EVs - New Hampshire gets it right

[Harvey]

Social Security is popular. That's why you can't get rid of it.

And yes, no one wants to the the person who contributed their whole life and got nothing.

 

[icecoast1]

Social Security is popular. That's why you can't get rid of it.

And yes, no one wants to the the person who contributed their whole life and got nothing.

I'd gladly let the federal government keep the money they've taken from me to this point in my life for Social Security if they didn't take anymore

 

[Hawk]

That would be about $200K for me. No thanks. I'll take my benefit thank you.

 

[Hawk]

So just like everything else on here. I see lots of people bitchin about SS. But do you have a solution to the problem? I be more interested in a solution then the bitchin. I'm not saying that I have a solution by any means but I'm not bitchin. I just know there is no easy answer.

 

[kbroderick]

So just like everything else on here. I see lots of people bitchin about SS. But do you have a solution to the problem? I be more interested in a solution then the bitchin. I'm not saying that I have a solution by any means but I'm not bitchin. I just know there is no easy answer.

The simple but socialist answer is to leave benefits as they are (same limits with COL increases as necessary) and either vastly increase or eliminate the contribution ceiling, showing the segment of the population that has experienced disproportionate wage growth to make a contribution commensurate with that growth.

 

[Hawk]

Dude, that sounds like a copy paste from google. No one talks like that. LOL
So if you can translate that into simple english for us simple people, you a get a star.

 

[Harvey]

I'd gladly let the federal government keep the money they've taken from me to this point in my life for Social Security if they didn't take anymore

How old are you? I'm turning 65 in January.

 

[kbroderick]

Dude, that sounds like a copy paste from google. No one talks like that. LOL
So if you can translate that into simple english for us simple people, you a get a star.

Make people who earn more than the current cutoff pay on their entire income, not just the first $160k. The program is supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement plan, which is clearly not a popular opinion around here based on the "I want my contribution back" comments.

 

[Harvey]

People generally want more. It's the first thing they teach you in economics, and it is generally true. Maybe not for you, but many or I'd even say most.

 

[Hawk]

Make people who earn more than the current cutoff pay on their entire income, not just the first $160k. The program is supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement plan, which is clearly not a popular opinion around here based on the "I want my contribution back" comments.

Not a popular opinion? So you don't want your benefit that you contributed to? That is what it sounds like. No I am not willing to contribute my withohldings to give to someone else. I am a capitolist not a socialist.
OK so back to the solution. So your saying people who make more contribute more? what would be the strategy for payout to fix the system?
Let's face it. I think you would agree that any solution will fuck someone. I will be greedy and say I don't want that someone to be me. I am looking to retire at some point and unfortunately that calculation includes this income.

 

[1dog]

That's fair, but when only 9% of the adult population are business owners and only 10% of the workforce is self employed, your situation is very much in the minority.

I'm mainly thinking about the large employers here. Would any of these divert all of that 7.5% back to the workers in some fashion?

List of largest United States–based employers globally - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Absolutely not. The majority of those funds would go right to the bottom line with shareholders seeing the primary benefit, not workers.

1. investors are always the 1st in line to be repaid for their risk. Banks, PE, stockholders, etc. If it wasn't that way, there would be no investment.

I'm not gonna push hard on this, but a quick google found this from a national polling firm that is well known to have a (slight) right-wing bias in their sampling methodology and their question phrasing. This poll is from 2019, so perhaps you are correct and things have changed dramatically in the last 4 years, but probably not.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters regard Social Security favorably, with 33% who view it Very Favorably. Twenty-two percent (22%) hold an unfavorable opinion of the federal government program for retirees, but that includes only six percent (6%) with a Very Unfavorable one.​

1. Investors are always the 1st to be repaid for their risk. Banks, PE, institutional investors, etc.
2. 80% of all employees work in small businesses, not large S&P corporations.
3. a free-market economy keeps businesses honest. Competition.( I know we don't really have one, but in its purest form, it works better than any regulatory system.)

 

[1dog]

We pay huge amounts for insurance at our company ($10-20k per year per employee depending on age) and we definitely consider it and label it part of compensation.

The youngest don't care, and probably don't consider it comp, but older employees do. And currently it's comp without tax.

No doubt in my mind that most intelligent investors could beat the return by dropping the same amount into the SP500. Especially if they start at age 22 when you start paying social. I didn't start saving for retirement until I was 28.

I don't understand why some think SS is a bigger scam (or whatever) then everything else on 1dogs list. It's all money paid in by all, and paid out to some, based on some criteria.

Self-employed as well. We calculate 113-120% of every dollar paid to our employees as real cost of employment. We educate all of them on this, as public schools don't touch it - along with general money responsibilities/accountabilities.

Self-employed people do have the option of taking 'officer draw' as opposed to social security wages. lowers their payout but if invested properly, far outweighs what they would receive in SS benefits. ( we do understand when we pass away, spouse gets one but not two payments - so if you pass away at say 66 and not married or spouse earns her own thats higher - you just lost out on 45 years of that 15.3% ( don't get Medicare back either)

Here's one solution:

HOW ABOUT NAMING AN OUTSIDE GROUP MADE UP OF RETIRED POLITICIANS, PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHO HAVE HAD SUCCESS WITH THEIR RETIREMENT PROGRAMS AND SLOWLY EDUCATING AMERICANS – BYPASSING THE RHETORIC – ON HOW WE CAN DO THE SAME? IT’S A SIMPLE SOLUTION, BUT ARE THERE ENOUGH SERVING POLITICIANS WHO WILL GO THAT ROUTE? OR DO THEY PREFER THE ISSUE, RATHER THAN A SOLUTION?

 

[cdskier]

Not a popular opinion? So you don't want your benefit that you contributed to? That is what it sounds like. No I am not willing to contribute my withohldings to give to someone else. I am a capitolist not a socialist.
OK so back to the solution. So your saying people who make more contribute more? what would be the strategy for payout to fix the system?
Let's face it. I think you would agree that any solution will fuck someone. I will be greedy and say I don't want that someone to be me. I am looking to retire at some point and unfortunately that calculation includes this income.

Agreed. And while I agree with a prior post that Social Security is a "safety net"...it is a "safety net" for EVERYONE that contributes. So of course most people want their money back that they contributed. I know I do. And I don't know a single person that would say otherwise.

 

[drjeff]

Agreed. And while I agree with a prior post that Social Security is a "safety net"...it is a "safety net" for EVERYONE that contributes. So of course most people want their money back that they contributed. I know I do. And I don't know a single person that would say otherwise.

A couple of the key issues that have certainly affected SS over time, is when it was 1st implemented. the average lifespans were much shorter, and as such, the amount of time people were drawing from SS was less on average than it is today, Essentially more people were paying more into it than they ultimately were receiving, so the numbers worked.

Now 1 of the things that has happened is that people are living longer on average, and as such drawing from SS for a greater amount of time, which means that more people are receiving more $$ for SS than they paid into it.

Another issue, and it is an issue, is that it is now much "easier" to be granted SS payments for a medical disability than it was in the past, and as such, that it putting more people on SS, and even at a much younger age, than used to be, which often creates more people drawing more from SS than they ever paid in. That is just a fact, and not an emotionally based observation, and with the financial hardship that SS is facing, some albeit tough, adult, factual based decisions need to be made, and done soon, and frankly the biggest impetus to that is emotionally based, ideologically driven politicians who seem to think that the monies that we pay in in various forms of taxes is just their slush fund to use to get re-elected and not something that they truthfully have to exercise fiduciary responsibility over

 

[deadheadskier]

1. investors are always the 1st in line to be repaid for their risk. Banks, PE, stockholders, etc. If it wasn't that way, there would be no investment.

1. Investors are always the 1st to be repaid for their risk. Banks, PE, institutional investors, etc.
2. 80% of all employees work in small businesses, not large S&P corporations.
3. a free-market economy keeps businesses honest. Competition.( I know we don't really have one, but in its purest form, it works better than any regulatory system.)

No shit, investors get taken care of first. That was my point.

And that's the argument against allowing companies to do whatever they want with their 7.5% contribution to SS. At least now, however flawed those programs may be, those funds in theory are going to support the citizens vs the owners.

Free market arguments are stupid. Ours has never been close to a free market economy and never will. It will always be a hybrid of some sort. It's a disingenuous talking point by conservatives whenever "free market economy" is even brought up. It doesn't exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with the free market argument, is it disregards the fact that many things in life shouldn't be treated as a commodity.......Healthcare for the elderly or disabled (should be every one) is one of them (Medicare / Medicaid). Grandma receiving support to heat her home is another (SS). Public education. The military. The list is long

 

[BodeMiller1]

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire's poor stepsister Vermont... At Burke Mountain.

WEST BURKE — Selectmen supported a final draft of the town’s first ordinance governing short-term rental housing during their monthly meeting on Monday.

Burke Officials Moving Forward With Short-term Rental Housing Plan

WEST BURKE — Selectmen supported a final draft of the town’s first ordinance governing short-term rental housing during their monthly meeting on Monday.

www.caledonianrecord.com

 

[kbroderick]

Not a popular opinion? So you don't want your benefit that you contributed to? That is what it sounds like. No I am not willing to contribute my withohldings to give to someone else. I am a capitolist not a socialist.
OK so back to the solution. So your saying people who make more contribute more? what would be the strategy for payout to fix the system?
Let's face it. I think you would agree that any solution will fuck someone. I will be greedy and say I don't want that someone to be me. I am looking to retire at some point and unfortunately that calculation includes this income.

Quite simply, I think it's more humane and equitable to (to borrow your language) fuck the people who can afford to buy themselves lube.

I have my doubts about there being anything meaningful left in SS payouts when I get to 64, and hopefully the retirement contributions I'm making are enough to cover what expenses I need to. SS withholding is a tax, not a retirement-plan contribution. If there's actually nothing left by the time I get to that age, not only do I not get anything out of the system (which, hopefully, I can live with); I also (as a taxpayer) get to provide funding for taking care of those who don't have enough (or anything) put aside.

Yes, it is a situation where making better financial decisions throughout your life means that you get less benefit than people who didn't, but a huge chunk of the people who end up without anything set aside had no realistic chance to set more money aside no matter how good their decisions were. One way or another, you need to deal with that population.

 

[1dog]

No shit, investors get taken care of first. That was my point.

And that's the argument against allowing companies to do whatever they want with their 7.5% contribution to SS. At least now, however flawed those programs may be, those funds in theory are going to support the citizens vs the owners.

Free market arguments are stupid. Ours has never been close to a free market economy and never will. It will always be a hybrid of some sort. It's a disingenuous talking point by conservatives whenever "free market economy" is even brought up. It doesn't exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with the free market argument, is it disregards the fact that many things in life shouldn't be treated as a commodity.......Healthcare for the elderly or disabled (should be every one) is one of them (Medicare / Medicaid). Grandma receiving support to heat her home is another (SS). Public education. The military. The list is long

You made my point. 33.6T in debt because we ( WWII gen/Boomers/Gen X) decided our kids and grandkids money is more important to spend now than leaving them with no debt.

Adam Smiths point still stands. All those items , except military, were part of the social contract- unwritten, but understood, that we as individuals, communities, towns and states were best suited to care for those who couldn't. Now it's a massive business fraught with corruption. Only one example- and this was 10 years ago. 2013 Medicare had $60 billion in identified fraud. Most companies are not that large. Just fraud. How many people would be cared for if people had that. cash instead of having it confiscated by governments?

Maybe a lost cause, but its worth debating. I bet most on here could better manage their cash than elected ( and unelected) officials.

And those who couldn't? S&P ETF. Couldn't be worse than SSA is doing.

Man do we need snow. . . . .

 

[1dog]

https://www.motortrend.com/auto-news/electric/

 

[JimG.]

THEY PREFER THE ISSUE, RATHER THAN A SOLUTION