Blue said:
You mean I shouldnt count on that money being there when I'm older and grayer? (sarcasm)
Fanning Those Political Flames
- Thread starter bcroz
- Start date
You mean I shouldnt count on that money being there when I'm older and grayer? (sarcasm)
MarkP said:
Sad thing is....social/political/tax reform is really as easy as that. The way things are now, you tell someone the job they're interviewing for pays $10/hr. They look up at the ceiling and do some rudimentary math in their heads, "Hmmmm....OK...so that's $400/week....call it about $340-350 after taxes....that's about $1400 per month.....rent is $750 and gas is about $100....damn, I'll be rich! OK, I'll take the job!" That's about as close as the average person gets to understanding taxes.
I look at my paystub and want to scream. I try not to look at the YTD withholdings breakdown, but it's like that zit on your date's forehead...you just can't look away.
I agree Blue. Its all good when people do the fact check. Problem is that soooo many people don't. I don't have a problem with an innocent mistake especially since bcroz even replied. That is rare though. Too many times people just take this stuff for granted, merely because it supports their point of view. We might be internet savy, but there are plenty of people that just get this shit in email and believe it without even considering where it came from.
Brian
Brian
Well, I really have serious issues with how the SS system in managed, and the fact that money is taken out and replaced with IOU's so they can use it in the general funds.
However, if it were all privatized, I expect alot of people would loose their shirts (investing in Enron type stocks). So then what would the government do about all the destitute people? If nothing else they'd be a health hazard as their decomposing bodies lie about.
LOL Yeah, I know it's extreme, but when you think about doing away with something, think it all the way through to the consequences. I sure don't have the answer. Well, honest government would be one answer, but that appears to be a contradiction in terms.
However, if it were all privatized, I expect alot of people would loose their shirts (investing in Enron type stocks). So then what would the government do about all the destitute people? If nothing else they'd be a health hazard as their decomposing bodies lie about.
LOL Yeah, I know it's extreme, but when you think about doing away with something, think it all the way through to the consequences. I sure don't have the answer. Well, honest government would be one answer, but that appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Blue said:
...still trying to fuck myself...read it on the internet so I know I can....er, Ugh...OOF!
pimps
The question I have is: why am I forced to pay into a retirement program (social security) that I don't wish to participate in? Am I too ignorant to invest my own money to save for retirement? Is the government concerned that I'll be destitute if I don't participate in SS? Contrary to what antichrist writes, there are non-Enron companys to invest in. My 401k has done fine over the last 10 years; not stellar but I'll live with it vs. social security.
G
Greg P
Guest
You could take the money you pay into social security and invest it in a simple C.D. and end up with more money at the end than what you'll get to realize with social security. I mean, how does it pan out when I only get about 10% back for what I pay in.
At least if I could invest my own funds, I own them and my family or children or grandchildren or charity of my choice, or whomever could have them after I'm gone. With social security, you only get to have what you can draw, and then your spouse or child can only access a very limited portion of what is left under certain circumstances.
The bigger problem is that the gov. has promised millions of baby boomers that they will get their social security retirement, and without continuing to make us pay in, there is no money to pay out. It's a catch 22, and someone, somewhere will have to get screwed to change it. I imagine, it will be my generation (30 somethings) that has to pay to support the current and upcoming retirees. We will have to keep paying and probably won't get anything in return due to the time it will take to get a change made to the system.
At least if I could invest my own funds, I own them and my family or children or grandchildren or charity of my choice, or whomever could have them after I'm gone. With social security, you only get to have what you can draw, and then your spouse or child can only access a very limited portion of what is left under certain circumstances.
The bigger problem is that the gov. has promised millions of baby boomers that they will get their social security retirement, and without continuing to make us pay in, there is no money to pay out. It's a catch 22, and someone, somewhere will have to get screwed to change it. I imagine, it will be my generation (30 somethings) that has to pay to support the current and upcoming retirees. We will have to keep paying and probably won't get anything in return due to the time it will take to get a change made to the system.
Mike_Rupp said:
Oh come on, don't put words in my mouth. I said:
...I expect alot of people would loose their shirts (investing in Enron type stocks).
I didn't say everyone would loose their shirts. My point was that at the time even Enron looked like a safe bet. Ok, so you can invest wisely, what about the people who don't have a clue, or the people who know well, but some executives rip off the company and destroy people's life savings?
For the people who get their savings/investments destroyed by crooked people, do we federally insure their investements? How much would that cost?
My point is that privatising SS isn't as cut and dry as alot of folks make it out to be, not that it's either right or wrong, it just needs to be fully thought through. Something our legislatures are known to do very poorly.
G
Greg P
Guest
Well, how about a system where the money you pay in belongs to you. In other words, it is invested in something like gov. bonds, but the investment belongs to you and you control it yourself. A sort of required savings retirement plan, but you retain control of it. Would that make it better than letting people take a chance on getting great returns or loosing it?
I mean, you are talking the difference between capitalism and socialism.
I mean, you are talking the difference between capitalism and socialism.
G
Greg P
Guest
A
AgentSkull
Guest
AgentSkull said:Without question. No matter who gets elected today we will continue to pay it.
Sad, but true. The truth of the matter is SS reform is almost an oxymoron. The animal is huge and needs to constantly feed.
Last edited:
Speaking of YTD, I need a WRITE OFF AND FAST!!!!!!! I have school but this is not going to cut it!?!?! I will be taking apps now for kids. I would prefer they be at least over the age of 12 and can drive! LOL! Seriously, I pay more in taxes being single with no write-offs..I need another mortgage!
RoverChic said:Speaking of YTD, I need a WRITE OFF AND FAST!!!!!!! I have school but this is not going to cut it!?!?! I will be taking apps now for kids. I would prefer they be at least over the age of 12 and can drive! LOL! Seriously, I pay more in taxes being single with no write-offs..I need another mortgage!
Yup. Bummer. Buy and house and then a second house, rental prop, maybe take out a home equity loan that you can right off and do up the rover or get a boat or RV. Then you can adopt me and my wife, we're great cooks too! I'm sure Blue will chime in on this one.
But remember you ain't really saving anything by spending more.
Last edited:
C
campbell
Guest
Greg P said:
I'd say a vast majority of the American population could invest better than this...
If they can't, fuck em there ignorant.
I have some friends that together make a decent living. They have been married for about 5 years and have yet to set-up a retirement fund. I don't get it... Apparently some people really do rely on SS for retirement. It's nobody's fault but there own.
[On Soap box]
What about Welfare. I suppose there are those on here that think it's a good thing. Aside from doing away with welfare entirely, I think this would be a great program (I think Minnesota does something like this...). They can only be on welfare for 2 years. In that time they are being trained for a particular trade of their choice. After 2 years they are helped in finding a job and are off welfare forever. No more extra money for the 26 kids they popped out. Don't give me the lame ass excuse about how they do not have the opportunities that middle and upper class have. Horseshit. I worked pretty hard to get where I am. Granted I did not grow up poor, but I didn't grow-up rich either. Lower middle class, actually. No one handed me anything and said here, do nothing. I had to actually get off my ass and go to school, go to college (which I am still paying for), and get a job. This is more of a State government issue than Federal, but.
[Off Soap box]
P
Peter-man99
Guest
Mike_Rupp said:
Hey Mike if you want I can take a look at your 401k options and screen the funds here at work. If you want to invest outside of your 401k, like into a Roth IRA, I would put my money in the Dodge & Cox funds. They are "no-loads" with low expense ratios and have phenominal performance. You don't hear us financial advisors telling people about them because we don't get paid for selling them but they are great funds.
Peter