Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Attention Forum Users: On the 28th of December 2023 at 9:00am Central Time, we will be taking the forums down for maintenance while we prepare the new forums for your use. Please click here for more information.

Tool Talk Discussion Forum

OT: Social security

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
OBRick

03-19-2005 05:42:07




Report to Moderator

Sorry for this rant, but I always read this forum and usually agree with all here.(my kind of people) Does it iritate off all of you, that we hear both parties (mules & elephants) talk about the problems with social security. Both parties have arguments on what to do, but they(the politicians) are the problem. They know that they are screwing the social security fund so bad they voted themselves their own retirement programs. Yelp we foot the bill on that too! Take a real look at what comes out of our money(social security fund) it is mind blowing. Most of it got started as pork, then they had to figure a way to fund it. guess what good old social security fund. Then we also pay the park rangers, military, all kind of social programs(for the most part people that will not get off their dead a$$ and work). Wouldn't it be nice to put the politicians back on social security(and not their own retirement system).Bet it would not be long till it got straightened out. If they knew it was their only program. Yelp you guessed it I prety well despise all politicians, rate them right along with lawyers(which most are),drug dealers and pimps. As Paul Harvey says, have a good day.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
old phyart

03-22-2005 11:20:19




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
the SS investments scheme is just a way to route more of workers money into the stockmarket. As my 401K has shown a very risky business. But if it happens it cuts out some middlemen, the corps get it quicker/easier than having to wait till you buy their product with your benefits. This way the other companies get some of it not just the drug and food companies :)



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
big fred

03-20-2005 11:18:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Okay, I'll weigh in. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government to only those powers specifically granted to it by the states and the people. Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government derive the power to confiscate money from the people in order to provide retirement income for other people?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill WI

03-20-2005 18:07:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to big fred, 03-20-2005 11:18:55  
What's your point, are you saying SS has been illegal since 1935 or when it started?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
big fred

03-20-2005 20:19:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Bill WI , 03-20-2005 18:07:51  
If it isn't allowed by the Constitution, yes. I'm just asking if anyone knows what grounds Congress had to enact it.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Matt from CT

03-20-2005 07:51:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Goodness, the amount of hyperbole from Washington...

What was Shakespeare's quote -- much ado about nothing?

Or at least much ado about doing nothing :)

There is no such thing as the "Trust Fund" that's just Washington's cute name for "We over tax now."

Social Security money can't just sit on a shelf somewhere -- that would cause inflation today as dollars get scarcer, then deflation later when all the boomers retire and the currency goes back into circulation.

If you can't invest legally in private enterprise or other gov't entities, the Federal Gov't has to spend the money. So SS buys Treasury Bonds.

Years later, income (and other) taxes will repay them.

A tax is a tax, and this is just some sort of government hybrid of the a ponzi scheme & and a shell game.

NOT THAT I SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS, and SS at least provides a backstop for those who haven't taken care of their own needs.

The best way to reform it would be to create an agency that's something like the Federal Reserve crossed with the Public Employee Retirement Programs -- effectively a Citizen's Pension Fund like one of the other posters mentioned -- and let them invest it across a wide variety of securitys -- stocks, bonds (both private and state/local gov't bonds), mortgage instruments, and yes even encourage a portion to be invested outside the U.S.

The Federal Gov't would move from providing this benefit, to only being the guarantor...but it's hard to imagine what would take down a properly managed pension fund of that size and leave the government standing.

That would create a true trust fund.

Of course, it would also deny Washington a huge source of money they use to fund other current expenses so the politicians would be pissed about it :) You would have to transition into this national pension fund, as our gov't right now has far too much pork depending on it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Easy

03-20-2005 07:18:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Dieselrider, 03-19-2005 17:32:36  
1) Social security was intended to be a bare bones retirement program.
2) SS started in 1935. 3) It is indexed for income. It takes your last 35 years to calculate your benifits.
4) To caculate your benefits, go to the SS site.
Take care - Easy.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
sawtooth

03-20-2005 04:47:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Dieselrider, 03-19-2005 17:32:36  
I won't bother stepping up on the soapbox for my little rejoinder- ifn's the government didn't confiscate 15% of gross wages (your share and your employer's share he could have paid you) you would have had something to save. Trouble is, for many of us we've gone a long way down this path of paying. Now similarly I hear occasional talk that the govn't should toss aside income tax for a national sales tax. What about the people who saved as you suggested (and ALREADY paid income tax on their saved money)? Now they're supposed to be willing to pay another form of income tax on the same money. It's kind of the same thing with SS? Pay the 15% but also pay for your OWN retirement? (I'll sit down now)

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snitkawl

03-20-2005 06:47:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to sawtooth, 03-20-2005 04:47:14  
txblu;The national sales tax would not be an additional tax. You already pay it hidden in the cost of every item you buy and consume. That is why the liars that say it would hurt poor people are so wrong. The poor and the wealthy are alreadly paying the national sales tax. Formalizing it with a name would make it obvious to everyone what they are paying in taxes and that is why polititions are against it. Two of the most insidious things the political class have pulled on the american people are tax withholding and the social security program.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buss

03-20-2005 11:46:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to snitkawl, 03-20-2005 06:47:28  
A sales tax would take every penny a lower paid person earns and the wealthy would only be taxed on small portion. Same holds on propertyy taxes, I am in favor of paying my share if I make it I should pay fair share



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snitkawl

03-20-2005 15:36:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to buss, 03-20-2005 11:46:59  
buss; You don`t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snitkawl

03-20-2005 06:49:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to snitkawl, 03-20-2005 06:47:28  
Oops. My post was actually in response to sawtooth.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
txblu

03-20-2005 06:03:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to sawtooth, 03-20-2005 04:47:14  
Will just mention the little lady who had no education and all she could do for a living is scrub floors. When she is too old and feeble to do that at least she will have something; not much, but something.

When I was in the SS office waiting my 5 minutes for the appointment time, I looked around the room and saw not one non-deserving-looking person sitting there. Let's see, there was the 20ish year old looking black CRIPPLED boy (with a sister or someone to help him around and ..... .....

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hermit

03-19-2005 13:44:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Simple solution. First change the name to something like Americian Citizen Pension. Too many people are confused with SSA (Federal Pension System) and SSI (Federal Welfare System). They're not administratively connected. Next, since the bonds and t-bills in the SSA fund only pay 1-2 percent and can't provide continued funds to pay everyone, raise the interest rate on those federal notes to 7-10 percent. Congress can pass that change since it won't cost them anything and won't raise the social security tax. And the system will remain solid well into the next century. There's already a law on the books that requires the government to transfer money from the general tax fund to the social security fund anytime social security money is needed. Sure congress will have to eventually raise the regular income tax (or just increase the debt limit) to cover those funds but from a political point of view it's better than touching the hot potato called Social Security. Just my opinion.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
sawtooth

03-20-2005 04:53:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Hermit, 03-19-2005 13:44:50  
Now I'm really confused. "Just raise the interest rate on the SS trust fund". Hmmmmm, how does the govn't pay out more from the "pay as you go system" when it's already going in the hole? The outrage should be that there isn't really a trust fund to begin with, the money's already spent! Maybe the politicans can pull themselve up by their own bootstraps?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buss

03-20-2005 11:50:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to sawtooth, 03-20-2005 04:53:57  
Seems they can make money to suport our war



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hermit

03-20-2005 06:56:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to sawtooth, 03-20-2005 04:53:57  
The government uses the same model as the banks do. If all of a bank's customers went in at one time and asked for their money, the bank couldn't pay everyone. The bank's money (your money) is tied up with bonds and t-bills and funds and other places. And the bank has given you some papers saying you really have money there in the manner of deposit slips and account statements. Sure, it's an economic game that's played with our tax money but we (the american citizens) voted these folks to make these decisions. To really change, there needs to be new representives and senators in congress.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
cockshuttguy

03-19-2005 12:09:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
This country is being lead by one of the sickest I've ever witnessed in my life. Yet, the majority continues to support this kind of reckless behavior. I'm very sorry for my children and grandchildren for what we as a nation are doing to/for them. We should be ashamed for what we have been allowing to happen, however, what do you do? Common sense and compassion have been replaced by GREED!!!
May God Bless Our Grandchildren

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Redmud

03-19-2005 19:20:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to cockshuttguy, 03-19-2005 12:09:31  
What did you think of B.J.Clinton?? And your right about being ashamed, I know I am, we should never have stood still while the liberals put this country in the shape it's in now. Things are looking up though, the U.S. had a little reder glow this past election. 2008 will be much brighter.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buss

03-20-2005 11:53:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Redmud, 03-19-2005 19:20:41  
I think if you check budgets you will find your jim dandy in office now has run up the budget the most of anyone for what Make Haliburton rich



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Redmud

03-20-2005 12:32:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to buss, 03-20-2005 11:53:15  
Don't you guys know another song? Been hearing that sucker what seem like forever now.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Observer

03-21-2005 23:13:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Redmud, 03-20-2005 12:32:44  
A few facts,
When George W. took office he inherited the largest budget surplus in US history.
In less than 18 months George W. set the record for the largest deficit in US history breaking the previous record set in 1992 by his wimp daddy.
George W.'s further fiscal irresponsibility includes being the only president in history to give tax cuts while waging a war.
The US has never been hated by more people, cultures, or countries than in any other time in US history as it is now.
Rich people never counted on SS for themselves and it kills them to see the SS money set aside where they can't get their grubby hands on it. This administration's desire is to get it into the market where the rich corporate types will have the money.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
cockshuttguy

03-20-2005 05:52:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Redmud, 03-19-2005 19:20:41  
You must be living in a different country than we are!!!!!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill WI

03-19-2005 13:25:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to cockshuttguy, 03-19-2005 12:09:31  
AMEN,Couldn't state it better. Thanks



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Sid

03-19-2005 10:19:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
" Does it irritate you..... ?" No it does not. What does irrate me is all the whining about it. Social Security is and always has been a tax that was to be used for so called social security issues for certain people, of which elderly people happened to be one those groups. Don't blame the politicans for the short sightedness of some people who played like the grasshopper and did not even try to save for their later years.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
frits

03-20-2005 11:57:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Sid, 03-19-2005 10:19:06  
Also think about the people who didn,t geyt the breaks we did. I am thankfull with things as they turned out for me but I have friends that have been In a bind not because of their actions but with the deck they were dealt.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Zonko

03-19-2005 09:51:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Give me your money now and I will promise to give it back when you're old and need it.Just give me your money now.No,tell you what,I'll take your money now but I PROMISE I'll give it back when you're old.I promise. Do any of you give the above paragraph any credibility? Do your own due diligence.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jonesy

03-19-2005 09:33:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
I find it rather strange that in 1999 Bill Clinton gave a speech in front of Congress on how he had this vision to reform SS buy letting us invest a portion of OUR own money in private accounts(sound fimilar?). He was giving a standing ovation and of coarse given credit by Dems as having the vision to change a failing system. Now jump to 2005 but now GW is giving the same speech nearly word for word on SS only this time to be met with BOOS and disruption buy THE SAME people that 6 years earlier agreed the problem needed to be fixed but NOW in 2005 they say there is no problem. That is selfish politics @ its best. Its kinda funny how everyone you talk to thinks SS wont be there when its their time to collect, no problems huh. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill WI

03-19-2005 13:21:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to jonesy, 03-19-2005 09:33:14  
We are awake, don't confuse the issue, check out what his version was.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
xragman

03-19-2005 08:35:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
let us not waste time talking about it. that is all politics is, talk. we need to DO something, like vote agin um at reelection.!!!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MAC,IL

03-19-2005 08:26:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Thinks they should spend more time on prescription drug cost. For the less fortunate, SS Dont go far if you have to buy a lot of drugs for survival. If you should have some type of government/state pill plan, they regulate what and how many you can have. Seems that some who never donated to SS and never worked a day in their life have better benefits.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

03-19-2005 08:47:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to MAC,IL, 03-19-2005 08:26:05  
Do not know if it will work for you but it is worth a try.

My dad went through the same thing when he went on SS. He was on a med. for years and when the insurance stopped paying the price went from $10 a month to $85.

I found out from a friend he may be able to get them from the Veterans hospital because he spent his 2 years in the army like most. I do not know all the details but you may want to check into that. His pills are now about $7 a month through the VA.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
txblu

03-20-2005 05:55:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:47:38  
Unless you were in battle, the VA hospital (prescriptions too) is off limits for new accounts as of 2003. For just the average jane/joe who put in their time, it's too late to jump on the bandwagon.

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ron Muhlenkamp

03-19-2005 08:19:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Most people have no idea how much or how little they've paid into SS. They do know how long. For a brief summary , go to www.muhlenkamp.com
Ron Pa



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tim (IA)

03-19-2005 07:51:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
SS takes a total of about 14% of your gross income. As an interesting exercise, figure out what kind of 401k balance you would generate if you were to put 14% of all your gross income into an account that earns a nominal rate of return (8% annual?). Then compare that to how much your SS account is worth. For my money, I would rather control and invest my own money for my own future . . . but, SS is more about this generation of workers funding the SS benefits of the current retirees.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill WI

03-19-2005 08:08:01




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Tim (IA), 03-19-2005 07:51:24  
Tim, Did you have a 401k in the 90's. Don't know where you come up with the 8%, but it doesn't wash.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
dr.sportster

03-19-2005 08:38:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Bill WI, 03-19-2005 08:08:01  
Bought a Roth Ira in the ninties when times were good.Invested in American tech stock mutual fund.After several years contribution of $2000 per year I now have $1600 dollars.Stopped diging that hole.Had a big Schwabb account untill new trucks cost 40 grand.I think Id like to leave my Soc sec money alone.Its all thats left.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark - IN.

03-19-2005 07:40:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
There are people getting SS that flat out don't deserve it, and that's only the tip of the problem. By the way, what ever happened to that "lock box" that both sides proposed. I agree to let folks have a choice to invest part of "THEIR" invested monies, but what ever happened to that "lock box" for the investments already there? Never happened.

Years ago, I had to do a phone repair at the SS bldg downtown Chicago. When I walked in, many of the people in line were young (teens, twenties)and looked like they had slept in a box the night before. When I walked out, headed over to a place a few days down for lunch, but passed an alley where some of these guys were trading their SS checks for drugs to pushers in the alley - right around the corner. A months worth of OUR hard earned money up in smoke, literally.

My brother married a lady (he was her fourth, she's on her eighth now), whose first husband shot a couple of Florida Troopers when he was like eighteen. He's doing life without parole down there. He was shot in the arm during the commission of a felony and is getting a disability check that goes into a slush fund for him, that he'll never see. They had two children together, and he had one with some other lady, all 3 (toddlers at the time) whom collected monthly SS checks until they turned eighteen, or twenty-one if they went to school - none went to school. As one turned eighteen and dropped off of SS, that amount was split between the other two, and when the oldest of them turned eighteen and dropped off, the WHOLE amount went to the one still on SS. Was a total amount of like $1,200 per month, not including the amount being put in a slush fund for the bum sitting in prison for life for shooting two troopers, and getting shot himself, when he was eighteen. All of those months and years of SS being paid out - how much does anyone figure this guy contributed, if any, by the age of eighteen?

The govt. can not touch the Railroad Pension, but they try to get their fingers onto it every year. They just can't stand to see something work. It is their mission to deep-six everything properous. Thanks for the rant time all, and Kim.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark - IN.

03-19-2005 08:33:24




Report to Moderator
 And one more thing in reply to Mark - IN., 03-19-2005 07:40:02  
My brother's daughter? My niece? Just turned nineteen herself, never worked a day in her life. Didn't like the strict rural farm life, so went into the big city and got herself hooked up with a known gangbanger, with an arrest record as long as any of us are tall. She was pregnant with his kid when she graduated high school at the age of eighteen. She and her baby live in government subsidized housing, the baby drawing SS, and the gangbanger mate has moved onto yet another one of his willing idiots and is nowhere to be found in either of their lives.

She wrote off her college plans to become a nurse, to lay up with a piece of garbage and let the tax payers pay their way.

Call me mean if you will, but she can spend the rest of her life living in a trash dumpster and watch her plans in motion from there, so long as it's not anywhere near me.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Easy

03-20-2005 07:13:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: And one more thing in reply to Mark - IN., 03-19-2005 08:33:24  
I don't think your neice's kid is collecting SS. Probably ADC ( Aid to Dependent Children ). Not connected to the SS system at all. Easy.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
dr.sportster

03-19-2005 14:17:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: And one more thing in reply to Mark - IN., 03-19-2005 08:33:24  
Mean



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Paul in Mich

03-19-2005 07:36:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
You"re worring about something as trivial as Social Security, while all the time the institution of Baseball is being threatened by steroids? Get a grip. Lets let our politicians get Baseball back to its original intent and standing (America"s pastime), and not have them be distracted by silly little issues like S.S., wars, taxes, etc.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill WI

03-19-2005 07:59:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Paul in Mich, 03-19-2005 07:36:28  
You hit the nail on the head. Just watch what these jokers are doing now and get out there at election time and vote for not red or blue but for the man or woman. No one can please everybody all the time, but their sure is room for improvement on our voting.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
lucasss

03-19-2005 07:12:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
in my mind, the reason ssi is goin broke is this. for the last 50 years i been taxed for ssi, the amount collected was billions more than went out each year. politicians used the excess on other things instead of keeping it for us unretired.to me , thats why ssi is broke,. its a crime in my mind to specifically tax us for one thing and use the money for something else. lucas



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snitkawl

03-20-2005 15:46:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to lucasss, 03-19-2005 07:12:10  
lucass, the money was borrowed. When you borrow money at a bank you don`t keep it in your pocket, you spend it. Do you think that since you spent it you no longer owe the bank? The money borrowed from SS will be repaid as it is needed. Personally I would a lot rather have had it invested in the stock market where it could have earned a decent rate of income, but no one ask me.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
lucasss

03-21-2005 11:36:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to snitkawl, 03-20-2005 15:46:17  
yeah snit, but why are they saying ssi is broke if the money that was taken out of it for otherthings is going to be put back? the money they took out is must be gone if its truly broke as the news is stating.and whos going to pay it back? lucas



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snitkawl

03-21-2005 17:53:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to lucasss, 03-21-2005 11:36:26  
Nobody that knows anything about the system is saying that SS is broke. What they are saying is that it WILL go broke. In the not to distant future there will be less money coming into the program than is being paid out. At that time borrowed money will have to come back into SS in order to pay those drawing on it. Some years after that, all the borrowed money and SS tax income will not be enough to pay what is obligated. At that time SS will be broke. As to who will pay it back, that will have to be the general fund, which borrowed it in the first place.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Coloken

03-19-2005 06:47:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Relax. polititicians just making noise again. Bush, as they say in Texas, is putting money down a dry hole. Wouldn't affect/effect most of us any way. Worry about the cost of fuel to poor farmers and trucker.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
txblu

03-19-2005 06:06:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to OBRick, 03-19-2005 05:42:07  
Wife and I just retired and here's a couple of tidbits.

Got on the www and went to the SS website and digested much info and answers to questions as fast as we could mouse the questions.

Got an 800 number from there and called it for an appointment at our local SS office. Call was promptly answered by a very polite PERSON (no recordings) who set us up for an appointment within 1 week of the call.

Somewhere in all this we received a list of things required to have an effective interview....like Birth Certificate, DD 214 if discharged from the military.

I have been tracking my SS inputs from my wages so I knew what wages I had been taxed on; didn't know the exact amount of taxes paid however.

Went to the SS office on the given day, walked in, registered with the door attendant (also a security guard....guess after 911) and sat down. About 5 minutes later a very polite person called me for my interview.

Went in and sat down. The attendant pulled my record up on the screen and looked at my documents. I had asked for a copy of my DD214 from the National Archives but it hadn't arrived.

I told the attendant that but it was not a problem as she had a copy on her computer. Everything was there; everything nice and orderly.

We discussed start date for retirement and I told her I wanted a directly deposited check (as did the wife). She told me how much I was going to get and that was that.

Took all of 15 minutes.

On the date she said, magically, our checking account increased by the stated amount and has ever since. No problems, no Hassle.

Don't know how much we paid in over the years but the payout we are getting would require an investment exceeding $500,000 at 4%. I know very well that we invested no ways near that amount; not even 10% of that.

You can't beat a deal like that.

My hat's off to them.

Nuf said.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

03-19-2005 08:17:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to txblu, 03-19-2005 06:06:07  
I am glad you are happy with your SS but lets look at your figures.

The average Joe makes $40,000. per year and is putting 7% of that into SS. That is about $233 a month.

If you put $231.87 in a bank per month at 4% interest you would have $350,000. in 45 years. (Age 20 to 65)

If you lived to 85 (20 years) you could take out $2113.88 per month and it would last you the whole 20 years.

I do not know what SS pays but I think it is lower than $2110 a month per person.

The problem with these figures is I could have put $100 in the stock market at age 20 and it would be $1000 now. That is a 10% increase.

Like others have stated before... What is the government going to do when all these baby boomers get into the system. They have been spending the money on what ever all these years thinking that they would one day take in a dollar and pay out a dollar. Well with extended life age and fewer workers it is going to be more like 1 dollar in and 2 dollars out.

The thing that pisses me and most people off is that SS money was suppose to be saved for SS not to build bridges and fight starvation in the world. That is what income tax is for.

You may have the soap box now.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Outsider

03-26-2005 07:48:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
To say that if you had put 100 in the market it would now be 1000 is rediculous! You have NO proof that would ever be true. The stock market has NO guaranteed return and you could have lost the 100 and any other money spent with it. And to these other quoted imaginary returns, where are you getting these 10%? What bank is paying 4% on passbook/checking/mm's? These seem to be the figures the pro-market people keep throwing around! It's FICTION!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Joe Al.

03-22-2005 19:08:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
When I was 20 years old I was makeing $1.05 per hr. not much room for saving or taxes.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Easy

03-20-2005 14:39:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
I just went over some old tax returns with my dad. In a job considered well payed at the time, in 1960 he made a little less than $5,000. With 4 kids and a wife. I have maxed out my 401K every year at work, and due to the "stock market" I would have been better off putting into something @4%. And I know of no one who's experience is different. My 2 cents. Easy



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
txblu

03-20-2005 05:47:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
John,

The problem I have had in raising 4 children with my wife of 43 years, is that when things were tight, we tapped what reserves we had. With that said, on paper it looks great. In reality, it doesn't work..... for me.

Thanks,

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dieselrider

03-19-2005 17:10:53




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
John, I hate to break this to you but your math is a bit off. Maybe your calculator buttons are sticky. $233/month x 12 =$2796/year x 45=$125,820. If you were to double that figure the answer sounds real impressive at $251,640 but, there are not many people retiring now that have made anywhere near $40,000/year for the last 45 years.

$251,640 divided by 180 months or 15 years is $1,398/month income. Another thing to consider is that employee didn't put $251,640 into SS, he only put in $125,820 and that number divided by the same 180 months would only give him/her $699/month to live on. If that person were to draw only his money out at the $1,398/month he would only have enough to live on for 7.5 years.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

03-20-2005 03:40:29




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to Dieselrider, 03-19-2005 17:10:53  
Ok I will go along with the 40,000 a year for today�s money is a little high because wages were not that years ago.
But the extra 7% the employer puts in for you is your money. It is part of your pay package just like vacation time or medical insurance.
And my figures are correct. You forgot to add 4% interest per year. Then interest on the interest the next year. Then interest on the interest on the interest the next year. This is what makes the figure go up so much.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dieselrider

03-20-2005 06:24:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-20-2005 03:40:29  
"But the extra 7% the employer puts in for you is your money. It is part of your pay package just like vacation time or medical insurance."

All this is why all the jobs are going overseas. The cost of hiring an employee in America, with all the added benefits, drives us out of competition with everyone else.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

03-19-2005 08:20:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to john in la, 03-19-2005 08:17:10  
OH YEA!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!
I forgot..... ..... ..... ...
Your imployer puts in another 7% for you that you never see so now you need to double that amount.
So do you get $4227.76 per month????? ????? ??



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
cannonball

03-20-2005 07:06:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to dr.sportster, 03-19-2005 05:51:47  
probably true...one of the best ways to save money is allow the president to serve only one term at a time, then you would cut out all the soft money given to presidents for re election plus you would get an extra year of work out of president, instead of running around country trying to get re elected from the time they take office..if they had left ss alone then the talk would be on something else..as far as jobs go say thanks to sam walton for showing the nation how to use temp help...now as far as fuel prices, all we hear is that refineries can not keep up, YEA ever wait and wait for gas lol look at oil companies profits and figure what is happening...fuel prices changed at one place..on tuesday 1.89 on friday 2.00 yep lol good old politics....have nice day all...MAY GOD BLESS THIS USA.....

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark - IN.

03-20-2005 05:06:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to dr.sportster, 03-19-2005 05:51:47  
Since some of my tractors are beyond the legal retirement age, maybe I can get them SS numbers...a new oil filter here, a new tire there... Naw, just a thought though. LOL.

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
brian 1

03-19-2005 19:47:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to dr.sportster, 03-19-2005 05:51:47  
Bush got lots of support from seniors, farmers, veterans, sportsmen, and current military. Now he is trying to screw them all. Well like they say- you get what you deserve. Only people doing real well are the oil folks.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
spud in mo

03-19-2005 22:15:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to brian 1, 03-19-2005 19:47:23  
Fellas, There is only one truely secure retirement. Death.... However, for those who are believers in Christ not the end, but a new begining. I know many dont want to hear this but, in the great sceme of things this existance is short. There is no, NO security except through the grace of God. Scripture says that "He will dry the tears from our eyes". When He returns, all of the problems that we as people have created will be recified. I just hope that day comes soon..... No more war.. No more starving children..No more hate.. No more greed.. Sorry guys.. I"ll fold up my pulpit and put the soapbox back out.
Spud in mo

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
cannonball

03-20-2005 07:08:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT: Social security in reply to spud in mo, 03-19-2005 22:15:55  
AMEN



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy