| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Why we can't have good things
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)." |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
