Social Security payments to shrink for senior...

[HankD]

I though as conservatives we're not allowed to demonstrate any support for Social Security.

Tat's not true. Those born prior to 1960 (that's you) are eligible at 65. Those born after 1960 are eligible at 67. It's been that way since 1983.

Hi Johnv,

I think prhaps you know that, though I am unwaivering pro-life, I am not exactly a conservative, but I believe I can speak for those of my generation.

First and foremost SSA retirement benefit is not technically an entitlement. My wife and I have paid dearly into the SSA system (about 250K over our collective lifetime of work and business ownership), this apart from our Federal, State (when we lived in those states which had a payroll tax), real estate, excise, etc., etc., taxes.

SSA was/is a mandatory insurance type investment taken from our earnings. I believe there are exceptions but after opting out you can't get back in.

We only want our investment back. Had we died before 65 all of that money would have been considered free "contributions" into the system.
No one in my family would have received anything (perhaps a $255 burial fee).

In addition, it was my generation who preserved and maintained our/your way of life for the next generation.

I am a veteran as well. In my day, the military service was required (although I volunteered).

My generation deserves to have our investments of time and money to be honored.

Plus, does anyone believe the political propaganda phantasy from "the hill" that the cost of living went down last year?

Even conservative president Bush Sr. was not aware of the cost of a loaf of bread when asked. Our politicians are totally out of touch with the financial reality of the "hoi polloi" (as they call us) with budgeted kudos, extras, health insurance, junkets, travel expenses (gasoline), etc., etc.

Not that they shouldn't have those things for their paid service to their country, but at least they could keep in touch with their constituency and their grievances (oh, "redress of grievances", that's now a "fishy" activity, I forgot) concerning the rising costs of essentials, the shrinkage of our IRA's, the raiding of the SSA "piggy bank" for other things, the devaluation of our homes, the cost of gasoline, etc.

All this and they still insist on and vote upon their own annual raises.

Everyone gets a "bail-out" except the elderly.

Oh wait, we get "hospice counseling" to teach us how the government wants us to "bail-out".


HankD

 

[Johnv]

You're right, SS isn't an entitlement per se, it's an insurance, so, like unemployment insurance or even car insurance, we should not have a sense getting back a return on the "investment". Unless one crashed their car, they won't see a retirn on their auto insurance investment. Likewise, unless one lives a long time, one is not likely to see a 100% return on SSA investment. I certainly dont'expect that. I'll have paid into it since 1983, and, since I plan on working after retirement, I'll continue to pay for it until I die. Now, the average life span in my family is 76 years, which means I'll likely draw SS for 9 years. There's not a snowball's chance in gehenna that what I draw will be close to what I contribute.

Thankfully, I've been investing in a 401k for the last 15 years, and will continue to do so. Even in this market, my 401k is doing well. Where we err is relying on SS as our primary retirement income. That's like assuming auto insurance will replace our car if we're in an accident. It won't. It will give us the value at the time. My car is probably worth about $8,000 today, but if I use the SS mentality, I'd be expecting $35k, since that's what the cost of a new comparable car would be today. Same with SS. We can't expect it to fully fund our retirement, yet many people expect just that.

 

[HankD]

You're right, SS isn't an entitlement per se, it's an insurance, so, like unemployment insurance or even car insurance, we should not have a sense getting back a return on the "investment". Unless one crashed their car, they won't see a retirn on their auto insurance investment. Likewise, unless one lives a long time, one is not likely to see a 100% return on SSA investment. I certainly dont'expect that. I'll have paid into it since 1983, and, since I plan on working after retirement, I'll continue to pay for it until I die. Now, the average life span in my family is 76 years, which means I'll likely draw SS for 9 years. There's not a snowball's chance in gehenna that what I draw will be close to what I contribute.

Thankfully, I've been investing in a 401k for the last 15 years, and will continue to do so. Even in this market, my 401k is doing well. Where we err is relying on SS as our primary retirement income. That's like assuming auto insurance will replace our car if we're in an accident. It won't. It will give us the value at the time. My car is probably worth about $8,000 today, but if I use the SS mentality, I'd be expecting $35k, since that's what the cost of a new comparable car would be today. Same with SS. We can't expect it to fully fund our retirement, yet many people expect just that.

You are also correct on this point John.

But imagine if the government had simply regulated SS as a mandatory but privately run institution of retirement rather than the bankrupt system we have now (due to the multiple government SSA "piggy bank" raids by both Democrat and Republican administrations).

I know that conservatives will balk at a "mandatory" retirement plan but I think it's a good compromise between what we have now (where the funds appropriated from the citizens can be legally robbed by the government) and a mandated but protected private sector retirement system.

But even if the government had run it properly with investments in T bills or savings bonds or other government type investments, perhaps my wife and I would be retiring in a much different manner in spite of the current loses of our IRA (our lose is about 25%).

IMO, our obligation now is to come up with legislation for future generations that learns from the mistakes of the past.

Also, IMO the ramrod HR3200 bill ignores the mistakes of the past of others and wants us to make them as well on the slim hope that history won't repeat itself.


HankD

 

[Johnv]

As a conservatve, I would favor replacing current SS with mandatory withholdings into a private pension fund of one's choice, similar to the way many city and state workers do.

 

[donnA]

And how is that to help people already on SS, or those who it is too late for them pay into a private pension plan because they are fast approaching the age of retirment or inability to work? Because the money you pay in now is paying for current seniors checks, if you people suddenly stopped paying in SS taxes, there'd be nothing for all those who it's too late for.

 

[billwald]

1. SS recently jumped because of increased oil prices and no one complained about the increase. Now that fuel prices have fallen SS should drop for the same reason.

2. SS uses the CPI index see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

3. SS is NOT insurance. It does not function as insurance and doesn't conform to any insurance principles. SS is a universal welfare program plus a capped income tax that goes into the Treasury and has ALWAYS been used to pay for current national budget needs.

4. It was never intended that anyone should retire only on SS. It was intended to be about 1/3 SS, 1/3 savings, and 1/3 pension. In other words, a person who gets a 1K SS check should be living on 3K.

5. Anyone who is retired now has lived though the best times the working class has ever seen. There is no ECONOMIC reason why any retired person should not be doing OK.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Billwald, most folks no longer get pensions. Those companies that still have them often have layoffs as folks approach retirement. Or they go to court (can you say United Airlines) and bankrupt out of the liability.

 

[Johnv]

I'm a rarity. I've been at my current job about 4 years, and we have a pension plan. Granted, it's small (1% of your aveage salary multiplied by the number of years worked), but it's a benefit, given competely without any merit on my part, excpept for not getting fired.

My goal is to have an income of 50k a year upon retirement (in today's $$). My 401K which will earn about 20K, and my pention will earn about 4k. If SS pays me 15k a month, that means I can get a part time job just for fun, making 11k a year. So I think I'll be fine. And these are somewhat conservative estimates.

 

[HankD]

1. SS recently jumped because of increased oil prices and no one complained about the increase. Now that fuel prices have fallen SS should drop for the same reason.

2. SS uses the CPI index see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

3. SS is NOT insurance. It does not function as insurance and doesn't conform to any insurance principles. SS is a universal welfare program plus a capped income tax that goes into the Treasury and has ALWAYS been used to pay for current national budget needs.

4. It was never intended that anyone should retire only on SS. It was intended to be about 1/3 SS, 1/3 savings, and 1/3 pension. In other words, a person who gets a 1K SS check should be living on 3K.

5. Anyone who is retired now has lived though the best times the working class has ever seen. There is no ECONOMIC reason why any retired person should not be doing OK.

OK deny that it is a form of insurance if you want but you are saying that the government who instituted the Act itself is wrong:

Social Security payroll taxes are collected under authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called "FICA taxes."
In the original 1935 law the benefit provisions were in Title II of the Act (which is why we sometimes call Social Security the "Title II" program.) The taxing provisions were in a separate title, Title VIII. There is a deep reason for this, having to do with the constitutionality of the law (see discussion of the Constitutionality of the 1935 Act).
As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. Since it wouldn't make any sense to call this new section of the Internal Revenue Code "Title VIII," it was renamed the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."
The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."
So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm

In any case I paid (contributed) into the system as has every other American who receives a W2 wage with the expectation of receiving something in return for my "insurance" contribution.

Welfare in America is a gracious entitlement to its citizens for no other reason than being destitute.

Not so with the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

Fourteen percent of your wage goes to the SSA system. Seven percent from you and seven percent from your employer (which is really your money although you are never told that fact), Anyone who is self employed pays the full fourteen percent (which was a large part of my working lifetime, and that apart from the Federal payroll taxes "Fair Share").

Fourteen percent contribution into the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act" of my gross income is not welfare. I worked long hard hours for my "return on investment".

Also, I don't begrudge any of the poor and needy. I give to them and enjoy doing so and have increased my giving over the years.

HankD

 

[donnA]

SS recently jumped because of increased oil prices and no one complained about the increase. Now that fuel prices have fallen SS should drop for the same reason.

mom's ss didn't jump, even a little.

Anyone who is retired now has lived though the best times the working class has ever seen. There is no ECONOMIC reason why any retired person should not be doing OK.

lots of reasons, prehaps they do not exist in your little world, but they do exist.
You may not know it, most employments do not have retirment plans, most people do not make enough to stock away excess money when they are paying taxes they were told was going to be for their retirement. When people work all their lives paying in a tax they were told was being saved for them they kind of expect to get their money.
We live in farm country, where there is no retirment funds.

 

[billwald]

>Billwald, most folks no longer get pensions.

People without pensions need to put twice as much into their IRAs or whatever. I never worried about savings because I had a state pension that paid 2%/year of service, current pay scale. I worried about getting fired because of my big mouth. Thank God for union contracts.

Most money people say it is safe to draw 4% a year from a retirement account and never run out. A person with $250K-$350K, SS, Medicare, and a paid off house should get by OK.

The problem is that if one comes down with something catastrophic
the govt will not help much until one's savings is wiped out. That should be OK with govt haters.

 

[donnA]

where is this money for and IRA supose to come from? I don't know many people making much more then minnium. Most jobs here do not pay more then $10.(unless your in the medical profession, lawyer, banker type jobs) and most a lot less then that. My husbands job is barely above minnium wage, we barely live on his wages (and that with no excess spending, I'm very tight when it comes to money). Where do we get money for an IRA?

 

[Johnv]

Where is this money for and IRA supose to come from?

Here's a counter question? If it's not coming from the person working, should the public be expected to pay for it? I don't think so.

Every person should be putting aside 10% for giving, and 10% for savings (including retirement). That should start when a person first enters the work force, at whatever minimum wage job that is.

 

[donnA]

If it's not coming from the person working, should the public be expected to pay for it? I don't think so.

My husbands pays social security taxes, which are supose to be available to him when he reaches retirement. this is his money. No one is giving him anything, no one is expected to apy anything for us. He has worked and paid it for us. but the governement contunes to steal form tax payers and soon this money he has paid will not exist for us when we are seniors.
People with money fail to understand that not everyone has money.

Every person should be putting aside 10% for giving, and 10% for savings (including retirement). That should start when a person first enters the work force, at whatever minimum wage job that is.

and how do you buy food and clothes for your family? if you ahev money you got no problems, if you don'y then you've got a problem doing this. My husband grew on the farm, as an employee, he was was a farm worker, as was his father. My hsuabnds yearly wages for the first 10 year we were married were less then $2,000. where were we to get money for an IRA? once we was actually able to get a 'public' job he brought home $135. a week, for which we were to take care of our family, rent, utilities, clothes and a megar amount of food. where were we to get money for an IRA? What people with money fail to understand is there are people living from pay check to pay check, meaning not a penny extra money, sometimes I can't pay all our bills, and the most logical way of cutting expenses is food. Where we to get money for an IRA?
People with money assume everyone has money.
As I already said, my husband has already paid in money that was supose to be for taking care of us, money he earned and no one gave us.

 

[windcatcher]

My husbands pays social security taxes, which are supose to be available to him when he reaches retirement. this is his money. No one is giving him anything, no one is expected to apy anything for us. He has worked and paid it for us. but the governement contunes to steal form tax payers and soon this money he has paid will not exist for us when we are seniors.
People with money fail to understand that not everyone has money.

and how do you buy food and clothes for your family? if you ahev money you got no problems, if you don'y then you've got a problem doing this. My husband grew on the farm, as an employee, he was was a farm worker, as was his father. My hsuabnds yearly wages for the first 10 year we were married were less then $2,000. where were we to get money for an IRA? once we was actually able to get a 'public' job he brought home $135. a week, for which we were to take care of our family, rent, utilities, clothes and a megar amount of food. where were we to get money for an IRA? What people with money fail to understand is there are people living from pay check to pay check, meaning not a penny extra money, sometimes I can't pay all our bills, and the most logical way of cutting expenses is food. Where we to get money for an IRA?
People with money assume everyone has money.
As I already said, my husband has already paid in money that was supose to be for taking care of us, money he earned and no one gave us.

:applause::thumbsup:Very eloquently and simply said! :love2:

And most of us who are 'poor' (incidently..... poor in monetary worth doesn't mean poor in spirit)........ are 'poor' because what the government promises with one hand.... they gladly relieve us of with the other.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Donna, your husband is not putting money for himself in SS. He is paying for people currently receiving the benefits. Others will pay for his when he retires. It is not a savings account held for him.

 

[windcatcher]

Donna, your husband is not putting money for himself in SS. He is paying for people currently receiving the benefits. Others will pay for his when he retires. It is not a savings account held for him.

No matter how its twisted..... the truth remains..... the government promises then the government taketh away. And the government lies........ I MEAN IT LIES AND MISREPRESENTS REALITY AND ITS OWN INTENTIONS (the people/leadership ----you know..... the idealistic 'progressives' who are so idealistic that they are no earthly good.... but who blame us for all their failures, mistakes, and lies which spring from their 'good' intentions) !

 

[Johnv]

It's not a matter of "the government promises then the government taketh away"". SS was never intended to be the primary source of retirement funds, nor was it even intended to be permanent. Currently, SS is fully funded through 2037.

Everyone knows that funding of SS in indefinite perpetuity is a bad idea. You can't say "it's a bad idea", and then when the government wants to reform it because it's a bad idea, say "see? they lie".

 

[donnA]

Donna, your husband is not putting money for himself in SS. He is paying for people currently receiving the benefits. Others will pay for his when he retires. It is not a savings account held for him.

Simply by paying it is supose to mean it will be there when we are old enough. but theres probably not going to be social security by then, and we loose everything he paid in, when we could have been saving that for ourselves in and IRA.
I understand how the system works, I am not dumb because I don't have money.

 

[donnA]

It's not a matter of "the government promises then the government taketh away"". SS was never intended to be the primary source of retirement funds, nor was it even intended to be permanent. Currently, SS is fully funded through 2037.

Everyone knows that funding of SS in indefinite perpetuity is a bad idea. You can't say "it's a bad idea", and then when the government wants to reform it because it's a bad idea, say "see? they lie".

Primary source or not, thats our business, but it should be an available source to us, since we have paid it WILL be our only source.