Note to retirees - It is not your money...

[Dr Kynes]

Never heard of a "Contributary Pension" over there?

nope.

Social Security is supposed tpo be funded by your contributuions. guaranteeing a set income for your dotage, but it only works if there are MORE PEOPLE PAYING IN THAT TAKING OUT, so i have been paying in for nearly 30 years, and anticipate that it will NEVER be returned to me. i will most likely never see one thin dime of Social Security, and all my "contributions" are really just charity for the Flower Children of the Baby Boom.

so, in breif, I am taxed at 6+% and my employer "matches" my "Contribution" to ensure that old farts continue to get their cheques so they can continue to lobby for bigger cheques, and higher taxes on ME, the cat who is paying THEIR DEBBTS

 

[Wilksey]

None of that shit matters as anyone in this nation that uses some semblance of logic and reason to deal with any fiscal issue is immediately shouted down by the childish corrupt fucking lunatic fanatics that make up the overwhelming majority of our entire political system, and the greedy money fed hacks that cater to them in the media/entertainment industry.

Nothing new though.

Same shit goes down in EVERY government eventually. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

We're humans, after all, the smartest dumb-ass motherfuckers on the entire planet.

 

[UncleBuck]

You complain that I am a couple percentage points off yet you can be almost 10% off?? Talk about hypocritical double standards...

you were off by 8.8 percentage points (not a couple) on an original amount of 6.2, making you off by 142%.

i was off by 9 percentage points on an original amount of 41, making me off by 22%.

that means you are nearly 7 times more wrong than i am.

but of course, you don't get how math works. we saw that during the election when you scrapped rigorous mathematical analysis of polling data for absurdist interpretation by a partisan hack douchebag.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you were off by 8.8 percentage points (not a couple) on an original amount of 6.2, making you off by 142%.

i was off by 9 percentage points on an original amount of 41, making me off by 22%.

that means you are nearly 7 times more wrong than i am.

but of course, you don't get how math works. we saw that during the election when you scrapped rigorous mathematical analysis of polling data for absurdist interpretation by a partisan hack douchebag.

No.

he was VERY CLEAR that he was including the "Employer Funded Contribution" as well, as that IS part of his compensation from his employer, no matter how hard you try to squirm out of it.

therefore 6.2 + 6.2 = 12.4, which is MUCH closer to his stated 15% (which IS accurate if the medicare payroll tax is included, which is probably where his source got that number from) than 41% is to 50% (which is in no wise accurate, unless you add another decade to the scope of your statement) , so....


Neener Neener Neener.

 

[UncleBuck]

No.

he was VERY CLEAR that he was including the "Employer Funded Contribution" as well, as that IS part of his compensation from his employer, no matter how hard you try to squirm out of it.

therefore 6.2 + 6.2 = 12.4, which is MUCH closer to his stated 15% (which IS accurate if the medicare payroll tax is included, which is probably where his source got that number from) than 41% is to 50% (which is in no wise accurate, unless you add another decade to the scope of your statement) , so....


Neener Neener Neener.

false.

he said "withheld from the paycheck". the employer's share is not withheld from the paycheck, smarty.

he also confined the scope of his statement very specifically to social security, and not medicare.

keep defending the indefensible kynes.

 

[UncleBuck]

thats a prety awesome Knee jerk Reflex gramps.

heres the Bullet Points:

1: Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme, requiring several new investors to pay out for each old one, untill eventually it WILL collapse.
2: the SS trust fund is an imaginary construct that only existed for 3 or 4 years before it became just another pipeline into the Discretionary Fund
3: those who are NOT retired are funding the retirement of those who ARE retired, and only an idiot plans on Social Security being there in the future if he is under 50.
4: NOBODY HAS SUGGESTED ending this entitlement and fucking over those who are already dependent on the program
5: the faulty and untenable Social Security scheme is doomed to fail, no matter what any booster says. the math just doesnt work.
6: we, the Post-Baby-Boom generation are already on the hook for your generation, we are resigned to that fact, we are well aware that we WILL be funding YOUR SS, but we have ZERO CONFIDENCE that we shall receive the same benefits.
7: We, the Post-Baby-Boom generation want to see the program either fixed, or ended, but NOT in a manner that will reduce Gam-Gam and Pop-Pop to living in a cardboard box eating dog food.

what a long winded load of garbage.

SS is fully solvent for decades to come as is. raise the cap above the $108k it's at right now and it is solvent forever.

all your bullshit baffling won't change these very simple, straightforward facts.

 

[Lurkdewitt]

Good read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/06/12/is-the-social-security-trust-fund-solvent/


It's fully solvent by today's variables like the number of SS receivers, and the number the people putting in to SS. What happens if unemployment rises and people keeping retiring at the same rate which they will for a couple more decades unless the government raises the age of retirement. Benefits are bound to be cut as well as an increase in taxes. I'm getting a private 401k because I don't think it'll be worth much to get a check when I retire in 45 years.

 

[Dr Kynes]

what a long winded load of garbage.

SS is fully solvent for decades to come as is. raise the cap above the $108k it's at right now and it is solvent forever.

all your bullshit baffling won't change these very simple, straightforward facts.

derp derp derp

it is NOT "solvent for decades" unless they raise the retirement age AGAIN, and reduce the inflation adjustment AGAIN, or raise the payroll tax (and the "employer contribution") AGAIN.

removing the "payroll contribution cap" would be a good start, as would means testing, and eliminating the penalties for married couples, and those who choose to go back to work.

but look, those are all CHANGES to the program which would NOT harm those currently receiving benefits you dolt.

READ THE WORDS rather than making dumbass assumptions based on your prejudices.

 

[kelly4]

yes, we should. it is a good index. it takes into account energy costs (to run the restaurants), transportation costs (to transport the food from "farm" to kitchen), costs of food (beef is a huge staple), and rent (need a storefront).

it wasn't my idea, either. it was the economist who invented the big mac index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

maybe it is you who is the child, child.

You left out the part about the Big Mac getting a lot smaller.

Why do you keep bringing up this BM index when EVERYONE knows that it isn't worth shit?

 

[doublejj]

nope.

Social Security is supposed tpo be funded by your contributuions. guaranteeing a set income for your dotage, but it only works if there are MORE PEOPLE PAYING IN THAT TAKING OUT, so i have been paying in for nearly 30 years, and anticipate that it will NEVER be returned to me. i will most likely never see one thin dime of Social Security, and all my "contributions" are really just charity for the Flower Children of the Baby Boom.

so, in breif, I am taxed at 6+% and my employer "matches" my "Contribution" to ensure that old farts continue to get their cheques so they can continue to lobby for bigger cheques, and higher taxes on ME, the cat who is paying THEIR DEBBTS

The reality is that "THEIR DEBBTS" created the system & all the business's and infrastructure that your inheriting from our labors. You have that advantage, we had to pay for our elders directly.....hence Social Security.........consider it a road tax.......

 

[UncleBuck]

derp derp derp

it is NOT "solvent for decades"...

yes it is.

 

[UncleBuck]

You left out the part about the Big Mac getting a lot smaller.

citation needed.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The reality is that "THEIR DEBBTS" created the system & all the business's and infrastructure that your inheriting from our labors. You have that advantage, we had to pay for our elders directly.....hence Social Security.........consider it a road tax.......

are you suggesting that "You Didnt Build That"?

those who accepted the government's promises and are now retired and counting on those benefits should continue to receive them, but the system needs to be fixed or dismantled for those of us who will NEVER get the benefits they are still promising, even though they know it's a lie.

that's the problem, not that geezers arent forced to eat dog food in the rain.

you are making assumptions based on the rhetoric from washington, not the discussion at hand.

nowhere in this thread has there been any mention of dismantling the Social Security program immediately, or pushing those currently receiving benefits onto the street, or putting old people onto ice floes, or opening up a Soylent Green factory.

those are all straw men created by the defenders of the Status Quo for a program which is doomed to fail if it is not fixed, which will leave cats my age BONED when we are no longer able to keep working, unless they have a private pension or a trust fund.

 

[Dr Kynes]

yes it is.

Citation Needed

the trustees' report assumes that the IOU's which are all thats left in the "Trust Fund" will be paid back by the government, that is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, instead the problem will be pushed down the road untill some other administration has to deal with it (hopefully a Republican Administration)

when the IOU's have to be cashed in the economy will get one more huge kick in the balls, and i dont think our current "Constitutional Scholar" is up to the task.

you may snivel and cry and insist otherwise, but the Social Security trust Fund is just a box full of IOU's which are currently NOT PAYABLE since the govt is BROKE.

unless the raise our taxes YET AGAIN to pay off the IOU's the trust fund is a myth.

 

[NLXSK1]

false.

he said "withheld from the paycheck". the employer's share is not withheld from the paycheck, smarty.

he also confined the scope of his statement very specifically to social security, and not medicare.

keep defending the indefensible kynes.

It most certainly is witheld from the paycheck. You dont receive it in your paycheck, therefore it is ....WITHELD...

The part you dont seem to understand is that the additional amount you have not received does not happen to be written on the check.

Your lack of comprehension of reality is not my problem thank goodness...

 

[UncleBuck]

It most certainly is witheld from the paycheck. You dont receive it in your paycheck, therefore it is ....WITHELD...

The part you dont seem to understand is that the additional amount you have not received does not happen to be written on the check.

Your lack of comprehension of reality is not my problem thank goodness...

even kynes thinks you're naive for believing that employers would pass on the 6.2% to employees rather than pocket it.

i know you haven't worked since you watched people sew badges for the men folk during the gulf conflict, but i have. and there is only one line for withholding for SS, and it is 6.2% (not 15%).

go nurse your delusions elsewhere.

 

[kelly4]

citation needed.

This has been shown to you before. Why do you need things shown to you over and over again?

You really should work on retaining information the first time you see it. It would save everyone a lot of time not having to retype things multiple times.

Learn to intelligence.

 

[Red1966]

thats true, We should demand that the special bonds that are being held by social security fund be redeemed, and the money returned to the fund for REAL investment OR returned to the contributors. Except your wrong about it being a PONZI. The monies were not pyramidded. The monies were stolen with a big fat IOU so that the fund was not able to grow to meet future needs. Thats actually embezzelment isn't it ?

Not when the gubernunt does it! You're forgetting they can just print more. That's why a loaf of bread that cost $0.03 in 1920 costs $2.89 now.

 

[UncleBuck]

This has been shown to you before. Why do you need things shown to you over and over again?

You really should work on retaining information the first time you see it. It would save everyone a lot of time not having to retype things multiple times.

Learn to intelligence.

nonthinkist showed me a picture of some australian burgers off a blog. mcdonalds denies the charge.

citation still needed.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not when the gubernunt does it! You're forgetting they can just print more. That's why a loaf of bread that cost $0.03 in 1920 costs $2.89 now.

still $0.99 or less in this neck of the woods.

what happened to wages in the same time, herr red?