots of time one one's feet. Not everyone is going to be able to keep that up until 70; however, most nurses retire when their husbands retire. Now that we have more males in the field that may change.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 11, 2015 15:30:05 GMT -5
This is pretty old, but using GAAP to account for future obligations leads to a -60T federal net worth and a annual deficit of 5T
Dividing that by the number of citizens (~320M) yield a one year deficit of 15,625 per person! that includes kids, the unemployed, and the elderly. if 1/2 the population works, we need 30K in additional taxes or reduced outgo PER YEAR to cover it
if you want to look at the 60T, it's a total deficit of 187,500 per citizen, which again, if you feel like it's 1/2 the people working, you'd see we need an average of $380,000 in additional tax revenue per citizen to support current spending plus promised future obligations
tell me again how that won't crash?
also note, that's with current interest rates...
old article, but makes some good points about using GAAP to look at federal obligations versus the hokus pokus they use in the government
www.wnd.com/2009/02/88851/
would love to see where this article is wrong
the deficit has nothing to do with social security payments. you got off track right from the get-go, so i am not going to comment on your article. edit: never mind. i couldn't resist looking at your article, which gets the basic facts about SS wrong. SS is under no obligation to pay shortfalls once the fund runs out. in fact, the last year that SS issued statements (i guess they stopped to cover up this fact) it was very clearly stated that the amount of payments was projected to be less than original, and was forecast to decline further, due to system imbalances. that is a very well known fact in the knowledge-based community, which excludes WND. in other words, if there are shortfalls, then retirees will feel them, not the government, which is under no OBLIGATION to fund those shortfalls. SS is a "pay as you go" system. so when the excess deposits (now in the form of treasury notes) run out, there will be reductions in payments, NOT deficits. the system can really ONLY produce surpluses by design, so the very obviously absurd $65T "debt" does not exist, either on a cash OR accrual basis. it is just a complete fabrication bourne out of sheer ignorance.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 11, 2015 15:36:51 GMT -5
I've been thinking something along the lines of #3 for some time now. I guess I'm a commie! (Don't tell my family back in Eastern Europe.) Actually, there is another benefit--less incentive to work higher earners to death instead of hiring more people to do the work, assuming the higher earners are working a lot of hours. but my point is that you've got to do all three and then you've got to get people to take their medicine.
i'll fight to the death if the "solution" is JUST #3.
everybody better feel some pain (ie, you better do #1 also if you want even the chance that i'll support 2&3)
Theoretically, yes, but I don't see #1 happening in reality. There are too many that rely completely on SS and bitch when Medicare eats up the small annual increase that they do get. #1 would also throw more seniors onto assistance programs (food stamps, housing, Medicaid) more fully or sooner. I don't know--I wish it weren't the case.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 11, 2015 16:12:20 GMT -5
the deficit has nothing to do with social security payments. you got off track right from the get-go, so i am not going to comment on your article. edit: never mind. i couldn't resist looking at your article, which gets the basic facts about SS wrong. SS is under no obligation to pay shortfalls once the fund runs out. in fact, the last year that SS issued statements (i guess they stopped to cover up this fact) it was very clearly stated that the amount of payments was projected to be less than original, and was forecast to decline further, due to system imbalances. that is a very well known fact in the knowledge-based community, which excludes WND. in other words, if there are shortfalls, then retirees will feel them, not the government, which is under no OBLIGATION to fund those shortfalls. SS is a "pay as you go" system. so when the excess deposits (now in the form of treasury notes) run out, there will be reductions in payments, NOT deficits. the system can really ONLY produce surpluses by design, so the very obviously absurd $65T "debt" does not exist, either on a cash OR accrual basis. it is just a complete fabrication bourne out of sheer ignorance. OK, so you've described the legal situation. that said, do you really anticipate no increase in taxes or issues when medicare cuts payments to doctors by 90% one year and SS cuts benefits by 35%? Really.
i already said quite specifically what i expect- that benefits will drop (though not nearly as dramatically as what you have just stated, initially). what taxes are you talking about? SS and MC?
doesn't pass the BS test that you REALLY believe that seniors will just see this huge cut.
i am not following your question. people that are already getting payments will not see their payments cut, imo. they may see their benefits FROZEN, and no, they will not "just see" that. they will bitch loudly about it. new entries into the system, however, will not see as much as the existing people in the system will get. and yes, i suspect they will "just see" that, because they are people like you, that seem prepared to get NOTHING. edit: one final thing- i was referring ONLY to SS, earlier. MC is heading for a collision with reality much sooner, which is why i am looking at retiring outside the US. there is no way our retirees can be afforded a healthcare system that costs 2x what it costs elsewhere, and pays in at about 1/4 the rate that is charged for it elsewhere. no....way.
|
|