OT - Social Security

Page 5 of 8  


That's pretty much it. You can be rich but you accumulate wealth. Rich people have a high income and tend to spend it, but wealthy people may spend a lot, but have assets such as real estate, bank deposits, large stock portfolios. Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita writes:

$100K doesn't make it. Maybe twice or three times that for a minimum of a decade?

And the final candidate (of realistic candidates) also made his bucks the old-fashioned way: he inherited it.
BTW, I think most tort attorneys get to keep about 35-50%, not 60%. Bad enough that the exaggeration seems unnecessary.
Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If anyone is interested. Here a decent link to info on tort reform.
http://www.atrafoundation.org/tort_facts.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme says...

I agree with what you are saying, but that is not what the politicians who have been espousing rolling back the tax cuts "for the rich" nor for what was considered "rich" under the previous administration's tax increases.

Oops, that was a typo, my fingers were going for the "5" key. I have heard that some of the late-night ambulance chasers go for a higher number with some of their cases.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

In the case of Kerry, "wealthy" is a bit of an understatment!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security fund was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the pols could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to the point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed, those without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private investment returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.
But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw out all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather have at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're left with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.
Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not to make this a partisan issue but: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Oh well, I guess I just did.
--
Al Reid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boy you must have had your ass up your head when you asked these questions.
AlReid wrote Not to make this a partisan issue but: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.
!n 1935, social security was created. Believe it or not, people had to be convinced that the social security number was to be used only for social security and nothing else. Creditors can not refuse credit because ou fail to give a SS number. According to the credit bureaus, all they have to do is positively identify you and by using computers that cross search age, birthdate, name and address they usually wind up with only one name.
SS was set up and the amount that is in the SS fund, even though it may be in the general fund can not be used for anything other than SS.
--
=A0=A0=A0=A0Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
=A0=A0A: The Democratic party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you kidding us or has someone kidded you? The Social Security "Surplus" has ALWAYS been "invested" in US Treasury bonds. That is not a bit different than your right pocket writing an IOU to your left pocket and you thinking you are rich because your left pocket is "owed" so much money.
Dave Hall

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:16:11 +0000, David Hall wrote:

Better check again. What's currently in the SS Trust Fund (and every othe of the 140 or trust funds) isn't Treasury Bonds at all, rather plain old IOUs with non marketable value and no obligation to repay.
--
-Doug


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn responds:

It is, as is always the case, the gubmint grabbing the bucks and reserving the right to give the taxpayer the finger.
Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Charlie Self) wrote:

first place, and then we keep them there.
Benjamin Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure. He is reputed to have replied "Until the people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury."
In the words of Walt Kelly's Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Or, one I like:
"In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."
- Alexis De Tocqueville

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:38:17 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

Absolutely! I would like to see two things - ripping up of the current IOU contents of all the trust funds so that future generations don't get to pay for our excesses, and no more collection of excess SS taxes beyond what is needed to pay for current obligations so that there will not be a source for the gubmint to grab cash for IOUs and claim budget surpluses
As verification of the trust fund charade, go here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
and try to explain how the deficit increased every year, even in the years the previouos administration claimed budget surpluses.
--
-Doug


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

????? With respect to the government, what is the difference between a "plain old IOU" and a "marketable" treasuy bond? Even if the SS fund could and did sell their "bonds" to what degree would the federal governments debt, as a whole, change? Not one bit. So it makes no difference whether we have a "lock box" with Treasury bonds, a "lock box" with plain old IOUs, or a "lock box" with nothin' but air - the total debt the feds will have to pay does not change one iota. It is all a fiction designed to confuse the non-fiscal minded into believing that there is something other than the good graces of future generations behind that Social Secutity "promise". There isn't.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:11:26 -0800, David Hall wrote:

A marketable treasury bond is one held by public and has to be accounted for in the budget as an obligation with repayment and interest terms set. The IOUs in the trust funds are only obligations of one government agency to another and are not accounted for in the budget as there is no current plan for repayment.
You are correct in that publicly held bonds will be paid with the taxes of future generations, but the intragovernmental debt represented by these IOUs has no such payment or interest assurances.
--
-Doug


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By investing directly in the US Treasury I'd have guaranteed retirement benefits 13-16X what Social Security could give me with more safety.
The last time I checked Social Security will yield a .3 percent rate of return for me assuming the government stays solvent, benefits are adjusted for the cost of living, and I'm allowed to claim my benefit.
30 year T-bonds are currently returning 4.9% and 10 year notes 4%. Those are guaranteed as long as the government stays solvent which makes them a safer investment than Social Security.

Social Security isn't about "Social Security" or safety. It's about an additional 12.4% tax.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew /">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Drew Eckhardt"

But if we repeal it we are giving money to the rich, starving children, turning pristine lakes into bubbling cesspools, burning holes in the ozone, risking the criticism of France, Cuba and every good person on earth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin writes:

Taxes have consistently gone up on SS. Benefits also have risen, but supposedly as a COLA, which I have a feeling reduces the raise in taxes considerably. Retirement age has risen, though probably not enough. I'm not at all sure what the death tax has to do with SS. While larger limits on IRAs make sense for many, the people SS is actually aimed at will get no benefit at all. If you haven't got the money to save one way, you don't have enough to save another way.
Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Umm # 3 has already been done. At least half way. Those of us born in the 60"s and after won't get full retirement bene's until age 67.
D. Mo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.