It's the economy stupid!

[BOBDN]

The funds paid into Social Security go into a trust fund, not the dollars just the numerics. The dollars are used to pay the current out flow and the general fund current operations. The SSA fund has a large surplus which is in actual dollars not compounded with interest. There are lots of these Trust Funds here and there that total some 7 trillion or so as per my Congressman, Duke Cunningham. I think in 2030 the SSA fund will go into the red at the currently assumed dynamics.
Don't forget that SSI and Medicare are also associated. With all the Enrons and Perrigrins out there I think a good safety net is important. Besides, when someone becomes disabled should they be forced to beg on the street or be able to maintain some dignity. I figured that If I live to 71 I will get back all my input even if I compound it with the interest rate of a federal security ( No risk).

I agree. That was my point about the ludicrous golden parachutes given to just about every CEO in the nation. If companies can afford such extravagant packages for the very few they can afford meager packages for their workers that will help them live with a bit of dignity in their final years. The CEO's will just have to learn to live with only one CC membership.

I'm listening to "Marketplace" on NPR right now. A fellow named David Johnson is reporting that Treasury Secretary Jack Snow (he of the golden CSX parachute although the company never made a dime under his leadership and actually earnings of CSX declined during his five year tenure) said today that the war isn't the problem with the economy. It's the underlying economic weakness. It will become apparent as the year goes on (may God help us all).

I guess I'm forced to agree with Jack Snow now.

 

[BoberFett]

You wanted Bush 1.0 to "shore up" SS with general funds? You're going to make me pay more in taxes so the goddam baby boomers can live on my dime? I think not.

You are thieves. Every person who draws SS is a theif. The whole system is a ponzi scheme. Far more money is drawn out than was put in by the individual, and the peole at the bottom (myself included) are gonna get shafted.

 

[BOBDN]

You're right. Perhaps for us to get rid of SS, we should only pay the current ricipients how much they put into it, and those who have already gotten out more should owe the government. And a lot of my taxes I've paid that went to Welfare funds, I want to get back, I want to be on Welfare but still keep my job. And the taxes I paid that feeds 3rd world countries, I want those countries to give me back that money or food.

Your argument is that since the government has created a vicious cycle of a social program, we can never put a stop to the social program because to do so would interrupt it's vicious cycle. That's ignorance, selfishness, and silliness all rolled into one.

Currently taxes we pay for SS isn't going into an account with our name on it. So we've paid it up until now, why not dump SS, pay the current recipients what they are getting, and call it even. Our taxes are paying current recipients, nothing more. So to say you just want to get back what you paid in, is saying that every cent we've put into any taxes we should get back and that's just stupid. SS does not equal a retirement plan! It's just a social program!

Saga Lore. You are young. Just a guess.

(Marketplace just reported that although the economy shrunk last year and unemployment rose the government ADDED 160,000 jobs! I guess that's the conservatives who are in control shrinking the federal government they hate so much!)

Back to the issue. You must realize there are certain costs to keep the world from descending into total anarchy. That's what your taxes have been used for. Besides the USA takes a whole lot more from the world's resources than we give back. Consider it paying for the lifestyle we enjoy at the expense of a major part of the world.

But the idea that SS is just a social program, I have a problem with that. Social programs conotate someone getting money or aid they didn't pay for. We pay our SS retirement tax. We were told it IS a retirement plan. Now we are about to retire in the millions and the government has to admit they didn't handle the plan very well.

Let me ask everyone a question. With the economic problems we're all talking about here doesn't anyone think this maybe wasn't the best time to start an elective war (as in elective surgery) that's going to cost us minimum $175 billion?

Maybe not the best time for a $760 billion tax cut either?

Not even the Senate compormise $350 billion tax cut?

Or maybe that $1.5 trillion tax cut Bush pushed through in 2001 wan't the best idea either?

Looks to me like a certain White House occupant and the Congress his party controls are being economically irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

 

[BOBDN]

You wanted Bush 1.0 to "shore up" SS with general funds? You're going to make me pay more in taxes so the goddam baby boomers can live on my dime? I think not.

You are thieves. Every person who draws SS is a theif. The whole system is a ponzi scheme. Far more money is drawn out than was put in by the individual, and the peole at the bottom (myself included) are gonna get shafted.

BoberFett, you are the thief. You consider forcing people to pay for SS all their lives and then get NOTHING in return robbery?

Let me guess. You're young too.

You complain I want Bush to shore up SS with general funds when all along the government has been using SS to shore up the general fund! And now when we're going to need the money for the baby boomers retiring the money isn't there because the government has been filling their budget holes with it.

As for "the goddam baby boomers" I'd watch my mouth if I were you. And as for your dime, let me guess, either you're some rich kid jerk who is living off daddy's money (kinda' like that rich kid jerk in the White House) or, more likely, your "dime" is about all you really have and your presence or absence really wouldn't make a damn bit of diferrence either way.

Stop inflating your self worth. Shup up and pay your share like the rest of us have been doing. And stop your belly aching until you get some time under your belt. Talk to me in another 30 years kid, after you've actually done some work.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

You wanted Bush 1.0 to "shore up" SS with general funds? You're going to make me pay more in taxes so the goddam baby boomers can live on my dime? I think not.

You are thieves. Every person who draws SS is a theif. The whole system is a ponzi scheme. Far more money is drawn out than was put in by the individual, and the peole at the bottom (myself included) are gonna get shafted.

BoberFett, you are the thief. You consider forcing people to pay for SS all their lives and then get NOTHING in return robbery?

That's what's going to happen to me you dunce. I'll contine to pay into SS and when I retire I won't see a damn thing because the boomers gobbled up everything in site.

As for "the goddam baby boomers" I'd watch my mouth if I were you. And as for your dime, let me guess, either you're some rich kid jerk who is living off daddy's money (kinda' like that rich kid jerk in the White House) or, more likely, your "dime" is about all you really have and your presence or absence really wouldn't make a damn bit of diferrence either way.

Not that I give a sh!t what you think of me, but I make plenty of money, paying plenty into SS, and have been on my own since joining the Army at 17 you pathetic old coot. So am I supposed to care about the $13 you put into SS from your years of scrubbing toilets? And I suppose from that $13 (plus interest naturally) you're going to want to withdraw several hundred thousand clams. Sounds fair to you, I'm sure.

Seems in your case age has done nothing for wisdom, you old fool.

Edited for speeling.

 

[LunarRay]

quote

Great man. Right.

And as for the "upswing" today in the DOW. Thirty seven points isn't exactly rescuing my 401K. Let's wait until the war is over and the underlying economic reality (as outlined in the business section and links above) kicks in. I doubt anyone will be throwing any parties to celebrate then, unless of course they want to celebrate the Guiness Book of World Records entry for record budget deficits.[/quote]



I be a postin... and trying to figure out how to be cynical without the non verbal help regarding the observation of Mr. Bush. I did learn today that what makes him very angry at times is when Barbara comes into the oval office and tells him to stand in the corner. I think the record established by SS is seven hours of looking.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Someone earlier read a balance that he had paid into social security. Thats a bit inaccurate. He should have said, "I've paid X amount of dollars out through social security". The truth is... THERE IS NO LOCKBOX. Your current social security deductions pay the social security recipiants of today. It doesn't just go into some bank account in the sky and wait for your retirement. So, I just don't have an answer for that problem. It's not fair just to cut it off, but, something needs to be reformed. I would definately say people my age, 18-25 should start saving. I've already started up a 401(k) and some other investment accouts. Don't count on social security being there for when you retire.

I posted those figures. My point being I was forced to pay into the SS system all my life. Now it's a bit late to make other plans and suddenly everyone wants to end SS!

I understand fully that the money I paid in was providing the benefit for workers who retired. My generation paid the highest SS tax since the plan was instituted. We didn't complain (OK, maybe a little) we paid our SS tax and Medicare to provide for the generation before us retirement.

Now, everyone knows the "baby boomers" are coming. This was no secret. Part of the reason we paid such a high SS tax was, during the Reagan administration a commission was named to study SS and "fix" it. So even though the money isn't going into a lockbox everyone knew the money would have to be built up in expectation of the baby boomers' retirement.

So George W. Bush enters the White House and instead of taking into account the need to save something for the future he proposes a tax cut that is targeted at the top 10% of wage earners! Knowing what's coming in 10 years! He comes into office with a record budget surplus and his first act is to squander it on a give away to the top 10% of wage earners!

Do you think some of that surplus could have been used to shore up SS? Maybe keep Medicare going?

And you must realize, we didn't have 401K's. I still managed to save toward my retirement, but we were always told we needed a "three legged stool" for our retirement. SS, savings and pension. I have savings, pension and an annuity. Without SS my retirement is going to be a lot rougher than planned. My point is, if I had the choice to invest the $172,000 I was forced to pay into SS over the years and the, (what was the number - $35,000?) money I was forced to pay into Medicare I could have been in far better shape than I am now for retirement. I didn't have a choice. And money doesn't grow on trees. I was paying all my taxes and raising a family and buying a house and buying cars and paying tuition and buying necessities while managing to save some money for retirement while working three jobs.

Now my generation is being made to feel like thieves because we expect our Social Security benefit!

That is simply wrong.

I get the feeling that those who have $ in any of the private pension plans and see it substantially diminish and don't get upset are either so wealthy that the effect is insignificant or so young AND accepting as truth that in the long term it'll all work out. Either way, it seems to me, a reasonable person rich or poor nearing retirement or a young person similarly positioned ought to want a leadership capable of installing and or maintaining real economic stability as well as creating a nation that uses its resourses for the betterment of all its people and in relation to their needs. (so it is not missed "creating" to me means it does not yet exist)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The funds paid into Social Security go into a trust fund, not the dollars just the numerics. The dollars are used to pay the current out flow and the general fund current operations. The SSA fund has a large surplus which is in actual dollars not compounded with interest. There are lots of these Trust Funds here and there that total some 7 trillion or so as per my Congressman, Duke Cunningham. I think in 2030 the SSA fund will go into the red at the currently assumed dynamics.
Don't forget that SSI and Medicare are also associated. With all the Enrons and Perrigrins out there I think a good safety net is important. Besides, when someone becomes disabled should they be forced to beg on the street or be able to maintain some dignity. I figured that If I live to 71 I will get back all my input even if I compound it with the interest rate of a federal security ( No risk).

I agree. That was my point about the ludicrous golden parachutes given to just about every CEO in the nation. If companies can afford such extravagant packages for the very few they can afford meager packages for their workers that will help them live with a bit of dignity in their final years. The CEO's will just have to learn to live with only one CC membership.

I'm listening to "Marketplace" on NPR right now. A fellow named David Johnson is reporting that Treasury Secretary Jack Snow (he of the golden CSX parachute although the company never made a dime under his leadership and actually earnings of CSX declined during his five year tenure) said today that the war isn't the problem with the economy. It's the underlying economic weakness. It will become apparent as the year goes on (may God help us all).

I guess I'm forced to agree with Jack Snow now.

Jack knows that shortly he'll be in the private sector and his credibility must be maintained. Some one poo poo'd the notion that the stock market is not an indicator of what the future economic conditions will be. I'd venture a guess that just about every other indicator is historic and only a confirmation of the established market trend. As is what was stated today. Which was; that for the fourth month in a row 150,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment stayed about the same. Which to me means 150,000 more folks went from unemployment to welfare. We need our Manufacturing back. No nation can be strong with out it.

 

[BOBDN]

BoberFett.

Your pathetic attempts at insult show you to be exactly what your posts suggested.

Do you actually think you are the first person to be independent at 17? Or your earnings are exceptional?

Go back to work, pay your share, just like everyone else. And stop your crying.

And stop being so damn cheap. I posted the figures I paid into SS over the past 30 years.

If you earn so much why not share your SS figures with everyone?

 

[BOBDN]

I get the feeling that those who have $ in any of the private pension plans and see it substantially diminish and don't get upset are either so wealthy that the effect is insignificant or so young AND accepting as truth that in the long term it'll all work out. Either way, it seems to me, a reasonable person rich or poor nearing retirement or a young person similarly positioned ought to want a leadership capable of installing and or maintaining real economic stability as well as creating a nation that uses its resourses for the betterment of all its people and in relation to their needs. (so it is not missed "creating" to me means it does not yet exist)

HJD1, I sincerely hope BoberFett reads your quote I used above. Some young people fail to consider they will age. When time and events conspire to ruin their best laid plans they will find out what aging is really all about. But by then it's too late.

A leader decides how to rule based on the what is best for the people he leads. Our current leaders are ruling based on an agenda they are not sharing. They are making us a nation of two classes. And then call our protests class warfare.

 

[BOBDN]

Jack knows that shortly he'll be in the private sector and his credibility must be maintained. Some one poo poo'd the notion that the stock market is not an indicator of what the future economic conditions will be. I'd venture a guess that just about every other indicator is historic and only a confirmation of the established market trend. As is what was stated today. Which was; that for the fourth month in a row 150,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment stayed about the same. Which to me means 150,000 more folks went from unemployment to welfare. We need our Manufacturing back. No nation can be strong with out it.

I agree. But our service based economy is losing service jobs now!

How will we ever regain the manufacturing base our nation was built upon?

 

[yoda291]

This seems to have degraded into a SS thread.

My idea is to change SS from actual liquid money to stamps or certificates and to make people < certain age stop paying for it.

Those who have already paid for it will receive their SS in credit towards necessities. Credit can be applied to anything internal like rent, food at the market, your local mom and pop store, a theatre, etc. It doesn't even have to NOT be money. It can simply be a direct transfer into your bank fund when you present receipts and whatnot. I believe that our current tax system is a way of bringing US expenditure back into the US treasury. So long as we take measures to ensure that SS is spent inside the US, I think we could pull off paying those who are near retirement their moneys, while eventually weeding it out.

my 2 cents.

 

[LunarRay]

To those of you who wish for social security to be abandonded I will concur and vote accordingly under the following conditions.
A) That those now retired will receive their benifits without interuption.
B) That those who are about to retire (55 or over) can contribute to the plan as they are now doing until retirement age and will receive as in "A"
C) That those who are under 40 years old will receive the funds paid in plus interest to invest as they see fit but without the possibility of with drawing those funds for any reason but disability or retirement.
D) That those between the age 40 and 55 have the option of acting as a "B" or a "C"

I think this is fair. Any short fall comes out of the general fund and takes a super majority to change in any way.

There must be an insurance scheme on the pension plans adopted so to preclude catastrophic losses which would put every one in them in line at the bridge.

One other thing. The amount of SSA benefit should be modified to consider how much other income the person has. I don't make much sense to send a check to Bill Gates when the poor grandma eats dog food if that.

 

[BOBDN]

To those of you who wish for social security to be abandonded I will concur and vote accordingly under the following conditions.
A) That those now retired will receive their benifits without interuption.
B) That those who are about to retire (55 or over) can contribute to the plan as they are now doing until retirement age and will receive as in "A"
C) That those who are under 40 years old will receive the funds paid in plus interest to invest as they see fit but without the possibility of with drawing those funds for any reason but disability or retirement.
D) That those between the age 40 and 55 have the option of acting as a "B" or a "C"

I think this is fair. Any short fall comes out of the general fund and takes a super majority to change in any way.

There must be an insurance scheme on the pension plans adopted so to preclude catastrophic losses which would put every one in them in line at the bridge.

One other thing. The amount of SSA benefit should be modified to consider how much other income the person has. I don't make much sense to send a check to Bill Gates when the poor grandma eats dog food if that.

HJD1

That is the most sensible Social Security plan I have seen to date. Do you think those people we elected in Washington would consider such a well thought out sensible plan?

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

I agree. But our service based economy is losing service jobs now!

How will we ever regain the manufacturing base our nation was built upon?[/quote]

The only way that I can think of is to use tax credits to stimulate the buying of American made goods. Of course if the dollar becomes so
week against foreign currency we'd have more manufacturing investment here but in part foreign which may be ok so long as jobs are created but, using total usa made product not just assembled here. Reverse NAFTA. Build bigger fences on our borders and determine our immigration needs or wants..
The US has always consumed more than it produced. We were the worlds biggest market. Cept for oil... gotta do something there.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

To those of you who wish for social security to be abandonded I will concur and vote accordingly under the following conditions.
A) That those now retired will receive their benifits without interuption.
B) That those who are about to retire (55 or over) can contribute to the plan as they are now doing until retirement age and will receive as in "A"
C) That those who are under 40 years old will receive the funds paid in plus interest to invest as they see fit but without the possibility of with drawing those funds for any reason but disability or retirement.
D) That those between the age 40 and 55 have the option of acting as a "B" or a "C"

I think this is fair. Any short fall comes out of the general fund and takes a super majority to change in any way.

There must be an insurance scheme on the pension plans adopted so to preclude catastrophic losses which would put every one in them in line at the bridge.

One other thing. The amount of SSA benefit should be modified to consider how much other income the person has. I don't make much sense to send a check to Bill Gates when the poor grandma eats dog food if that.

HJD1

That is the most sensible Social Security plan I have seen to date. Do you think those people we elected in Washington would consider such a well thought out sensible plan?

I think this is a good plan too...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

To those of you who wish for social security to be abandonded I will concur and vote accordingly under the following conditions.
A) That those now retired will receive their benifits without interuption.
B) That those who are about to retire (55 or over) can contribute to the plan as they are now doing until retirement age and will receive as in "A"
C) That those who are under 40 years old will receive the funds paid in plus interest to invest as they see fit but without the possibility of with drawing those funds for any reason but disability or retirement.
D) That those between the age 40 and 55 have the option of acting as a "B" or a "C"

I think this is fair. Any short fall comes out of the general fund and takes a super majority to change in any way.

There must be an insurance scheme on the pension plans adopted so to preclude catastrophic losses which would put every one in them in line at the bridge.

One other thing. The amount of SSA benefit should be modified to consider how much other income the person has. I don't make much sense to send a check to Bill Gates when the poor grandma eats dog food if that.

HJD1

That is the most sensible Social Security plan I have seen to date. Do you think those people we elected in Washington would consider such a well thought out sensible plan?

BOBDN, If you are up to going to congress so am I.
On second thought why should we have to go. Why can't they simply do something for the good of the people and enact sensible law?
Everyone wins. Maybe the agenda is to polarize and move to a monarchy. That may be it. One class of people and the Gods.

 

[BOBDN]

The only way that I can think of is to use tax credits to stimulate the buying of American made goods. Of course if the dollar becomes so
week against foreign currency we'd have more manufacturing investment here but in part foreign which may be ok so long as jobs are created but, using total usa made product not just assembled here. Reverse NAFTA. Build bigger fences on our borders and determine our immigration needs or wants..
The US has always consumed more than it produced. We were the worlds biggest market. Cept for oil... gotta do something there.

I have what most people will consider a crazy economic theory. A theory of controlled growth.

I always wondered why we need to constantly expand our economy. I mean I know why, so investors can expect growth. But to expect constant expansion is unrealistic. I know I'm not telling anyone anything they don't know already.

But the quest for growth leads to the boom and bust cycle. So why not control the economic cycle. Everyone earns a steady profit. There are jobs enough to go around. Prices are steady. No one gets stinking rich but the economy on average is better for everyone. Everyone's boat rises. Some just don't rise as high as before and some aren't as low. I'm not talking about socialism. There are always some richer than others and some poorer. But to even out the growth so everyone is included, or rather anyone who wants to work is included without fear of some board of directors closing your division to earn a few dollars more would really boost productivity and workplace morale.

 

[BOBDN]

BOBDN, If you are up to going to congress so am I.
On second thought why should we have to go. Why can't they simply do something for the good of the people and enact sensible law?
Everyone wins. Maybe the agenda is to polarize and move to a monarchy. That may be it. One class of people and the Gods.

I'd go to Washington if I thought we could do some good. But I fear it's too far gone.

And you're probably closer to the truth than you want to be with the two class hypothesis. It is really quite depressing to think a very few people consider the rest of us so poorly.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: BOBDN

To those of you who wish for social security to be abandonded I will concur and vote accordingly under the following conditions.
A) That those now retired will receive their benifits without interuption.
B) That those who are about to retire (55 or over) can contribute to the plan as they are now doing until retirement age and will receive as in "A"
C) That those who are under 40 years old will receive the funds paid in plus interest to invest as they see fit but without the possibility of with drawing those funds for any reason but disability or retirement.
D) That those between the age 40 and 55 have the option of acting as a "B" or a "C"

I think this is fair. Any short fall comes out of the general fund and takes a super majority to change in any way.

There must be an insurance scheme on the pension plans adopted so to preclude catastrophic losses which would put every one in them in line at the bridge.

One other thing. The amount of SSA benefit should be modified to consider how much other income the person has. I don't make much sense to send a check to Bill Gates when the poor grandma eats dog food if that.

HJD1

That is the most sensible Social Security plan I have seen to date. Do you think those people we elected in Washington would consider such a well thought out sensible plan?

I think this is a good plan too...

My grandaughter said I left off my post that there would be a table of benefits for the folks over 40 who opted to not contribute any further but act like a "B" and take a diminished benefit at 65 . They would simply receive a benefit diminished by some factor receivable at age 65. Note that "B" is a choice of opt to continue or freeze at current age but not get the funds back. It would be a tough choice for "D" over 40 under 55 because there are no funds to leave to your family in SS.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: yoda291
This seems to have degraded into a SS thread.

Yeah, you're right.

Bush's economic plan is designed by monkeys for monkeys or whatever creatures they are trying to elevate beyond the beyonds. Astro class of American.
We'd have, The poor, the nearly poor, the about to be poor but still poor. the I use to be poor but now I'm dead and the I'm so rich I can't stand myself but you ought to be poor because I'm not, classes of people. Now that is what I call equality. Where the top 10% own 107% of the assets and the 90% won the debt and the -7% that the top got in loopholes, somehow.

 

[RobCur]

No, don't invest in anything. Greed can actually turn around, and backfire. Folks, if you make steady icome, and have plenty of savings, why do you need anymore? Those who brags about stock soaring are just sore loser. In the end, they lost most of it. Oh well, thats a hard way to learn. Anyone with brains would know that risk+money is bound to go wrong, very wrong. This is a very smart corporate thief we're dealing with here, and they don't do sh^T but take money out of your pocket/bank account, if you are foolish enough to fall for their soundful investment. It's time we put a stop to it, and warn other uninformed fellows who would otherwise be much happier had they known it was a scam, and would still have everything they work for today. Now what? get back, hell no. Its like a disease, once spread, it just keeps getting worse until everybody's lives are ruin. Can you say recession+depression?

Originally posted by: HJD1
As an off topic suggestion... Don't invest in Iraqi war bonds.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

I have what most people will consider a crazy economic theory. A theory of controlled growth.

I always wondered why we need to constantly expand our economy. I mean I know why, so investors can expect growth. But to expect constant expansion is unrealistic. I know I'm not telling anyone anything they don't know already.

But the quest for growth leads to the boom and bust cycle. So why not control the economic cycle. Everyone earns a steady profit. There are jobs enough to go around. Prices are steady. No one gets stinking rich but the economy on average is better for everyone. Everyone's boat rises. Some just don't rise as high as before and some aren't as low. I'm not talking about socialism. There are always some richer than others and some poorer. But to even out the growth so everyone is included, or rather anyone who wants to work is included without fear of some board of directors closing your division to earn a few dollars more would really boost productivity and workplace morale.[/quote]

Real growth is abscured by all sorts of hidden little goodies. Only population growth and an increase in exports really support real growth plus a few other minor players. We would get along just fine if any increase in wage came from an increase in production and any increase in purchased goods and services came from some benefit that supported the underlying price change. EX. The new computer technology introduction seeks to get you to spend your dollars there versus where you use to spend. Company A goes out of business because there is a change in spending. We have been inflationized and the market place tries to take advantage of the timing delay as it trickles through the system.
I see the problem as being one in which there are some very smart people out there who get rich because they take the $ from the less smart and they do it at the expense, eventually, of the investor and consumer and laborer.
The issue you brought up really could take a lifetime of posting as the points and counterpoints are introduced but let it start now.
And if not now then beware the price is a changing as we speak. Or type.

 

[cracgor]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?

Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.

I think there is a way to cancel your social security...After 3 generations...no one in my family has ever lived long enough to collect

 

[LunarRay]

quote

I think there is a way to cancel your social security...After 3 generations...no one in my family has ever lived long enough to collect[/quote]


**********

there are a few employers that are not members of SSA, in fact there is no provision to particapate.
State government, federal government, some school districts etc. If your employer does not meet the criteria you must belong.
you need 40 quarters of deposits to qualify for benefits. If you are self employed you get to pay 15.3% of 92.35% of net income. Dont you feel lucky? Oh yeah, as a bonus if you're self employed you get to deduct 50% of the SE tax from gross income.