posted on August 19, 2001 06:15:15 PM
(singing) Oh wouldn't it be luvly???
Just think. If I were to be allowed to keep the money that I earn and invest it as I choose...then I would be responible for my own welfare. What a concept!!!! One I totally agree with.
This a one (of many) URLs one can read on the benefits that Chile has experienced since they made radical changes to their social security approx. 18 years ago.
That url shares how they dealt with their transition from a system similar to ours.
One of the many things I like about the way they choose to privatize is.... When the SS contributor dies, unlike SS, the *full* amount accumulated goes to any designated beneficiary, just like a savings account would. Another is the contributor makes the decision about who holds and manages their funds.
posted on August 19, 2001 06:18:53 PM
Oh and also wanted to share that all four of our friends here, who currently collect their social security benefits, do pay federal income taxes on that income.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 19, 2001 06:20 PM ]
posted on August 19, 2001 06:32:27 PM
Tex1 I don't have a URL for your conveinance., nor am I going to go hunt for one. I got the info from my local Social Security office when I was down there one time. I advise anyone not believing that they aren't being held at gunpoint to go down to their own local Social Security office and withdraw from the program! It isn't Federal taxes and it isn't the IRS! It's a VOLUNTARY PROGRAM which you DO NOT have to participate in!
The Self-Employment Tax is a social security and Medicare tax for individuals who work for themselves. It is similar to the social security and Medicare taxes withheld from the pay of wage earners
posted on August 19, 2001 06:53:24 PM
Thank you, NearTheSea! I'm just not going to be put into a position where I have to "prove" that an individual can drop out of the system. If anyone wants to drop out individually and sits on their hands in here and cries about it, I don't feel sad for them at all. I can't advise anyone on what to do or how the system works in detail as I do not administer the program myself; nor will I look up material for anyone to read at your leisure. Just make it a point to go down there sometime and check it out for yourself to see that it can easily be done. How a self-employed person would get away not paying Employer's share or not is way beyond my head. But not for those folks at the office if you go donw there to find out.
posted on August 19, 2001 07:02:13 PM
I am not saying its not true Borillar, it is just that I cannot seem to find it. Its easy enough to find Social Security and IRS on the internet, thats why I did it. I only put the links in, just to say that it is the IRS that collects FICA, and it is the IRS that collects self employment taxes which are social security and medicaid taxes.
I'm not 63 or 65? yet not for a couple years, so I don't need to go to the Social Security office, however! one could call them and ask.
If you said they said that, I believe you, I never said I didn't, 'k?
The cato institute that you have cited above has been working on privatizing the social security system here for 20 years.
They are also interesting in eliminating every other kind of government in the United states.
Cato's latest 680-page "Handbook for Congress" advises Congress to eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Education; to "prohibit new entrants to the welfare rolls"; and to "end all federal early education and child care subsidies and programs." For good measure, it also calls for disbanding the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Small Business Administration, and some 200 other agencies and programs. Cato opposes any limits on campaign contributions and wants America to withdraw from the International Monetary Fund.
posted on August 19, 2001 07:17:33 PM
There are several ways to avoid SS taxes. I think federal government employees pay into their own retirement plan ( ours isn't good enough). There was a railroad retirement plan that exempted railroad employees from SS, but I don't know if that still exists. The most popular way is to not work and go on the dole.
Borillar....You have said you own and run two businesses. Do you file quarterly returns?
posted on August 19, 2001 09:35:37 PMBut I don't get where humans are causing global warming????
It's the kind of thing that some people believe, apparently fervently believe. But when you ask them for a URL showing any evidence, they respond as if you're the one with a problem. Or they respond with some URL which discusses the topic broadly, but has no specific evidence supporting their claim, and they respond "it's not my job to read for you".
Wouldn't happen here on AW, we only have intellectually qualified posters, but it could happen other places.
posted on August 19, 2001 09:36:33 PMI'm not even sure I see the plausible path from privitization and stolen. Does anyone else?
How many people REALLY know about safely investing money. If the privitize it, how many new "investment" schemes will there be? How many people are going to be ripped off? If this much money hits wall street all at once, how over valued will stocks become, only to come down a few years later. Who will have siphioned off a big chunk of the money at that point?
A lot of people will LOSE hard earned money. A lot of stock brokers will make a bloody fortune. Do you really think if you tell 100 million people that have no experience with investing in the stocks, bonds, etc, to invest that a lot of them won't be taken to the cleaners? By the very people that are pushing so hard to make this happen.
posted on August 19, 2001 10:07:33 PM
Checked on the SS Online FAQs page in regard to paying taxes on SS income. Here's what it said:
Question Are Social Security benefits taxable?
Answer About 20 percent of people who get Social Security have to pay taxes on their benefits. This provision affects only people who have substantial income in addition to their Social Security.
Here are some general guidelines:
If you file a federal tax return as an individual,: And your combined income* is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay taxes on 50 percent of your Social Security benefits.
If your combined income* is above $34,000, up to 85 percent of your Social Security benefits is subject to income tax.
If you file a joint return:
you may have to pay taxes on 50 percent of your benefits if you and your spouse have a combined income* that is between $32,000 and $44,000.
If your combined income* is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your Social Security benefits is subject to income tax.
*"Combined" income means your and your spouse's adjusted gross income (as reported on your Form 1040) plus nontaxable interest plus one-half of your Social Security benefits.
posted on August 19, 2001 10:11:41 PMHow many people REALLY know about safely investing money
No one is proposing that people would have enough control of their money to be responsible for its safety. Well, no one with a practical proposal.
What we want more than anything is an account with our name on it and a balance.
All serious proposals suggest a set of funds, all of which are carefully regulated by the government regarding what they can invest in. All are equally "safe", although they might allocate differently between say stocks and bonds, or between short term notes and long term bonds. Not unlike the choices currently offered to most 401k participants, although likely more conservative.
posted on August 19, 2001 10:28:34 PM
Wasn't that what Bush proposed? A person can totally 'opt out' of investing on their own, and stay with the SS program, or they can take part of their SS earnings (their FICA TAXES) and invest, and like you said, in regulated areas. Not in any stock schemes or anything like that.
I like it, I think it would at least make the person feel more in control
posted on August 19, 2001 10:32:48 PMAll serious proposals suggest a set of funds, all of which are carefully regulated by the government regarding what they can invest in. All are equally "safe
Private companies as safe as the government? ROFLMAO. The government can at least print money if it screws up and goes broke. The government has been around for over 200 years. Hell, the government can tax the crap out of us if they screw up and go broke. A private fund screws up, and a bunch of people starve in their old age.
No, this is about doing anything it takes to get that money out of the lockbox and into wall street.... Gotta' boost them stock prices (at least long enough for GW's buddies to make a killing on the market), or Boy George can't make good on the promises he made to folks that financed him.
Hell, he's already robbed us. All these "tax rebate" checks, they where paid with borrowed money. Who the heck is gonna pay THAT money back. My Kids?
posted on August 19, 2001 10:33:54 PM? A person can totally 'opt out' of investing on their own, and stay with the SS program, or they can take part of their SS earnings (their FICA TAXES) and invest, and like you said, in regulated areas. Not in any stock schemes or anything like that.
Yes, although it didn't go very far, not nearly as far as many would like. I think you could contribute about 20% of your total FICA under Bush's plan.
posted on August 19, 2001 10:43:07 PMA private fund screws up, and a bunch of people starve in their old age.
Well, let's agree, we won't support any proposal which would let that happen.
Observe the role of the SIPC, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Both provide protection to individual investors in the face of such screwups as "management loots financial institution, arrested on the way to the Bahamas". The SIPC does not protect investors from market risk, but it does protect them from all manner of screwups.
That is the kind of protection that individual SS accounts need, and should have under any serious proposal.
posted on August 19, 2001 11:13:20 PMWell, let's agree, we won't support any proposal which would let that happen.
That much we can certainly agree on... no problem there.
Observe the role of the SIPC, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Both provide protection to individual
I know the FDIC has a limit on the maximum amount an indiviuals bank account is covered for, and it certainly isn't enough to cover the value of the average persons SS benifits. How big of a insurance policy are we going to write?
"management loots financial institution, arrested on the way to the Bahamas
Or "money wired to the Bahamas, diverted to
Panama, and now we don't know where the heck it is". Yeah, this is one thing that can happen.
The SIPC does not protect investors from market risk
Yep, and this is the "kicker". The market can be manipulated. It's not going to be "ripped off" by someone taking a suitcase full of hundred dollar bills to Bimini, it will be through manipulation. It will be done by very slick people that know how to sell short, and buy long. It will be done by "inside trading" (which is VERY hard to prove). There will be people that find ways to make money off this "new money" at the expense of those who's money is being used.
I have a feeling by the time you underwrite the proper insurance to really protect retirement money the way it should be (the money is for when we CAN'T work anymore, you can't take ANY chances with it.), you might as well leave it set where it's at.
posted on August 19, 2001 11:52:22 PM
NearTheSea : I was just thanking you for the link. The rest was not directed at you.
Tex1 : I do have two businesses, both of which are as DBA -- not corporate. I work with parttners who are not under my direct instructions, so they are self-employed as well.
roofguy, what you say is out of line. I could not provide a link because there is no specific information that directly points humans as the cause of global warming. Simply because I mentioned what is generally accepted as common knowledge doe snot make it my onus to go prove it. And as far as my not "proving" that anyone can Opt-out of Social Security with a URL, I couldn't care less if you or anyone else believes me or not. You can sit here and make your complaints about being in the system that you ahte so much without ever going to go find out for yourself.
You know, I've mentioned this "Opt-Out" fact to many people and a few already knew it; so it is not a matter of it being a State Secret. I'm sure that they don't make it general knowledge that you can Opt-out of the program. It isn't like the Opt-Out for paying Federal Taxes, where the IRS tries to deny that you can do that, although there supposedly is a way to do so.
I don't want to derail this thread, but since I just mentioned the Opt-Out for paying Federal taxes, I'll quickly relate the story. Back in the early part of the 1990's, the national media was reporting a raid by IRS agents ona small town in Northern California on a group that was freely distributing pamphlets that gave explicit instructions on how anyone can legally Opt-Out of paying Federal taxes for the rest of their lives. The Agents seized all of the pamphlets and materials and arrested several individuals for distributin of thoise pamphlets. after the firs teveing's announcement on that, it dissappeared from the news scope. But i do recall that happening. My point is that this is not the same thing for Social Security and it is as easy as asking for the form at the window I was told by the Social Security worker there when I asked about confirming the fact. Jeeze!
posted on August 20, 2001 12:11:35 AM
hjw - If you do a search for Jose Pinera you will find so many articles that say the same thing as the one I referenced from Cato.
Just because I choose a site that happened to be on you don't care for, doesn't change the facts of what this man did for his country, Chile, in regards to privatizing their social security system.
The article on the Cato site, gave the exact same testimony that this gentleman gave, as a witness for this system, to our US Senate on 6-27-97.
But, since you share that Cato is trying to downsize our government, maybe I will read their site a little more closely.....I agree with the government being downsized.
posted on August 20, 2001 12:34:02 AM
Yes, we should follow the example of Chile. LOL! Did I hear the other day that inflation is now controlled at a steady 40% in Chile? That's pretty good, eh? It means that for every peso you had yesterday you have 3/5 of a peso today, and that three fifths will be one peso today but only 3/5 of a peso tomorrow and that means that in two days you lose 4/5 of your original peso. Be Happy!
The truth is that anything would have been better than the Chilean system that was so rancid with fraud and political manipulation that it's stupid to use anything in that country as a comparative.
Protections? Hardly. FDIC won't protect anything over $100k, even if more money is invested in other accounts. You can have a million total in ten different investment tools and you've still got $100k of protection. Too bad we don't have anyone here who suffered directly from brother Neil's savings & loan scam to tell us how much of their protected investment they have remaining. We do, however, have a number of taxpayers who paid several billions collectively for that one. Can't you just imagine the conversations at the Bush dinner table? The kids probably weren't allowed to leave the table until they'd recited at least one method to screw the people.
A federal agency that will oversee the investment opportunities afforded by another federal agency? Might just work. You betcha'.
It doesn't make any difference if people can opt out of auxilliary investments. The scheme is designed to unlock the accumulated funds to keep the silly programs paid for. When it's gone your daddy will need to go back and look in your pocket for more. That opt-out bull is a smokescreen to make the idiots feel better about how they're being shafted.
posted on August 20, 2001 12:54:34 AM
On the issue of opting out of paying social security.....
Anyone who's interested in the opt out issues can do a google search. Just type in 'opt out of social security'.
Here's a site where you can calculate for yourself if this new way of doing things might be better for you individually. http://mysocialsecurity.org/
I did find there was mention of a minister (article was in the Christian Courier 3-10-01) who opted out on the grounds of "conscience" and didn't have to pay SS anymore. The IRS page did also state that all ministers, members of religious orders and Christian Science Practitioners can opt out. They need to fill out an application with the IRS for a waiver for self employment tax. IRS pub. # 4361.
When I did the IRS search I found a page stating that Publication #4029 was a waiver form. The URL is http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/forms_pubs/findfiles.html When there just type in 4029 and you can read the waiver form.
According to the Cascade Policy Inst. [B]Borillar's state of Oregon[B] along with Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota asked the federal government in July of 1997 for a waiver to 'opt out' of the s/s system. They had their own plans on privatizing their states. Also stated that in 7-2000 Oregons 'free market think tank' agreed with the proposals. They asked for this waiver because in 1983 congress banned withdrawals from SS. Many counties like Galveston, TX. (The Galveston Plan (1-1-81) had already opted out.
not for a couple years, so I don't need to go to the Social Security office, however! one could call them and ask.