| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 05:16 pm |
|
In Canada they have Social Insurance and it is called just that. In Canada you can opt out of Social Insurance if you show that you are saving an equivalent amount for your retirement.
Social Security in the US is a tax on one generation to pay for the preceding generation. It is a glorified PONZI scheme perpetrated by the Democrats and FDR.
Kirk wrote:
If we did not have tech bubbles, real estate bubbles, fraud, creative destruction replacing one industry with another, unexpected illnesses, etc. we would probably not need social insurance. But we do.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
| It was NEVER an insurance. It is taxation without representation.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 1st, 2009 02:54 pm |
|
ltc: a recent study found that people that used financial advisors for investing advice actually had lower returns than people who self-selected their portfolio. This study was with a relatively small sample and only for about the last ten years, but clearly it is debatable how effective financial advisors are in helping individuals with returns on their portfolios. Gains made by active portfolio management are usually more than offset by the transactions costs associated with turn-over in holdings. These costs rise with smaller portfolios.
As to the working paper - it was reprinted to the soc sec archives as a free access. If you want to pay Elsevier for access, more power to you. I assumed that free is preferable to paying to access the same article. Who knew you prefer to pay?
While individuals may average higher returns on portfolios than what social security pays on dollars put into it, there are a couple of caveates. First, your employer matches your tax dollars paid into social security. Employer matching of defined contribution plans has dropped off dramatically. The study I cited includes the employer contribution into the calculation of the returns which lowers the return results for social security and raises those for individuals. They used the optimistic assumption that all employers would pay every penny they currently pay in social security taxes to their employees. Even with this, the returns on social security payments were still positive.
Second issue, the timing of retirement makes a tremendous difference whether someone actually has "average" returns. Remember, S & P 500 has an average annual return of 8%, but a standard deviation in those returns of nearly 20%. Meaning that on any given year, the returns fall between +48% and -32%. As I described before, once a negative return year comes into play (about one third of the time), actual returns fall significantly below average returns.
I can assure you that CFPs fully understand that individual returns vary greatly from average results. In case you are unaware, the CFP tests general content knowledge in taxation, insurance, estate planning, investments, and personal finance. It does not test portfolio management knowlege. There is no 'technical' analysis section to the test. Nor are CFPs licensed to sell securities. They likely know (if they passed that section of the exam) that fully one third of all private investors will have returns significantly below the average return. These investors are predominantly lower-middle income; precisely the people who are most likely to need a guaranteed income source through their old age and most likely not able to self-insure to have one.
Given that the account costs, transactions costs, and management costs are highest on those accounts with the lowest values - actual returns are further reduced for smaller investors relative to larger ones.
I appreciate that you and your wife working likely generate enough income that you are able to afford to save sufficiently high amounts to self-fund your retirement. For you, social security does not offer a return on payments that comes close to what you may have experienced. Unfortunatley, your situation is not the case for more than half of the U.S. population. Whether it is because of poor choices when they were 18 (taking on a five year car loan, or rolling up 40k in student loan debt because everyone thinks going to college is a sure fire way to upper-middle income), unlucky choices when they were in their 30s (that job at Enron, Worldcom, GM, etc. came with company stock), or just plain poor timing (heart attack or stroke in 2000 forced some people to retire after NASDAQ fell 60%). In addition, we have people like the Madoff's, Evers and Lay that simply broke the law and stole other people's money in ways that it can never be recovered. We currently have over two-thirds of retirees that derive their retirement income solely or predominantly (75% or more) from social security.
I agree that it is not a great investment. It is not. It was never supposed to be. Prior to its introduction, malnutrition and related causes of death were common amongst the elderly. Social security provides a back stop against people being totally destitute. If we did not have tech bubbles, real estate bubbles, fraud, creative destruction replacing one industry with another, unexpected illnesses, etc. we would probably not need social insurance. But we do.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
Kirk is a puppet.....................Mindless kool aid drinker in the first degree.
ltcdolphin wrote:
Kirk wrote: ltc: here is the working paper with the cohort group inflation adjusted rates of return:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp67.pdf
While they are clearly not great, they are positive. Meaning that the average person, retiring at 65, receives more back out than they paid in through both their and their employer share of payments. Essentially, not only are you recovering your own contributions, but you also recover your employers match, and (depending on your retirement date) 2-5% interest returns. Since life expectancy at 65 is about 20 years, to recover more than twice the amount of taxes you paid that would take about ten years.
Obviously, people at much higher earnings levels are going to need longer periods to collect this back out. Similarly, lower income earners will reach that pay-back period much faster.
One of the false impressions that people get from investment sales reps (stock brokers are nothing more than sales persons) is that average returns are fairly high and safe. For example - brokers could report that they have only suffered an average loss of 10% for these last two years. If they lost 50% last year, and made 30% this year (not uncommon numbers these days). If we apply the numbers: a 100% portfolio dropped to 50 last year. With a 30% jump this year, that increased the portfolio to 65 this year. For a total loss of 35%. An annualized return of nearly -20%. What most people forget is that arithmatic averages are not useful in exponential processes. Even index-fund portfolio returns are significantly below the index they attempt to replicate.
do you even read, i said you should run your numbers and see what you could do with your own money if you invested wisely and conservatively. don't keep sending out government sites, they are useless, have you ever read what they say about medicare and the other programs that don't work and how good they sound. run the numbers for yourself, you will learn something.
you really are trying to degrade good people. yes i know there are some brokers that are just salesmen, but like when you go for a car, pick someone that you like and trust. look for a CFP as a key. my portfolio did not drop 50% last year, more like 30% since I do not allow much risks. and so what if the over all value went down 50%, the earnings on that portfolio did not drop but about 12-15%, something you can live with easily. most of those drops were in banks and that was only because the government took over. those banks that did not take tarp did not drop their earnings, but tarp banks did, ie BOA and WFG. what business of the government to tell someone that they had to cut earnings??
so kirk, you got some learnin to do and disparaging other people will not help you. seems you are jealous of those that worked hard and take care of themselves and do not depend on government, try it in your own life and stop whinnning.
again a portfolio worth about 90K before the drop, still returned $3200.00 a year in earnings. 10x that is 30k. not a bad retirement base. now if you were allowed to do the same with all the money put in ss for you, what a nest egg. keep crying and doing it your way, others are smarter and happier than you.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
| Score another hit for Bixby. I agree with the bottom line.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 07:31 pm |
|
. Someone once told me that, “ If you can't trust the government on the subject of trust funds, you can't trust them on anything.” Look at what your government officials are on record as saying about social security and the phantom “trust fund.” "Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefits...but only in a bookkeeping sense...they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes or borrowing." (President Bill Clinton in his Analytical Perspectives section of the 2000 budget.) "We have no positive assets in the Social Security Trust Fund." (Secretary of the Treasury, and one of the Social Security trustees, Paul O'Neill, June 19, 2001, at a luncheon speech to the Coalition for American Financial Security in the Sky Room of the World Trade Center and later to Sam Donaldson on This Week, Sunday, June 25, 2001.) "It holds no real assets. Consequently, it does not generate funds to pay future benefits. These so-called trust fund 'assets' simply reflect the accumulated sum of funds transferred from Social Security over the years to finance other government operations." (June O'Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at the CATO Institute's Conference for Women and Social Security.)
"Government trust funds do not correspond in any meaningful way to those in the private sector. Government trust funds are simply a form of earmarking, accounting mechanisms that record tax receipts, user fees, and other credits and associated expenditures," (Barry Anderson of the Congressional Budget Office in testimony before the House Budget Committee, September, 2002.) "It means that ordinary working Americans, like teachers, police officers and firefighters, who believe their payroll taxes are going toward their Social Security retirement are in for a surprise...Instead of going to the Social Security trust fund, their payroll contributions are being funneled directly into tax breaks for individuals and corporations" (Robert Matsui (D-CA), Chairman House Ways & Means subcommittee on Social Security, Associated Press, March 30, 2002.) "It is in this role as a savings account that the Trust Fund could fail. It cannot work because it holds no independent assets. Though the Trust Fund is backed by government securities, these have a different meaning than they would for you or me.
If I hold a government bond, I have an asset that the government will give me money for or that I can sell at any time. If the government holds a bond, however, its obligation to give itself money is meaningless. The government cannot make these bonds good, as needed in 2014, except by borrowing, reducing other expenditures or taxing citizens." (House Budget Committee Chairman Nick Smith 6-8-99) "In fact, the money the government has supposedly been putting aside from the Baby Boomers' Social Security taxes is not there. The government has been borrowing the money to pay for the budget deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund is simply IOUs from the U.S. Treasury.... [Social Security] would be fine if the government would stop borrowing the money." (Newt Gingrich 4-7-95) "The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has already been stripped bare. There is no trust and no fund. It is a lot like the S&Ls. The savings and loans had a lot of real estate on the books, a lot of property, a lot of shopping centers, a lot of deposits, and everything else, until you looked inside and found out there was nothing there. The assets were mostly on paper.... Meanwhile, the Social Security cupboard is bare." (Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) Congressional Record 4-24-91) Had enough yet? I could go on for pages. And you Democrat liberals want no reform? You want to leave this fraud as it is? Here is more for your pallet.
“The Enron case made headlines because fraud and deception of such magnitude is fairly unusual in the corporate world. Washington fraud and deception of a much greater magnitude doesn't make the headlines because fraud and deception in government is standard practice....Washington politicians have for decades been doing precisely what Enron has been accused of doing -- concealing debt with accounting tricks. Congressmen tell us that our Social Security taxes go into a trust fund to pay for future retirement pensions. That is a boldface lie. The Social Security trust fund has no money in it." (Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University in an article published by the Washington Times April 17, 2002.) "When the money going out exceeds the money coming in, you are in trouble and that happens in 2016. Those who try to push the fatal date off to 2038 are counting the money that Social Security has in its so-called trust fund. However, the so-called trust fund exists only as a legal technicality, not as an economic reality...you cannot spend and save the same money." (Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, July 29, 2001.) "Every dollar collected in (FICA) payroll taxes is spent the very minute, the very hour, the very day it comes in the door ... any funds left over, they are spent on other programs or used to pay off the national debt. But nothing is saved. No money is stashed away in bank vaults; no
investments made in real assets." (John C. Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis in an article published by the Washington Times, April 12, 2002.)
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois) on the Senate floor during lock-box debates, 1999: "A few years back Congress passed laws making it illegal for State and local governments to plunder the pension funds of their employees. But during all this time, where Congress has put these laws on the books and made it illegal in the private sector and at the State and local government level to plunder pension funds, we have gone on and on in Washington taking all the money that goes into the Social Security trust fund, taking every dime of it out, and spending it on some other program. As a result, as I speak now on the Senate floor, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. All of it has been taken out and spent on other programs. They have put meaningless, non-marketable, nonnegotiable securities in the Social Security trust fund, securities that have no economic value because they cannot be sold to raise cash. Right now our Government is building up, theoretically, surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, but they are taking all that money out and spending it. So when we actually need it to pay benefits, beginning in the year 2014, there will be no money there. No matter what the balance of those bogus IOUs is in the Social Security trust fund, in the year 2014--whether that balance is $1 trillion or $5 trillion--they are of no assistance in paying benefits to those who depend on Social Security. The country will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits to make up for the shortfall that is anticipated after the year 2014. This legislation is basic, decent common sense. We should not allow Congress to continue frittering away the Social Security trust fund. I urge all my colleagues to support it and end this outrageous practice of plundering the Social Security trust fund, to the detriment of our Nation's seniors and those who will desire to live on Social
Security benefits in the next century." Come on, people. What will it take to wake you up? Is this what you want? Is this information consistent with what Mr. Irv Levitt writes about? It is refreshing to read that the younger people who are not so gullible actually favor reform and investing a portion of their social security “contributions” into their own investment accounts. (DSN 2/10/05 in Letters)
Ever since 1983, the federal government has been pretending to borrow surplus Social Security contributions made through payroll taxes. The tools of this fraud and deception are trust funds that resemble real trusts in name only and are awarded special obligation non-marketable bonds invented for the purpose of defrauding the American worker with double taxation plus interest. It's a trust fund fraud, a trust fund lie, and a trust fund problem that must be addressed. The fear tactics spread by the Democrat liberals that social security is being dismantled is just untrue. We need reform and need it now before it hits like a ton of bricks. We have been defrauded ever since the New Deal by members of both parties.
The entire Intragovernmental Holdings portion of the national debt, almost half of the nation's debt, is fraudulent and could be eliminated tomorrow without ill effect on anyone except the politicians who use it to double tax the American public under the biggest fraud since the income tax.
From a 2/10/05 DSN Article by Rory Beaumont of Dover
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: ltc: here is the working paper with the cohort group inflation adjusted rates of return:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp67.pdf
While they are clearly not great, they are positive. Meaning that the average person, retiring at 65, receives more back out than they paid in through both their and their employer share of payments. Essentially, not only are you recovering your own contributions, but you also recover your employers match, and (depending on your retirement date) 2-5% interest returns. Since life expectancy at 65 is about 20 years, to recover more than twice the amount of taxes you paid that would take about ten years.
Obviously, people at much higher earnings levels are going to need longer periods to collect this back out. Similarly, lower income earners will reach that pay-back period much faster.
One of the false impressions that people get from investment sales reps (stock brokers are nothing more than sales persons) is that average returns are fairly high and safe. For example - brokers could report that they have only suffered an average loss of 10% for these last two years. If they lost 50% last year, and made 30% this year (not uncommon numbers these days). If we apply the numbers: a 100% portfolio dropped to 50 last year. With a 30% jump this year, that increased the portfolio to 65 this year. For a total loss of 35%. An annualized return of nearly -20%. What most people forget is that arithmatic averages are not useful in exponential processes. Even index-fund portfolio returns are significantly below the index they attempt to replicate.
do you even read, i said you should run your numbers and see what you could do with your own money if you invested wisely and conservatively. don't keep sending out government sites, they are useless, have you ever read what they say about medicare and the other programs that don't work and how good they sound. run the numbers for yourself, you will learn something.
you really are trying to degrade good people. yes i know there are some brokers that are just salesmen, but like when you go for a car, pick someone that you like and trust. look for a CFP as a key. my portfolio did not drop 50% last year, more like 30% since I do not allow much risks. and so what if the over all value went down 50%, the earnings on that portfolio did not drop but about 12-15%, something you can live with easily. most of those drops were in banks and that was only because the government took over. those banks that did not take tarp did not drop their earnings, but tarp banks did, ie BOA and WFG. what business of the government to tell someone that they had to cut earnings??
so kirk, you got some learnin to do and disparaging other people will not help you. seems you are jealous of those that worked hard and take care of themselves and do not depend on government, try it in your own life and stop whinnning.
again a portfolio worth about 90K before the drop, still returned $3200.00 a year in earnings. 10x that is 30k. not a bad retirement base. now if you were allowed to do the same with all the money put in ss for you, what a nest egg. keep crying and doing it your way, others are smarter and happier than you.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:23 pm |
|
ltc: here is the working paper with the cohort group inflation adjusted rates of return:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp67.pdf
While they are clearly not great, they are positive. Meaning that the average person, retiring at 65, receives more back out than they paid in through both their and their employer share of payments. Essentially, not only are you recovering your own contributions, but you also recover your employers match, and (depending on your retirement date) 2-5% interest returns. Since life expectancy at 65 is about 20 years, to recover more than twice the amount of taxes you paid that would take about ten years.
Obviously, people at much higher earnings levels are going to need longer periods to collect this back out. Similarly, lower income earners will reach that pay-back period much faster.
One of the false impressions that people get from investment sales reps (stock brokers are nothing more than sales persons) is that average returns are fairly high and safe. For example - brokers could report that they have only suffered an average loss of 10% for these last two years. If they lost 50% last year, and made 30% this year (not uncommon numbers these days). If we apply the numbers: a 100% portfolio dropped to 50 last year. With a 30% jump this year, that increased the portfolio to 65 this year. For a total loss of 35%. An annualized return of nearly -20%. What most people forget is that arithmatic averages are not useful in exponential processes. Even index-fund portfolio returns are significantly below the index they attempt to replicate.
Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:29 pm by Kirk
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: ltc: hog-wash.
The average small investor realizes an annual rate of return of less than 4% over extended periods of time. There are several reasons for this - prominent is the poor choices of individual investors chasing after higher returns by buying into a category of investments that performed well for the last couple of years in hopes that such things do well into the future. This led small investors to jump into tech and growth stocks in the 90s (which still have not returned to 1999 levels), REITs in the late 90s and early 2000s (which are still in negative territory), and the list goes on. Nearly every investment advisor points out the S&P 500 average annual return of 8.1% over long periods, but fails to mention that this is not the cumulative average return which is significantly lower.
Individual experience with social security pay-outs will be different. The average person collects their life-time payments, with interest, within ten years of retirement. Is it possible for someone to pay in so much that they would not have seen any return of their payments until age 125? Yes. Probable - definitely not. They would have had to be earning above the maximum income threshold for much of their working career (currently about 106k a year). Social security is not designed as an investment vehicle for high-income households. Given that the tax rate prior to the late 70s was only 2%, it is highly unlikely that anyone working through that era will have needed to be retired for more than 10 years to have collected back every dime they ever paid in.
The average amount of non-residential assets held by U.S. retirees was less than 100k. If getting to 500k were a shoe-in, then social security would not be necessary on the scale that it is currently used. Unfortunately, things like stock failures, fraud, and just plain lousy timing make it much more difficult for people making under 150% of the national median income to have enough saved to generate a guaranteed annuity sufficiently large to produce social security equivalent income.
Ins: again, hog-wash.
No immigrant was eligible to receive social security checks until they had paid in to the program for the requisite 40 qualifying quarters. If they arrived at 65, they needed to work until 75 with high enough taxed earnings to be eligible to receive social security checks.
site your sources, there is no way my wife or I could get what we paid in within 10 years, if you even do not count what would be normal growth if the money was invested wisely. obviously you did not run the numbers, if you did you would not make such a ridiculous statement as you did. 10 years pay back, that's laughable at best, but really a huge whopper.
PS: if you would run teh numbers, just teh ss payemnts in your name with non risk investements say large cap slow growth, would get someone to 500k easily during their working life. remeber figures don't lie but liars can figure, run your numbers of what you paid in, use avg 5% growth over the working life and see what you get. you will be surprised. that is why ss is a fraudulent ponzi scheme. right now 95k in investments will return you about $2800.00 income and not touch the principle.
Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:15 pm by ltcdolphin
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:47 pm |
|
ltc: hog-wash.
The average small investor realizes an annual rate of return of less than 4% over extended periods of time. There are several reasons for this - prominent is the poor choices of individual investors chasing after higher returns by buying into a category of investments that performed well for the last couple of years in hopes that such things do well into the future. This led small investors to jump into tech and growth stocks in the 90s (which still have not returned to 1999 levels), REITs in the late 90s and early 2000s (which are still in negative territory), and the list goes on. Nearly every investment advisor points out the S&P 500 average annual return of 8.1% over long periods, but fails to mention that this is not the cumulative average return which is significantly lower.
Individual experience with social security pay-outs will be different. The average person collects their life-time payments, with interest, within ten years of retirement. Is it possible for someone to pay in so much that they would not have seen any return of their payments until age 125? Yes. Probable - definitely not. They would have had to be earning above the maximum income threshold for much of their working career (currently about 106k a year). Social security is not designed as an investment vehicle for high-income households. Given that the tax rate prior to the late 70s was only 2%, it is highly unlikely that anyone working through that era will have needed to be retired for more than 10 years to have collected back every dime they ever paid in.
The average amount of non-residential assets held by U.S. retirees was less than 100k. If getting to 500k were a shoe-in, then social security would not be necessary on the scale that it is currently used. Unfortunately, things like stock failures, fraud, and just plain lousy timing make it much more difficult for people making under 150% of the national median income to have enough saved to generate a guaranteed annuity sufficiently large to produce social security equivalent income.
Ins: again, hog-wash.
No immigrant was eligible to receive social security checks until they had paid in to the program for the requisite 40 qualifying quarters. If they arrived at 65, they needed to work until 75 with high enough taxed earnings to be eligible to receive social security checks.
Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:51 pm by Kirk
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 802 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:30 pm |
|
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and frequently tell you that the Republicans wanted to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
Thank you JP you proved my point again. It is a tax and always has been a tax.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 902 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
No one has any rights to Social Security. This was stated in two cases in the 1930's by the US Supreme Court and in the 1953 Congressional Hearings. Here is the court case with the courts reasoning, which shows two distinct types of taxes proving the employer never pays the "other half" to your supposed account.
"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935, c. 531, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C., c.7,(Supp.)) is challenged once again. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, decided this day, ante, p. 548, we have upheld the validity of Title IX of the act imposing an excise upon employers of eight or more. In this case Titles VIII and II is the subject of attack. Title VIII lays another excise upon employers in addition to the one imposed by Title IX (though with different exemptions). It lays a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers. Title II provides for the payment of Old Age Benefits, and supplies the motive and occasion, in the view of the assailants of the statute, for the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully. Title VIII, as I have said, lays two different types of tax; an `income tax on employees,' and `an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. § 801.The excise tax on the employer is to be paid `with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on the employees, is measured by wages. § 804 . . .. The two taxes are at the same rate. §§ 801, 804. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like the internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. § 807(a)." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 634, 635."
And in a summary this is what the court also stated
1. The Social Security Act may be amended or repealed at any time. (Can’t repeal insurance)
2. The Social Security System is a form of social insurance. (A bald faced lie as you will read.)
3. Social Security is a tax.
4. The foundation of Social Security is founded upon predictions of economic conditions "which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate."
5. Employees have no contractual interest in Social Security.
6. "Congress included in the original Act and has since retained, a clause reserving to it the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the act 1104, 49 Stat. 648 42 USC 1304. Fleming v Nestor 363 US 603.
1. The tax on employers is an excise tax.
2. The tax imposed on employers is constitutional. [sure, because the employer is one created by Congress by reason of incorporation and is not the private sector employer)
3. The tax is an excise on a business pursuant to the Congressional power to tax in Article 1, Section 8.
4. Social Security is not an accrued property right.
Stewart Machine Company v Davis 301 US 548.
The Helvering court stated; "Title II has the caption `Federal Old Age Benefits.' The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant. The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the `Old Age Reserve Account.' § 201. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account. All that the statute does is to authorize appropriations annually thereafter . . . Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow." pg. 635, 636. Emphasis added. This is what Congress has done since the inception. It made "appropriations annually" from the general treasury as there is no trust find at all, just as the 1953 Congressional Hearings brought out. It's all a Ponzi Scheme that somehow became legal because government did it. Not only do the courts recognize there is no trust fund but so do others. Quoted by Warren Shore in SOCIAL SECURITY: THE FRAUD IN YOUR FUTURE. The Macmillian Co., N.Y. (1975) pg 22;
"Obviously, there is no pool, just as there are no trust funds. Both words remain in the Social Security Lexicon not because they are true, but because they help foster the notion that Social Security is like insurance with its premium pools and trust funds regulated to support the promise made." The people out there have no idea what is going on as long as Congress throws them a bone once in awhile and constantly lies to them. Here is the kicker directly from the man who started this Ponzi Scheme in the Congressional Hearings. There is a 1953 Congressional Report where Mr. Altmeyer recanted his 1936 statements. He stated just the opposite that it is not insurance and that there were mistakes made in 1936 and wrong information published because it is not in any way shape or form a contract of insurance at all. Why was this not found? I found it 10 years ago. This was published in a book, The New History of America in 1996, so why did’t Irv Levitt find this report? Do you doubt it? Well, read it for yourself and find Mr. Altmeyer's statement before the House in: Analysis of The Social Security System, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, November 27, 1953, Part 6), starting on page 881. Testimony from the man himself.
What SS is, is a flat rate income tax. One on the employee and one on the employer, and, they are totally separate and the employer DOES NOT match the employee's tax. That is a fraud of monumental proportions. Even in this 1953 House Committee Report they quote the Supreme Court case exactly as I did before in an expose letter, that states there are two separate taxes. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court also cited; I quote from a court case concerning Title II to Mr. Altmeyer: "Moreover, the act creates no contractual obligation with respect to the payment of benefits. This court has pointed out the difference between insurance which creates vested rights, AND pensions and other gratuities, involving no contractual obligations, in Lynch v. United States (202 U.S. 571, 556, 557." Mr. Altmeyer confirmed the affirmative.
Mr. Winn then cited the case above, Helvering v. Davis. I have pointed the way so you can research this on your own. This is pretty d**ning evidence that fraud abounds. What is interesting is when reading the 1953 report it clarifies what a lot of us researchers have been saying for years and no one wants to listen. SS applies only to federal employees operating under federal corporations and not to the private people. There is one small piece of that puzzle from that 1953 report. Covered employment is the key word overlooked and applies to federal workers. That is why it is titled Federal Old Age Assistance. It does not say national. In legal terms this is a big distinction. The 1953 Hearings also stated that the IRS considers the SS benefit as a gift. Whenever Congress wants to stop that annual gift, they can do so and people have no recourse whatsoever. When people are informed, they do not believe even when given the official source. I guess being unaware of being unaware is bliss until SS can’t support you when you depended on government telling you it would when it wouldn’t.
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 03:36 am |
|
Kirk wrote: Two: to have a guaranteed annuity that pays $1200 a month for the life of the holder at age 65 requires a significant chunk of change. Most people would need to save pretty hard for 20-30 years to reach the sum necessary for buy-in. Social security taxes compel buy-in for those people who are most likely to need a savings plan and least likely to develop one - wage earners. With 40 qualifying quarters (ten years) of sufficient earnings, minimum benefits result. Eventual benefits are based on thirty-years(?) of highest, inflation-adjusted, social-security participating income.
My next door neighbor has several rental properties. He worked for a company for about eight years out of college and has bought, renovated, and rents (occasionally selling) family-sized homes. He is now well into his forties and is not social security eligible until he works for more qualifying quarters. He openly admits that he will likely return to work for two years before retiring so he can get minimum benefits (hoping all the while his eligibility requirements are not changed).
All-in-all, individual small investors do not have a track record for getting high enough returns to afford to buy into an annuity generating the guaranteed income that social security provides. On the other hand, social security gets to pocket the taxes collected from people who die prior to their retirement while a private account would be passed on to heirs. That is the one element of the Bush proposal back on 2001 that I did support - some valuation of the accumulated annuity that could be passed through an estate.
this is a bunch of baloney. if you actually took the time to run the numbers you would find that you would need 500k to get about a 1200 dollars a month of income. Now run the numbers from your ss statement and you will find that you should have been able to double your ss payments by taking less than they took and with some modest investments be better off. but if you want the governemnt to control you and you can suck off its largess keep thinking the way you do. heck if ss would only use modest investments they could be solvent, but no that's too much commmon sense.
yes, when my grandfather dies at 75 my grandmother would haev had to live until she was 125 years old to break even with what he paid in. what happened to all that money??
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:48 am |
|
Two: to have a guaranteed annuity that pays $1200 a month for the life of the holder at age 65 requires a significant chunk of change. Most people would need to save pretty hard for 20-30 years to reach the sum necessary for buy-in. Social security taxes compel buy-in for those people who are most likely to need a savings plan and least likely to develop one - wage earners. With 40 qualifying quarters (ten years) of sufficient earnings, minimum benefits result. Eventual benefits are based on thirty-years(?) of highest, inflation-adjusted, social-security participating income.
My next door neighbor has several rental properties. He worked for a company for about eight years out of college and has bought, renovated, and rents (occasionally selling) family-sized homes. He is now well into his forties and is not social security eligible until he works for more qualifying quarters. He openly admits that he will likely return to work for two years before retiring so he can get minimum benefits (hoping all the while his eligibility requirements are not changed).
All-in-all, individual small investors do not have a track record for getting high enough returns to afford to buy into an annuity generating the guaranteed income that social security provides. On the other hand, social security gets to pocket the taxes collected from people who die prior to their retirement while a private account would be passed on to heirs. That is the one element of the Bush proposal back on 2001 that I did support - some valuation of the accumulated annuity that could be passed through an estate.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1463 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:30 am |
|
Kirk wrote: Any personal financial planner will tell you is extraordinarily risky since the buy-in is pretty cheap.
Therein lies a huge problem. The American workers and their employers have been putting in dimes for the purpose of taking out dollars. This will work rather briefly, and then something odorous will hit the fan.Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:31 am by Two Cents
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:13 am |
|
| Oh gosh, I guess that's OK if you're a Kennedy. Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 01:15 am by Playing the Game
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
ptg: you do not need to earn income in a manner that pays social security taxes. It is only if you choose to work for someone else rather than earning rental income, dividend/profit income, or interest earnings (among other methods of deriving income). i.e. a landlord whose earnings come from rental income and capital gains from property turn-over has no obligation to pay social security taxes. They may opt out of the system. There are many thousands of people who do not participate, but at the same time they are not eligible for benefits either. Any personal financial planner will tell you is extraordinarily risky since the buy-in is pretty cheap.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 12:15 am |
|
| Presicely, about time you learned it in your little hideaway in the basement in Easton.
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 11:01 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Y'all really need to stop confusing the Captain and Kirk with facts. It irritates them and they expound with volumes of bureaucratic bs
Opinion on a blog is not fact.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
| Hey what do you think? Captain & Kirk....Beam me up Scotty.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 10:36 pm |
|
| Y'all really need to stop confusing the Captain and Kirk with facts. It irritates them and they expound with volumes of bureaucratic bs
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
Fiction of Social Security Bonds
by Charles E. Rounds, Jr.
[Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005]
Yes, the social security statute provides that on the face of the "bonds" memorializing the spent surplus there shall be a notation that they are "supported by the full faith and credit of the United States." But this provision can only kick in if the bonds are actually issued by the U.S. to another party. The statute, however, does not provide for this. In other words, the "full faith and credit" language is illusory. As mentioned, for a bond to be a real bond, there needs to be at least two parties, for example, the U.S. and a citizen who owns a U.S. treasury bond, or the U.S. as owner of a German bond and Germany. The U.S. cannot issue "bonds" to itself and have their terms bind future Congresses. Bottom line: These social security "bonds" are neither assets of the U.S. nor property of workers and their families. Whichever side one is on in the social security personal account debate, or whether one advocates abolishing social security altogether, there needs to be a common understanding of how the current system is structured, to include an appreciation that the social security "bonds" are not real bonds. As long as general confusion reigns about the law and facts currently applicable to social security, advocates of the status quo will have the upper hand over the reformers and the abolitionists. Charles Rounds, Jr., teaches law at Suffolk University Law School. croundsjr@aol.com. Comment on the blog.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
CaptainObvious wrote:
The Soc. Security Act (and changes to it) had established that Soc. Security and related trust funds are independent of other things in the budget (and related trust funds).
The exec. branch areas responsible for the trust funds you mentioned do so as part of the administration. The Trustees of the Soc. Sec take care of Soc. Security trust funds.
Soc. Sec. funds cannot be used or transferred into the general fund.
I assume you didn't mean that SS taxes each month can't be used for other things. The actual cash inflow has been used to finance governemnt and SS payments for as long as I've been alive. They put IOU's in the 'trust fund' to make up for the actual taxes collected from us that were not used to pay Grandma's monthly check.
If you have any question about how that will eventually impact us, you'll get a look soon enough. Due to the high unemployment and people electing to now 'retire' and collect early benefits, the next two years we will see a deficit in collections versus pay out. The deficit is already so massive, you might not catch the extra lump from the government now borrowing more money to make those payments. Or would you think that 2.5 trillion 'trust fund' will suddenly start pumping out cash from some vault somewhere?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 12:35 am |
|
I suppose you also believe in The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
CaptainObvious wrote:
Bixby wrote: ahh, you beat me to it again, JP. I sent the same USC data to pretty much the same people with the same results. Zero. No response. The Code is the Code and there is no getting away from it.
There's a reason why it is not in there. It is covered under separate law.
The Soc. Security Act (and changes to it) had established that Soc. Security and related trust funds are independent of other things in the budget (and related trust funds).
The exec. branch areas responsible for the trust funds you mentioned do so as part of the administration. The Trustees of the Soc. Sec take care of Soc. Security trust funds.
Soc. Sec. funds cannot be used or transferred into the general fund.
You'll have to look thru the Soc. Security act to see the specifics. But you can start here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0201.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0201.htm#act-201-c
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: ahh, you beat me to it again, JP. I sent the same USC data to pretty much the same people with the same results. Zero. No response. The Code is the Code and there is no getting away from it.
There's a reason why it is not in there. It is covered under separate law.
The Soc. Security Act (and changes to it) had established that Soc. Security and related trust funds are independent of other things in the budget (and related trust funds).
The exec. branch areas responsible for the trust funds you mentioned do so as part of the administration. The Trustees of the Soc. Sec take care of Soc. Security trust funds.
Soc. Sec. funds cannot be used or transferred into the general fund.
You'll have to look thru the Soc. Security act to see the specifics. But you can start here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0201.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0201.htm#act-201-c
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: CaptainObvious wrote: Cobra wrote:
There is no trust fund. Bixby and JP proved that long time ago.
From an account perspective there is. The whole thing has been "invested" in treasuries. Put another way, politicians on both sides have "stolen" the money with the "promise" (wink,wink) of paying it back eventually.
Again, I'll ask you too (since PTG is too wimpy to actually answer a question). Do you own any treasuries in your investment accounts? If you do, its the largely the same as what Soc. Sec. does.
If you do, why do you invest in gov. bonds?? Hmmm, could it be b/c they're stable investments?
Please take note of TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE; SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS; CHAPTER 13—APPROPRIATIONS;SUBCHAPTER II--TRUST FUNDS AND REFUNDS
Sec. 1321. Lists all of the Trust funds administered by the US Government. Note that nowhere in the entire Code is there any listing of a Social Security Trust Fund. I have challenged Irv Levitt, our elected officials, and the Treasury Department for years and no one is able to answer this.
Attachment: Trust Funds of the US.doc (Downloaded 2 times)
Ahh, you beat me to it again, JP. I sent the same USC data to pretty much the same people with the same results. Zero. No response. The Code is the Code and there is no getting away from it.
Last edited on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 10:40 pm by Bixby
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 902 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
CaptainObvious wrote: Cobra wrote:
There is no trust fund. Bixby and JP proved that long time ago.
From an account perspective there is. The whole thing has been "invested" in treasuries. Put another way, politicians on both sides have "stolen" the money with the "promise" (wink,wink) of paying it back eventually.
Again, I'll ask you too (since PTG is too wimpy to actually answer a question). Do you own any treasuries in your investment accounts? If you do, its the largely the same as what Soc. Sec. does.
If you do, why do you invest in gov. bonds?? Hmmm, could it be b/c they're stable investments?
Please take note of TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE; SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS; CHAPTER 13—APPROPRIATIONS;SUBCHAPTER II--TRUST FUNDS AND REFUNDS
Sec. 1321. Lists all of the Trust funds administered by the US Government. Note that nowhere in the entire Code is there any listing of a Social Security Trust Fund. I have challenged Irv Levitt, our elected officials, and the Treasury Department for years and no one is able to answer this.
Attachment: Trust Funds of the US.doc (Downloaded 3 times) Last edited on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 09:05 pm by Jurisprudence
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4822 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 07:45 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: Two: if you think you can opt out of your auto insurance and still drive legally. Why don't you let your coverage drop and then go and try and renew your plates.
Haven't you ever been told not to mix apples and oranges? If so, the lesson obviously fell upon deaf ears.
Auto insurance is something required by some STATES, not the federal government. Paying into SS is a federal not state thing. Big difference.
BTW, I renewed my tags on Friday, didn't need to show proof of insurance (although I do have it.) As I said, that's a state, not federal, thing.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
| Big Difference in the two. I don't have to drive, it is a privelege. I have to work and I have no choice to opt out of the SS system.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 05:35 pm |
|
Two: if you think you can opt out of your auto insurance and still drive legally. Why don't you let your coverage drop and then go and try and renew your plates.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1463 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 04:23 pm |
|
kentvoice wrote: Social Security is a bankrupt system - and yes is a Ponzi scheme. Government involvement in the financial, retirement, and healthcare systems is always the same- a one-sided contract that we do not have the freedom to opt out of.
You are exactly correct. Ol' Irv continues to insist that SS is an insurance, but fails to acknowledge that nobody can opt out like you could from any other insurance by simply being allowed to have workers and their employers stop making the "premium" payments on the policy.
|
kentvoice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
Re Sept 23rd Irv Levitt's assessment of "Uncle Sam's Fine Job"- He says the "FDIC protects your Bank deposits and... no depositor has lost one cent". Then we read 3 days later on Sept 26 the FDIC is weighing several costly "never-before-used" options to shore up the dwindling fund. Seems like the system isn't working that well now is it?
Hi assessment of Social Security and Uncle Sam... "is not greedy". I guess as a former Social Security employee who continues to draw a retirement from the system he has every right to be happy.
Unfortunately, The future for the rest of us younger Americans is looking bleak. Social Security is a bankrupt system - and yes is a Ponzi scheme. Government involvement in the financial, retirement, and healthcare systems is always the same- a one-sided contract that we do not have the freedom to opt out of.
|
kentvoice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 04:02 pm |
|
Re Sept 23rd Irv Levitt's assessment of "Uncle Sam's Fine Job"- He says the "FDIC protects your Bank deposits and... no depositor has lost one cent". Then we read 3 days later on Sept 26 the FDIC is weighing several costly "never-before-used" options to shore up the dwindling fund. Seems like the system isn't working that well now is it?
Hi assessment of Social Security and Uncle Sam... "is not greedy". I guess as a former Social Security employee who continues to draw a retirement from the system he has every right to be happy.
Unfortunately, The future for the rest of us younger Americans is looking bleak. Social Security is a bankrupt system - and yes is a Ponzi scheme. Government involvement in the financial, retirement, and healthcare systems is always the same- a one-sided contract that we do not have the freedom to opt out of.
|
kentvoice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 04:01 pm |
|
Re Sept 23rd Irv Levitt's assessment of "Uncle Sam's Fine Job"- He says the "FDIC protects your Bank deposits and... no depositor has lost one cent". Then we read 3 days later on Sept 26 the FDIC is weighing several costly "never-before-used" options to shore up the dwindling fund. Seems like the system isn't working that well now is it?
Hi assessment of Social Security and Uncle Sam... "is not greedy". I guess as a former Social Security employee who continues to draw a retirement from the system he has every right to be happy.
Unfortunately, The future for the rest of us younger Americans is looking bleak. Social Security is a bankrupt system - and yes is a Ponzi scheme. Government involvement in the financial, retirement, and healthcare systems is always the same- a one-sided contract that we do not have the freedom to opt out of.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 12:25 am |
|
That's what Bernie Madoff said in response to the same question about his Ponzi scheme.
CaptainObvious wrote:
Yeah, now the Soc. Sec. Admin is making up numbers.
Last edited on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 01:56 am by Playing the Game
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
so once again oblivious you are wrong. but that is nothing new. the report is included, and again, remember all the dummuycrats that said there was not a mortgage crisis. must be real hard to live in your shoes. so easy to wam.
hissey fit and then went running around the country scaring old people into believing Republicans were trying to take away their Social Security, which anyone with common sense knew was a lie. Being the horrible communicator that Bush was, he naturally failed to make the case as to why reform was necessary and the Democrats got away with scaring grandma and the Republicans ran away from the plan with their tail between their legs being the usual wimps that they are. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), in particular, said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Social Security and it was rock solid for another 50 years. The Republicans just wanted to get rid of it because they’ve always hated it. And the GOP has always hated it, but that is irrelevant to the fact that Social Security has been on a collision course with insolvency for a long, long time and now it appears to have hit it way early.
JIM LEHRER: Okay. Social Security: How does what Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said yesterday about personal savings accounts, how is that going to affect the debate in the Congress, particularly in the Senate?
SEN. HARRY REID: Well, I think it’s going to help what we’re saying. What we’re saying is there is no crisis. This is a manufactured crisis.
Social Security, if we don’t do anything, it’s safe for approximately the next 50 years. When I mean safe, people will draw 100 percent of their benefits.
And if we still decide to do nothing after that, people will still draw 80 percent of the benefits. We have to do something to take care of the out years, but it’s a manufactured crisis.
And the president, you know, all you have to do is see what some of the real right-wing groups have talked about over the years. They don’t like Social Security. They want toe get rid of it.
This is an effort to get rid of Social Security. What the president is talking about these private accounts — I was interested to see in his press conference, I read before I got here what he said in his press conference. He talks about $2 trillion.
Well, it’s going to be money we’ll save. The $2 trillion just makes Social Security worse. It doesn’t help at all the solvency of Social Security. Privatization is a bad idea. It’s been proven in Chile; it’s been proven in Great Britain.
We also know that he’s talking about benefit cuts — benefit cuts, as much as 40 percent. That’s very, very bad. Of course, we know that it would increase the debt significantly.
We need — there are a lot of problems we have in America today with pensions. We have airlines that are in effect going broke unless we give them some relief with their pension programs, but that’s separate and apart from what the president’s talking about with Social Security.
I believe that not only is it a program that is designed to do away with the most successful social program in the history of the country, but it’s also, I think, an effort to divert attention from issues that are important, from Iraq, from health care, from this huge deficit we have.
PBS
I like at the end how Reid says Bush’s plan was an effort to steer talk away from the huge national debt we have. My, how his attitude has changed on that one.
So I wonder now what the excuse will be as this report becomes more public. It’s already been whipping through the Internet today.
Social Security is going broke next year. Medicare is set to go broke in less than ten years and somehow we will magically come up with a trillion dollars to pay for public health insurance.
Last edited on Sat Sep 26th, 2009 11:15 pm by ltcdolphin
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
ltcdolphin wrote: yeah, right that's where you get those numbers. how would anyone know, you don't source a thing?? and i guess the msm is not telling the truth about ss being broke. guess so since they are not telling the truth about weeebo.
by the way it was the cbo that made that statement.
There are several links to the Soc. Sec. reports in this thread.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
CBO Report. You're wrong again...
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5530&type=0&sequence=2
By contrast, federal revenues dedicated to Social Security are expected to remain close to their current level--about 5 percent of GDP--over that period. As a result, outlays are projected to begin exceeding revenues in 2019, with the gap growing ever wider thereafter. Even if outlays for Social Security turn out to be lower than expected and revenues higher, a gap is likely to remain.
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 10:33 pm |
|
CaptainObvious wrote: ltcdolphin wrote: your numbers are the made up ones, if they aren't why the worry. you might be the only one saying this. oh yeah, you and the dummycrats said theree was no mortgage crisis, wam.
Yeah, now the Soc. Sec. Admin is making up numbers.
yeah, right that's where you get those numbers. how would anyone know, you don't source a thing?? and i guess the msm is not telling the truth about ss being broke. guess so since they are not telling the truth about weeebo.
by the way it was the cbo that made that statement.
Last edited on Sat Sep 26th, 2009 10:41 pm by ltcdolphin
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
ltcdolphin wrote: your numbers are the made up ones, if they aren't why the worry. you might be the only one saying this. oh yeah, you and the dummycrats said theree was no mortgage crisis, wam.
Yeah, now the Soc. Sec. Admin is making up numbers.
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:46 pm |
|
CaptainObvious wrote: ltcdolphin wrote: gee if making payments is the only rule you are in trouble. seems there was a report eysterday from some dc think tank saying it was broke next year. if it's not broke why is that teh talk in dc?? because they are wrong and only you are right?? oblivious to common sense,wam.
Gosh are you clueless and you have no common sense either.
There are over $2.2 trillion in assets at the end of 2008.
Payouts in 2008 were $516BB.
They took in $695BB in taxes in 2008.
Do the math, oh never mind, I'm sure you won't (or can't).
Current income is covering current outlays + adding a small amount to the trust fund.
Whatever "think tank" you referenced (I'm sure you're making it up) is full of manure.
your numbers are the made up ones, if they aren't why the worry. you might be the only one saying this. oh yeah, you and the dummycrats said theree was no mortgage crisis, wam.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
Speaking of arguing with idiots, do any of you ever stop to consider the 'assets' SS really has? They are 'special ' treasury notes , to be sure, but for a financial asset to have true value, doesn't it have to represent a claim on someone else?
The way SS works is the government takes in money, spends it all and then creates an IOU for the amount they took in that exceeded the SS payout for that period. They have cabinets full of these special notes but the only people who owe payment on the paper are the taxpayers. The same smucks that just gave them the money they just spent on things like a $400, 000 gift to Gadaffi's kids. There are no stocks and bonds and gold coins and precious jewels, etc., to covert to future SS payments. I'd have to say the system is 'broke' from a realistic standpoint. When current income fails below SS payments, the government will print more money pretending it is retiring 'assets', but is it?
Sort of like if I got $10 for a bushel of corn [I wish] and spent it on paying my bills and then put a slip of paper in the drawer with "$10" on it. Does that make me worth $10? If you believe that, come talk to my banker next time I need a loan.....
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:31 pm |
|
ltcdolphin wrote: gee if making payments is the only rule you are in trouble. seems there was a report eysterday from some dc think tank saying it was broke next year. if it's not broke why is that teh talk in dc?? because they are wrong and only you are right?? oblivious to common sense,wam.
Gosh are you clueless and you have no common sense either.
There are over $2.2 trillion in assets at the end of 2008.
Payouts in 2008 were $516BB.
They took in $695BB in taxes in 2008.
Do the math, oh never mind, I'm sure you won't (or can't).
Current income is covering current outlays + adding a small amount to the trust fund.
Whatever "think tank" you referenced (I'm sure you're making it up) is full of manure.
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 09:23 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I have a good book for Kirk and the Captain to read. It's a new one by Glenn Beck and it's a NY Times Non-Fiction best seller. It's called Arguments with Idiots.
I know all about arguing with idiots. There's a few of them around these parts.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 08:41 pm |
|
| I have a good book for Kirk and the Captain to read. It's a new one by Glenn Beck and it's a NY Times Non-Fiction best seller. It's called Arguments with Idiots.
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 06:49 pm |
|
CaptainObvious wrote: ltcdolphin wrote: if ss was invested in treasuries then why is it broke?? because it is invested in treasuries?? just another government run failure, and who gave us ss??
How exactly is it broke? Its not. Did they say they're stopping payments? No.
clueless.
gee if making payments is the only rule you are in trouble. seems there was a report eysterday from some dc think tank saying it was broke next year. if it's not broke why is that teh talk in dc?? because they are wrong and only you are right?? oblivious to common sense,wam.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 04:50 pm |
|
capt: from each dollar deposited, approximately 18% is retained for reserves and 82% lent out. The percentage is a bit higher for small banks (19.xx%) and lower for large banks (17.xx%). While the money multiplier effect is about 5 to 1 (1/reserve holdings rate), the total for lending is not 5 times the total for deposits - it is 5 times the total for the initial deposit. The way that further lending is generated is that loans become eventual deposits for either the borrower or the person who received the funds from the purchase by the borrower. In aggregate, there is not more lending than deposits, but there are more deposits than currency. I hope this is clear (it takes a while for students in economics to have this sink in). It takes a long time to walk through an example and I take alot of flack over lengthy postings that I am trying to avoid doing.
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
ltcdolphin wrote: if ss was invested in treasuries then why is it broke?? because it is invested in treasuries?? just another government run failure, and who gave us ss??
How exactly is it broke? Its not. Did they say they're stopping payments? No.
clueless.
|
CaptainObvious
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: ptg and cap't: just where do you think the money in those CD is invested? The largest portion of the portofolios of time deposits from banks is Government Securities.
Yeah, I know.
When you deposit money into those instruments, it doesn't just sit in a dark room and populate like rabbits in order to pay your interest. Most banks lend only a portion of their deposits back out to private borrowers because of the risk of default.
Actually, they lend tons MORE money than they have in deposits. Something like 5 or 10 to 1.
I do not have the percentages handy, but the last I looked (about 2005) banks (including credit unions and the like) averaged over 30% in Treasury notes. Depending on the institution and region, they held another similar chunk in Muni's and State issuances. When you add in the Corporate bonds they hold that are based on government contracts the number gets even higher.
Any undergraduate textbook on Money and Banking should help with the particular numbers if you need them.
|
ltcdolphin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26th, 2009 03:03 pm |
|
| if ss was invested in treasuries then why is it broke?? because it is invested in treasuries?? just another government run failure, and who gave us ss??
|
Current time is 09:50 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|