Posted on 01/08/2015 8:42:01 AM PST by drypowder
I guess if SS is your only source of income your screwed as it is an entitlement program, but if you have another source of retirement income, I would wonder why you could not say I don’t use SS to participate in rewards programs I use another income source to participate with.
What a crock...
Self employed people have to pay both the Employee part and the Employer part.
“That’s not the way it works”
WELL .. IS THAT THE ANSWER ..?? OR IS THE ANSWER - WE’RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY IT WORKS. AFTER ALL .. IT USED TO BE A SEPARATE PILE OF MONEY .. AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS (IN THEIR GREED), DECIDED TO PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND .. ALL THEY LEFT BEHIND FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS .. WAS A PILE OF I.O.U.’S - HOW THOUGHTY OF THEM.
I’M NOT INTERESTED IN HOW IT WORKS NOW .. I’M INTERESTED IN GETTING PEOPLE TO CHANGE HOW IT WORKS .. CHANGE IT BACK TO THE WAY IT USED TO WORK.
Now as to the math:
$0 starting in the account
$375 per month contribution total
40 years of contributions
1% interest
is a final net value of $222,188.57
Far less than the $1+ million dollars this article claims. to reach that $1+ million dollars the actual annual rate of return would have to be closer to 8%. The closest investment option that comes close to averaging 8% or better is the stock market. But that is not the same as a savings account.
With a savings account, you are going to get your principle back. It is a “less risk” investment option. That is why it pays such lousy rates of return. The stock market on the other hand is a “more risk” investment option where the possibility exists that not only will there not be a return, but the account could also loose it’s principle.
Their numbers roughly doubled, iirc, about the time the unemployment extensions started running out...
Sad, too, because I know people who are genuinely disabled (T-4 paraplegic) who depend on that.
Why do people believe these nonsense emails?
Self employed people pay in both sides of it (self-employment tax), not just half.
Well, Pres. Di**head has a solution to that ( of course you know this was planned from the beginning ):
If you aren't preparing to feed and protect yourself without the rest of the system functioning, then you are doing it wrong. I believe the survivors are going to be the ones who can grow their own food. The cities are going to become deathtraps.
google search Harbinger and september 13, 2015. It’s something I was made aware of only in the last few months, but it is rather interesting.
All I find are videos, and I'd rather not watch them. Perhaps you can explain in a few words?
Just shut up and eat your Soylent Green, citizen.
Welfare is paid with your taxes too?
To.the author: N.S.S.
Wrong. The operation of the SSTF has not changed since the inception of SS under FDR. You are spouting an unsubstantiated myth.
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
I’M NOT INTERESTED IN HOW IT WORKS NOW .. I’M INTERESTED IN GETTING PEOPLE TO CHANGE HOW IT WORKS .. CHANGE IT BACK TO THE WAY IT USED TO WORK.
It is working the way it has always worked. The problem is demographics, i.e., an aging population that is living far longer than when SS was set up about 80 years ago.
The money we paid into SS was already spent. The SS payments going out now are coming from those paying into SS now.
Sad, but true,
I collect a very small Social Security check. I only have Medicare Part A, so pay for anything I purchase at the pharmacy cash. I don’t have any problem getting reward points.
And once you reach 65-66, if you've been on SSDI, you are rolled over into the regular SS funds account.
Every time you add a few million more people to something it changes the time it expires, especially if they are not paying in.
Every dime in depreciated currency, that is. What investment rate of return are you expecting, on top of the balance you originally deposited over the years? (But which now has less purchasing power, thanks to the hidden theft of inflation.)
There are many instances where *not* using your medicare RX plan is way cheaper than using your Medicare RX plan to buy prescriptions.
Friends don’t let friends use Walmart for drug prescriptions. You’re okay for basic stuff, but the advanced formulation medicine is sub quality and inferior to even generics provided by CVS/Walgreens et al ....
And getting the “Be Well” greeting from Walgreens employees is kinda creepy.
This is true, but the fund is not holding a pile of cash, or stocks, or real estate investments. It's holding a pile of Treasury Bonds. The income was used to lend to the government and once expenses exceed income can only be paid out by the government buying back the bonds out of general funds. So it's really an artificial distinction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.