User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:57:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a purely practical standpoint, you should care because it costs you less as a taxpayer. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:07:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does my paying the Social Security tax reduce my burden as a taxpayer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 12:57:50 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The obligation for your insurance company to pay is contractual. In 1960 the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor ruled that you have no contractual relationship with the government for Social Security. Your argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 9:00:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not about what you pay in, it is about what other recipients pay in. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward. 
Words fail me if what you acknowledge is a tax doesn’t count in your math of the cost to taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 9:02:03 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well thank God you settled that one. The government can stop paying social security benefits and stop collecting FICA any time they want. Problem solved! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The obligation for your insurance company to pay is contractual. In 1960 the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor ruled that you have no contractual relationship with the government for Social Security. Your argument is invalid. Legally the government could stop SS tomorrow. Politically it would be suicide because too many folks believe they have an account that they have paid into. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 9:39:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course he will, just like everyone else that is eligible. ( i know some RR workers and some other jobs dont have it taken out and wont be part of SS) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He will be. Congress briefly opened a window to do so, saw what was happening and slammed it shut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 10:12:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good post. All good information. The biggest myth is that it matters. As a society, we will never be willing to step over starving dying old people in the street (see India for reference). That means we will always have social security, welfare or a combination of the two. Whether they take or out of your check and call it social security or take it out of your check and call it the dole is completely irrelevant. It will be taken regardless. The communists in congress would gladly put us all up against a wall and fix the problem, from their perspective. leaving dying old people in the streets isn't such a far step from that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 11:03:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for you. I have interesting question, when he gets his first job, how will that work so they dont take SS out of his check ? Im sure employers gonna be pita about it. What about military service if he chooses that route? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: @UtahShotgunner So here is what I've run into around that. "They" tried that when I signed my son up for public school. I hear all the time "you HAVE to have a social security number to do X". I say "prove it, by the way, here is the case law that disagrees with you. Please read the area's that are highlighted in yellow". At that point all of the sudden he doesn't need one anymore. You will hear you need one all the time. I heard the same thing around the passport application. What the law says around this is that if you already have one it's against the law not to put it on the application. It's pretty cleverly worded but it never says you HAVE to have one. If you read it you will just assume you do. I just left it blank and the state dept. wrote me a letter and said please respond with a signed statement that he has never had one and we will process it, which I did. He received it shortly after. In your case, I quickly looked at the laws in Utah around birth certificates and saw no mention of requiring a social security number. HERE is a link to the law in Utah. I'm pretty sure you were told that by the folks in the Hospital. They tried that with me too. It would be against the law for them to require that your son be signed up for a federal program for the state to issue him a birth certificate. I don't think that would hold up to a lawsuit. I'm not sure about your insurance company. There is a medicare reporting requirement that says my son has to have one but I have ignored it so far and he is 10 years old. He is covered under United Healthcare so it's not a thing for them at least. Let me give you a tip. No one ever actually reads the rules. They just repeat what they have heard as the gospel truth. ETA... I found a better LINK. There is no legal requirement in Utah for a child to have a social security number prior to being issued a birth certificate in the state of Utah. If you can find something different I'd love to see it. This isn't a personal challenge BTW. I'm just really interested in the laws around this stuff and if you see something different that contradicts what I believe I'd appreciate you letting me know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 11:11:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He won't be able to work or join the military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: @UtahShotgunner So here is what I've run into around that. "They" tried that when I signed my son up for public school. I hear all the time "you HAVE to have a social security number to do X". I say "prove it, by the way, here is the case law that disagrees with you. Please read the area's that are highlighted in yellow". At that point all of the sudden he doesn't need one anymore. You will hear you need one all the time. I heard the same thing around the passport application. What the law says around this is that if you already have one it's against the law not to put it on the application. It's pretty cleverly worded but it never says you HAVE to have one. If you read it you will just assume you do. I just left it blank and the state dept. wrote me a letter and said please respond with a signed statement that he has never had one and we will process it, which I did. He received it shortly after. In your case, I quickly looked at the laws in Utah around birth certificates and saw no mention of requiring a social security number. HERE is a link to the law in Utah. I'm pretty sure you were told that by the folks in the Hospital. They tried that with me too. It would be against the law for them to require that your son be signed up for a federal program for the state to issue him a birth certificate. I don't think that would hold up to a lawsuit. I'm not sure about your insurance company. There is a medicare reporting requirement that says my son has to have one but I have ignored it so far and he is 10 years old. He is covered under United Healthcare so it's not a thing for them at least. Let me give you a tip. No one ever actually reads the rules. They just repeat what they have heard as the gospel truth. ETA... I found a better LINK. There is no legal requirement in Utah for a child to have a social security number prior to being issued a birth certificate in the state of Utah. If you can find something different I'd love to see it. This isn't a personal challenge BTW. I'm just really interested in the laws around this stuff and if you see something different that contradicts what I believe I'd appreciate you letting me know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 11:12:37 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The kid will follow in the steps of the 19 year old with ant vaxxer parents. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: @UtahShotgunner So here is what I've run into around that. "They" tried that when I signed my son up for public school. I hear all the time "you HAVE to have a social security number to do X". I say "prove it, by the way, here is the case law that disagrees with you. Please read the area's that are highlighted in yellow". At that point all of the sudden he doesn't need one anymore. You will hear you need one all the time. I heard the same thing around the passport application. What the law says around this is that if you already have one it's against the law not to put it on the application. It's pretty cleverly worded but it never says you HAVE to have one. If you read it you will just assume you do. I just left it blank and the state dept. wrote me a letter and said please respond with a signed statement that he has never had one and we will process it, which I did. He received it shortly after. In your case, I quickly looked at the laws in Utah around birth certificates and saw no mention of requiring a social security number. HERE is a link to the law in Utah. I'm pretty sure you were told that by the folks in the Hospital. They tried that with me too. It would be against the law for them to require that your son be signed up for a federal program for the state to issue him a birth certificate. I don't think that would hold up to a lawsuit. I'm not sure about your insurance company. There is a medicare reporting requirement that says my son has to have one but I have ignored it so far and he is 10 years old. He is covered under United Healthcare so it's not a thing for them at least. Let me give you a tip. No one ever actually reads the rules. They just repeat what they have heard as the gospel truth. ETA... I found a better LINK. There is no legal requirement in Utah for a child to have a social security number prior to being issued a birth certificate in the state of Utah. If you can find something different I'd love to see it. This isn't a personal challenge BTW. I'm just really interested in the laws around this stuff and if you see something different that contradicts what I believe I'd appreciate you letting me know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 9:45:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was hoping I missed something and you seriously hadn’t started to make this argument, yet here it is.
Words fail me if what you acknowledge is a tax doesn’t count in your math of the cost to taxpayers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward.
Words fail me if what you acknowledge is a tax doesn’t count in your math of the cost to taxpayers. What do you mean? Did you even look at my post? That is not what I claim, nor what my example illustrates. Rather, it shows that the net cost is less than it otherwise would be because the recipient “contributes”. You cannot include the recipient in your taxpayer pool when you calculate the net cost to “other tax payers”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2019 11:28:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@SmilingBandit What do you mean? Did you even look at my post? That is not what I claim, nor what my example illustrates. Rather, it shows that the net cost is less than it otherwise would be because the recipient “contributes”. You cannot include the recipient in your taxpayer pool when you calculate the net cost to “other tax payers”. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward.
Words fail me if what you acknowledge is a tax doesn’t count in your math of the cost to taxpayers. What do you mean? Did you even look at my post? That is not what I claim, nor what my example illustrates. Rather, it shows that the net cost is less than it otherwise would be because the recipient “contributes”. You cannot include the recipient in your taxpayer pool when you calculate the net cost to “other tax payers”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 12:44:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont know the facts on inflation, but disagree its welfare for the old, they paid into it, i dont know why that fact is dismissed. Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 12:46:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's nonsensical to discard the 15.3% of the taxpayer's earnings being taken by the government as taxes because they are a different flavor of tax. The cost to the taxpayers is the same in both of your examples. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward.
Words fail me if what you acknowledge is a tax doesn’t count in your math of the cost to taxpayers. What do you mean? Did you even look at my post? That is not what I claim, nor what my example illustrates. Rather, it shows that the net cost is less than it otherwise would be because the recipient “contributes”. You cannot include the recipient in your taxpayer pool when you calculate the net cost to “other tax payers”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 7:51:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is not about what you pay in, it is about what other recipients pay in. Imagine an elderly person that has worked , but saved nothing for retirement. Under the current social security system, they will have "paid into" the system. Lets imagine they paid in $2,000 per year on average for 35 years, so $75,000. Now, for simplicity, imagine they receive an SS benefit of $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 Now imagine social security does not exist. They pay in nothing. Welfare is $12k per year for 20 years, so $240,000. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$0 = $240,000 Obviously this is a very simplistic example. We are indifferent that it is "pay it forward" model, because over a large population, at any given time people in functionally similar financial situations will be paying it forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 7:54:34 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 8:52:55 AM EDT
[#17]
Social security should’ve been privatized into IRA style accounts, partially, when Bush pushed for that. The single biggest issue is SS cash is used to fund structural short falls in government through inter-departmental loans. These loans are back by a special, non-negotiable treasury bond. Yes IOUs, 2.8 trillion dollars worth of IOUs. Imagine if the fund had all that cash to invest and grow. It would be the largest sovereign wealth fund on earth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 9:48:45 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Social security should’ve been privatized into IRA style accounts, partially, when Bush pushed for that. The single biggest issue is SS cash is used to fund structural short falls in government through inter-departmental loans. These loans are back by a special, non-negotiable treasury bond. Yes IOUs, 2.8 trillion dollars worth of IOUs. Imagine if the fund had all that cash to invest and grow. It would be the largest sovereign wealth fund on earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 9:57:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you would. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not reading all that. All I know is that if there was a box where I could opt out of it and get back everything I've put in so far I'd check it in an instant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 9:58:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a f-ing heartbeat. .gov can’t do anything right....nothing, everything they touch turns to crap. I could be much better off $$$$ by managing my own retirement and disability insurance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not reading all that. All I know is that if there was a box where I could opt out of it and get back everything I've put in so far I'd check it in an instant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:06:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Lol at all the folks “I have an account number and can log in and see it”
 Dumb & Dumber -- Empty Suitcase of Money |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:17:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want my money!!! I bet we're near the same age! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:19:07 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I bet we're near the same age! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want my money!!! I bet we're near the same age! What you actually want is someone else's money. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:26:54 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cant stick a steak on the floor , walk away and not expect the dog to eat it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Social security should’ve been privatized into IRA style accounts, partially, when Bush pushed for that. The single biggest issue is SS cash is used to fund structural short falls in government through inter-departmental loans. These loans are back by a special, non-negotiable treasury bond. Yes IOUs, 2.8 trillion dollars worth of IOUs. Imagine if the fund had all that cash to invest and grow. It would be the largest sovereign wealth fund on earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:27:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not reading all that. All I know is that if there was a box where I could opt out of it and get back everything I've put in so far I'd check it in an instant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:43:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It has mostly been spent. On one site, they stated increase SS tax by 2.? % would fix the problem, so have an increase a little bit at a time in SS tax by .5 % by either employer or employee and stipulate it cant be touched other then for SS etc etc, increase each year or every other year |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 10:48:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much, there was crazy surplus, but gov couldnt keep hands out of cookie jar. On one site, they stated increase SS tax by 2.? % would fix the problem, so have an increase a little bit at a time in SS tax by .5 % by either employer or employee and stipulate it cant be touched other then for SS etc etc, increase each year or every other year Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It has mostly been spent. On one site, they stated increase SS tax by 2.? % would fix the problem, so have an increase a little bit at a time in SS tax by .5 % by either employer or employee and stipulate it cant be touched other then for SS etc etc, increase each year or every other year If we increased the FICA tax again and ended up with a "surplus" do you know what would happen to the money? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 11:01:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He will be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have long held the belief they understate the actual inflation rate by a small amount and have been doing so since at least the 80's. .3-.5 is easy enough for the numbers to look plausible, but over time it adds up. Also, it is welfare for old people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 11:01:36 AM EDT
[#29]
The same could be said for money you place in the bank or an investment account, the money you actually put in isn't the money you get back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 11:05:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have a better study than the Congressional Budget Office, I'm all ears. The CBO can say what it wants but its not reality. The employer pays his portion of SS from his pocket. It does not come from the employee. Show me where I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 11:09:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The REALITY of it is as I stated. The CBO can say what it wants but its not reality. The employer pays his portion of SS from his pocket. It does not come from the employee. Show me where I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 11:11:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another sovereign citizen.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: @UtahShotgunner So here is what I've run into around that. "They" tried that when I signed my son up for public school. I hear all the time "you HAVE to have a social security number to do X". I say "prove it, by the way, here is the case law that disagrees with you. Please read the area's that are highlighted in yellow". At that point all of the sudden he doesn't need one anymore. You will hear you need one all the time. I heard the same thing around the passport application. What the law says around this is that if you already have one it's against the law not to put it on the application. It's pretty cleverly worded but it never says you HAVE to have one. If you read it you will just assume you do. I just left it blank and the state dept. wrote me a letter and said please respond with a signed statement that he has never had one and we will process it, which I did. He received it shortly after. In your case, I quickly looked at the laws in Utah around birth certificates and saw no mention of requiring a social security number. HERE is a link to the law in Utah. I'm pretty sure you were told that by the folks in the Hospital. They tried that with me too. It would be against the law for them to require that your son be signed up for a federal program for the state to issue him a birth certificate. I don't think that would hold up to a lawsuit. I'm not sure about your insurance company. There is a medicare reporting requirement that says my son has to have one but I have ignored it so far and he is 10 years old. He is covered under United Healthcare so it's not a thing for them at least. Let me give you a tip. No one ever actually reads the rules. They just repeat what they have heard as the gospel truth. ETA... I found a better LINK. There is no legal requirement in Utah for a child to have a social security number prior to being issued a birth certificate in the state of Utah. If you can find something different I'd love to see it. This isn't a personal challenge BTW. I'm just really interested in the laws around this stuff and if you see something different that contradicts what I believe I'd appreciate you letting me know. This one will face harsh reality soon and will get a SS card. Like it or not. One of my relatives was married to a participant in the Posse Comitatus movement. Anyone that lived in Kerrville Texas most likely knew him or knew of him since he was a high maintenance citizen. Gold, gold fringe, the works. Funny thing is, he cashed every rent check he received and no doubt would have taken money minted by the US Treasury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The REALITY of it is as I stated. The CBO can say what it wants but its not reality. The employer pays his portion of SS from his pocket. It does not come from the employee. Show me where I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 4:17:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much, there was crazy surplus, but gov couldnt keep hands out of cookie jar. On one site, they stated increase SS tax by 2.? % would fix the problem, so have an increase a little bit at a time in SS tax by .5 % by either employer or employee and stipulate it cant be touched other then for SS etc etc, increase each year or every other year Fucking Wrong It's Like You Didn't Even Read |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 4:26:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Fucking Wrong It's Like You Didn't Even Read |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 4:28:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know how a study could be clearer |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:02:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for where you did exactly that of course. You subtracted the FICA taxes when you came up with your net cost to the taxpayer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:06:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I subtracted what the beneficiary paid in (i.e. what they were forced to self fund). That is not other taxpayers money. You’re either being deliberately obtuse or suffer from poor reading comprehension. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:13:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It doesn’t matter if it’s other taxpayer money. It’s tax money. Being paid by the same people that would be funding it if we eliminated the whole account lie. If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:15:29 PM EDT
[#40]
To put it aa simply as possible:
I don't expect it to be there when I retire, which is within 10 years. If it is, I'd be happy to get back the money I was forced to pay into the program, Not expecting to get back what I paid in, hoping I can recover some of my investment into this Ponzi scheme so that I can feel better about myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:17:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok. So you’ve just said the equivalent of “it doesn’t matter, because foxes live in the forest and cows eat grass”. Cool, but completely unrelated to my point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. Argukng that the 15.3% of your labor that is taxed isn’t really a tax because you are told that you eventually get something from a government program in return is beyond reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:20:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Taxes paid are taxes. They are not investments and pretending they are is laughable. Argukng that the 15.3% of your labor that is taxed isn’t really a tax because you are told that you eventually get something from a government program in return is beyond reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. Argukng that the 15.3% of your labor that is taxed isn’t really a tax because you are told that you eventually get something from a government program in return is beyond reason. Again, you’re responding to points I haven’t made. I suppose it’s easier to create and knock down a straw man? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:25:33 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where do I say it is an investment or that it isn’t a tax? Again, you’re responding to points I haven’t made. I suppose it’s easier to create and knock down a straw man? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Meant politely, did you read my post? Nowhere have I done that. Ignoring time value of money, they will have cost taxpayers: $240,000 -$75,000 = $165,000 If it was actually their money then they would have a contractual claim to it, which they don’t. The moment it leaves your check it becomes general revenue with a thin veneer of bullshit over it. Argukng that the 15.3% of your labor that is taxed isn’t really a tax because you are told that you eventually get something from a government program in return is beyond reason. Again, you’re responding to points I haven’t made. I suppose it’s easier to create and knock down a straw man? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 5:27:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not reading all that. All I know is that if there was a box where I could opt out of it and get back everything I've put in so far I'd check it in an instant. We hold back 30% of our small business income for fed/state/FICA. 30 fucking %. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 6:11:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what logical point you are making. Other than A!=A if you pretend 15% of A is really B. Concept 1: Imagine you are in the Chick-fil-a drive through. You go to receive your Spicy Chicken Sandwich and the person manning the drive through window tells you it has been paid for by the car in front of you. You in turn pay for the car behind you, who in turn pays for the car behind them, ad infinitum. Under this model, did you get a free sandwich, or did you pay for it? I'll assume you're clever enough to realize it was not free, and there is functionally no difference between "paying it forward" and paying for something directly. Under either scenario, you have one sandwich and you have $5 less. Concept 2: I assume you are familiar with The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop. In the fable, the Grasshopper dies of hunger. Our reality is that Grasshopper takes part of the Ant's food (via taxes and redistribution). This means less for the Ant. Now imagine that as the Grasshopper hops about, there was a mechanism to force the Grasshopper to save some food, not necessarily enough, but some. That would mean he would eventually take less of the Ant's food than if that mechanism did not exist. Conclusion We acknowledge that "paying forward" is the same as paying for it. We acknowledge that if we require the Grasshopper to pay for something, it ultimately means a bit more for the Ant (or rather that the Ant will eventually subsidize the Grasshopper less). While it could be improved in many ways, this is fundamentally what social security is. Whether it is a "tax" is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 6:53:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To put it aa simply as possible: I don't expect it to be there when I retire, which is within 10 years. If it is, I'd be happy to get back the money I was forced to pay into the program, Not expecting to get back what I paid in, hoping I can recover some of my investment into this Ponzi scheme so that I can feel better about myself. BTW that's even if no changes are made and we know some will be. Also, many don't realize SS was actually in worse shape in the 80's than it is now. https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-2019-trustees-report/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 7:13:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if nothing is changed SS will still be able to pay 91% in the year 2052. For anyone that thinks they won't get it let that sink in"2052". BTW that's even if no changes are made and we know some will be. Also, many don't realize SS was actually in worse shape in the 80's than it is now. https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-2019-trustees-report/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 7:41:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool, I'll try once more without the math since I see that it is confusing to you. Concept 1: Imagine you are in the Chick-fil-a drive through. You go to receive your Spicy Chicken Sandwich and the person manning the drive through window tells you it has been paid for by the car in front of you. You in turn pay for the car behind you, who in turn pays for the car behind them, ad infinitum. Under this model, did you get a free sandwich, or did you pay for it? I'll assume you're clever enough to realize it was not free, and there is functionally no difference between "paying it forward" and paying for something directly. Under either scenario, you have one sandwich and you have $5 less. Concept 2: I assume you are familiar with The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop. In the fable, the Grasshopper dies of hunger. Our reality is that Grasshopper takes part of the Ant's food (via taxes and redistribution). This means less for the Ant. Now imagine that as the Grasshopper hops about, there was a mechanism to force the Grasshopper to save some food, not necessarily enough, but some. That would mean he would eventually take less of the Ant's food than if that mechanism did not exist. Conclusion We acknowledge that "paying forward" is the same as paying for it. We acknowledge that if we require the Grasshopper to pay for something, it ultimately means a bit more for the Ant (or rather that the Ant will eventually subsidize the Grasshopper less). While it could be improved in many ways, this is fundamentally what social security is. Whether it is a "tax" is irrelevant. And your whole grasshopper part is off target as well since as you said nobody is dying in the streets today. In the end, the taxpayers pay for Social Security as well as the other welfare programs. The only thing you accidentally almost get right is that the FICA tax is flat and everyone with earned income pays in to some extent unlike the income tax, but you miss that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 8:19:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read your own link, that 90% is for disability insurance, it says 80% after 2035 if no changes are made , for regular SS https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-run-out |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2019 8:23:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The Social Security trust funds going broke. It is true that the Social Security trust funds, where the money raised by Social Security taxes is invested in non-marketable securities, is projected to run out of funds by around 2034. The tax will still raise money each month, though. Projections show that even if nothing is done about the trust funds, the program will cover around 79% of its obligations through 2090. That is a funding issue to address. It doesn't mean, though, that the program will go bankrupt." https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-run-out Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Read your own link, that 90% is for disability insurance, it says 80% after 2035 if no changes are made , for regular SS https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-run-out It will just keep eating up more and more of our annual budget. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
