On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:32:09 -0500, amdx
wrote:
On 4/4/2013 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:42:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:
Anecdotes don't "prove" much of anything
Julie's flaw is she is using the current tax going forward. There is
NO baby boomer who paid more than $104,000 between 1966 and 1996 (both
employer and employee contribution)
I have my SSA statement in my hand and I paid the max every one of
those years. Prior to 96 the cap was $4800 and the tax rate was lower
so those will be very small numbers.
I agree a Gen Xer probably won't get back all he paid in and may not
really get much of anything. Sorry.
Don't point out Julie Morse's flaw.
Urin Asshole is invested in what she wrote as the gospel and will not
entertain any evidence that she could be wrong.
Also did you find any way to contact her?
I want her to set the record straight, but find no email
or any way to subscribe to the webpage.
SS payments are progressive, meaning the more you pay in
the longer it takes to get it back, and the less you pay
in the the shorter your payback time.
Mikek
PS Urin, please don't recycle the tired old names you've been calling
me, be a little creative. :-)
Ok. Go **** yourself. Do you feel better now?
SS benefits are based on your highest earning 35 years. You don't know
anything about how SS works. Yeah, if you pay in more it takes longer
to get it all back. No ****.
"Social Security was designed to redistribute income from those with
higher lifetime earnings to those with lower lifetime earnings. The
reason is obvious: the system was created to ensure an adequate
retirement income for the elderly. Less obvious is how Social
Security's many provisions interact to achieve redistribution. This
Straight Talk summarizes the most comprehensive study of those
interactions to date, concluding that less-educated, lower-income, and
nonwhite groups benefit little or not at all from redistribution in
the old age and survivors insurance (OASI) part of Social Security.
However, there is substantial redistribution to women, who
historically have had lower lifetime earnings than men. A succeeding
Straight Talk will examine how the addition of disability insurance
restores some progressivity.1
The Social Security program redistributes income in five major ways:
1.From richer workers to poorer workers through a progressive benefit
formula that provides higher returns to the first dollars of worker
earnings and lower returns to the last dollars;2
2.From shorter-lived groups (such as men and the less educated) to
longer-lived groups (such as women and the better educated) through
annuities whose lifetime value depends upon life expectancy;
3.From singles to married couples (and from higher earners to lower
earners within couples) through spousal and survivors' benefits, paid
as a pure transfer without any additional contributions required;
4.From the healthy to the disabled through disability benefits; and
5.From later generations to earlier generations, since earlier
generations paid in at lower tax rates than later generations, yet
receive benefits related to their prior earnings (rather than, as in
private insurance, their actual contributions)."