Social Security Funds

major_bob · Post by **major_bob** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:11 pm

Dusty,
I understand your frustration and concerns. I guess the difference is that I have always considered the SS deduction as (what it truely is) a tax -- not a "contribution". I'm 52 years old now. If I ever recover part of those taxes I will consider it "gravy" but certainly not making plans for it.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:14 pm

Ahh the semantic games politicians play. The 'collections' of SS was shifted to the IRS so they would be 'legally' referred to as taxes. As originally envisioned(AIUI) it was perceived as an insurance program. Now the feds cannot force one to pay for 'insurance'(at least in 39 they thought they couldn't) so it had to be 'changed' to a 'tax'.

So how is that different from the latest?(other than the third parties)

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:35 pm

JPG40504 wrote:Ahh the semantic games politicians play.

Still, my favorite is "It all depends on what the meaning of is, is"

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:52 pm

my question is how does this all get fixed or should we flush it all and start a new?

I had an idea.

What if we dropped the last zero from everything. From our bank account, from our pay, from the price of bread, from the price of medicine, from our doctors bill, from our house prices, from everything.

One thing would be for sure we would be making the least expensive cars and products and the world would rush to our door step to buy what we were selling.

That should eliminate unemployment and generate business.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:57 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:my question is how does this all get fixed or should we flush it all and start a new?

I had an idea.

What if we dropped the last zero from everything. From our bank account, from our pay, from the price of bread, from the price of medicine, from our doctors bill, from our house prices, from everything.

One thing would be for sure we would be making the least expensive cars and products and the world would rush to our door step to buy what we were selling.

That should eliminate unemployment and generate business.

Yeah - we could get rid of pennies and nickels(like the 'mil').

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:14 pm

SS wasn't designed as a retirement plan. When it was first enacted, the retirement age was set higher than the average lifespan. That retirement age hasn't really changed but lifespans have gotten much longer.

backhertz · Post by **backhertz** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:15 am

Let's cut the Congress in half. Term limits. No retirement unless a min of 12 years served. Our country was founded in 1776. The system seems to be like an old 10E Shopsmith & still function after many years. But so much has checked in technology, communication, transportation, etc. So why is such a large congress still required with huge numbers of staffers still needed?

Look at Shopsmith and how the company did what they had to do in order to stay in business. I believe in citizen/statesmen. i believe our representatives should be the best of out best with demonstrated . i mean people with demonstrated track records in private business success, served 4 years in the military minimum, have a master's degree from a recognized college/university. Employ only the number of people needed to get the job done. No one is going to say their job is unnecessary. Look at the presidential candidates who were running for president. Their constituents were really shortchanged in my opinion- or that proves my point- there are too many congressmen. No more relatives or nepotism.

The same thing for the White House. If they want large numbers of employees, then pay for them from their salaries. Our executive branch has been transformed into an almost elite royalty. Let them buy water from Costco!

They must be able to talk in complete intelligent sentences. They should set the example to all of us. They must be barred from making a cent from their service as they are on the inside & know what's going on.

They must pay social security like everyone else! But they exempted themselves and who let them do it? Can you imagine if everyone paid into the system? The money in the system isn't like a rainy-day fund to 'borrow' from when the country has overspent.

Balanced budgets- period. No war without the money to pay for it. But it's not that simply, unfortunately.

We've paid into this system all our lives and these guys have spent it faster than it's coming in. Granted the babyboomers are retiring and that's going to really eat up the fund. But remember Gore talking about the "lock box" and GW Bush allowing it all to be invested in the market- whew! Eye, ye, ye, ye…

paulmcohen · Post by **paulmcohen** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:51 am

Ed in Tampa wrote:I know, I know oh let me answer, I know.
The jobs are all overseas because the rich aren't happy with billions, they believe they need 10's of billions.
I saw a $150 million dollar private yacht on TV today. Do you realize just to take it for a day cruise cost more than most of the middle class America makes in a year.
Is that perhaps just a little excessive? How about you only buy a $10 million dollar yacht and bring the jobs back to this country.

We are back to my word again GREED!

The money is overseas because our ridiculous corporate tax rates make it fiscally irresponsible to bring money back into the US. The rich and corporations will not pay taxes they can legally avoid. When you lower tax rates more money comes into the US and gets spent hiring people, raise rates too much and the rich leave and corporations leave their money overseas.

If I earn the money and want to spend it on a $150 million yacht that is really no one else's business, when the government put extra taxes on expensive yachts all the US companies were out of business but the number of yachts was unchanged. John Kerry, keep his yacht is a state that does not charge personal property taxes, something most people can't do, but it is legal. The corruption in our system is caused by trying to make everyone equal the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity not equal outcome. You want equal outcome try communism.

paulmcohen · Post by **paulmcohen** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:13 am

backhertz wrote:
Balanced budgets- period. No war without the money to pay for it. But it's not that simply, unfortunately. We've paid into this system all our lives and these guys have spent it faster than it's coming in. Granted the babyboomers are retiring and that's going to really eat up the fund. But remember Gore talking about the "lock box" and GW Bush allowing it all to be invested in the market- whew! Eye, ye, ye, ye…

Three cities allowed their employees to skip SS and instead invest in the Stock Market. Every retiree is a millionaire, and they are immune from what happens to SS. The market over the past 100+ years always does better than SS over 20 years and it does not matter which year you start with. Even people who lost 1/2 of their funds during the crash are close to break even today unless they left the market or invested against common practice (too much money in one stock, risky derivatives...). Even putting your SS money in an insurance annuity would have done much better. SS is a pyramid scheme where politicians can use our money to buy votes knowing they will never be around when the bill comes due.

pennview · Post by **pennview** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:06 am

Backhertz, members of Congress and their staffs (like all federal employees) now pay into Social Security. They are not exempt. Paying into Social Security was required for all new federal employees beginning in 1986. Those hired before then had the option of paying into Social Security or continuing with the Civil Service Retirement System. Congress realized in 1986 that it couldn't continue to afford the retirement system then in place so it created the Federal Employees Retirement System with employees paying Social Security taxes and in addition having a 401K-like program as well.