quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

(It works for my previous point that if I'd been able to keep that from the beginning it'd put me about in range to be able to retire.)

Huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

(It works for my previous point that if I'd been able to keep that from the beginning it'd put me about in range to be able to retire.)

Huh?

Was kinda assuming a point made earlier in the discussion is what Tazzy was kinda getting at with her question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A fairly unlikely occurrance, nevertheless about as equal a chance as the vast majority of Americans starting out in life and throwing in 25K and that growing unchecked for retirement.

quote:


And an even unlikely scenario on which even a politician would have the idiocy on which to form a governmental policy for the well being of American retirees. Although we see schemes of about as dildorous a thought process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Sorry, not sure what point you were referring to, but 25k (or 50k including employer contributions) putting you in a range to be able to retire does not compute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

(It works for my previous point that if I'd been able to keep that from the beginning it'd put me about in range to be able to retire.)

Huh?

Was kinda assuming a point made earlier in the discussion is what Tazzy was kinda getting at with her question.

Sorry, not sure what point you were referring to, but 25k (or 50k including employer contributions) putting you in a range to be able to retire does not compute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You claim to be an economic genius but you don't seem to understand that people can save and invest money regardless of their income level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A fairly unlikely occurrance, nevertheless about as equal a chance as the vast majority of Americans starting out in life and throwing in 25K and that growing unchecked for retirement.

Of course, you're ignorant of the rest of my finances which would make that a possibility.

quote:


And an even unlikely scenario on which even a politician would have the idiocy on which to form a governmental policy for the well being of American retirees. Although we see schemes of about as dildorous a thought process.

I never suggested policy should be made on my specific case. I just have the opinion that people who can do without Social Security Insurance shouldn't have to pay into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

(It works for my previous point that if I'd been able to keep that from the beginning it'd put me about in range to be able to retire.)

Huh?

Was kinda assuming a point made earlier in the discussion is what Tazzy was kinda getting at with her question.

Sorry, not sure what point you were referring to, but 25k (or 50k including employer contributions) putting you in a range to be able to retire does not compute.

That's your problem Willbeur.

You claim to be an economic genius but you don't seem to understand that people can save and invest money regardless of their income level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

This was from a speech in 1964, but so matches my opinion:

"A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years?"

- Ronald Reagan

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

This was from a speech in 1964, but so matches my opinion:

"A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years?"

- Ronald Reagan

Unfotunately he ignored the point that I made a couple of posts above...SS's value depends on income and marital status. For a low paid indivdidual with a non-working spouse the returns implicit in SS exceed 7% tax free, far above what 401(k) plans and IRAs have returned over the last 20 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A fairly unlikely occurrance, nevertheless about as equal a chance as the vast majority of Americans starting out in life and throwing in 25K and that growing unchecked for retirement.

Of course, you're ignorant of the rest of my finances which would make that a possibility.

I guess then that we are talking about nothing about nothing then.

quote:




And an even unlikely scenario on which even a politician would have the idiocy on which to form a governmental policy for the well being of American retirees. Although we see schemes of about as dildorous a thought process.

I never suggested policy should be made on my specific case. I just have the opinion that people who can do without Social Security Insurance shouldn't have to pay into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

So, while not close to any actual amount I might have put in, does 25k work? (It works for my previous point that if I'd been able to keep that from the beginning it'd put me about in range to be able to retire.)

quote:

Then let that married guy stick with SS then...that doesn't refute his statement at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is what happens at retirement age. You insist you will have enough to retire. If you get cancer, will you then? If you have to have major surgery, have a stroke, heart complications... any idea what those cost? How much of a hit will your nest egg take?

quote:

Hardly enough to support yourself on through out your retirement years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You really arent all that bright, are you. I have been out of work for half a year for an Achilles tendonitis.

quote:

6 months isnt catastrophic.

quote:

which all policies like those have caps. When you reach that cap, then what? How long is your job secure for if you have to take leave?

quote:


At your age, I expected a more rational answer from you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

This was from a speech in 1964, but so matches my opinion:

"A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years?"

- Ronald Reagan

Unfotunately he ignored the point that I made a couple of posts above...SS's value depends on income and marital status. For a low paid indivdidual with a non-working spouse the returns implicit in SS exceed 7% tax free, far above what 401(k) plans and IRAs have returned over the last 20 years.

Then let that married guy stick with SS then...that doesn't refute his statement at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Are you wanting to include the employer contribution? (which in my ideal world, could be part of employee compensation since it wouldn't have to be forced into SS tax).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
One would think that someone as smart as you could do a little research. There are many in the u.s. who are not part of the ss system...senators,congressmen/women and a particular ventura county ca. sheriff's deputy who no longer has a ss number.
So now it is time to see if you are as smart as you think you are

You have made claims you can opt if you like...Yet, you refuse to just answer the question directly.

The simple truth is you really can't just opt out.

If you believe that run with it...it is no skin off of my ass.

While there are some notable exemptions:

quote:


There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:

Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.

When you look at those examples it is clear that the average person cannot just opt out. Sure they never have to accept or collect a check, but they have to pay. In all of those examples, you basically have to run for office and win, get a gov't job, or become destitute..... For all practical purposes, you can't just have a normal life making it in the private sector and opt out of SS.

Me, I don't want to opt out. I am fine with it. I just want to reform the system.

But, seriously, why do you have to be so damn snarky.

What have I said to you that you felt was snarky? If I am snarky to another then how is that any of your business?

I read your posts and virtually never state what you feel or think.


If, in fact, you had read all 7000+ of my post then you would know that my position on everything I discuss here is well documented.
If on the other hand you have read everyone of my post on this thread then you only have about 7000 more to read to get an understanding of what I believe.

You just ask little one line questions,

Some posters here are not intelectually equiped to deal with multi part questions so try to keep it simple in an effort to facilitate the discussion.

or you stab in some crappy one line response which is often based on some BS technicality.

You mean like the truth?


Like this one, sure you 'technically' can opt out (if you jump through personal and moral hoops), but let's face it, that's bullshit.


Becase you are unwilling or unable to prepare yourself for the discussion you have joined you call bullshit on those who have.

I'll give you credit when you pull it with Sanity, only b/c that's about what he offers to the debate. But if you really feel the need to prove someone wrong, prove it.

Had you read any significant number of my posts you would know that I do that on a regular bassis.