|
|
10-21-2010, 06:44 PM
|
#41
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by keegs
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
|
|
|
|
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!
|
10-21-2010, 06:53 PM
|
#42
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 07:29 PM
|
#43
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 16,603
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus
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?
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 08:18 PM
|
#44
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 08:56 PM
|
#45
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 853
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 08:57 PM
|
#46
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 14,183
|
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...
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 09:16 PM
|
#47
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 8,327
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 09:26 PM
|
#48
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 16,603
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 09:27 PM
|
#49
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,172
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 10:12 PM
|
#50
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 14,404
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneohe
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.
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 10:32 PM
|
#51
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus
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
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 10:40 PM
|
#52
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 14,404
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire
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!
|
|
|
10-21-2010, 11:26 PM
|
#53
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,983
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun
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
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 12:51 AM
|
#54
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
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)
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 01:13 AM
|
#55
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,172
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
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.
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 03:49 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.
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 03:57 AM
|
#57
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronocnikral
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 ?
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 04:15 AM
|
#58
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire
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
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 04:26 AM
|
#59
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
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
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 04:36 AM
|
#60
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutboy
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
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|