Am I a Taker?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:02 am

I just watched a TV commentary that reports 49% of us are takers. That seems like an awfully high number. That is 1 in every 2 of us are takers. There are just over 9,000 members of this forum. Are 4,500 of us takers?

What does that really mean? I draw Social Security and a retirement check from the USAF. Does that make me a taker?

I don't think of myself as a taker. I feel that I worked for my pension checks and earned the right to not be considered a taker just because I survive on my pension.

Maybe I need to go get a job at Wally World. I enjoy people. I could be a greeter. God knows, I don't want to be a taker. Not if I can help it!!

mrhart · Post by **mrhart** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:12 am

How did they define a "taker" on the program?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:17 am

Your efforts on this forum would indicate you are a 'giver'!

pennview · Post by **pennview** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:30 am

Put your mind at rest, Dusty. You are far from a "taker."

fredsheldon · Post by **fredsheldon** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:08 am

As I understand Mitt, his 47% included anybody that doesn't owe income taxes on April 15th. That includes anybody on SS and retirement income and/or those having enough deductions to offset their income so that they owe no income taxes. I think that's what got him into the fix he found himself in. He might have offended retires and vets who are not on welfare, which is what I think he was trying to imply.

wrmnfzy · Post by **wrmnfzy** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:14 am

I'd be interested in the definition of a "taker". The government might fit it well.

letterk · Post by **letterk** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:27 am

It’s a complicated answer – I’ll play devil’s advocate on this one.

One could say that your social security income should be based on how much you contributed, but since it was never invested in the market, what you get paid is really based on what the system can pay out. It was a bet that there would be enough workers to pay what you are promised. So are you collecting more than your fair share?

The pension in more complicated then that. Yes, if it is like most pensions it was invested in the market, but most of the growth projections were too high and you were promised more than you probably should receive. I’m not sure if this would apply to government pensions – are they a promise from the government which means that you were promised more than they can actually afford to give you? So again, are you collecting more than your fair share?

My wife pays into a government pension, one that promised those hired before 1991 that by adding their age and years working and if it equals 90 they get a full pensions. Yes, they were promised a full pension, but it comes on the backs of younger workers who now have to pay 50% more to the pension then they did 10 years ago. Are they going to get 50% more in payouts when they retire? 10 years after they passed these rules they also shifted the 403b contribution match so that these same workers get double the 403b matching while lowering the amount younger workers get.

One could say like social security there will come a day when payouts have to be cut or the money won’t be there. The current people who are collecting and near collecting will say “but we were promised and we contributed.” One can argue the writing has been on the wall for over 30 years. I think the 401k started in 1978, social security was reformed in 1983 (or sometime around then). That would make those who retire at 67 this year 38 when the writing on the wall appeared?

Should this current individual who is in the same place as that 38 year old in 1983 have to pay in and get nothing? I know the writing is on the wall, but with young kids and a mortgage I’m not able to fund my 401k and IRAs to the levels I know that I should be. I have to make a bet that some day I will be able to.

By the way – most of what is above doesn't actually reflect my views. I'm actually optimistic about the future. I've seen greater days in the past and try to see the future not through glasses colored by the current situation. I see the writing on the wall and like much of my generation that some of you call slackers or worse, I am resolved to probably not see social security be that time I’m retired. I wonder if the “Me” generation will use that expectation to insure that they get all they are promised at the expense of those who follow.

ljhhontx · Post by **ljhhontx** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:56 am

I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of what he was talking about as I work in the utility industry (natural gas) in a historically "economically disadvantaged" area of Texas for the last 25 yrs. The economically disadvantaged here don't work and have no desire to work, their families have lived this way for generations and they have no incentive to change. The ones that do work do so only long enough to pay in a little income tax and get it all back plus earned income credit at the end of the year and since they do pay some in they will proudly tell you they are taxpayers even though they have never paid in more than they get back. They take advantage of every program, ie housing, food, daycare, healthcare and any other our politicians come up with to buy the vote. At the going rate of birth in this area we real taxpayers are quickly losing any hope of electing politicians who will do anything about it ,especially after this last election. Since we taught our children not to have more children than they could afford to raise themselves, our hopes of stopping this trend is almost nil at this point.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:03 pm

letterk: You say that the social security pot was never invested. I don't know if that is true or not but if it was not invested, why wasn't it.

I am 73 and I went to work on a job where I paid social security when I was 17. I worked and paid social security until 8 years ago when I was forced to retire. I have never been on welfare and I have never been unemployed. In fact, for many of those years I worked more than one job. During some of those, I paid enough into social security that I hit a cap and actually saw an increase in take home because of the social security limit.

Needless to say, from my point of view, that question is not difficult to answer at all.

BTW, my pension is no where near 90% of my wages. It is much closer to 50%.

Gene Howe · Post by **Gene Howe** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:13 pm

I think our SS checks would be a lot larger had the $$ been invested instead of used as a slush fund.