Mon, Dec 22, 2014, 2:23 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 7 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • raybans2 raybans2 Dec 3, 2012 11:46 AM Flag

    Crazy right wingers that want to tax the poorest

    Currently SS is not self sustaining. By that I mean that SS does not take in enough to allow it to pay out all the benefits that are coming due. The reason the SS program fell into this situation was because for many years SS was taking in more money than they could spend so law breakers decided it was OK to up the benefits. That's not the case anymore. And had their never been a SS surplus in the past then law makers never would have boosted benefits to what they are today and we would not be in this mess because we would already be of the mindset that we were going to get less. So we either increase SS taxes or reduce SS benefits. I'm OK with either approach. However it they up SS tax and keep benefits the same they will never make up for the fact that the baby boomers got a free ride where they paid less into a fund than they will get out in return. That bridge has been crossed. Or we could simply give baby boomers what they paid in which I suspect is about 3/4 of what they are projected to get today. Since I am retiring soon I would opt for them keeping benefits the same however I cannot object with a clear conscious if they decide to cut my benefits as I never paid for what I'm projected to get. That extra 1/4 is a freebie as far as I’m concerned.

    If they decide to cut SS benefits then I will probably work about another 3 to 4 years to make up for the money that I won’t get. I don’t want to do that. But then, how can I ethically object when I never paid for those benefits to begin with? Do I just say screw our children and grand children and force them to do for us what we were not willing to do for ourselves if they are inclined not to? Maybe some of you can do that in clear conscious but I cannot. It is too engrained into my moral fiber to not impose on others a cost for me that I did not pay for. I just can’t go there. I think our children and grand children deserve to have as much of a chance to live as a good of a life as we had and not be saddled with the burdens of our mistakes if they don’t want to be. Personally, I would be fine if they keep SS the same but I wish they could make it a special election where only the younger people who will be paying for us would be allowed to vote on it as they will be the ones getting screwed in the end. If they decide then so be it. If not then I’m fine with that. I won’t like it but at least I can feel good that I didn’t give anyone the shaft no matter how it goes. But alas that is not how things are done and I’m sure the decision will be made mostly by selfish self centered greedy people as it always has been before.

    In a way I’m glad I was born in my generation because I would hate to have what is getting done to the next generation by our generation. They are getting screwed big time by us. And it’s not because the rich are not paying their fair share. The SS system is not part of the general fund and it is paid for by each worker. The rich have nothing to do with this situation.

    Probably the fairest thing to do that will force baby boomers to get the same as everyone else is going to get is to increase the age at which you can start getting benefits. Then no one gets screwed and no one gets over on anyone. Problem solved. But if our kids want to give us a feebie I’ll take it, so long as they are willing. But I doubt that is how it will play out. They won’t have a choice because older people will ram it down their throats because they will only think of themselves. But of course they will use catch phrases that sound anything like that in an attempt to get allies to their cause.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • WRONG.

      The rich are getting a free ride. SS tax is capped, and yet they still receive the same benefits.

      Too bad, it looks like you're not going to be able to buy your dog the mercedes she wants oh so much.

      • 1 Reply to olee2116
      • A rich person will receive the same amount of benefit as anyone else who paid in the maximum amount. SS is not an income redistribution program. It's income insurance. The rich are getting exactly what they paid for. Leaving aside the argument that everyone is getting more than they paid for but that is another argument all together. The whole idea of the SS program was to force people to save money for the future so you would not have people starving on the streets because they spent the money on beer when they were younger. It was never intended to be a giveaway.

        I don't buy fancy cars because I don't have a fixation on status. I own a home which is well below my means because I don't care what anyone thinks about that. I don't own a suit because I don't dress up like that. You seem to have imagined some image of me that could not be further from the truth. I have two pairs of blue genes that I wear and enough polo shirts that I buy at costco to last until the weekend laundry. The only thing I will spend a lot of money on is comfortable shoes. But I have found that this actually saves me money because they last longer than the ratio of the price difference.

        I spend significantly more money on books than I do clothes.

        No matter how much you make you can always save. Even a homeless person can save if they have the mind set to do so. It’s purely a mental attitude. I knew a lady who worked on the assembly line who did not pay into the 401k plan. So I asked her why she didn’t because she was foregoing the company’s contribution by not contributing anything at all. She said it was because she could not afford to but I knew better because of the life style she lived. So I asked her. “What if the company gave you a special raise that would allow you to contribute the minimum required for the contribution and your paycheck after the contribution would be the same as it is today, would you contribute then?” She said she wouldn’t because she could not afford to. Basically she wanted to spend that extra money. This lady was pretty attractive and men were always taking her out on dates and paying her way for everything and she liked to where the latest fashions because it made her look more desirable. The point is that no matter how much money she made she was never going to save a dime. You need social security for people like this. And that is it is for.

        Social security is a good deal. You need about $250k to buy an annuity that will pay you about $1k a month for the rest of your life which is not inflation adjusted. So to receive $2.5k a month, the maximum that SS pays, you would need to pay $625k for an annuity and that annuity would not be inflation adjusted #$%$ is. So you can see that SS is a great deal because no one pays even close to that into it even after interest compounding is accounted for.

 
AGNC
22.30+0.30(+1.34%)Dec 19 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.