A U.S. Supreme Court case - Fleming v. Nestor as I recall - circa 1960 ruled that individuals have no property right to Social Security "benefits."
Congress can reduce them (it already has by increasing the retirement ages), or eliminate them, at any time and for any reason (or for no reason at all). This notwithstanding that workers may have been forced to pay into it, err, I mean "contribute" to it, for their entire working lifetimes.
Since 1960 the Democrat "advocates for senior citizens" and "protectors of Social Security" have opposed any and all efforts to give workers a property right to their "Social Security benefits." [SO too with that scam group AARP.]
Better to keep the system risky so that they can keep the senior citizens scared and so voting for their "protectors," and in the case of AARP keep them paying those minimal dues to their "advocate" so they can then be on the mailing list for "AARP endorsed" insurance / Medigap / pharmacy plan solicitations.
This is the worst kind of cynical political exploitation of people. It's amazing that there appear to be NO Democrats of conscience holding political office who are willing to expose their Party's scam and the fiscal crime that is being committed against future generations.
The only thing that will guarantee the insolvency of Social Security is when the Dems decide to give the benefits to ILLEGAL ALIENS . They're already talking about it . The time they've worked in their home country and the time they've worked in the U S , including illegally if they can prove their employment , will be combined to calculate the benefit . The Feds ( Soc. Sec. Admin ) have already signed this treaty called a Transitional Treaty and it awaits the approval of Congress . We already have similar Treaties with over 40 other countries at a cost of $40 million annually . The Treaty with Mexico would cost in the hundreds of millions the first year and possibly over a BILLION $ annually thereafter , just for Mexicans .
Yeah, but it'll curry favor with the Hispanic vote, that's the most important thing.
More important than our national sovereignty.
More important than our national solvency.
For over 30 years I have heard people whine that "by the time I retire SS will be broke".
Most of those people are now cashing SS checks every month or preparing to in the next few years.
The kind of idiocy in this post ios why people turn to the deceptively welcoming arms of the "progressives".
There are two distinct parts to social security. One the highly recognized retirement based on working year contributions and number two an insurance policy that is higher than anyone of us would have purchased on each American that contributes into social security. The amount of funds withheld from your paycheck is split into two distinct and separate social security accounts.
Justin lets just say you slip with the skill saw and cut an artery six stories up and don’t survive the fall to the ground or blood loss. Yes social security provides a $50 burial expense to your spouse or next of kin but social security will also pay your spouse and each child either your social security retirement based on your age and contribution or under the insurance plan provide death benefit payments to your spouse and each child based on your contribution whichever is higher.
If you survived but medically documented and physically no longer can work, under the insurance part of social security you and I believe your wife and children will receive insurance disability payments from social security.
There is a lot more to social security than people realize. But if people want to change or do away with social security, just remember in case you die or become disabled at an early age you are thumbing your nose at you spouse and children.
>>For over 30 years I have heard people whine that "by the time I retire SS will be broke". Most of those people are now cashing SS checks every month or preparing to in the next few years. The kind of idiocy in this post ios why people turn to the deceptively welcoming arms of the "progressives"
Social Security goes cash-flow negative in about ten years.
There is no "cash" in the misnamed "trust fund" because Congress has spent the money on pork barrel bridges to reelection.
Once the system goes cash flow negative, to keep the checks going out Congress will either have to raise the "regressive" payroll tax so decried by "progressives" or massively raise income taxes to actually pay back the IOU's in the "trust fund" ... and/or cut benefits (as if an average "benefit" of $12k a year is such a great thing to begin with - within a few years in RI it may cover the average property tax bill, but not much more).
Since people don't "vest" under the current system, Congress can cut benefits at any time, such as reducing or eliminating CPI additions; raising retirement ages; or just plain cutting the benefit.
They've already cut the benefit by:
1) increasing the payroll tax rate (including for people already in the workforce), meaning one pays more for the "same" "benefit,"
2) raising the retirement age (including for people already in the workforce), delaying the "benefit" and so lessening it, and
3) making Social Security "benefits" subject to income tax (for those making something over 30k a year, which ain't "rich" by anyone's standards).
GIVEN THAT WE ALREADY PAY INCOME TAXES ON OUR "SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION" WHEN IT IS TAKEN OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS -
AND AGAIN PAYING INCOME TAXES ON IT WHEN WE RECEIVE OUR "BENEFIT" -
THE "NET" SOCIAL SECURITY "BENEFIT" IS NEXT TO NOTHING!
Now, if we consider the time value of money, and interest / capital gains potential had that money been invested in a safe index fund from day one, and
What the net amount of a lifetime annuity the resulting contributions and gains would provide at the end of one's working years, we find
That "working families" are totally screwed by Social Security, even if the checks continue to go out, as scheduled.
Now, let's talk about how minorities are prevented from accumulating wealth under Social Security, since if one dies before starting to collect one forfeits their "contributions."
SS can be made solvent into the 22nd century by the simple expedient of making millionaires pay the same witholding rate as the rest of us pay.
So-called conservatives who fail to do this are commiting political suicide.
Yup. All of our problems could be solved if only we'd tax the rich a bit more. Very expedient.
Welcome to socialism, Mike!
All you need to do is read this:
"Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income — approximately 12 percent"
To know that author has no idea what he is talking about.
The withholding is 6.2%, not 12.
>>SS can be made solvent into the 22nd century by the simple expedient of making millionaires pay the same witholding rate as the rest of us pay.
So-called conservatives who fail to do this are commiting political suicide
There was a point in time that even Ted Kennedy opposed this (and he may still), for doing so would destroy the pretense that Social Security is a retirement program (it is really a welfare program).
By completely severing the connection between “contributions” in and “benefits” out, even Democrats would have a hard time denying the it is really an aged-based welfare program (in addition to the numerous income-based welfare programs).
>>"Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income — approximately 12 percent" To know that author has no idea what he is talking about. The withholding is 6.2%, not 12.
Any economist will tell you that the entire 12% is ultimately paid by the employee (as is health care and other benefits), for the employer takes the entire cost of having that person on the premises into consideration when hiring, keeping vs. laying off, and in setting pay rates.
And let us not forget that there are thousands of self-employed “working people” – such as plumbers and electricians and carpenters – who get whacked for the entire 12%.
If Mr. Crowley had even had to make a payroll or worked outside of the coddled bubble of the public sector he’d understand that - it is he that “has no idea what he is talking about.”
Hey Pat, not that you'd know since, like your boss, you've never created a single job or employed a single person in your pathetic public-teat sucking life, but the employer must match what the employee pays, bringing the total paid on behalf of and as a result of the employee to 12.4% (which is "approximately 12%).
And as Tom W. explained, the self-employed workers amongst us pay the whole 12%.
You already proved to everyone that you can't do basic math when you told us that Educational instruction expenditures grew at a rate less than Inflation, when in fact they outpaced Inflation by a whopping 42%.
Indeed, there is good reason why we refer to you as Patrick "I struggle with basic math" Crowley.
So why don't you stick to nursing on the public-teat like the Entitlement-minded dependent leech that you are, and leave the math to the grown ups.
Hey Mike,
You should hedge your bets in the event that SS becomes insolvent.
There is an easy way to do that. Just go become a millionaire ...become rich.
Apparently, it is very easy to do, doesn't require hard work, risk, sacrifice, creativity, etc.
The only drawback is that you'll have folks like yourself trying to attach themselves to you like a tic, thinking they are Entitled to that which is yours.
Please do report back to us, letting us know how you are doing as a "rich" person. Say, in a week or two? That should give you plenty of time to achieve this apparently simple task.
Justin,
Getting the rich to pay their fair share isn't socialism. It's social justice, a concept which is obviously beyond your grasp.
OldTimeLefty
Please. I don't have to inquire after your proposed method of calculating payments and benefits for millionaires to suspect that your definition of "fair share" will entail overt redistribution of wealth. (I don't imagine you'll tolerate giving people who earned an average of $1 million per year over their working lives $163,696.08 per year in Social Security benefits, which is [I believe] what the current calculation method would yield.)
1. Taxing the rich at 6.2% is not taxing them "more" but just the same as the rest of us.
2. Yes, SS is a social welfare program and we should drop the pretense that it is something else.
3. SO WHAT? It's been running well for 75 years and like the Interstate Highway System, is one of the most popular and best run government programs.
4. The continued war on SS by so-called conservatives, coupled with things like refusing to address the health care/prescription crisis, failure to seal the borders, a foreign policy of Hitlerian global dominance and a spying, snooping, torturing domestic police state are the reasons why so many people are running into the deceptively friendly arms of the "progressives".
Fine, but are you going to return their investment "like the rest of us"? That is, give out six-figure social security payments every year? See, a funny thing happens as dollar amounts get bigger: it takes more resources to fill them.
Throughout most of Social Security's existence, population has been growing. We're about to belch out a huge generation that is wealthier than the younger cohort. Throw millionaires into the mix, and the game won't even last as long as most believe.
But you're clearly not expecting to pay out to millionaires at the rate that we pay out to others, so it is "taxing them more." Personally, I'd wager that the $124,000 that would be taken out of each $1 million, were the caps dropped, are more productive in the economy as it stands, which makes it reasonable to call the entire proposal a broadbased tax on the economy writ large.
As I said: welcome to socialism.
Justin,
Don't confuse the Nanny-staters with logic.
Justin, you said
Please. I don't have to inquire after your proposed method of calculating payments and benefits for millionaires to suspect that your definition of "fair share" will entail overt redistribution of wealth.
And I don't have time to inquire about your ideas on social justice, or even if you believe in the process. I also don't have time or inclination to inquire about the wealth status of the people who founded this right-wing paean to corporate capitalism, but I suspect that all of the people who put this blog together in the first place have very little concern about their post retirement income.
So we're both suspicious people. We do have a similarity in that we both look to Jesus words to help guide us through this life. That being so, I'd love to hear you comment on Matthew 19 in which Jesus asked the rich man to give up his wealth and follow him. Jesus went on to explain that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I'm sure you'll have a great rationalization for ignoring the obvious meaning of Jesus' words. I await your reply on this.
You also said
(I don't imagine you'll tolerate giving people who earned an average of $1 million per year over their working lives $163,696.08 per year in Social Security benefits, which is [I believe] what the current calculation method would yield.)
You are quite right here, otherwise it's simply enforced savings which I have no interest in. I want the money applied to social security benefits for all. That's why it's called SOCIAL Security. I also recognize in your last quote your knack for snotty criticism. A very elitist attitude that any person who professes to heed the words of Jesus would be advised to curb. Yours in Christ, and Krishna too,
OldTimeLefty
You're way off. I won't presume to divulge the biographies of AR's other contributors, but I'm a financially struggling carpenter. I have "little concern about [my] post retirement income" because I expect never to have the opportunity to retire. To the extent that my own financial well-being factors into my expressed ideology it is based on my assessment that the policies and worldviews espoused by others have consequences directly at odds with my ability to provide for my family and to advance in my financial security.
You'll note that Jesus suggested neither that the rich young man give Him his possessions so that He might dole them out more justly nor that the wealthy must pay more than their share of taxes so that the government can ease the burden on those of lesser means. It seems to me that you (along with many who share your views) miss the question of motivation. Note what Jesus further goes on to say (Matthew 19:29, emphasis added):
And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.
I'd suggest that taking possessions by force actually does a disservice to the souls of the wealthy, by (1) spurring resentment and (2) perpetuating a false notion that doing so is sufficient, as well as the souls of the poor, by encouraging a sense of entitlement to share in Earthly things.
Old Time Lefty,
If your religion compels you to give away that which you earned, so be it. Have at it and don't let us get in your way.
I too may feel compeled to give away some of my hard earned money to those who are truly in need.
But I will never accept giving it away at the "point of a gun" so to speak via Taxes due to YOUR compulsions.
Have a little trust, OTL. We don't need you reaching into our pockets to help people. We are quite capable of doing it of our own accord.
You and your ilk are slowly but surely destroying this state and country, wringing out the self-reliance, individualism, self-sacrifice, the concept of risk / reward and the idea that choices have consequences.
Yes, you are slowly destroying all the things that made this country great, as you continue on your march to creating a Nanny-state.
Quick, name us a Socialist and or Communist country that you'd prefer to live in. And then tell us why you are trying to make this into that country, when you can just get on a plane and move there.
>>1. Taxing the rich at 6.2% is not taxing them "more" but just the same as the rest of us.
WRONG.
The Social Security “contributions” that don’t go immediately back out the door as Social Security checks go into the same federal pot as income taxes (the federal version of RI’s “general fund”).
Most lower income people don’t pay any income taxes, and indeed pay “negative income taxes” via the earned income tax credit (EITC). So while they theoretically “pay” FICA taxes, on a net basis what they “pay” is recouped in non-existent income taxes and even EITC checks, meaning that they not only pay no taxes, but “make” money from the tax system.
Contrast that with middle class and above people who not only pay FICA, but also “progressive” income tax rates – the proceeds of which also end up in that federal “general fund.”
So “eliminating the cap” on Social Security / FICA taxes is not making the targets of that “pay the same” as everyone else, it is in reality an income tax increase, albeit one labeled as “FICA.”
>>2. Yes, SS is a social welfare program and we should drop the pretense that it is something else.
Thank you for your intellectual honesty regarding that. Now would you please so inform AARP, Rhode Island’s senior citizens and Patrick Kennedy of this reality.
3. SO WHAT? It's been running well for 75 years and like the Interstate Highway System, is one of the most popular and best run government programs.
All Ponzi schemes run well at the beginning. As Social Security is a multi-generational program, 75 years is very much the beginning.
As for it and the highway system, yes they are popular. So is Brittany Spears. And your point is?
As for “best run,” given that Social Security is an actuarial time bomb, I wouldn’t call it well run.
4. The continued war on SS by so-called conservatives, coupled with things like refusing to address the health care/prescription crisis, failure to seal the borders, a foreign policy of Hitlerian global dominance and a spying, snooping, torturing domestic police state are the reasons why so many people are running into the deceptively friendly arms of the "progressives".
Yeah, thank goodness we elected a Democrat Congress in 2006. I’d hate to think about how those problems would still be with us if we hadn’t done so.
I guess that Democrat success in fixing those problems explains why Barack Obama is 20 points ahead of McCain in the polls. Oh wait. They’re essentially tied. How can that be?
Since the Democrats keep telling us that McCain = four more years of Bus, I guess that this means that at least half of the voting population wants four more years of Bush.
Whodda thunk?
Tom W,
Your statement; “Now, let's talk about how minorities are prevented from accumulating wealth under Social Security, since if one dies before starting to collect one forfeits their "contributions."” is a pure outright lie and misinformation.
As I mentioned in this post above; “There are two distinct parts to social security. One the highly recognized retirement based on working year contributions and number two an insurance policy that is higher than anyone of us would have purchased on each American that contributes into social security. The amount of funds withheld from your paycheck is split into two distinct and separate social security accounts.”
Social security will either pay the monthly retirement benefit or the monthly insurance death benefit which ever is greater but not both. How do I know this information, my wife died of cancer and social security walked me through the process to receive the $50 burial payment but also monthly death benefit payment from the life insurance which is greater than my wife’s retirement benefit for her age at death.
If you go to the social security web site and read the retirement benefits based on your top 40 quarters of ss tax payment contributions which is supported by a percentage of your tax payments and then read the benefits supported by the remaining percentage of your tax payments going into a separate account that pay for your life insurance policy (Survivors, Disability, Supplemental Security Income) then you might understand.
Link:
http://www.ssa.gov/
Yes there are survivor "benefits."
But take, e.g., a single Black or Hispanic woman who raised two children, both born when the mother was relatively young. Not an uncommon minority demographic today.
The children are now over 18.
The mother passes away at 60.
Her lifetime of Social Security payments are forfeited - none of it will be available as an inheritance to the children, who might of used it to get a leg up in life, such as for a down payment on a first home.
Tom W,
Unmarried children 18 yrs and older can receive ss survivor benefits
Until what age Ken.
And are all over 18's eligible, or just some ... and if so, what are the criteria for those "some?"
And until what age?
Justin,
1. I don't believe you know what financial struggles are and I'm very certain that the people sponsoring your blog are very secure financially. Your word, my word, just words. Argument is impossible without facts, but I hold my aforementioned belief with firm conviction.
2. To whom do you think Jesus directed the rich young man give his goods? They would naturally go to the poor as a means of leveling the society. Jesus, himself had very few goods. He could have been a great success in business if he wanted to place his attention there, but he never considered accumulating wealth and he shared what he had and encouraged his followers to do likewise.
Why would he eschew wealth? So as not to distract himself from his life's mission as a community organizer. He was so good at it that he was nailed to a cross for it. Martin Luther King Jr. was also so good at it that he was shot to death in Memphis helping striking workers. Funny how live reformers get turned into dead saints.
Remember, Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor. Read the bible again and try to let its message get below your neck. Use both hemispheres of your brain rather than just half of it.
I'll waste no more time with scripture with you on this matter except to remind you that it was the self proclaimed religious of the day, in collusion with the state who got together and nailed him to a cross. Caiaphas and his religious cronies brought the charges and Pilate, the governor, issued sentence. Everything was buttoned up and legal due process was served.
George Elbow - you are not worth much more than a raspberry. Blftzzzz.
OldTimeLefty
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
A U.S. Supreme Court case - Fleming v. Nestor as I recall - circa 1960 ruled that individuals have no property right to Social Security "benefits."
Congress can reduce them (it already has by increasing the retirement ages), or eliminate them, at any time and for any reason (or for no reason at all). This notwithstanding that workers may have been forced to pay into it, err, I mean "contribute" to it, for their entire working lifetimes.
Since 1960 the Democrat "advocates for senior citizens" and "protectors of Social Security" have opposed any and all efforts to give workers a property right to their "Social Security benefits." [SO too with that scam group AARP.]
Better to keep the system risky so that they can keep the senior citizens scared and so voting for their "protectors," and in the case of AARP keep them paying those minimal dues to their "advocate" so they can then be on the mailing list for "AARP endorsed" insurance / Medigap / pharmacy plan solicitations.
This is the worst kind of cynical political exploitation of people. It's amazing that there appear to be NO Democrats of conscience holding political office who are willing to expose their Party's scam and the fiscal crime that is being committed against future generations.
Posted by: Tom W at September 5, 2008 11:49 AMThe only thing that will guarantee the insolvency of Social Security is when the Dems decide to give the benefits to ILLEGAL ALIENS . They're already talking about it . The time they've worked in their home country and the time they've worked in the U S , including illegally if they can prove their employment , will be combined to calculate the benefit . The Feds ( Soc. Sec. Admin ) have already signed this treaty called a Transitional Treaty and it awaits the approval of Congress . We already have similar Treaties with over 40 other countries at a cost of $40 million annually . The Treaty with Mexico would cost in the hundreds of millions the first year and possibly over a BILLION $ annually thereafter , just for Mexicans .
Posted by: leprechaun at September 5, 2008 2:09 PMYeah, but it'll curry favor with the Hispanic vote, that's the most important thing.
More important than our national sovereignty.
More important than our national solvency.
Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at September 5, 2008 4:40 PMFor over 30 years I have heard people whine that "by the time I retire SS will be broke".
Posted by: Mike at September 5, 2008 7:16 PMMost of those people are now cashing SS checks every month or preparing to in the next few years.
The kind of idiocy in this post ios why people turn to the deceptively welcoming arms of the "progressives".
There are two distinct parts to social security. One the highly recognized retirement based on working year contributions and number two an insurance policy that is higher than anyone of us would have purchased on each American that contributes into social security. The amount of funds withheld from your paycheck is split into two distinct and separate social security accounts.
Justin lets just say you slip with the skill saw and cut an artery six stories up and don’t survive the fall to the ground or blood loss. Yes social security provides a $50 burial expense to your spouse or next of kin but social security will also pay your spouse and each child either your social security retirement based on your age and contribution or under the insurance plan provide death benefit payments to your spouse and each child based on your contribution whichever is higher.
If you survived but medically documented and physically no longer can work, under the insurance part of social security you and I believe your wife and children will receive insurance disability payments from social security.
There is a lot more to social security than people realize. But if people want to change or do away with social security, just remember in case you die or become disabled at an early age you are thumbing your nose at you spouse and children.
Posted by: Ken at September 5, 2008 10:32 PM>>For over 30 years I have heard people whine that "by the time I retire SS will be broke". Most of those people are now cashing SS checks every month or preparing to in the next few years. The kind of idiocy in this post ios why people turn to the deceptively welcoming arms of the "progressives"
Social Security goes cash-flow negative in about ten years.
There is no "cash" in the misnamed "trust fund" because Congress has spent the money on pork barrel bridges to reelection.
Once the system goes cash flow negative, to keep the checks going out Congress will either have to raise the "regressive" payroll tax so decried by "progressives" or massively raise income taxes to actually pay back the IOU's in the "trust fund" ... and/or cut benefits (as if an average "benefit" of $12k a year is such a great thing to begin with - within a few years in RI it may cover the average property tax bill, but not much more).
Since people don't "vest" under the current system, Congress can cut benefits at any time, such as reducing or eliminating CPI additions; raising retirement ages; or just plain cutting the benefit.
They've already cut the benefit by:
1) increasing the payroll tax rate (including for people already in the workforce), meaning one pays more for the "same" "benefit,"
2) raising the retirement age (including for people already in the workforce), delaying the "benefit" and so lessening it, and
3) making Social Security "benefits" subject to income tax (for those making something over 30k a year, which ain't "rich" by anyone's standards).
GIVEN THAT WE ALREADY PAY INCOME TAXES ON OUR "SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION" WHEN IT IS TAKEN OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS -
AND AGAIN PAYING INCOME TAXES ON IT WHEN WE RECEIVE OUR "BENEFIT" -
THE "NET" SOCIAL SECURITY "BENEFIT" IS NEXT TO NOTHING!
Now, if we consider the time value of money, and interest / capital gains potential had that money been invested in a safe index fund from day one, and
What the net amount of a lifetime annuity the resulting contributions and gains would provide at the end of one's working years, we find
That "working families" are totally screwed by Social Security, even if the checks continue to go out, as scheduled.
Now, let's talk about how minorities are prevented from accumulating wealth under Social Security, since if one dies before starting to collect one forfeits their "contributions."
Posted by: Tom W at September 5, 2008 11:06 PMSS can be made solvent into the 22nd century by the simple expedient of making millionaires pay the same witholding rate as the rest of us pay.
Posted by: Mike at September 6, 2008 9:34 AMSo-called conservatives who fail to do this are commiting political suicide.
Yup. All of our problems could be solved if only we'd tax the rich a bit more. Very expedient.
Welcome to socialism, Mike!
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 10:29 AMAll you need to do is read this:
"Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income — approximately 12 percent"
To know that author has no idea what he is talking about.
The withholding is 6.2%, not 12.
Posted by: Pat Crowley at September 6, 2008 1:14 PM>>SS can be made solvent into the 22nd century by the simple expedient of making millionaires pay the same witholding rate as the rest of us pay. So-called conservatives who fail to do this are commiting political suicide
There was a point in time that even Ted Kennedy opposed this (and he may still), for doing so would destroy the pretense that Social Security is a retirement program (it is really a welfare program).
By completely severing the connection between “contributions” in and “benefits” out, even Democrats would have a hard time denying the it is really an aged-based welfare program (in addition to the numerous income-based welfare programs).
>>"Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income — approximately 12 percent" To know that author has no idea what he is talking about. The withholding is 6.2%, not 12.
Any economist will tell you that the entire 12% is ultimately paid by the employee (as is health care and other benefits), for the employer takes the entire cost of having that person on the premises into consideration when hiring, keeping vs. laying off, and in setting pay rates.
And let us not forget that there are thousands of self-employed “working people” – such as plumbers and electricians and carpenters – who get whacked for the entire 12%.
If Mr. Crowley had even had to make a payroll or worked outside of the coddled bubble of the public sector he’d understand that - it is he that “has no idea what he is talking about.”
Posted by: Tom W at September 6, 2008 2:52 PMHey Pat, not that you'd know since, like your boss, you've never created a single job or employed a single person in your pathetic public-teat sucking life, but the employer must match what the employee pays, bringing the total paid on behalf of and as a result of the employee to 12.4% (which is "approximately 12%).
And as Tom W. explained, the self-employed workers amongst us pay the whole 12%.
You already proved to everyone that you can't do basic math when you told us that Educational instruction expenditures grew at a rate less than Inflation, when in fact they outpaced Inflation by a whopping 42%.
Indeed, there is good reason why we refer to you as Patrick "I struggle with basic math" Crowley.
So why don't you stick to nursing on the public-teat like the Entitlement-minded dependent leech that you are, and leave the math to the grown ups.
Posted by: George Elbow at September 6, 2008 6:23 PMHey Mike,
You should hedge your bets in the event that SS becomes insolvent.
There is an easy way to do that. Just go become a millionaire ...become rich.
Apparently, it is very easy to do, doesn't require hard work, risk, sacrifice, creativity, etc.
The only drawback is that you'll have folks like yourself trying to attach themselves to you like a tic, thinking they are Entitled to that which is yours.
Please do report back to us, letting us know how you are doing as a "rich" person. Say, in a week or two? That should give you plenty of time to achieve this apparently simple task.
Posted by: George Elbow at September 6, 2008 6:34 PMJustin,
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 6, 2008 6:54 PMGetting the rich to pay their fair share isn't socialism. It's social justice, a concept which is obviously beyond your grasp.
OldTimeLefty
Please. I don't have to inquire after your proposed method of calculating payments and benefits for millionaires to suspect that your definition of "fair share" will entail overt redistribution of wealth. (I don't imagine you'll tolerate giving people who earned an average of $1 million per year over their working lives $163,696.08 per year in Social Security benefits, which is [I believe] what the current calculation method would yield.)
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 7:25 PM1. Taxing the rich at 6.2% is not taxing them "more" but just the same as the rest of us.
Posted by: Mike at September 6, 2008 9:05 PM2. Yes, SS is a social welfare program and we should drop the pretense that it is something else.
3. SO WHAT? It's been running well for 75 years and like the Interstate Highway System, is one of the most popular and best run government programs.
4. The continued war on SS by so-called conservatives, coupled with things like refusing to address the health care/prescription crisis, failure to seal the borders, a foreign policy of Hitlerian global dominance and a spying, snooping, torturing domestic police state are the reasons why so many people are running into the deceptively friendly arms of the "progressives".
Fine, but are you going to return their investment "like the rest of us"? That is, give out six-figure social security payments every year? See, a funny thing happens as dollar amounts get bigger: it takes more resources to fill them.
Throughout most of Social Security's existence, population has been growing. We're about to belch out a huge generation that is wealthier than the younger cohort. Throw millionaires into the mix, and the game won't even last as long as most believe.
But you're clearly not expecting to pay out to millionaires at the rate that we pay out to others, so it is "taxing them more." Personally, I'd wager that the $124,000 that would be taken out of each $1 million, were the caps dropped, are more productive in the economy as it stands, which makes it reasonable to call the entire proposal a broadbased tax on the economy writ large.
As I said: welcome to socialism.
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 9:31 PMJustin,
Don't confuse the Nanny-staters with logic.
Posted by: George Elbow at September 6, 2008 10:30 PMJustin, you said
And I don't have time to inquire about your ideas on social justice, or even if you believe in the process. I also don't have time or inclination to inquire about the wealth status of the people who founded this right-wing paean to corporate capitalism, but I suspect that all of the people who put this blog together in the first place have very little concern about their post retirement income.So we're both suspicious people. We do have a similarity in that we both look to Jesus words to help guide us through this life. That being so, I'd love to hear you comment on Matthew 19 in which Jesus asked the rich man to give up his wealth and follow him. Jesus went on to explain that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I'm sure you'll have a great rationalization for ignoring the obvious meaning of Jesus' words. I await your reply on this.
You also said
You are quite right here, otherwise it's simply enforced savings which I have no interest in. I want the money applied to social security benefits for all. That's why it's called SOCIAL Security. I also recognize in your last quote your knack for snotty criticism. A very elitist attitude that any person who professes to heed the words of Jesus would be advised to curb. Yours in Christ, and Krishna too,
OldTimeLefty Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 6, 2008 10:33 PM
You're way off. I won't presume to divulge the biographies of AR's other contributors, but I'm a financially struggling carpenter. I have "little concern about [my] post retirement income" because I expect never to have the opportunity to retire. To the extent that my own financial well-being factors into my expressed ideology it is based on my assessment that the policies and worldviews espoused by others have consequences directly at odds with my ability to provide for my family and to advance in my financial security.
You'll note that Jesus suggested neither that the rich young man give Him his possessions so that He might dole them out more justly nor that the wealthy must pay more than their share of taxes so that the government can ease the burden on those of lesser means. It seems to me that you (along with many who share your views) miss the question of motivation. Note what Jesus further goes on to say (Matthew 19:29, emphasis added):
I'd suggest that taking possessions by force actually does a disservice to the souls of the wealthy, by (1) spurring resentment and (2) perpetuating a false notion that doing so is sufficient, as well as the souls of the poor, by encouraging a sense of entitlement to share in Earthly things.
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 10:52 PMOld Time Lefty,
If your religion compels you to give away that which you earned, so be it. Have at it and don't let us get in your way.
I too may feel compeled to give away some of my hard earned money to those who are truly in need.
But I will never accept giving it away at the "point of a gun" so to speak via Taxes due to YOUR compulsions.
Have a little trust, OTL. We don't need you reaching into our pockets to help people. We are quite capable of doing it of our own accord.
You and your ilk are slowly but surely destroying this state and country, wringing out the self-reliance, individualism, self-sacrifice, the concept of risk / reward and the idea that choices have consequences.
Yes, you are slowly destroying all the things that made this country great, as you continue on your march to creating a Nanny-state.
Quick, name us a Socialist and or Communist country that you'd prefer to live in. And then tell us why you are trying to make this into that country, when you can just get on a plane and move there.
Posted by: George Elbow at September 6, 2008 11:04 PM>>1. Taxing the rich at 6.2% is not taxing them "more" but just the same as the rest of us.
WRONG.
The Social Security “contributions” that don’t go immediately back out the door as Social Security checks go into the same federal pot as income taxes (the federal version of RI’s “general fund”).
Most lower income people don’t pay any income taxes, and indeed pay “negative income taxes” via the earned income tax credit (EITC). So while they theoretically “pay” FICA taxes, on a net basis what they “pay” is recouped in non-existent income taxes and even EITC checks, meaning that they not only pay no taxes, but “make” money from the tax system.
Contrast that with middle class and above people who not only pay FICA, but also “progressive” income tax rates – the proceeds of which also end up in that federal “general fund.”
So “eliminating the cap” on Social Security / FICA taxes is not making the targets of that “pay the same” as everyone else, it is in reality an income tax increase, albeit one labeled as “FICA.”
>>2. Yes, SS is a social welfare program and we should drop the pretense that it is something else.
Thank you for your intellectual honesty regarding that. Now would you please so inform AARP, Rhode Island’s senior citizens and Patrick Kennedy of this reality.
3. SO WHAT? It's been running well for 75 years and like the Interstate Highway System, is one of the most popular and best run government programs.
All Ponzi schemes run well at the beginning. As Social Security is a multi-generational program, 75 years is very much the beginning.
As for it and the highway system, yes they are popular. So is Brittany Spears. And your point is?
As for “best run,” given that Social Security is an actuarial time bomb, I wouldn’t call it well run.
4. The continued war on SS by so-called conservatives, coupled with things like refusing to address the health care/prescription crisis, failure to seal the borders, a foreign policy of Hitlerian global dominance and a spying, snooping, torturing domestic police state are the reasons why so many people are running into the deceptively friendly arms of the "progressives".
Yeah, thank goodness we elected a Democrat Congress in 2006. I’d hate to think about how those problems would still be with us if we hadn’t done so.
I guess that Democrat success in fixing those problems explains why Barack Obama is 20 points ahead of McCain in the polls. Oh wait. They’re essentially tied. How can that be?
Since the Democrats keep telling us that McCain = four more years of Bus, I guess that this means that at least half of the voting population wants four more years of Bush.
Whodda thunk?
Posted by: Tom W at September 6, 2008 11:39 PMTom W,
Your statement; “Now, let's talk about how minorities are prevented from accumulating wealth under Social Security, since if one dies before starting to collect one forfeits their "contributions."” is a pure outright lie and misinformation.
As I mentioned in this post above; “There are two distinct parts to social security. One the highly recognized retirement based on working year contributions and number two an insurance policy that is higher than anyone of us would have purchased on each American that contributes into social security. The amount of funds withheld from your paycheck is split into two distinct and separate social security accounts.”
Social security will either pay the monthly retirement benefit or the monthly insurance death benefit which ever is greater but not both. How do I know this information, my wife died of cancer and social security walked me through the process to receive the $50 burial payment but also monthly death benefit payment from the life insurance which is greater than my wife’s retirement benefit for her age at death.
If you go to the social security web site and read the retirement benefits based on your top 40 quarters of ss tax payment contributions which is supported by a percentage of your tax payments and then read the benefits supported by the remaining percentage of your tax payments going into a separate account that pay for your life insurance policy (Survivors, Disability, Supplemental Security Income) then you might understand.
Link:
Posted by: Ken at September 7, 2008 1:37 AMhttp://www.ssa.gov/
Yes there are survivor "benefits."
But take, e.g., a single Black or Hispanic woman who raised two children, both born when the mother was relatively young. Not an uncommon minority demographic today.
The children are now over 18.
The mother passes away at 60.
Her lifetime of Social Security payments are forfeited - none of it will be available as an inheritance to the children, who might of used it to get a leg up in life, such as for a down payment on a first home.
Posted by: Tom W at September 7, 2008 2:17 PMTom W,
Unmarried children 18 yrs and older can receive ss survivor benefits
Posted by: Ken at September 7, 2008 2:49 PMUntil what age Ken.
And are all over 18's eligible, or just some ... and if so, what are the criteria for those "some?"
And until what age?
Posted by: Tom W at September 7, 2008 6:12 PMJustin,
1. I don't believe you know what financial struggles are and I'm very certain that the people sponsoring your blog are very secure financially. Your word, my word, just words. Argument is impossible without facts, but I hold my aforementioned belief with firm conviction.
2. To whom do you think Jesus directed the rich young man give his goods? They would naturally go to the poor as a means of leveling the society. Jesus, himself had very few goods. He could have been a great success in business if he wanted to place his attention there, but he never considered accumulating wealth and he shared what he had and encouraged his followers to do likewise.
Why would he eschew wealth? So as not to distract himself from his life's mission as a community organizer. He was so good at it that he was nailed to a cross for it. Martin Luther King Jr. was also so good at it that he was shot to death in Memphis helping striking workers. Funny how live reformers get turned into dead saints.
Remember, Jesus was a community organizer. Pilate was a governor. Read the bible again and try to let its message get below your neck. Use both hemispheres of your brain rather than just half of it.
I'll waste no more time with scripture with you on this matter except to remind you that it was the self proclaimed religious of the day, in collusion with the state who got together and nailed him to a cross. Caiaphas and his religious cronies brought the charges and Pilate, the governor, issued sentence. Everything was buttoned up and legal due process was served.
George Elbow - you are not worth much more than a raspberry. Blftzzzz.
OldTimeLefty
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 11, 2008 11:52 PM