LOL -- A warning from Napolitano

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

SS isn't in trouble. That's just something that people who want to privatize it say. If nothing is done, it's fine until 2037, and after that, it can pay out at 78% of what it should. If nothing at all is ever done. A few small tweaks (raising the cap works very well) and that 78% payout is readily fixed, as has been done in the past.

For 2011, FICA is 15.3% up to $106,800 in wages - employee pays half; employer pays half.

Social security payments wouldn't be as high as they are IF the government hadn't frittered away endless amounts of taxpayer SS payments with no intention of paying it back, and IF there wasn't that "Earnings Suspense File" where billions of $$'s are supposedly languishing.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

For 2011, FICA is 15.3% up to $106,800 in wages - employee pays half; employer pays half.

No, you are way off for 2011, because you didn't finish the quote, above, which continues:

HOWEVER:

Under current law, employees pay a 6.2% Social Security tax on all wages earned up to $106,800 (in 2011) and self-employed individuals pay 12.4% Social Security self-employment taxes on all their self-employment income up to the same threshold.

For 2011, the Senate passed 2010 Tax Reform Act gives a two-percentage-point payroll/self-employment tax holiday for employees and self-employeds. As a result, employees will pay only 4.2% Social Security tax on wages and self-employment individuals will pay only 10.4% Social Security self-employment taxes on self-employment income up to the threshold.

Social security payments wouldn't be as high as they are IF the government hadn't frittered away endless amounts of taxpayer SS payments with no intention of paying it back, and IF there wasn't that "Earnings Suspense File" where billions of $$'s are supposedly languishing.

Why do you think that? Payments are not at the level they are in order to replace lost funds. There have not been SS monies "gone forever", spent illegally by the government. I assume you are referring to surplus SS monies taken from SS Trust Fund and invested (in SS name) in US Treasury securities?

All which still doesn't address the truth that there is no immediate Social Security crisis whatsoever.

[Princess Doreen]

Social Security for 2011 is 4.2% for employees. However, factoring in a Medicare payment, the total employee FICA contribution is 5.65% - my error for saying 6.2%

Further -

http://www.federalbudget.com/

SOCIAL SECURITY is not part of the Federal Budget. It is a separate account and has its own source of income ("Payroll Taxes"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus". Government agencies that borrowed from the trust fund, now have to pay the money back. But they've spent it. Where will they get it? More bail outs (taxes) coming. And here is a "must read" about the problem.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...zi_scheme.html

Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!

http://www.federalbudget.com/socsec.html

Here is a link to the Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/P...a/fundFAQ.html

and their latest Report (August 2010).

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/press...e10-pr-alt.pdf

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page.

http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html

And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.

http://www.federalbudget.com/rootproblem.html

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Social Security for 2011 is 4.2% for employees. However, factoring in a Medicare payment, the employee FICA contribution 5.65% - my error for saying 6.2%

Further -

http://www.federalbudget.com/

SOCIAL SECURITY is not part of the Federal Budget. It is a separate account and has its own source of income ("Payroll Taxes"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus". Government agencies that borrowed from the trust fund, now have to pay the money back. But they've spent it. Where will they get it? More bail outs (taxes) coming. And here is a "must read" about the problem.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...zi_scheme.html

Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!

http://www.federalbudget.com/socsec.html

Here is a link to the Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/P...a/fundFAQ.html

and their latest Report (August 2010).

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/press...e10-pr-alt.pdf

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page.

http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html

And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.

http://www.federalbudget.com/rootproblem.html

Have you forgotten that Riot knows all and always has a solution for everything.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

SS isn't in trouble. That's just something that people who want to privatize it say. If nothing is done, it's fine until 2037, and after that, it can pay out at 78% of what it should. If nothing at all is ever done. A few small tweaks (raising the cap works very well) and that 78% payout is readily fixed, as has been done in the past.

Only in your world Riot. You dont have to worry about 2037 and beyond. Typical democrat view, just thinking about themselves and the present.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Social security payments wouldn't be as high as they are IF the government hadn't frittered away endless amounts of taxpayer SS payments with no intention of paying it back, and IF there wasn't that "Earnings Suspense File" where billions of $$'s are supposedly languishing.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Social Security for 2011 is 4.2% for employees. However, factoring in a Medicare payment, the total employee FICA contribution is 5.65% - my error for saying 6.2%

Further -

http://www.federalbudget.com/

SOCIAL SECURITY is not part of the Federal Budget. It is a separate account and has its own source of income ("Payroll Taxes"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus". Government agencies that borrowed from the trust fund, now have to pay the money back. But they've spent it. Where will they get it? More bail outs (taxes) coming. And here is a "must read" about the problem.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...zi_scheme.html

Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!

http://www.federalbudget.com/socsec.html

Here is a link to the Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/P...a/fundFAQ.html

and their latest Report (August 2010).

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/press...e10-pr-alt.pdf

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page.

http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html

And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.

http://www.federalbudget.com/rootproblem.html

kudos Princeth Doreen... you kicked some butt on this topic

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

kudos Princeth Doreen... you kicked some butt on this topic

Be still my heart.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries.

Yes, but that doesn't mean Social Security is in some immediate and dire crisis. You've posted nothing that has indicated it is.

You've just posted a shotgun of information about Social Security. Good

But the fact remains: Social Security is fine, doing nothing at all, until 2037. At that point, doing nothing, it would still be able to pay out 78%. All it needs is another little tweek, as it's had in the past.

Again, you've posted nothing to indicate that the above statement, what the Social Security administration says is the truth, what they have calculated will happen, is false.

Social Security has never missed an obligation - it's the most successful social program in the world, ever.

[Princess Doreen]

[quote=Riot;750969]

Yes, but that doesn't mean Social Security is in some immediate and dire crisis.

You've just posted a shotgun of information about Social Security. Good

But the fact remains: Social Security is fine, doing nothing at all, until 2037. At that point, doing nothing, it would still be able to pay out 78%. All it needs is another little tweek, as it's had in the past.

Social Security has never missed an obligation - it's the most successful social program in the world, ever.

Social Security is NOT fine. You've just lulled yourself into some false sense of security that it is.

It's the first time in the history of SS that a COLA payment hasn't happened - two years in a row. Hear any warning bells?

How bad does it have to get before you'll realize the program is in trouble? How high a % in payroll deductions and how the amount of wages? And, how is the government going to repay all the money it "borrowed" from the fund? More taxes, more bailouts, etc. And, is there really any money in the "Suspense" fund - you know that account where all the SS payments supposedly go to for the pmts made using fictitious SS #'s?

[Riot]

It's the first time in the history of SS that a COLA payment hasn't happened - two years in a row. Hear any warning bells?

Do you know what your SS COLA is tied to?

How bad does it have to get before you'll realize the program is in trouble?

Where is that real disaster? Other than the manufactured fears some are using to attempt to privatize it? (and as a SS recipient, you should fear privatization with unabated terror, after what has happened to privatized investments on Wall Street the past 5 years).

Right now Social Security is meeting 100% of their obligations, easily, and are predicted to do so until 2037. At that point they can meet 78% of their obligations.

There's been nothing posted to disprove the SS Administrations math on that.

How high a % in payroll deductions and how the amount of wages?

Why are you saying this, when even you admit the payroll deductions are not actually as high as you contended to use this argument?

And, how is the government going to repay all the money it "borrowed" from the fund?

As that money was "borrowed" to purchase secured treasuries, unless the US literally defaults and goes bankrupt, it's there.

And, is there really any money in the "Suspense" fund - you know that account where all the SS payments supposedly go to for the pmts made using fictitious SS #'s

The above is conspiracy theory about the suspense fund. You say the government is lying it exists. Okay.

[Antitrust32]

Riot, I think your main problem on this issue is that you feel that 2037 is ways away.

its in the not so distant future... so much so that it will effect everyone born in 1970 and after.

some people care about their childern, and their grandchildrens future.

[Princess Doreen]

I do not know how to multiple quote. Sorry!

To answer your questions 1 by 1 -

1. Yup - I know what the acronym means. I find it impossible to believe that there was no cost of living increase for the past two years. I can't even begin to list the # of items I'm now paying more for than I did 2 years ago including reserved seats at Saratoga.

2. You keep repeating yourself about 78% covering in 2037. I don't see where this is any indication that the program isn't in trouble.

3. Do you realize that while the % deduction has remain unchanged over the past 10 years, there's been a tremendous increase in the amount of wages that that % comes out of? $87,900 in 2004 and $106, 200 in 2010 & 2011. Yup, they reduced it 2% for 2011, but they're not paying a COLA increase, so it washes. Additionally, the amount of SS money taxable has increased over the years. We now pay 100% IRS tax every single $ of our SS income.

4. It's there? You say it's there? Where? Money borrowed was spent. It has to be replaced. How is it going to be replaced? Raise the tax - right?

5. Silly me believing in any government conspiracy theory. Pardon my mirth. Bernie Madoff is a light weight compared to the mendacity of the U.S. government in manipulating taxpayer dollars - and this can be said for any administration - regardless of political party.

**************

I thank God we don't have to depend on social security payments in retirement because we surely would be standing on the dole lines if we hadn't made some alternative retirement plans.

For those of you bemoaning the fact that you're financing our monthly SS payments, whose monthly payments were we financing when we paid into the "system" for 40 years? So, NO, I don't feel guilty collecting monthly SS payments.

But, I do feel badly for those in their 20's and 30's who are paying dearly into the system with no or little prospect of collecting anything when it comes their turn to retire. I do hope they are planning some alternatives.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Riot, I think your main problem on this issue is that you feel that 2037 is ways away.

its in the not so distant future... so much so that it will effect everyone born in 1970 and after.

some people care about their childern, and their grandchildrens future.

My "main problem on this issue" is being reality-based and not panic-induced.

I do not think that Social Securities' being able to meet 100% of obligations for the next 27 years, and then being able to meet 78% of obligations, qualifies as an immediate crisis of historic and scary proportion.

Nor do I think it justifies panic and immediate significant overhaul or privatization of the entire system, as Wall Street and the GOP are salivating for.

It calls for the predicted and anticipated, well-planned and calm tweek. This is no surprise. We knew it was coming.

There is an easy fix to massively fund Social Security heavily, in excess, with tons of money, for decades. That is to simply raise the cap up to $200,000 or so.

I support the above solution. Because then the SS payroll takeout could even be lowered in the future.

Alternative solutions being floated are to cut benefits, raise the payroll takeout (you pay more), raise the retirement age, or to privatize the system (give private corporations the funds to invest for us - shrudder! )

I do not support any of those solutions.

Passing any of those second solutions also requires the public to be scared Social Security is about to crash, that there is a crisis that requires such significant changes.

What do you support?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

I do For those of you bemoaning the fact that you're financing our monthly SS payments, whose monthly payments were we financing when we paid into the "system" for 40 years? So, NO, I don't feel guilty collecting monthly SS payments.

But, I do feel badly for those in their 20's and 30's who are paying dearly into the system with no or little prospect of collecting anything when it comes their turn to retire. I do hope they are planning some alternatives.

Paragraph 1 - you should not feel guilty, you paid into it and deserve it

Paragraph 2 - exactly!

[Antitrust32]

I support privatization...

like a 401k where I have the options on where it is invested.

[Riot]

I thank God we don't have to depend on social security payments in retirement because we surely would be standing on the dole lines if we hadn't made some alternative retirement plans.

Everyone is supposed to fund their retirement themselves. Social Security is only designed and intended to be a minimal failsafe to keep the elderly out of poverty. It is only to provide minimal housing, food, etc.

But, I do feel badly for those in their 20's and 30's who are paying dearly into the system with no or little prospect of collecting anything when it comes their turn to retire. I do hope they are planning some alternatives.

Huh? That's not true. All we have to do is raise the cap a little, and SS will be heavily funded for the next hundred years. There is no real risk of somebody contributing for nothing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I support privatization...

like a 401k where I have the options on where it is invested.

You would have lost 1/3 to 1/5 of your funds in the past 8 years. That wouldn't matter if you were young and could make it up, but those within 10 years of retirement were hit very hard with the financial crash, loss of their house value, etc.

The government, alternatively, has to keep the funds safe so the capital isn't lost.

You can start a 401k now if your boss offers one. And if they do, take it, it's free matching money. Social security isn't a primary retirement program for anyone, it's only a minimal backup to keep people out of poverty in retirement.

Why are you against raising the cap?

[Danzig]

riot uses when she posts your quotes, so i'm taking her side. i obviously can't take the rest of you seriously.




i hate snow days

[Riot]

riot uses when she posts your quotes, so i'm taking her side. i obviously can't take the rest of you seriously.

I use that when what is posted doesn't make contextual sense to me. It's just meant in a questioning way.

It has nothing to do with "taking seriously", that's rude. But that's your own insult, not what is intended by me.