child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
$85 per check is what I went down. Sucks but I just paid off my student loan which almost negates that. Should be getting a raise in 2 months as well.
This. Never understood people who allow the government to hold their money interest free. My mom told me this when I was 11 and she showed me how to fill out taxes, it was the first thing she taught me actually.
This, so this. Most of the higher percentage GDP countries provide more government services. It's all about value per dollar taxed. I get the joy of seeing how much less I'm making in take home pay tomorrow. Should be fun!
I'm making an assumption on your age but I guarantee you won't see a single penny you put into SS when your turn comes.
Social "security" my ass.
Thats the republican fear mongering. SS will only be reduced/extinct if the republicans get their way and they get to gut SS.
SS is easy to fix and will eventually be fixed to where it can be kicked out indefinately.
Ill be curious to see my check. My company has suspended pay hikes for the last 4 years & has even implemented unpaid furloughs.
I took another hit. We were investigating why my check seemed "off" and our controller discovered that she hadn't been taking out Dental/Vision coverage all last year even though I was on the plans and had used the benefits. So that is another small chunk that is now taken out, even though it should have been for me.
Ohh well, I can't complain. Still wish my tax dollars would go to the actual debt instead of back-door deals to make politicians "look good".
Thats the republican fear mongering. SS will only be reduced/extinct if the republicans get their way and they get to gut SS.
SS is easy to fix and will eventually be fixed to where it can be kicked out indefinately.
I get about a grand back. Interest on that is like nothing.
Why do that though? Just make your check setup so you break even at the end of the year.
You're not gaining anything by giving the gov your money and asking for it back.
I set it up each year so I OWE a little at the end, not the other way around.
Yes, please enlighten us on your grand fix that has eluded every elected representative for the past 40 years.
Yes, please enlighten us on your grand fix that has eluded every elected representative for the past 40 years.
Common guys, it's an easy fix. With enough tax hikes and some hope and change anything is fixable
No guarantee that either of you will be able to understand this, but here goes:
Why SS cannot go bankrupt
It's now projected that the trust will no longer be able to fully fund benefits starting in 2033. That's more than two decades from now, but the new depletion date, as it's called, is three years earlier than last year's projections.
Then you missed the point completely, because all that is needed are adjustments, which is all that was claimed in here, and you even agree.Obviously you don't quite understand what that piece is saying, the limitations inherent in the example the author provides, and what it actually means. Going bankrupt for SS is a mere technicality. SS can certainly reach a point where the number of people receiving benefits grows quickly while the number of people paying into the fund grows slowly, and productivity increases won't be sufficient to cover the increasing outflows unless those paying into the system have to pay an ever-increasing share of their production into the system.
I know you'd like to live in a fairytale world where everything works wonderfully and everyone has everything they want and need. Here in the real world however, we realize that SS as it currently operates is not sustainable.
From NPR (that bastion of right wing conservatism ):
More money is paid out to SS recipients than is coming in. Without changes to SS, the SS trust fund will eventually run out ... ie ... "go bankrupt". At that point, money from the general budget will be used to pay for it, but the point remains.
Then you missed the point completely, because all that is needed are adjustments, which is all that was claimed in here, and you even agree.
Then you missed the point completely, because all that is needed are adjustments, which is all that was claimed in here, and you even agree.
You are arguing semantics. What you call "raising taxes" I call "letting temporary tax cuts expire."The adjustments was to raise taxes is that what you want?
SS is an easy fix. Raise retirement age. Doesn't get any easier than that.Wreckum said "SS is easy to fix". Apparently he's got some genius solution that nobody else has thought of yet, because SS is most certainly NOT "easy" to fix. Fixing the problem is going to potentially involve changes in eligibility requirements, increase contribution requirements, changes in indexation and so forth..... none of which is 'easy'. Complete Fail. As usual.
SS is an easy fix. Raise retirement age. Doesn't get any easier than that.
SS is an easy fix. Raise retirement age. Doesn't get any easier than that.
The rates just went back to what they were before the temporary cut.