Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2010, 07:44 PM   #41
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by keegs View Post
The benefit as well as the survivor benefit is based on the contribution.

You seem confused whether this is a crummy deal or not.
Sure they are both BASED on the contribution But
Are they the same benefit ??
or is it reduced?

Our pensions were calculated as an annuity. if you took a survivor benefit it reduced the pension. Every annuity Ive ever seen worked that way
__________________

__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-21-2010, 07:53 PM   #42
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Sure they are both BASED on the contribution But
Are they the same benefit ??
or is it reduced?

Our pensions were calculated as an annuity. if you took a survivor benefit it reduced the pension. Every annuity Ive ever seen worked that way
So SS should offer a choice with a higher benefit to those chosing not to elect a beneficiary? OK.

And I'm sure you're not confusing SSI with SS.

Pension? What pension.
__________________

__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:29 PM   #43
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
SS is simply simply part of the compensation for the job. All economist agree that the Employee pays both halves. If the employee doesn't provide value for the full compensation the employee doesn't get hired.
Well, then I don't agree with economists. The employers portion is a tax paid by employers. Which brings up the question - what is the reasoning for the employer and employee each paying half?
__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:18 PM   #44
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
Well, then I don't agree with economists. The employers portion is a tax paid by employers. Which brings up the question - what is the reasoning for the employer and employee each paying half?
Yeah...your're right ...employers should fund the program.
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:56 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
ronocnikral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
Well, then I don't agree with economists. The employers portion is a tax paid by employers. Which brings up the question - what is the reasoning for the employer and employee each paying half?
the question is, if SS went away, would your income go up 6-7%? or whatever the effective increase would be.

my company adds that in as a benefit when trying to sell the "total compensation package" to naive college students. it's also a big fat minus in the pension calculation.
__________________
ronocnikral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:57 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Someone is paying that other half: employee by reduced wages, customer by increased price, etc. The company is only paying the portion they can't foist offload to someone else.

Most of this is obfuscation. SS should be fairly straight forward to "fix". Keeping the ppoliticians out of the cookie jar, on the other hand...

Seems to me that Medicare is the great unknown, unless we all get sick and croak on schedule. Oh, wait, we'll have death panels for that.
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 10:16 PM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 2,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
That's recent. Until a couple years ago it said stuff like "Social Security is there for you - You can count on it"
"About Social Security's Future.....
Social Security now takes in more taxes than it pays out in benefits. The excess funds are credited to Social Securityis trust funds, which are expected to grow to over $4T before we need to use them to pay benefits. In 2014, we will begin to pay our more in benefits than we collect in taxes. By 2034, the trust funds will be exhausted and the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 71 percent of benefits owed......"

Social Security Annual Statement Feb 2, 2000
__________________
...with no reasonable expectation for ER, I'm just here auditing the AP class.Retired 8/1/15.
jazz4cash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 10:26 PM   #48
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post

Most of this is obfuscation. SS should be fairly straight forward to "fix". Keeping the ppoliticians out of the cookie jar, on the other hand...
That's just it - the current system is ripe for corruption. It would be interesting to see what pct of the incoming $ goes to welfare payments, retiree benefits, administration of the program, etc.

It would be better funded from an increased federal income tax, and scrapping the FICA deductions. It seems this would lessen the bureaucracy and create a more equitable funding mechanism.
__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 10:27 PM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
And last I looked high income workers received way less in benefits than they ever paid. talk about a crummy deal.
.
Is there data that supports this? I had the impression it had a crummy return but that they got back what they paid.
__________________
kaneohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:12 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneohe View Post
Is there data that supports this? I had the impression it had a crummy return but that they got back what they paid.
It can be negative, especially if we use real (i.e. including inflation effects) rate of return.

Here's a simple calculator you can use that shows rate of return. I'd have more faith in it if I could see their formulas/underlying spreadsheet.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:32 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
I agree that removing the income cap largely eliminates the unfairness of the current system, however non working income would continue to be exempt.
as well it should be, SS is a wage replacement system not an income replacement system
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:40 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire View Post
as well it should be, SS is a wage replacement system not an income replacement system
Hey, I wish the SSA took this seriously, maybe they'd stop taxing my non-wage self-employed income!
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 12:26 AM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
That perception is being reinforce by articles like the one I link to. What I'm concerned about is the undermining of SS so that the very people who most need it (those that don't plan) come to think of it as worthless and therefore don't bother to protect it.
I think that is the purpose of the articles. Like almost everything else in our modern media world, their purpose is mass manipulation.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 01:51 AM   #54
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Hey, I wish the SSA took this seriously, maybe they'd stop taxing my non-wage self-employed income!
ahhh, come on, you must know that self employment income is a wage equivalent. (they both called earned income)
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 02:13 AM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
It can be negative, especially if we use real (i.e. including inflation effects) rate of return.

Here's a simple calculator you can use that shows rate of return. I'd have more faith in it if I could see their formulas/underlying spreadsheet.
Thanks....slick calculator. I got returns of 1-2% which is similar to what I
remember getting when I did it the hard way a while ago. l assume that's not the real rate of return.
__________________
kaneohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 04:49 AM   #56
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 160
1) eliminate the payroll tax cap (5% on all additional income above 100K per year would go straight into SS)

2) raise the minimum eligible age to receive benefits to 70 for everyone born later than 2000.

'Problem' solved.
__________________
stoutboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 04:57 AM   #57
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronocnikral View Post
the question is, if SS went away, would your income go up 6-7%? or whatever the effective increase would be.

my company adds that in as a benefit when trying to sell the "total compensation package" to naive college students. it's also a big fat minus in the pension calculation.
for eighty percent of us ss is the pension.

the system is being / has been undermined so that someone else can get a tax cut....it's as plain as the nose on your face.

marginal rates need to go up to pay back the IOUs and between now and 2040 we can figure out a way to adjust the system's future payouts.

....and with such mediocre results...why is it again that we're spending double what other industrialized countries spend on healthcare ?
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:15 AM   #58
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire View Post
as well it should be, SS is a wage replacement system not an income replacement system
For the earnings portion sure, but the welfare portion is distinctly not directly connected to taxes on wages. It sis simply status dependent

E.G. If I work 40 years and marry and divorce 3 spouses they all get a spouse benefit if we were married 1o years for which no taxes are paid
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:26 AM   #59
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
It can be negative, especially if we use real (i.e. including inflation effects) rate of return.

Here's a simple calculator you can use that shows rate of return. I'd have more faith in it if I could see their formulas/underlying spreadsheet.
It is probably reasonably correct as far as it goes. It is unclear it if includes spousal benefits. The text misstates the role and value of benefits for deceased workers but the calculation gives number in the right ball park. The reason for the poor rate of return for the upper SS income group (50-100,000) is the financing of the welfare component. You can see it most obviously by putting the same 200,000 income in and comparing single and dual earner couples. The single earner making 200000 does much better than the dual earning couple at the same level
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:36 AM   #60
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutboy View Post
1) eliminate the payroll tax cap (5% on all additional income above 100K per year would go straight into SS)

2) raise the minimum eligible age to receive benefits to 70 for everyone born later than 2000.

'Problem' solved.
Raising the age puts the cuts disproportionately on poor African Americans due to shorter life expectancies. Not to mention that the working ability of low income workers declines dramatically as they reach the middle and late 60s
__________________

__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Madoff - how to protect yourself? cyclone6 FIRE and Money 40 12-18-2008 11:47 AM
Online Fraud -- how can I protect myself. JB Other topics 10 10-20-2008 04:14 PM
Best way to protect your money godoftrading FIRE and Money 17 06-08-2008 10:02 PM
Protect Yourself from the Falling Dollar ShokWaveRider FIRE and Money 8 07-05-2006 12:02 PM
incorporate to protect assets? TallCotton Other topics 52 05-23-2005 09:56 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.