How Social Security Rips of the Average American

The Johns Hopkins News-Letter (Johns Hopkins U.) ^ | 1/3/3 | Aaron Back

[NYTexan]

I did'nt miss any key, You did! (cooperative society)

This country was founded on independance and freedom, not goverment oppression!

If you have paid into SS all these years at max rates then you would have to have been doing pretty damn well for yourself.

So now your glad to be getting your monthly SS check! Is that because You are greedy or because you spent each and every one of your dollars???

[dasein64]

I understand that the amount of increase of SS was offset by the same amount of increase on medicare which is deducted from SS payments. Net result is no SS increase for those at the lower level of benefits.

[dasein64]

This is a particularly nasty post. What do you propose for those workers who have had SS taken from their wages? There was no option to being taxed for SS for either you or your employer. Are you going to see to it that the money confiscated by the government via FICA be returned to the reluctant participants of this Ponzi scheme as well as to their equally reluctant employers? And are you even aware that a large percentage of SS taxes go for other than retirement programs? That is the real reason no politican wants to get mired in this SS discussion. So you let workers opt out of the system--then where will the money come from to fund all of the non-payers who get their cut from the money transfer schemes that have been grafted on to the SS system? Further, this money is recirculated into the economy and is taxed over and over again as it is spent. Get off you soap box, which most of us know all about anyway, and face the reality of the SS system.

[NYTexan]

"This is a particularly nasty post"
Because I called check and checkmate on an opponent?

"What do you propose for those workers who have had SS taken from their wages?"
For them to realize that the govt is not their friend and to prepare for ones ones needs!

"Are you going to see to it that the money confiscated by the government via FICA be returned to the reluctant participants of this Ponzi scheme as well as to their equally reluctant employers?
Who? Me???

"And are you even aware that a large percentage of SS taxes go for other than retirement programs?
Well thank you congress!

"Get off you soap box, which most of us know all about anyway, and face the reality of the SS system."

I have no soapbox. The reality is that the system will continue to enslave a freedom loving people into a life of pre-determined obligation!!!

[poet]

Correct. More numbers trickery from the tricksters i,e,; politicians.

[oldcomputerguy]

"You are greedy or because
you spent each and every one of your dollars??? "

You will believe whatever you want to believe, have at it,
and believe whatever you want.

[oldcomputerguy]

"50% of the people in this country do not have a pot to pi$$ in or a window to throw it out of.

You're gonna have to prove that one, old man. I'm not letting that slide."

Well I have seen several surveys, the results of which are rather startling. I can go on for a long time about how the system is geared to always keep the brass ring in sight but never in touch, but I won't.
You can see the link below for some basics. There are others there too. As you can see from the link provided, in 1995, the median NETWORTH in the US was 126k for people age 55-64 of which 78k was home equity. So by the time they reach retirement, HALF the people in the country have less than 50k to their names outside their houses! Now since retirement income can be drawn down at a rate from your savings at 4%-6% per annum, that means half the country will be living on $2400 dollars a year or less based on other than home equity! Maybe you can now see what I was talking about. People have a lot less money that most of the posters seem to think they have after paying for living expenses along the way to retirement. That is why there is a SS program.


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/1995/wlth95-1.html

[inquest]

Sorry, I didn't realize you had responded (got a bunch of responses at once from different threads and I think yours got lost in the shuffle).

Anyway, it really looks like to me that you're making more out of what's there than what really is. No one on this thread as far as I can see is obsessing over his every dollar to make sure he has the maximum control over it. What we're saying to you is that as a matter of principle, people have the right to set their own priorities in how they live their lives and expend their resources. Obviously we can all see the usual categories of things that people should not be allowed to do for various reasons, as well as that some money needs to be taken for the general good. But Social Security is not about that. It's about compulsory charity - that is, taking from Peter and giving to Paul. There's really no way around that. You can argue that Peter should give to Paul, and that he's being selfish (or "greedy") if he does not, but that does not mean that Paul is entitled to the money. Those are two completely separate concepts.

[oldcomputerguy]

"It's about compulsory charity"

Well that is why we have elections and get to vote. If you think about it, FICA is much harder on the people depending on this "compulsory charity" then it is on people in higher income brackets. It is a much larger percentage of their incomes and hurts them more to pay it along the way. Their living standard is lower getting to retirement because of it. Please don't suggest they might be better off investing it as these people know zip about investing.If they did they wouldn't be in the lower half of the population wealth group.

If you want someone to complain about, I suggest my cousin who is about 30 years old, 600 pounds and to my knowledge has never held a regular job in his life . He is collecting SSI and will until he dies I imagine. These are the kind of individuals that makes one wonder how the SS program is administered. Maybe the complainers should focus on Supplemental Security Income. I suspect it is these people who are bleeding the system dry if anyone is.I think this is where the money is going. Disabled, too dumb, too fat.. Hey there's help...SSI ..for life.

[inquest]

If you think about it, FICA is much harder on the people depending on this "compulsory charity" then it is on people in higher income brackets. It is a much larger percentage of their incomes and hurts them more to pay it along the way.

All the more reason to dismantle the system. But in any case, it's the principle I'm talking about - the principle that Peter should not be robbed for the benefit of Paul.

Please don't suggest they might be better off investing it as these people know zip about investing.

I don't know squat about investing, myself. But I do grasp the idea of saving, which is all Social Security forces people to do (and even that is highly theoretical). Saving money is an attitude, not a knowledge.

[Bob J]

On NOW at RadioFR!

Join AnnaZ, Mercuria and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson for a…
A DAY AT THE RACISTS!
The Lott Thing!
The Byrd Thing!
The Je$$e Jack$on Thing!
The Sharpton Thing!
The Profiling Thing!
The Reparations Thing!
The Thought Police Thing!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[oldcomputerguy]

But I do grasp the idea of saving

Well I am happy that you do but the lower half of country will not do any substantial saving without being forced to do it. They will then be largely destitute with no guaranteed income. We can debate the fairness of the system but this fact is the reality that forced SS into existence in the first place.

[inquest]

I don't see how you could have any grounds for saying that people wouldn't save of their own volition, when Social Security has been purporting to do that for them for nearly 70 years. It's entirely unscientific to conclude that people wouldn't do for themselves something that's been promised to them already, when you haven't really had a chance to observe them in the absence of such a promise. Prior to Social Security, family bonds were much stronger, so people were generally taken care of by their families as they got old. If SS is dismantled, and people are told that it's up to them provide for their old age, it may be true that they'll fail to do so, or it may sink into them that they need to, or they might simply learn the hard way. In any case, there are all kinds of stupid things people can do, or fail to do, that can really screw them over later on. Do we really want to establish that they shouldn't be given responsibility for their own lives? Is that really a sound basis for society?

[Wolfie]

"Learning the hard way" is anathema to the entitlement minded.

[oldcomputerguy]

I don't see how you could have any grounds for saying that people wouldn't save of their own volition,

Well, lets see, prior to SS being established, people had strong families, people knew no one would take care of them so they had to save for their own retirement, well actually they worked until they dropped back then I think. And the result was old people living in poverty bad enough to institute SS. What part of that experience did you want to relive? Now especially with broken families?

[inquest]

Social Security was instituted in response to the fact that there was a deep economic depression, which of course hit the elderly among the hardest. It was the same season that gave birth to the federal dole and other aspects of the modern social-welfare state. None of these things would have been so objectionable if they had simply been temporary measures designed to deal with an emergency situation, but of course FDR's plan was entirely the opposite: to use the emergency as a vehicle to shoehorn permanent programs.

Prior to that, people did generally care for their elders (with what resources they had), and since that time, that obligation has atrophied largely because of the expectation brought on by federal assistance programs. It became, as has become a cliche nowadays, "someone else's responsibility". Well, the upshot of that is that more and more responsibility gets shifted to that "someone else" (witness the development of Medicare and Medicaid) and the people become more dependent and less free. This trend needs to be reversed, even if it's going to be a bit painful for the more stubborn and short-sighted among us.

[Bernard]

FICA max was $84,900 in 2002, and is about $88,000 in 2003. How old is this article?

[oldcomputerguy]

"This trend needs to be reversed, even if it's going to be a bit painful for the more stubborn and short-sighted among us."

I hope you are not holding your breath waiting for it to happen.