Time to put up or shut up

Chattanooga Fishing Forum

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

I'd really like to know where I go to "opt" out of Social Security. I have never heard of that and I pay 15% of my income every year into it and I know that I'll never see it. Believe me, I would be better off stuffing that money into my mattress.

I totally agree with Beetlespin on what he said. I've wanted a flat tax forever. Or better yet, just a nationwide flat sales tax and eliminate the IRS altogether. Then it would truly be a user tax, if you didn't want to pay taxes you don't buy the items that are taxed.
 
I just want everyone to keep paying into the system, work as much overtime as you can, I don't want my SS to run short of money. You know what they say, the ones that work pay for the retirees.
 
I've paid $17k into since I graduated in Dec 2004. I got a letter from the SS Administration that stated it will be depleted by 2038 (?) and I should basically plan to not have it.
 
Doc1 - 8/15/2009 11:13 PM

I just want everyone to keep paying into the system, work as much overtime as you can, I don't want my SS to run short of money. You know what they say, the ones that work pay for the retirees.

Brother Gary I don't mind paying in to help the retirees one bit. You people worked hard all your life and ran this country and built it to what it is now. I do have a real problem with paying for folks looking for a ride on my back that are as able to work or more so even than me.
 
OK Outcaster. I nor my parents are retirement age, so I can't really do aht you asked. But my parents are getting close so we will assume they already were. They worked as self-employed individuals for 20 years. Which means they paid almost 15% of their hard earned income into the Social Security and Medicare system. I can tell you they would gladly call both offices and cancel coverages IF and only IF, they sent them a check for every dime they have put into the system, and to be nice, added 3% interest for inflation. Then they would have more than enough to buy private healthcare coverage, AND provide a good income in addition to their other retirement savings (yes, they still found the discipline to save into 401k's another 10% of their income after SS & MC shafted them for 15%. What I will tell you is that if you ACTUALLY could call and "cash-out" (i have looked all over the Medicare and SS site and can't find anything about it. I have found that it is an urban legend, so as has been asked of you before, please post a link to your "proof") Even if there was the option, they have no money to pay someone a lump some since it is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.

AS an example, suppose someone worked from the age of 25- 65 and made a flat 50k per year. We will assume they worked for a company so they only paid their part of FICA 7.5%. That woud be $3750 per year times 40 years = $150,000 WITHOUT factoring ANY interest. At just 3% annual return, they would have $282, 754 available for "cash-out". Assuming they were still getting 3%, they could get an income for 30 years of $14,425. I dare say that this could go a long way toward securing a private healthcare option and " supplementing their income from their own retirement savings (which, if they were "persoanlly responsible" they would have)

Now ,if you put more realistic rates of return 5-8% on those figures, it becomes even more realistic. As has been said, many people do not have or feel the need for personal responsibility so they have NO retirement savings, and therefore HAVE to rely on the gov't to pay them for work that hey have done.
 
This might be the silliest arguement I have heard so far. I do believe my parents and grandparents paid their dues in order to recieve gov. aided health care and SS. It's give a penny take a penny thing..............the money doesn't come from a tree somewhere.... Besides they still have a CHOICE.

And BTW I don't think Jesus would have ever needed Health care so lets just leave JC out of this.
 
I am sure we all forgot about President Johnson and President Nixon took money out of the Social Security. George w. wanted some of the money to be invested in the stock market. I think that would have been a genius move. Not!!! Some of our seniors including my father used more than their fair share. Right now I feel we should be worried ABOUT OUR SENIORS and God will take care of us.
 
What really makes no sense about SS is that when one elderly spouse dies, the living spouse will then have to choose which benefit to receive. My mother is going thru this right now. My dad died several years ago and she did get the huge death benefit of something like $250. Now, she is getting close to retirement age, shouldn't she receive both what she paid into the system and what he paid as well? Nope, apparently she has to choose which one to receive and the remainder just goes back into the system.
 
"George w. wanted some of the money to be invested in the stock market. I think that would have been a genius move. Not!!!"

It can be a good move if American's had their own control of this. A good growth stock mutual fund averages 15% annually return over its lifetime. I personally would think, that the American people would like to have control of that 6% that is invested for them, of which will be losing money by 2017 and depleted by 2034.

Now with that being said we can't just cut it off, and say "sorry" to folks who depend on it now. However we can make a deadline (like Federal Employees had in 1985 with the FERS from CFERS) where folks will qualify for SS or not by age. Personally I have no faith in SS, and have made plans accordingly to not depend on it upon retirement.
 
Who can trust the market ? Many people I knew lost 50 % of their savings. I watched several IRA personally lose 40%. The stock market investment was going to make the rich richer. When they got their stock at a premium price they would of dumped it.
 
AirrusBoy - 8/15/2009 3:01 PM

Ten Questions on the Health-Care Overhaul - An article from a good friend of mine.
Nice article, I would like to cite it elsewhere, can you provide me with author (pm is fine).
Thanks.
 
Beetlespin and Davo,

Flat tax sounds great, however it disproportionately taxes the poor. Of course you could start exempting necessities such as food, house, etc. But that kind of leads back to what is currently wrong with the IRS, to many exemptions/loopholes.
 
R14,</p>

The Fair Tax Website addresses that concern... </p>

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"</p>

The truth:The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.</p>

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.</p>

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.</p>

How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition,40million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.</p>

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.</p>
 
Flat tax is on income and is different than what your calling fairtax (VAT or sales tax).

From what I can tell your fairtax (without the prebate) is just a sales tax. I could not find out how the prebate works or how the family consumption amount is calculated.
 
The nationwide fairtax is a sales tax, but it is at a higher rate, like 23%. It also would not be on food or certain other items. It would truly be a user tax. If you don't want to pay it you don't buy the taxable items. This would totally eliminate the IRS and all of it's junk, would stop many of the write offs that people use inappropriately and save a ton of headaches.
 
Davo, I hope you run in 2012. Flat tax or fair tax are both way better than what we have now. The IRS, which is a very inefficient organization that adds no value, could be scrapped.
 
Davo - 8/19/2009 9:48 PM

The nationwide fairtax is a sales tax, but it is at a higher rate, like 23%. It also would not be on food or certain other items. It would truly be a user tax.

It is still disproportionally affects lower class, as they spend a greater percentage of their income on necessities.

Also fairtax exempt business purchases w/ no accountability (from what I can tell). I think R14's lawn care business (1 small yard) needs a new truck w/ no taxes. Oh yeah I need to go by Sams and get a freezer full of meat for the company party (1 employee). Hmm R14 thinking he can have several companies (what is a business license like $50), no taxes for most purchases, oh boy. emoDance
 

Latest posts

Back
Top