Social Security Withholdings Reduced to 4.2% for 2010

[Clove]

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/tax-law-means-bigger-2011-paychecks/

Tax law means bigger 2011 paychecks
By Kay Bell · Bankrate.com
Tuesday, December 21
Posted: 12 pm ET
Not so long ago when it looked like the Bush tax cuts might expire, we were all worrying about the possibility of shrinking paychecks.

Now we're worrying if our employers can get the new withholding tables in place to make sure our paydays will be bigger.

A 2 percent payroll tax cut is part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. The payroll tax is the portion that goes to pay for Social Security.

For the next few days, that withholding is 6.2 percent of your paycheck.

But on Jan. 1, 2011, the amount withheld drops to 4.2 percent of your income earned next year, up to $106,800. If you make up to that taxable earnings cap, this 2 percent reduction translates into tax savings of $2,136.

Of course, since Congress took so long to pass the tax relief act, the Internal Revenue Service and employers are in a bit of tough spot in implementing the changes.

The IRS just issued new withholding tables reflecting not only the payroll tax cut, but also the newly extended 2011 income tax rates and the previously scheduled expiration of the Making Work Pay tax credit. (Remember, this tax credit is still in effect for 2010, so you can claim it on your returns you'll file next year.)

That's a lot of changing numbers, but now all employers have to do is put the new tables in place. But, as any payroll administrator will tell you, that's easier said than done.

So the IRS is giving workplaces some time to take care of the new withholding. The agency has instructed employers to implement them "as soon as possible in 2011 but not later than Jan. 31, 2011."

And if an employer does end up withholding the payroll tax from workers at the higher 6.2 percent rate, the IRS says the employers must reimburse the workers the difference "not later than March 31, 2011."

So be sure to check your first paycheck next month and if you have any questions about the amount, check with your boss about whether (or when) the new, lower payroll withholding tax is in place.

In addition to tax information at Bankrate.com, get more news, money-saving tips and expert advice by signing up for a free Bankrate newsletter.



Read more: Tax law means bigger 2011 paychecks | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/tax-law-means-bigger-2011-paychecks/#ixzz1A06b2lwsWe're underfunding Social Security. What's the logic behind reducing withholdings?

Discuss.

[Tgo01]

We're underfunding Social Security. What's the logic behind reducing withholdings?

So people have more money which the government hopes they will in turn spend to help spur the economy?

[Clove]

So people have more money which the government hopes they will in turn spend to help spur the economy?Not gonna help people retire, which is what Social Security is for.

[NocturnalRob]

Not gonna help people retire, which is what Social Security is for.
Short-term solutions are what this economy has been built on for the past decade or so.

[Tgo01]

Not gonna help people retire, which is what Social Security is for.

People could opt to put that money in a savings account or invest it. Also who cares about the woes of tomorrow? That's what future generations and politicians are for. I'm all about the now baby.

[Clove]

Short-term solutions are what this economy has been built on for the past decade or so.They're working really well too.
People could opt to put that money in a savings account or invest it...If they do that, how will it help the economy today?

[Bobmuhthol]

Investing helps the economy today.

I am exempt from FICA for half the year anyway.

[Atlanteax]

I wish you could opt-out from social security.

You don't have to pay taxes into it. But you don't get any benefits either.

If you end up old and broke, that's your own personal problem to deal with.

[Delias]

I don't know, but I do know SOMEONE will be getting an extra eight dollars a week! heh.

[Clove]

Investing helps the economy today.

I am exempt from FICA for half the year anyway.Yeah, we had this argument a couple years ago. Apparently, saving and investing take money out of the economy so they damage it; so they say.
I wish you could opt-out from social security.

You don't have to pay taxes into it. But you don't get any benefits either.

If you end up old and broke, that's your own personal problem to deal with.Social Security is taxable.

[Bobmuhthol]

Taking money out of the economy is contractionary but not necessarily bad, and there's a difference between financial investing and real investing. Real investing helps the economy every time (it's a component of GDP).

[NocturnalRob]

Social Security is taxable.
Right. I believe he was suggesting that you could opt out of Social Security altogether. As in, it wouldn't be deducted from your paycheck, but upon retirement, you couldn't benefit from the system.

[NocturnalRob]

Real investing helps the economy every time
I wish I had done some real investing. Brazil's economy is hot right now.

[crb]

Actually I read this week that SS has a surplus (or something). I don't remember where or I'd link it. Medicare is the one in the crapper big time.

But, I do like this, because it helps everyone, even rich people like me and Parkbandit. Unlike all previous stimulus tax rebates or credits, this has no income phaseout. Anyone who has payroll taxes taken out gets it, you, me, LeBron, everyone.

And, I'll tell you what, it works. We just ordered a new car, an option heavy 2011 Ford Explorer, and we were debating whether or not to get the 20 inch chrome wheels, an upgrade that costs $1000. I reminded my wife that this little stimulus will give us an extra $3000 (or so) this year, and the wheels were a go.

As for social security, I really don't give a shit about it. I'm too young to expect any benefits whatsoever when I retire, so I really don't care if the system dies sooner than anticipated. It needs reform, if underfunding it means it gets reformed sooner out of necessity, so be it.

But I will do my patriotic duty and spend the extra money.

[Bobmuhthol]

Social security deductions stop after some level of income, so yeah, there is an income phaseout.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, we had this argument a couple years ago. Apparently, saving and investing take money out of the economy so they damage it; so they say.

Possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said on this message board and potentially in your entire life.

Savings in any financial institution counts as a deposit on hand and allows that institution to loan out more money to be used. More money to loan out means more economic activity and thus greater wealth generated, more taxes collected and pretty much good things all around, within reason which is why we have laws that govern how much you can loan based off your deposits. By the way, if you save 10 dollars, the bank can typically loan out 100 dollars and that can happen through many iterations thereby having a far greater possible impact to the economy than just spending 10 dollars.

Investing provides direct capitol for business faster than savings does through loans. This is a somewhat more limited method of stimulating the economy but in exchange for the reduced magnitude of possible effect, you get a much more immediate result in most cases. If you are interested in an economics professor explaining all this to your dopamine addled little mind, you can watch this series of videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

Originally linked in the signature of another poster so don't get off on me stealing someone else's source.

Or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6y6SfyYhI8

[Gan]

My goal is not to need SS when I'm ready to retire. That way I'm not fucked when it's not there to dish out.

Then again, if I have my way I'll never really fully retire.

[Clove]

Possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said on this message board and potentially in your entire life.Not as retarded as your diatribe considering that in the original argument I argued that savings and investments did not remove money from the economy. So thanks for agreeing with me dumbass.
Taking money out of the economy is contractionary but not necessarily bad, and there's a difference between financial investing and real investing. Real investing helps the economy every time (it's a component of GDP).I guess the "so they say" wasn't sarcastic enough. That was exactly my point in the original argument. I think it was another Tsa'ah school of life economics. Thankfully we have Rocktard now to "instruct" us.


Social security deductions stop after some level of income, so yeah, there is an income phaseout.Income over $106,800, specifically.

My goal is not to need SS when I'm ready to retire. That way I'm not fucked when it's not there to dish out.

Then again, if I have my way I'll never really fully retire.You're kinda fucked either way since they're taking money from your income you'll never see again.

[Danical]

Then again, if I have my way I'll never really fully retire.

^

I'd love to teach at the college level as my retirement.

[crb]

Social security deductions stop after some level of income, so yeah, there is an income phaseout.

There is an income phaseout on SS taxes, there is not an income phaseout on this tax cut.

Every rebate stimulus for awhile has had a phaseout, typically around $150,000 for a couple you get diminishing returns, and other stimuli like child tax credits also have phaseouts. Even things like interest on student loans gets phased out. I haven't gotten any of that shit.

But, this stimulus tax relief has no income phaseout, no matter how much money you make, you can make 10 million dollars a year, and you'll still pay 2% less on your first ~$106k.

If it had a phaseout it'd mean that if you earned over 150k you wouldn't get any rebate on your SS tax.

Get it?

[crb]

Oh, Rocktar is right, money invested (saved) is not taken out of the economy. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't being used.

Only if you stuff it in your mattress or buy a bunch of gold or something and then stuff the gold in your mattress (or a vault with a diving board) would it be taken out of the economy.

It doesn't directly drive consumer spending, as literal consumer spending would, but... that may be overblown in importance (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0117/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events-cartoon-economics.html).

[~Rocktar~]

Not as retarded as your diatribe considering that in the original argument I argued that savings and investments did not remove money from the economy.

And yet here, you do, how retarded is that?

Don't answer, I know you have strained your quark sized brain enough for today. Give it a rest, please, for everyone's sake.

[~Rocktar~]

Oh, Rocktar is right, money invested (saved) is not taken out of the economy. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't being used.

Only if you stuff it in your mattress or buy a bunch of gold or something and then stuff the gold in your mattress (or a vault with a diving board) would it be taken out of the economy.

It doesn't directly drive consumer spending, as literal consumer spending would, but... that may be overblown in importance (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0117/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events-cartoon-economics.html).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

That cartoon is motherfucking funny as hell!

And about the best criticism of the financial market.

[Stretch]

I'm expecting to get nothing from Social Security by the time I'm eligible for benefits.

Just assume it's charity for old people, and give other charities 6.2% less of your money.

EDIT: haha, wtf is with those tildas in Rocktar's handle? I thought he was an angry white dude, not a teenage Korean girl.

[waywardgs]

He's an angry white dude with a teenage korean girl in his basement.

[Back]

If given the option I wonder how many people would choose SS or 401k?

If you had to have one or the other which would you choose?

Myself? I like safe bets.

[NocturnalRob]

So...401(k)?

[crb]

If given the option I wonder how many people would choose SS or 401k?

If you had to have one or the other which would you choose?

Myself? I like safe bets.

One is a ponzi scheme that relies on an ever increasing number of workers and/or a decrease or unchanged life expectancy to maintain funding.

You might ask people if they'd rather get $1000, or $10,000, and people would choose $10,000 naturally, but that doesn't make it affordable for society.

The fact is, defined benefit retirement plans, be they SS or pensions, don't work. They're wishful thinking. They push companies and governments into insolvency.

[Parkbandit]

In related news....


WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- Some liberals say they fear U.S. President Obama will offer up Social Security to Republicans to help secure a "yes" vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

Recognizing that Social Security has long-term issues, advocates said they want to see its future handled through the congressional hearing process, not become part of a back-room deal, The Hill reported Tuesday.

Some conservatives say such fears are unfounded, guessing that Obama won't do anything unless he's elected to a second term since Social Security is such a volatile matter.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says he won't vote to raise the debt ceiling unless Social Security is reformed.

"I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligation, starting with Social Security," Graham said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press.

He said he wanted a "real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent," including "adjusting the age (and) looking at (a) means test for benefits."

Graham said Congress should review the Obama debt commission's Social Security recommendations, which included raising the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075, and lowering benefits for recipients in higher income brackets.

Liberals, already seething because of the tax package Obama recently negotiated with congressional Republicans, said they fear Social Security is at greater risk today than in 2005 when President George W. Bush proposed broad changes to the program, including personal accounts.

"What I am really afraid of is another deal behind closed doors," said Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works. "At least with President Bush, he went around the country on a tour and presented his plan and people didn't like it."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/04/Liberals-fear-for-Social-Security/UPI-73511294149368/

I'm sure most will agree that raising the debt ceiling is a clear indication of the President's failed leadership on this economic recession and his reckless fiscal policies.

What the Republicans should do is grant a very small increase in the debt ceiling with some pretty substantial cuts in government spending. Let this administration come begging again in 5-6 months when they go over their limit and get some more spending cuts pushed through.

[Parkbandit]

If given the option I wonder how many people would choose SS or 401k?

If you had to have one or the other which would you choose?

Myself? I like safe bets.

Which one is the "safe bet" in your mind?

[Keller]

But, I do like this, because it helps everyone, even rich people like me and Parkbandit.

When douchebags make douchey points, I miss longshot.

Fuck.

[EasternBrand]

When douchebags make douchey points, I miss longshot.

Fuck.

Sounds like someone's poor!

[Clove]

And yet here, you do, how retarded is that?

Don't answer, I know you have strained your quark sized brain enough for today. Give it a rest, please, for everyone's sake.Actually, I didn't. I made no argument and stated "they say" (implying those that argued against, prior). Now hush, the grown-ups are talking.

[Clove]

Sounds like someone's poor!

A tax lawyer in D.C. unlikely. If he's billed out at less than 200.00 bucks an hour I'll give up my hypno-lactating sex slave.

[Back]

I guess the question becomes who do you trust more with your retirement suppliment more? The government or investment bankers? Hard to tell between the two these days actually.

SS wasn’t meant to be something someone relied on completely. The real question is which has the better ROI.

Even then, if you are rich and do not need either, you should have the option not to pay into it if you do not intend to collect.

[NocturnalRob]

I guess the question becomes who do you trust more with your retirement suppliment
I stopped reading after this.

[Keller]

I guess the question becomes who do you trust more with your retirement suppliment more? The government or investment bankers? Hard to tell between the two these days actually.

SS wasn’t meant to be something someone relied on completely. The real question is which has the better ROI.

Even then, if you are rich and do not need either, you should have the option not to pay into it if you do not intend to collect.

Is it possible for a brain to have diarhea?

[NocturnalRob]

Is it possible for a brain to have diarhea?
Logorrhea

[Keller]

Logorrhea

My mind is blown.

[diethx]

Dysmenorrhea

[Keller]

Dysmenorrhea

My appetite is blown.

[diethx]

:(

[AnticorRifling]

If you order that at a bar you get a bloody mary and a punch in the face.

[Back]

Being wise is not the ability to regurgitate thoughts of others but to form your own no matter how erratic they may seem.

[diethx]

Being wise is not the ability to regurgitate thoughts of others but to form your own no matter how erratic they may seem.

That's not what being wise means.

[Back]

That's not what being wise means.

Well let me be just the first one to heap my praise upon you in thanks for sorting out that time old question that has perplexed many over the vast multitudes of years on this spinning dirtball in space we call Earth.

[RichardCranium]

If you order that at a bar you get a bloody mary and a punch in the face.

Otherwise known as an Ike Turner.

[NocturnalRob]

If you order that at a bar you get a bloody mary and a punch in the face.

Otherwise known as an Ike Turner.
I think that's a "Proud Mary and a punch in the face," isn't it?

[Atlanteax]

You're kinda fucked either way since they're taking money from your income you'll never see again.

This is part of why I despise social security ... partially in considering that you may die *before* you get to retire.

So you personally never get to benefit from that portion of working hard.

[crb]

In fact SS relies on people dying. When it was created life expectancy was, as I recall, a couple years LESS than the SS retirement age. So the average bloke never got it.

[Back]

This is part of why I despise social security ... partially in considering that you may die *before* you get to retire.

So you personally never get to benefit from that portion of working hard.

In your case that amounts to about 32¢. I think we can all live without it.

[Latrinsorm]

In fact SS relies on people dying. When it was created life expectancy was, as I recall, a couple years LESS than the SS retirement age. So the average bloke never got it.Life expectancy isn't a normal distribution though. Most people will live longer than the average life expectancy, because all the dead infants (:() can't be balanced out by people living to twice the life expectancy. If you can make it out of cradle you will probably make it to SS.
This is part of why I despise social security ... partially in considering that you may die *before* you get to retire.

So you personally never get to benefit from that portion of working hard.I think if a criterion for you despising things is not personally getting to benefit from them, you are going to be gravely disappointed in many facets of civilized society. There's always the anchoritic life!

[NocturnalRob]

If you can make it out of cradle you will probably make it to SS.
eh?

[Back]

I think if a criterion for you despising things is not personally getting to benefit from them, you are going to be gravely disappointed in many facets of civilized society. There's always the anchoritic life!

LOL. Yeah go live in an abandon subway.

[NocturnalRob]

Yeah go live in an abandon subway.
Like the Teenaged Mutanted Ninjaed Turtles?

[AnticorRifling]

Like the Teenaged Mutanted Ninjaed Turtles?

Ah ha yes is funny because he didn't use the "ed" on his word that needed it and you put it on all of yours to show it. HAHA subtle.

I love that guy on Family Guy.

[NocturnalRob]

I love that guy on Family Guy.
I'm sure you love a lot of guys.

And fuck you.

[Latrinsorm]

eh?Go to table 6 (page 26) of this (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf) report from the CDC, and you can see that the peak in death distribution is around 85. Once you get to around age 5, your life expectancy is a little over 80 as compared to 78 for infants. Obviously both groups will reach SS, but this is for 2007. I'm not sure what year crb is specifically referring to, but the general pattern gets more pronounced as you go back in time, when infant mortality was significantly higher.

[Back]

Like the Teenaged Mutanted Ninjaed Turtles?

No, like a bitter cold-war-minded entitled and privileged inherited non-progressive Republican who complains about entitlement, privilege and inherited wealth while never having to have worked a day in their life.

[NocturnalRob]

but the general pattern gets more pronounced as you go back in time, when infant mortality was significantly higher.
Nice. Will look at the whole thing when I have more time.

No, like a bitter cold-war-minded entitled and privileged inherited non-progressive Republican who complains about entitlement, privilege and inherited wealth while never having to have worked a day in their life.
Oh. I don't know any of those.

[Tgo01]

No, like a bitter cold-war-minded entitled and privileged inherited non-progressive Republican who complains about entitlement, privilege and inherited wealth while never having to have worked a day in their life.

Hey some of my best friends are bitter cold-war-minded entitled and privileged inherited non-progressive Republicans who complain about entitlement, privilege and inherited wealth while never having worked a day in their life! I call them CWMEAPINPRWCAEPAIWWNHWADITL for short.

[crb]

Go to table 6 (page 26) of this (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf) report from the CDC, and you can see that the peak in death distribution is around 85. Once you get to around age 5, your life expectancy is a little over 80 as compared to 78 for infants. Obviously both groups will reach SS, but this is for 2007. I'm not sure what year crb is specifically referring to, but the general pattern gets more pronounced as you go back in time, when infant mortality was significantly higher.

Whatever year in the 30s when it was introduced....

What do you know, the government has made a page on this exact topic:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html



So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21

That is your number. Only 54% of men who survived childhood were expected to survive adulthood long enough to collect SS when SS was created.

[Tgo01]

This is part of why I despise social security ... partially in considering that you may die *before* you get to retire.

So you personally never get to benefit from that portion of working hard.

This is the exact same reason I don't do things like pay taxes, go to the doctor or shower because I might die tomorrow anyways.

[Clove]

This is part of why I despise social security ... partially in considering that you may die *before* you get to retire.

So you personally never get to benefit from that portion of working hard.So you're not a life insurance man...

[Clove]

My mind is blown.

And spit...

[Bobmuhthol]

Social security isn't a savings plan. You're not supposed to pay money to yourself. Did you know that if you don't have children you are funding everyone else's education but not your children's? Holy fuck, let's stop paying taxes altogether.

[IorakeWarhammer]

Social security isn't a savings plan. You're not supposed to pay money to yourself. Did you know that if you don't have children you are funding everyone else's education but not your children's? Holy fuck, let's stop paying taxes altogether.

ahem. your tax dollars are HARD at work!

http://lh4.ggpht.com/bdasgupta/Rv1oleahBTI/AAAAAAAAASQ/iBDEpc1qtFA/buyavowel%5B2%5D.jpg

YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS!!! back in my day we walked 10 miles to school, barefoot, in the snow! and it was uphill both ways! we knew the real value of higher education! now you damn kids with your damn youtube and boobtube have no respect! and you can't take your eyes away from them damn iphones! no wonder they call the damn thing an eye phone! blast! why i oughta....

[Atlanteax]

I think if a criterion for you despising things is not personally getting to benefit from them, you are going to be gravely disappointed in many facets of civilized society. There's always the anchoritic life!

I benefit from public education, civil infrastructure, military defense, etc ... whether directly or indirectly, which portions of my tax dollars go to.

But the portion of my tax dollars that is in the name of social security, might as well be going to black hole, as there is no assurance I will be alive to benefit from it in the future.

I'd rather retain that portion for personal discretionary spending, or long-term investing ... the later of which I am still able to tap, if necessary (such as needing significant funds for purchasing a home).

[Atlanteax]

Social security isn't a savings plan. You're not supposed to pay money to yourself. Did you know that if you don't have children you are funding everyone else's education but not your children's? Holy fuck, let's stop paying taxes altogether.

Isn't social security broadly considered to be a "forced saving plan" ?

[Latrinsorm]

Whatever year in the 30s when it was introduced....

What do you know, the government has made a page on this exact topic:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html



That is your number. Only 54% of men who survived childhood were expected to survive adulthood long enough to collect SS when SS was created.There you go, so the average bloke was going to cash in (for about 12 days) before kicking the bucket. I would be happier with a full table like the one I found for 2007, but I see no reason not to place full and unconditional trust in our benevolent government overlords.

[Back]

I benefit from public education, civil infrastructure, military defense, etc ... whether directly or indirectly, which portions of my tax dollars go to.

But the portion of my tax dollars that is in the name of social security, might as well be going to black hole, as there is no assurance I will be alive to benefit from it in the future.

I'd rather retain that portion for personal discretionary spending, or long-term investing ... the later of which I am still able to tap, if necessary (such as needing significant funds for purchasing a home).

Go for it. Buy a stick of gum!

[Latrinsorm]

I benefit from public education, civil infrastructure, military defense, etc ... whether directly or indirectly, which portions of my tax dollars go to.

But the portion of my tax dollars that is in the name of social security, might as well be going to black hole, as there is no assurance I will be alive to benefit from it in the future.

I'd rather retain that portion for personal discretionary spending, or long-term investing ... the later of which I am still able to tap, if necessary (such as needing significant funds for purchasing a home).I don't follow. In the same way that somebody is currently benefiting from public education, surely somebody is currently benefiting from social security. Are you saying that the indirect benefits you derive from an educated public population are different in some fundamental way from the indirect benefits you derive from a sustained elderly population?

[Kembal]

Isn't social security broadly considered to be a "forced saving plan" ?

I think it's more considered part of the social safety net than a forced saving plan.

[Atlanteax]

I don't follow. In the same way that somebody is currently benefiting from public education, surely somebody is currently benefiting from social security. Are you saying that the indirect benefits you derive from an educated public population are different in some fundamental way from the indirect benefits you derive from a sustained elderly population?

I'm referring specifically to the concept that when I'm old and retired, I will be benefiting from social security, due to having paid into social security in my working years.

Social security was established on the government premise that people are incapable of providing for themselves in old age (as at the time, there were numerous instances of the elderly dying homeless and of starvation).

So I resent the $$ that I pay in social security taxes, is unavailable to me to put to better use, whether for longer-term investment or discretionary spending, due to the program being effectively a "forced saving plan".

Perhaps it is a more modern thought, that individuals plan for their long-term livelihood/retirement (as anticipated/expected in regard to the virtue of *personal responsibility*) ... but unfortunately, social security would be difficult to deconstruct while ensuring that those who did pay in, get their due benefits.

[Keller]

I'm referring specifically to the concept that when I'm old and retired, I will be benefiting from social security, due to having paid into social security in my working years.

And while you're middle aged and poorly dressed, you are benefitting from a sustained elderly population.

[Tgo01]

I'm referring specifically to the concept that when I'm old and retired, I will be benefiting from social security, due to having paid into social security in my working years.

Social security was established on the government premise that people are incapable of providing for themselves in old age (as at the time, there were numerous instances of the elderly dying homeless and of starvation).

So I resent the $$ that I pay in social security taxes, is unavailable to me to put to better use, whether for longer-term investment or discretionary spending, due to the program being effectively a "forced saving plan".

Perhaps it is a more modern thought, that individuals plan for their long-term livelihood/retirement (as anticipated/expected in regard to the virtue of *personal responsibility*) ... but unfortunately, social security would be difficult to deconstruct while ensuring that those who did pay in, get their due benefits.

The money you pay in social security taxes is not the money you receive when you retire. If that were the case social security payments would only last a couple of years. The money you pay now is going to help the ones who are receiving the benefits now, likewise when you retire the money the workers at that time pay in taxes is the money you receive.

[ClydeR]

The fact is, defined benefit retirement plans, be they SS or pensions, don't work.

That is the most important contention made by anybody in this thread. So far nobody has contested it. Is there a reliable source, in addition to the reliably reliable CRB, to support it?

[Keller]

when you retire the money the workers at that time pay in taxes is the money you receive.

And people complain about the birth rates of wetbacks and camel jockies in America. They're only helping us secure our social security.

[Atlanteax]

The money you pay in social security taxes is not the money you receive when you retire. If that were the case social security payments would only last a couple of years. The money you pay now is going to help the ones who are receiving the benefits now, likewise when you retire the money the workers at that time pay in taxes is the money you receive.

You still have to have paid-in a certain amount of $$ over a certain # of years to *qualify* for it.

Anyhow, I guess the simplistic version is that I don't equate social security on the same level as public education, civil infrastructure, and national security, as Latrinstorm seems to.

[Latrinsorm]

You still have to have paid-in a certain amount of $$ over a certain # of years to *qualify* for it.

Anyhow, I guess the simplistic version is that I don't equate social security on the same level as public education, civil infrastructure, and national security, as Latrinstorm seems to.I don't see why you don't, in the sense of things you directly or indirectly benefit from. You seem to be willing to consider indirect benefits from public education but not social security, and I don't get that.

[Tgo01]

You still have to have paid-in a certain amount of $$ over a certain # of years to *qualify* for it.

That doesn't change what I said at all though.

[crb]

And while you're middle aged and poorly dressed, you are benefitting from a sustained elderly population.

Unless you've got a vested interest in Matlock reruns or say, hearing aids, what exact benefit do middle aged working people receive from the existence of nonworking elderly individuals?

You might be able to claim benefits from education, from helping people prior to them entering the workforce.

However, most of those claims will not will work when the target group is done working.

Outside of some moral imperative or love for Grandma, which is the exact benefit we're paying for? No votes on gay marriage?

[crb]

That is the most important contention made by anybody in this thread. So far nobody has contested it. Is there a reliable source, in addition to the reliably reliable CRB, to support it?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unfunded+pension+liabilities

[ClydeR]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unfunded+pension+liabilities

Thanks so much for the link! But that just pointed to articles that say exactly the opposite of your position, like this one posted today from Pensions & Investments. Do you have anything that actually supports what you said?


Corporate plan funding ratio rises in Q4, L&G says
By Timothy Inklebarger
January 4, 2011, 4:27 PM ET

The funding ratio of the typical U.S. corporate defined benefit pension plan rose 11% in the fourth quarter to 91%, according to Legal & General Investment Management America.

“The 11% increase in funding ratios marks the largest quarter-over-quarter change since the inception” of the Pension Fiscal Fitness Monitor series, which dates back more than 15 years, Aaron Meder, head of U.S. pension solutions, said in a news release. “We estimate, on average, the U.S. corporate plan funding status is approaching 90%.”

The quarterly increase came from a combination of equity gains and liability decreases, according to L&G’s Pension Fiscal Fitness Monitor. “The fourth quarter was fueled by strong economic news, leading to higher pension funding levels as equity markets moved higher and bond yields rose,” Mr. Meder said in the release.

More... (http://www.pionline.com/article/20110104/DAILYREG/110109972)

[~Rocktar~]

Actually, I didn't. I made no argument and stated "they say" (implying those that argued against, prior). Now hush, the grown-ups are talking.

Let me know when cause if you are involved there isn't a plural there.

Don't change Clove, you are too fucking amusing.

[EasternBrand]

Unless you've got a vested interest in Matlock reruns or say, hearing aids, what exact benefit do middle aged working people receive from the existence of nonworking elderly individuals?

And to think they said death panels were a bad idea!

[Back]

And to think they said death panels were a bad idea!

I have not repped you but let me just say I love you.

[crb]

Thanks so much for the link! But that just pointed to articles that say exactly the opposite of your position, like this one posted today from Pensions & Investments. Do you have anything that actually supports what you said?

Try again, this time with gusto.

[Keller]

Unless you've got a vested interest in Matlock reruns or say, hearing aids, what exact benefit do middle aged working people receive from the existence of nonworking elderly individuals?

Not having a population of homeless old people? Or coworkers that are stressed because their in-laws have moved in for the foreseeable future? Or not having Beatrice the 83 year old incontinent woman suffering from dementia ringing up your purchase at Starbucks.

[crb]

coworker stress? Is that really it? Having less homeless people in the world does not benefit someone unless that person has a moral need for such. And Starbucks isn't going to hire Beatrice, they'll hire her grandaughter with the perkytits who is also willing to work for $8 an hour or whatever, and perkytits can move faster while she makes customers smile.

Weak arguments.

I think in general the reason people pay their social security taxes (other than because, you know, they have to) is because they want their social security benefits when they retire. If you remove that fact, which is probably true for people in their 20s and 30s today, then all you're left with is a straight wealth transfer out of a sense of morality or guilt.

Of course there is a more direct way to do that if you really feel you need to, give money to homeless people. 6.2% of your take home pay sounds about right.

This is merely an academic discussion of course, I don't actually think that we should send grandma off to the farm, but I do think that retired people on social security aren't actually contributing much to society at that point, not like you inferred in anycase.

[Kuyuk]

coworker stress? Is that really it? Having less homeless people in the world does not benefit someone unless that person has a moral need for such. And Starbucks isn't going to hire Beatrice, they'll hire her grandaughter with the perkytits who is also willing to work for $8 an hour or whatever, and perkytits can move faster while she makes customers smile.

Weak arguments.

I think in general the reason people pay their social security taxes (other than because, you know, they have to) is because they want their social security benefits when they retire. If you remove that fact, which is probably true for people in their 20s and 30s today, then all you're left with is a straight wealth transfer out of a sense of morality or guilt.

Of course there is a more direct way to do that if you really feel you need to, give money to homeless people. 6.2% of your take home pay sounds about right.

This is merely an academic discussion of course, I don't actually think that we should send grandma off to the farm, but I do think that retired people on social security aren't actually contributing much to society at that point, not like you inferred in anycase.


I love perky tits that work for $8 an hour.

Normally I pay them $2.14 and call them waitresses though.

[LMingrone]

All this bs could be narrowed down pretty easily.

Side 1: I have a blind sister who finished at the top of her class at UMASS. She's been busting her tits to find a job for years. If you were hiring, would you hire a blind girl? Nope.

Side 2: Piece of shit losers who rape the system. "I SO BROKE, WANNA COME PLAY SOME PS3? I'LL PICK YOU UP IN MY 350Z, RIGHT AFTER I PICK UP THE CHEESE!"

[Tgo01]

I think in general the reason people pay their social security taxes (other than because, you know, they have to) is because they want their social security benefits when they retire. If you remove that fact, which is probably true for people in their 20s and 30s today, then all you're left with is a straight wealth transfer out of a sense of morality or guilt.

If given the chance many people would opt out of paying taxes? Get out of here.

[Clove]

Let me know when cause if you are involved there isn't a plural there.

Don't change Clove, you are too fucking amusing.I'm sorry the grown-ups were talking again. Did you have a point? No? Okay, back the to the adult conversation.

[Keller]

coworker stress? Is that really it? Having less homeless people in the world does not benefit someone unless that person has a moral need for such. And Starbucks isn't going to hire Beatrice, they'll hire her grandaughter with the perkytits who is also willing to work for $8 an hour or whatever, and perkytits can move faster while she makes customers smile.

Weak arguments.

I think in general the reason people pay their social security taxes (other than because, you know, they have to) is because they want their social security benefits when they retire. If you remove that fact, which is probably true for people in their 20s and 30s today, then all you're left with is a straight wealth transfer out of a sense of morality or guilt.

Of course there is a more direct way to do that if you really feel you need to, give money to homeless people. 6.2% of your take home pay sounds about right.

This is merely an academic discussion of course, I don't actually think that we should send grandma off to the farm, but I do think that retired people on social security aren't actually contributing much to society at that point, not like you inferred in anycase.

Homeless people are generally neutral when it comes to things like property values, right?

People are generally happier in adulthood when they still live with their parents, especially when it's because their parents are living with them, right?

You may have inferred that I implied (I did not infer anything, but you're probably rich enough to hire other people to write your posts on the PC so I'll let that slide) that retired people on social security contribute to society, but you'd be wrong. I said what I meant (like I do 99% of the time, because I try to be precise in what I write). What I said (and also meant) was that people benefit from a sustained elderly population.

[Latrinsorm]

This is merely an academic discussion of course, I don't actually think that we should send grandma off to the farm, but I do think that retired people on social security aren't actually contributing much to society at that point, not like you inferred in anycase.We don't have a society that lets people die solely because they aren't "contributing much". For instance, we don't permit three year olds to fend for themselves in the streets. We don't take people in irreversible comas and throw them in dumpsters. Topically, we don't let the elderly starve after they retire. If you like, you could frame this as what we are contributing to society by our actions, that we are not willing to tolerate a cartoonish, egocentric-utilitarian view of the worth of a person. The exact benefit we are paying for, then, is a human society.

[~Rocktar~]

Okay, back the to the adult conversation.

You have no hope of getting "back too" what you have never participated in.

[Bobmuhthol]

To add to Latrinsorm's list, the government pays out a whole lot of dollars in welfare to people who are not only not retired but who have never worked a fucking day in their lives. Stop that shit before you stop social security (but also, for fuck's sake, take away social security payments for people who don't fucking need them).

[Gan]

To add to Latrinsorm's list, the government pays out a whole lot of dollars in welfare to people who are not only not retired but who have never worked a fucking day in their lives. Stop that shit before you stop social security (but also, for fuck's sake, take away social security payments for people who don't fucking need them).

x2

[Gan]

Homeless people are generally neutral when it comes to things like property values, right?

People are generally happier in adulthood when they still live with their parents, especially when it's because their parents are living with them, right?

You may have inferred that I implied (I did not infer anything, but you're probably rich enough to hire other people to write your posts on the PC so I'll let that slide) that retired people on social security contribute to society, but you'd be wrong. I said what I meant (like I do 99% of the time, because I try to be precise in what I write). What I said (and also meant) was that people benefit from a sustained elderly population.

What about the other 1%?

That being said, I'd like to expound more by saying that people always 'harken' back to the old days where family values were strong and the family circle was what made America what it was. In those days, families lived closer to each other, usually one parent was a homemaker and in even earlier times the grandparents usually lived adjacent to or with the parents/children/grandchildren and often assisted with childcare provision thus effectively passing along the values of the forefathers. The direct benefit from elderly sustinence was learning from previous life experiences.

On a personal level, it is my duty as a child and family member to help care for others of my family to the extent that I am able to. That's what being part of a family means. The only difference to the theme of this latest thread tangent is that I'd rather be responsible for this than having to rely upon the rest of society. I guess that's the libertarian streak in me.