Social Security renamed? check this out.

37 replies [Last post]
Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment.
This isn't a benefit its earned income!
Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.

Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration
(google it!!

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)!
I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them.

And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed.
And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments?

And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!
Lets take a stand.

We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare.
Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom Social Security

Part of the problem is we have people that haven't paid anything into this "bucket" and yet they're collecting benefits. One person that comes to mind is President Obama's aunt. She has never worked a day and it's reported that she is receiving $700 SS disability check each month. Care to guess how many others are doing the same?

The SS bucket is emptying fast. Every day, for the next 20 years, 10,000 individuals will turn 65.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cy

We've had a Congress that has had years to reform SS. Fraud of the use of disability, etc. has been a problem, but those who misused these funds were those who borrowed from it. Let's don't conveniently overlook that fact. Did Obama's aunt ever get a paycheck in this country? Are there really that many people who never paid into SS? So those that did should suffer because of the poor oversight and management of the funds? In this 'crisis', government employees received a raise. I know one group that did not deserve it - the US Congress. Think about it - those 10,000 who turn 65 may live past 90! We need representatives who have the brain power and foresight to deal with realities of the 21st century. 2013 has many challenges.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Congress - DM

Get's a pay raise in March, thanks to President Obama!

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21720/fiscal-cliff-2013-obama-gives-th...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
No Testicular fortitude PTCO..

Congress doesn't have the uhhhh... male parts to do anything about it... Never has.

Too many people are standing in line looking for their share of the Taxpayer pie and after Nov.6th even more believe Government is their own personal Piggy Bank.

We (Conservatives/Libertarians) have been preaching that Medicare and Social Security has been and is going broke but yet the Progressives just keep saying we where Fear Mongers. Was it Gort, Lion or the "other" one that said it was self-funding and will never go broke?

Yet here we are today. With Politicians on both sides saying, with a somewhat shocked look on their face, that it is going broke.

REALLY????

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
btw-Who paid their FAIR SHARE ...

https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/286124774743224321/photo/1/large

but let's tax them some more and cut no spending... Yet there are those here that are certain Government is going to cut spending... As Rosie O'Donnell once said... DELUSIONAL

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - A QUESTION (Another one)

Did you look at the chart that you posted? Do you really feel that the MIDDLE PORTION OF OUR TAXPAYERS should be paying the bulk of our revenue from taxes? Wouldn't it be great if we all sacrificed an equal portion of our income to help curtail the deficit? I know, I know - delusional.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
The Middle Portion???

DM clean your glasses please...

The Top 20% is NOT the Middle Portion.

...and yes it would be nice if the 49% actually paid their fair share.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
The chart is basically meaningless

And Happy New Year SL!

The chart is basically meaningless; a propaganda piece. Most of the income of the top 20% is not earned income. Your chart shows the tax burden compared to earned income but the taxes paid by the top 20% are mostly from unearned income like dividends and capital gains which the lower 80% generally do not have, or if they do have some unearned income it's a miniscule part of their overall income.

Show me a chart with taxes paid as a percentage of the total increase in net worth per year for the top 20% and the bottom 80% and we'll see if fair share argument holds up.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So JeffC are you say the top 20% does NOT pay the highest..

.... percentage of taxes..?

Just want to be clear this is what you are saying.. because the IRS would disagree with you.

It is not rather percentages of net worth increase /decrease or whatever "caveat" you wish to place the issue is who pays the most in taxes PERIOD and who really pays their "Fair Share".

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
S. Lindsey-You must understand

You must understand. The 50% of America that pays no taxes are really upset with the 50% that aren't paying their fair share!!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yep.. that sounds right Dude...

Even after all of the evidence there are those just can't get it through their thick skulls that the "EVIL" Rich already pay most of the taxes an the $82 BILLION dollars this is going to raise with do NOTHING for the $1.4 TRILLION in deficit spending in 2012 alone....

Yet they just keep on perpetrating the myth.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

just can't get it through their thick skulls

Oops! You're not as secure as I thought you were. LOL! But some love you anyway.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM..

...and the perpetrators keep perpetrating...

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
It's propaganda SL

Your income tax chart is essentially meaningless and is usually presented to make the point that the top 10% or so of the people are paying all the taxes which is fundamentally untrue.

Those people with higher incomes undoubtedly pay the most income tax. So what? The government raises 47% of its revenue from income tax, 36% from payroll taxes, 8% from corporate income taxes and 9% from everything else like estate and excise taxes (and the temporary tax on rubber that was imposed during WWII).

If I were to produce a chart of payroll taxes paid by income group instead of your income taxes paid by income group, my chart would show that the top 5% o the income group paid virtually no payroll taxes compared to the bottom 95%. How could it not? The top 5% in income own and control 67% of everything but there are not that many of them. Just 6000 families in the US own 72% of everything. That's why your income tax chart is misleading. The massive discrepancy in income between the top 5% and everybody else skews the data.

By the same logic, my hypothetical chart of payroll taxes paid has to show the top 5% paying miniscule comparative payroll taxes simply because of the overwhelming number of people in the lower 95% of income earners. The top 5% of income earners is not 5% of the population, it's 3 thousandths of the population. The data is the payroll taxes chart would be skewed because the comparison is between hundreds of millions of people paying payroll taxes on every dollar of their income compared to only a few who max out at whatever the top payroll tax is.

You use your chart to support the argument that the rich pay all the income taxes; ignoring all other taxes including ignoring state taxes which are disproportionate to lower incomes. The left uses my payroll data/chart to make the argument that the rich pay virtually no payroll tax and therefore their taxes should be raised by virtue of raising or eliminating the maximum payroll tax and making everybody pay payroll taxes on their entire income.

Both are interesting but both are also BS propaganda. The real down and dirty tell is what percentage of your total income is paid in taxes if you're actually discussing the total tax burden by income group instead of selectively presenting slivers of data hat are advantageous to proving either sides preconceived arguments. Not income taxes or payroll taxes or state taxes or anything except all taxes period added up by income group. Here it is:

0-20% income pay 17.4% of their income in taxes.
People making 20-40 % of the average income pay 21.2% of their income in taxes.
40-60% income group = 25.2 tax rate
60-80% income group = 28.3% tax rate
80-90% income group = 29.5 % tax rate
90-95% income group = 30/% tax rate.
90-95% income group = 30.4% tax rate.
Top 1% = 29% tax rate.

It doesn't seem outrageous to me, nor or the rich unduly burdened.

Here are sources:

Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From?

The one tax graph

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
YOUR fair share
JeffC wrote:

The chart is basically meaningless;

Obama's policies are meaningless too, el Jeffe- they do nothing to address the problem with the obamo-deficit and the obamo-over-spending and the obamaconomy and the obama-unemployment.

Tell you what - use the "fair share" calculator in the link below and find out if your paying YOUR fair share. If your not, then you can send what you owe directly to me. I can guarantee that it will be put to good use.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fair-share-tax-calculator/?utm_source=f...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SL: that would be lion

Lion is very math-challenged.

I think the "we" of conservatives/libertarians have done actually a poor job of presenting our agenda and not being able to compete against the message coming from the other side that the government will take care of you no matter what and there exists an endless supply of money out there with no consequences to spending. "Hey, you'll be dead when the bill comes due...who cares?" Need better candidates and better messaging. Repubs do have a few up and comers that seem to get that and the LP will always be around to try and steer some discussion towards liberty and freedom, two things that Saxby Chambliss has no clue about as evidenced earlier this week. If Dems want to call someone a fear-mongerer, they'd have the right target in Chambliss is a real disappointment.

While going over the the fiscal cliff is just insane and devoid of anything resembling good governance, maybe a little or a LOT of pain would snap some Americans back into reality, they would get PO'd, and demand better for something more than the next few months and start thinking more long-term. Yeah, that's a fantasy I have that isn't likely to happen.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Nuk speaking of Fantasy's...

I too have that one .. the one where Americans wake up and see that Government is the problem.. that Government has created the mess and that the so-called "solutions" dreamed up by Government only does more harm then good... That American's realize that we have to become self-reliant once again and something called personal responsibility takes hold in America like it used to be.

But like you I doubt it. With the Progressive styled Education system giving out participation trophy's telling failing students that they are special. Where Red Ink is considered demeaning. Where History is not taught nor is the Constitution but yet Social Studies and Government are the main courses. We will most likely not save this Generation. They have been raised by the Government, educated by the Government and many employed by the Government so that they have no real critical thinking ability.

But I too dream of the day where we wake up and Government has returned to the limiting restrictions of the Constitution...where Freedom once again reigns throughout the land.

But I too live in Reality and don't believe this is going to happen any time soon... at least not without a lot of pain.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - A QUESTION

Did you receive the same education as the illustrious Senators Akin and Mourdock?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well there you go again DM.. There's that condescending..

...attitude we all know and... well... love.

I have told you before DM.. Your Academic Pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my arguments.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL-LOL

You didn't answer the question! What do you know about my 'academic pedigree? LOL!!!!! You are the unchallenged conservative expert here SL. Possibly both Senators?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm if you ask a legitimate question ...

.. I will answer it. But asking a question with sarcastic intent with the obvious intent to belittle is well beneath an answer but it is what you do best.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL -

No one can 'belittle' a secure individual . Sir/Madam - you reap what you sow. You are evidently extremely secure - I still have some growing to do. Have a wonderful New Year.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Your point?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Point

" We need representatives who have the brain power and foresight to deal with realities of the 21st century. 2013 has many challenges."

In the meantime those that got us into this mess, well we give them a pay raise. Seems to be a disconnect with Mr. Obama, who seems to be fighting with Congress but then gives them a pay raise.

Now, I heard this morning that Mr. Obama is just not going to put up with the Congress not approving a debt level increase on things that have already been spent. After all, he said, "we can't simply cut spending into prosperity". Really?

Pretty sad commentary on just how much Mr. Obama understands economics and free markets. So much for brain power and foresight I guess.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

The brainpower and foresight was exhibited from 2001-2008. Also the brilliant maneuvering that caused us to lose our credit rating. The intelligent Georgia representatives are just amazing. We'll see what 2014 brings. You can continue to blame all of this mess on Obama. With this kind of blind support for the current Republican policies which are not viewed as concerned as working for all Americans, this trend just may add to the 47% that voted Democrat in the state of Georgia . Got your point loud and clear ! (Especially the denial of voting rights to government employees.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I am

NOT a Republican and don't support their policies, which are exactly the same as Democrats only the money goes into different pockets.

I am happy you understand the need to limit the franchise to those that actually pay the bills DM.

Either we limit government or all go down together in a sea of red ink.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

SARCASM NOTED: Only fools would try to disenfranchise women and/or minorities who work for the government. There are ways to limit government without going down in a sea of red ink. To use the current brain power that exist in Congress today is a joke. It is not the American people that the current representatives are working for - but the corporations and lobbyists that are lining their pockets. Oh well, I hope that the goal of a balanced budget with a surplus at the end of an administration can be realized within the next 15 years. In the meantime, I hope that we don't 'cut' our infrastructure and the health of our citizens trying to realize that goal.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTCO & Pay Raise

Do believe the House voted to not allow the pay raise to go into effect!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
AHG - You're

correct, but the increase was approved for other federal employees starting March. It is not entirely clear that they won't eventually get their increase later in the year.

"The Weekly Standard reported that, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., has sent his colleagues a letter urging them to take up legislation to reject the increase. "We believe that it is inappropriate for Members of Congress to receive a pay increase of any size while American families and taxpayers continue to face tough economic times," the letter states."

IMHO, all of them should be demoted out of office.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTCO & Pay Raises

All Iknow is that as a Federal annuitant (21 yrs active duty mil/21 yrs civil svc) I got an unexpected 1.7 % costof living increase when I only expected the 1.7 increase in Social Security. Doesn't amt to much, few more beans & bullets!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
AHG - Want

a bigger increase?

Well if you give up your right to vote as a recipient of federal benefit payments, you wouldn't pay the amount of tax that you're currently paying to the Feds. Why? Sending money that the federal government sends you back to the federal government is simply moving money around. It actually costs taxpayers money in the form of the bureaucracy that handles this transaction nonsense. You should keep this money as should all workers and retirees of government federal, state and local. You would of course give up the vote.

We simply need to realize that the government is a scam operation that is impoverishing future generations.

Think about it, when was your vote meaningful?

Thanks for your service and I sincerely mean this.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Draft Stormwater letter

Hey Steve, you get my email with subj attached?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
AHG...

Got it.. doesn't want to open... Can you re-send in another format?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Draft Letter

It is a Microsoft Works Word Processor document--you hav e word? I'll try to send it in another format.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.

I get so upset with our elected "leaders" when they blame Social Security for part of the deficit. Ronald Regan explains how Social Security did not contribute to the deficit. Our "leaders" today are trying to steal from us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
G35 Dude - Trying?

You're kidding right?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
100% correct, Mom. There really should be a revolt over this

And one additional point about your calculations - if one did not live to 98, the unused portion of that investment would be passed along to children or estate - unlike social security which simply ends the day you die.

Or, if you didn't need social security to live on, that $1.3 million could easily grow into 2 or 3 times that and that could be passed to the next generation.

But instead we have allowed the government to spend that money on foolish vote-buying projects which eliminates any possible financial independence, making us more dependent upon government handouts and benefits (as they now call social security). This is a much bigger deal that a tax on a shipload of tea in Boston harbor and look at the reaction to that (a real revolution) vs. this (nothing). Really sad.

Recent Comments