EVs - New Hampshire gets it right

[Harvey]

Great! Me too. Allows for much midweek skiing. However for me very little social security even if it remains solvent. Tucking what I can on my own.

I guess I'm not really self employed. I own the company (50%) but I have to go to work. The employees probably expect it.

 

[kbroderick]

Agree - its like the alcoholic - once on, very difficult to wean off. Isn't the name Supplemental Social Security?

They started with 1% and it was supposed to be ending when the pool got large enough, then it went to 3% - now 15% with matching employer contribution.

No one cares about your money like you will. If I give my kid an allowance for doing nuttin' he spends it differently than if he worked for it - human nature.

I'm not disagreeing that I could almost definitely do better with my social security invested in a mutual fund, but isn't it 6.2% from each side? 12.4 is non-trivially less than 15%.

I spent a long time self-employed and writing quarterly checks rather than it magically disappearing each paycheck did drive home the actual amount involved. Like has already been said, though, I think that it's a necessary safety net because it's too damn easy not to worry about long-term stuff when you're barely covering your groceries on a given week.

 

[deadheadskier]

Agree - its like the alcoholic - once on, very difficult to wean off. Isn't the name Supplemental Social Security?

They started with 1% and it was supposed to be ending when the pool got large enough, then it went to 3% - now 15% with matching employer contribution.

No one cares about your money like you will. If I give my kid an allowance for doing nuttin' he spends it differently than if he worked for it - human nature.

What do you mean by 15%? It's 6.2 % with a maximum pay in of $9932 per year per taxpayer.

 

[Hawk]

I assume that we don't have to discuss the history of the system and why FDR and the legislation thought I might be a good idea to put something in place so that people would have at least a little something in place if they retired and had nothing. There are other pieces to that original act like unemployment and welfare but that is another more heated debate I suspect. Obviously the system was designed and amended in a totally different era.

I will say this. I have paid every dime into the system over the years. My wife and I, based on the SS calculator are expecting over 6K a month. That is not peanuts. That will cover ski trips and my entire bar tab when I reitire. ;-) I want that money. After I get whats owed to me then they can discuss getting rid of it.

 

[NYDB]

not surprised to learn who is pro cat food for seniors.

 

[MadPadraic]

This thread has gone so many different ways. Here's a thought for those of you that compare Social Security to national alcoholism or seem to think that the nation has been hoodwinked. We've kept it around because people like it.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I want that money. After I get whats owed to me then they can discuss getting rid of it.

Precisely why it's politically impossible to rid ourselves of it.

 

[BenedictGomez]

We've kept it around because people like it.

That's entirely false. And it's getting falser with each passing day.

 

[zyk]

As the EV in this thread seems to have driven off the road...
Regarding special security my stepson is on survivors benefits for life. I will get almost nothing and that's ok. So looking at both ends of the spectrum. I believe I can invest better than the government. I've lost some, won some. Update if and when I retire.

 

[1dog]

What do you mean by 15%? It's 6.2 % with a maximum pay in of $9932 per year per taxpayer.

You're correct - the 7.65% is SS and Medicare total. Employers match that to the approx. 15%. 6.2% os maxed, balance is taxed thru entire W-2 earnings.

 

[deadheadskier]

That's entirely false. And it's getting falser with each passing day.

Entirely False according to who?

There's no real glaring decline over the past 20 years. If there's any downward trend for support, it's minimal and far from the majority public disapproval needed to abolish the program

Social Security

Based on what you have heard or read, in general, do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush's approach to addressing the Social Security system? As you may know, a proposal has been made that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds...

news.gallup.com

What is your recommendation for an alternative solution?

 

[deadheadskier]

You're correct - the 7.65% is SS and Medicare total. Employers match that to the approx. 15%. 6.2% os maxed, balance is taxed thru entire W-2 earnings.

I think it's silly for the worker bees to care at all about what their employer pays in. Zero chance the majority of those funds goes back to the employee as increased earnings. Now the owning class might love it, but that is not the majority.

It's the same thing as the 6.2% not getting saved vs spent by the tax payer.

I'll say it again. The program is there to save fiscally irresponsible Americans from themselves. And the vast majority of Americans are either fiscally irresponsible or lack the financial literacy to invest effectively.

 

[1dog]

That's entirely false. And it's getting falser with each passing day.

MP is probably talking about the fact that employees have been forced to dump into it, so ' i want my return'. Can
't blame them.

Should be grandfathered to start w those under say, 40. its's insolvent by 2035, Medicare/Caid by 2030. EV's will be low on priority then.

If you listened to Milt - bet this was 40 years old but still stands as BG states - no one really wanted it, but perception trumps reality. And its the same with electric subsides - some very smart people ( in their field) still believe others in DC will really take care of their needs if they just give them enough $$. Never been true, never will be.
9 minutes of Milt:

That said - I can't find a basic hybrid for under $525 a month ( lease)? $30-$32K mid- priced. blows me away. Drove Acura MDX's for years for $400 or less. Cost of money I guess.

 

[drjeff]

I think it's silly for the worker bees to care at all about what their employer pays in. Zero chance the majority of those funds goes back to the employee as increased earnings. Now the owning class might love it, but that is not the majority.

It's the same thing as the 6.2% not getting saved vs spent by the tax payer.

I'll say it again. The program is there to save fiscally irresponsible Americans from themselves. And the vast majority of Americans are either fiscally irresponsible or lack the financial literacy to invest effectively.

I will respectfully diasgree with this perspective that employees shouldn't care what employers pay in for them. As an employer, it frankly all adds up, and is something that my business partner and I, along with the cost of say health insurance, retirement contributions, and some other ancillary items that go into the TOTAL compensation that each employee receives. For many of my staff, the part that doesn't end up direct deposited into their bank accounts, but IS completely a part of what their total compensation number ends up being annually, is roughly an additionaly 15-17% above and beyond what often they as employees, perceive their pay is.

The employee SHOULD be aware of how much their employer is paying above and beyond for them, even if they "don't see" that $$, because it is certainly real $$, and maybe with greater awareness of how much it is, employees would take a greater interest in the policies behind that extra $$

 

[Harvey]

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.

 

[deadheadskier]

I will respectfully diasgree with this perspective that employees shouldn't care what employers pay in for them. As an employer, it frankly all adds up, and is something that my business partner and I, along with the cost of say health insurance, retirement contributions, and some other ancillary items that go into the TOTAL compensation that each employee receives. For many of my staff, the part that doesn't end up direct deposited into their bank accounts, but IS completely a part of what their total compensation number ends up being annually, is roughly an additionaly 15-17% above and beyond what often they as employees, perceive their pay is.

The employee SHOULD be aware of how much their employer is paying above and beyond for them, even if they "don't see" that $$, because it is certainly real $$, and maybe with greater awareness of how much it is, employees would take a greater interest in the policies behind that extra $$

My main point is if employers didn't kick in their 7.5%, the majority of them would not simply allocate those funds back to the employee. Maybe you would personally as a small business owner that values his staff, but the majority of businesses would not. Perhaps they would a small percentage if they felt it necessary to be competitive in attracting workers. But all of it? No chance

 

[kbroderick]

My main point is if employers didn't kick in their 7.5%, the majority of them would not simply allocate those funds back to the employee. Maybe you would personally as a small business owner that values his staff, but the majority of businesses would not. Perhaps they would a small percentage if they felt it necessary to be competitive in attracting workers. But all of it? No chance

In a competitive labor market, they're going to be forced to push at least some of it into other forms of employee comp, whether it's straight income, less-sucky health insurance, workforce housing, or whatever else.

In a less-competitive market, it can go elsewhere.

As someone who has had between a little and 100% self-employment income of some sort for most of the past two decades (ish), that other 7.5% is very, very real. A significant percentage of people I know also have some, but I don't know how that translates into the larger population.

 

[deadheadskier]

In a competitive labor market, they're going to be forced to push at least some of it into other forms of employee comp, whether it's straight income, less-sucky health insurance, workforce housing, or whatever else.

In a less-competitive market, it can go elsewhere.

As someone who has had between a little and 100% self-employment income of some sort for most of the past two decades (ish), that other 7.5% is very, very real. A significant percentage of people I know also have some, but I don't know how that translates into the larger population.

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.

 

[zyk]

In a competitive labor market, they're going to be forced to push at least some of it into other forms of employee comp, whether it's straight income, less-sucky health insurance, workforce housing, or whatever else.

In a less-competitive market, it can go elsewhere.

As someone who has had between a little and 100% self-employment income of some sort for most of the past two decades (ish), that other 7.5% is very, very real. A significant percentage of people I know also have some, but I don't know how that translates into the larger population.

15.3%. Self employed (23 years) 15.3% off the top before regular income tax. You pay the employer part (you) and the employee part (you). Wouldn't trade it for the world but this is one of the drawbacks.

 

[MadPadraic]

That's entirely false. And it's getting falser with each passing day.

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.​