On 12 Apr 2005 20:12:14 -0700, wrote:

All of those "plans" are laughable.


We need to get the money away from the government
***********

Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty.
Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From
this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net
legitimately provided by Social Security.

Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often
in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who
hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working
will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working
career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process?

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government takes for
Social Security.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed
is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I
could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I
could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them
is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.

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

The challenge with your perception is that you are looking at Social
Security primarily as a pension plan. It is not, and never was intended
to be primarily a retirement pension system.

The purpose of Social Security is to provide a social safety net for
people who cannot take care of themselves. For esample, when my
brother in law died last November and left a dependent wife and a
4-year old son behind, the money he and others paid into social
security is being used to insure that the 4-year old will have a very
basic but secure lifestyle during the 14 years it will take for him to
become an adult and legally responsible for his own care. (My sister in
law gets 1200 or so a month from SS- just enough to live at about the
poverty level- so the family helps out, and she has a mini-wage job to
do what little she can- of course).

Among the persons identified as less-able under the social security
system are those individuals who are too old or sick for gainful
employment. When the system was enacted, very few people lived to be
65, but in today's society probably 85-90% of the people who make it to
55 will survive to 65 and beyond. Social Security has become a defacto
pension plan, when it should not have. We would probably have to raise
the age to 75 in order to once again extend retirement benefits to the
same small group of old folks that the system was originally designed
to serve.

It's downright silly to talk about the "return" on the money impounded
for Social Security. What is the rate of financial "return" on our
dollars spent for national defense, for the interstate highway system,
or for federal law enforcement efforts? None, nada, zip, and who cares?

You want to invest for retirement? Great! Everybody should. But those
who are in such tight financial straits that they can only free up
investment money if 2% of their wages are returned to them via a
reduction in SS taxes? Those people have NO BUSINESS in the stock
market. None. Anybody cutting it that close can't afford to be exposed
to the ever present risk of loss with securities. If it's all spent
every month so that there is no money to invest for retirement, a
worker would do far better to analyze his family budget and figure out
how to free up some serious money rather than moaning that SS has dealt
him a cruel blow.

On 13 Apr 2005 13:20:55 -0700, wrote:

Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed
is that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I
could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I
could pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?

All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them
is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.

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

The challenge with your perception is that you are looking at Social
Security primarily as a pension plan. It is not, and never was intended
to be primarily a retirement pension system.

The purpose of Social Security is to provide a social safety net for
people who cannot take care of themselves. For esample, when my
brother in law died last November and left a dependent wife and a
4-year old son behind, the money he and others paid into social
security is being used to insure that the 4-year old will have a very
basic but secure lifestyle during the 14 years it will take for him to
become an adult and legally responsible for his own care. (My sister in
law gets 1200 or so a month from SS- just enough to live at about the
poverty level- so the family helps out, and she has a mini-wage job to
do what little she can- of course).

Among the persons identified as less-able under the social security
system are those individuals who are too old or sick for gainful
employment. When the system was enacted, very few people lived to be
65, but in today's society probably 85-90% of the people who make it to
55 will survive to 65 and beyond. Social Security has become a defacto
pension plan, when it should not have. We would probably have to raise
the age to 75 in order to once again extend retirement benefits to the
same small group of old folks that the system was originally designed
to serve.

It's downright silly to talk about the "return" on the money impounded
for Social Security. What is the rate of financial "return" on our
dollars spent for national defense, for the interstate highway system,
or for federal law enforcement efforts? None, nada, zip, and who cares?

You want to invest for retirement? Great! Everybody should. But those
who are in such tight financial straits that they can only free up
investment money if 2% of their wages are returned to them via a
reduction in SS taxes? Those people have NO BUSINESS in the stock
market. None. Anybody cutting it that close can't afford to be exposed
to the ever present risk of loss with securities. If it's all spent
every month so that there is no money to invest for retirement, a
worker would do far better to analyze his family budget and figure out
how to free up some serious money rather than moaning that SS has dealt
him a cruel blow.

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.

For those people, maximizing a return should not be precluded. I would much
rather my SS withholdings go to the Thrift Savings Plan than wherever they go
now!

Right now, about 6% of my taxable earnings go to FICA. What is silly about my
withholdings going to something like the TSP? Notice, I've never said anything
about the withholdings being returned to the individual as a reduction in SS
taxes.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


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

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.

wrote:
snip....
The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.


Well said! Growing up in a 'downtown neighbourhood', I can remember the
'Sally Ann' coming around. The local homeless alcoholics had to go up a
block to their 'citadel' and take part in church services before they
were offered a bite to eat.

On 14 Apr 2005 08:22:41 -0700, wrote:

As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


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

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.

Pardon me if I see some of the DSK techniques showing up here. You start with
one argument and now it's something totally different.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
Pardon me if I see some of the DSK techniques showing up here.

What, showing you & NOBBY up for the brainless propaganda parrots that
you are?

DSK

Why is the government providing insurance?

We have private companies that will ensure your risk for much cheaper than
the government.


wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


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

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.

wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


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

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.



You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less
money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more
money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of
working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for
at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost
balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more
federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future
years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then
nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators,
etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires
from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then
is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark.
And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is
why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market.
Where is the money we paid last year in excess to
SS benefits, taxes invested?

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, "Bill McKee" wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
As long as you consider SS a welfare system, then there's little point
in a
discussion.

For many folks, SS *is* a large chunk of retirement income, if not all
of it.
Perhaps that wasn't the intent, but it's a fact.


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

Social Security isn't a welfare program as much as it is an insurance
program.
Using my 4-year-old nephew as an example- if his father had not paid
into social securit for 35 years he wouldn't be eligible for benefits.
Like any other insurance, you pay your preminums and then if X, Y, or Z
happens you collect benefits.

If you get too old or sick for productive employment, social security
will provide you with a subsistence lifestyle. There are certain
medical standards to meet before you can claim you are "too sick" to
work, as well as age requirements to meet before you can claim you are
"too old".. Those who want to retire in luxury, or even relative
comfort, have always needed to make financial arrangements far beyond
the scope of social security.

Pardon me if I don't trust Bush's motives in this matter. Throughout
his presidency, he has sought to dismantle the social safety net in the
US. Step one, of course, is to make a lot of noise about "faith based"
social services and propose taking the money currently funding the
social safety net and giving it to churches. If he can accomplish that,
it's a short and easy little hop to "The government shouldn't be
funding churches!" Voila- with the elimination of all welfare and
social support systems he will have freed up a walloping 12 percent of
the national budget (that can instead be diverted to defense
contractors or turned into tax cuts for the top 2-3% of wage earners).

While Bush and his cronies make a lot of noise about taking the
responsibility for social services away from the government and giving
it to a group of (approved, naturally) churches they are failing to
recognize a short sighted aspect of their plan. The poor, the disabled,
the mentally ill are in less need of "welfare" that curches and
families may be able to better provide than they are social justice-
and that *is* the business of government in a democracy.



You can buy a lot better long term / life insurance policy for a lot less
money than SS takes out. One that would pay your children / widow more
money and would even give you a nice retirement annuity after 45 years of
working. SS is now just an extra tax. Has kept the government going for
at least 40 years. Was why the last administration could declare an almost
balanced budget. LBJ and his cronies figured out they could get a lot more
federal income with out a tax raise by raising the SS payouts in some future
years while raising the pay in then. If you are going to have SS then
nobody should be exempt from paying. State employees, Federal legislators,
etc. as it is now, a state employee is exempt from paying and then retires
from the state, and works for private industry for about 10 quarters. Then
is fully vested. The time may be longer or shorter, but is in the ballpark.
And the stock market over it's history has returned about 9% average. Is
why most insurance companies and annuity providers keep money in the market.
Where is the money we paid last year in excess to
SS benefits, taxes invested?

Off topic to rec.boats. This isn't wrecked.boats. Post complaints or
comments to the appropriate newsgroup. Not here.

Remember, this is a boating newsgroup. OT posting is not welcome and is
unappreciated.

If you still feel compelled to post OT, seek professional help.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.