posted on August 20, 2001 01:07:09 AM new
Gee, thanks Linda_K! It never occured to me that maybe you can only Opt-Out of SS in select states. As far as I know, one can just walk into a SS office and request the waiver and Opt-Out of the program. It is also bizaar that a voluntary private trust fund run by the government should not allow anyone who wants to should be able to Opt-Out at any time they feel like they can do better elsewhere. I think that the crime here is Congress forcing everyone to participate in a "voluntary" program. Maybe, instead of arguing for Privatization plans, why not bombard your "representative" that you love so dearly and get them to allow anyone who wants to anywhere to Opt-Out? That would certainly please to no end those of us who are choosing to stay with the current system as it is.
posted on August 20, 2001 01:22:06 AM new
Mornin Borillar - I believe you mis-understood my post. It wasn't that individuals in those states could opt out, it was the state(s) as a whole.
No where in all my searching did I find anyone who was not required to pay SS and Medicare taxes, even the self employeed. Paper boys are even required to do so. The only exceptions I could find were the ones I did post.
As far as the individual opt out issue, I believe President Bush's plan does allow that feature....just as Chile's does. One can choose to remain in the old system or choose the new. So we could all have it the way we'd like.
krs - So do you think that Chile's SS system was the cause of the inflation Chile is now (?) experiencing? We might be headed into a recession...next quarter will tell....but that doesn't mean we don't have to deal with our own SS issues.
posted on August 20, 2001 02:11:08 AM new
"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."
Sort of. You'll be driving people to bury their millions in coffee cans. $100k per investor, per institution. Take your next $900k, split it equally between 9 other banks, your million is totally covered under FDIC.
posted on August 20, 2001 02:22:52 AM new
Not always true, Donny, though I used to think that. The days of truly independent institutions may be over and if two are linked they may be considered as one when FDIC insurance payout time comes. I got that if an institution part of a large bunch of them that goes belly up, all deposits over the $100k might have to wait for liquidation of assets to be returned to the owners. So long as accounts are in the same name it may not matter where they are-thery're like one. The work around is to have different accounts with different names on them, or rather combinations of names but one SSN = one FDIC coverage.
No, Chile's inflation is not caused by SS system any more than ours is, and bush does not offer the choice in his plan and neither does Chile. People who were in the corrupt chilean upon retirement were not effected by the change-people who were still working were given vouchers for credit of their contributions in old to use in new--new workers must be in new system
Whole bunches of federal employees in this country are watching their investments in the tiered program called FERS (federal employee retirement system) become nearly worthless because of the destruction of our economy right now. The privatization proposals are no different than that boondoggle is - lots of lettuce, no meat.
posted on August 20, 2001 02:43:02 AM new
"Not true, Donny, though I used to think that. So long as accounts are in the same name it doesn't matter where they are-thery're like one. The work around is to have different accounts with different names on them, or rather combinations of names but one SSN = one FDIC coverage."
Sorry, Krs, but what you used to think was right. Your work around is also right, joint accounts are insured separately from individual accounts within the same institution.
Here's what FDIC says (bolding mine):
"If the funds are in different types of ownership, or are deposited into separate institutions, however, they would then be separately insured.
posted on August 20, 2001 03:13:01 AM new
Yeah. See, I've been up all night, and you guys out there have just gotten up. Also, I had a machine running next door that I had to attend when it got to the end of a cut. All of that to say that I'm not paying attention here. I should go sit in the corner.
posted on August 20, 2001 08:05:58 AM new
The FDIC insurance is $100K total, no matter how many banks you use if the accounts are under your tax ID. The other catch to the FDIC insurance is that the government can pay the money back in any number of ways, as that is not settled nor stated in the "policy". If there was an nationwide wide banking failure, they may only pay 10% of the money back per year. It is totally up to the FDIC how and when to pay the money back.
An individual can not "opt" out of SS. The only way for a working individual not to pay into SS is if a state or Federal governmental agency opts a class of workers out, not because they want out of SS, but because the class uses a different government retirement system.
Postal workers hired before 1986 may not be in the SS system, employees hired after 1986 are in SS and have an enhanced voluntary individual mutual funds retirement contribution system. The pre 1986 hired employees could have "opted" in to SS in 1986. Many of the holders of the "growth" mutual funds felt quite "rich" in the 90's, they're howling now.
Government regulated systems are in place to smooth out the wide swings in market systems. While it looks pretty sweet when regulation first ceases, once the market swings the wrong way, people begin to realize why the regulated market was there in the first place.
Within 10 years, electric utilities will be re-regulated due to these market swings.
A major capital market disaster will do the same thing for those advocating a free market retirement system. The crash in 1929 and the ensuing depression is what brought many of these regulations into being. Moving into an IT based economy will create the same dangers that the industrial economy wrought in 1929.
We don't need to create unregulated markets - sooner or later they all crash. All we need is different and more responsive regulations, whether it is for SS or electric utilities.
posted on August 20, 2001 09:11:08 AM new
krs: 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,
Here's a quote:
Inflation rose to 4.5 percent by end-2000, reflecting higher oil prices, but subsequently fell to levels within the target band of 2-4 percent that became effective this year.
Maybe you could explain to us, krs, just how it could be that you were so confident in that mistaken belief, confident enough to post it to a public forum?
posted on August 20, 2001 09:24:02 AM new
Regarding FDIC et al. It is irrelevant what current agencies protect or do not protect, since none of them protect SS accounts. What we need for private SS accounts is an agency which protects SS accounts, and protects them appropriately.
posted on August 20, 2001 09:30:03 AM new
roofguy: The SIPC does not protect investors from market risk
microbes: Yep, and this is the "kicker". The market can be manipulated.
Understand the context, microbes.
Many of us assume that the government will be manipulated in a way which leaves us with NOTHING from our social security contributions.
In fact, it is extraordinarily difficult, likely impossible to manipulate "the market" (as compared to the market for some particular listed security, which is also very hard, but not impossible).
"the government", on the other hand, is manipulated all the time. The government can decide that we don't really need our SS contributions. The market cannot decide any such thing.
posted on August 20, 2001 09:54:35 AM new
Bottom line...SS is in trouble and the Republicans have put forward a plan to preserve the program. The Democraps have done nothing to address the problem and have continued their scare program. If the D's have plan, let's see it. The drop dead date is 2038 (this could change). Are we to wait until 2037.
posted on August 20, 2001 10:37:09 AM newUnderstand the context, microbes.
I'm trying to. You seem to want to treat the money like a retirement fund... It's much more than that. It's also Disablity insurance, and to a degree, Life insurance. How does that part of it work when the money gets put into a wall street fund?
posted on August 20, 2001 12:20:41 PM new
This isn't the first time SS has been in "trouble". We heard the same BS back in the 80's and it was resolved quite easily. The taxes were raised, the world kept turning as did the economy.
posted on August 20, 2001 12:21:17 PM new
Roofguy, you're numbers are over a year old and irrelevant. Run back and try to find good ones before you overexert your officious concern for what is posted in public forum, eh? Take your time. LoL!
posted on August 20, 2001 01:48:33 PM new
As far as the FDIC coverage the government made it clear after the Savings & Loan disaster that any individual would be insured for no more than $100,000, no matter how many institutions that money was spread across.
So, if you had $25,000 in four institutions and they went belly-up -- you'd be convered in whole.
If you had $50,000 in four institutions and they went belly-up -- you'd only recover $100,000 worth.
FDIC, prior to the Savings & Loan disaster, covered ALL deposits. When the Savings & Loans were scuttled, the FDIC was left to pay the deposits -- which is why our Greag-great-grandchildren will still be paying that amount off. After that, the FDIC immediatly changed their rules of obligation to $100,000 per person TOTAL and no more.
posted on August 20, 2001 01:59:40 PM new
Good Afternoon, Linda! I guess I did misunderstand, as it was quite late for me last night when I wrote that.
I guess folks will continue to drop on in here and claim that no one -- with few exceptions, can Opt-Out of Social Security. No one will bother to go down to their local Social Security office and ask. If I had realized how few folk knopw that you can Opt-Out, I would have not said anything; but like I said before -- I'm not the only one who knows about it, just that most folks don't.
So, until someone takes the time to go down and see for themselves, there's no point in going on about it.
posted on August 20, 2001 02:05:21 PM newborillar - Toke, Social Security is NOT the IRS! You may withdraw YOURSELF from the program and neither you nor your employer will be required to withhold money for FICA for you ever again -- obviously. However, you can't FORCE your employees to withdraw from the program however -- that should be obvious too!
You are quite mistaken. The IRS positively insists that I pay the Self Employment Tax. They collect this tax...on Schedule SE, to be exact. This is similar to FICA...except that I pay both the employee and employer shares. They will not allow me to opt out. Period.
Perhaps the source of your confusion is simply that any of us can opt out of the benefits...just not the payments into the system.
posted on August 20, 2001 02:08:28 PM new
"Most of the time, politicians with executive responsibility get away with accounting
gimmicks in their budgets because the consequences for citizens' lives are either nil
or murky. It's when gimmickry occurs during hard economic times that there can be
a price to pay. Ronald Reagan found that out 20 years ago this week before the ink
had dried on the gigantic tax cuts and domestic program slashes he persuaded
Congress to pass. It turned out that his numbers didn't add up just as the economy
was heading into the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
Bush is likely to fare somewhat better, but as the dimensions of the funny business
he has authorized with the public accounts become known, the fact that his own
numbers don't add up when they were supposed to be fantastic just six months ago
is not going to be politically cost-free. Until last week the administration's credibility
was in trouble because of major policy and economic trends it chose to ignore.
Now, however, it is in the process of getting caught fooling with the numbers".
posted on August 20, 2001 02:17:48 PM new
Borillar, that opt-out option may be Oregon specific, as in The NEW Oregon Option http://www.cascadepolicy.org/ss/optout.htm. A couple of other states allow for it as well.
posted on August 20, 2001 03:30:52 PM new
Actually, today it went to 80% and the market collapsed so badly that half off the population of Santiago has committed a mass ceremonial suicide by leaping into lava at the local volcano painted with red stripes and adorned with Llama skin tutus. Go dig it out.
Oh sure, Chile as a model of efficiency with five million working. We should adopt their programs exactly as is, maybe even hire some of them as consultants to the president. LoL!
posted on August 20, 2001 03:37:55 PM new
borillar, that link is to a bunch of old and tired republican dogma from The National Center for Policy Analysis seeks innovative private-sector solutions to public policy problems, based in Dallas, TX.
It was posted as a joke and you don't need to answer for it.
posted on August 20, 2001 03:56:38 PM new
Cute joke
Anyway, if any of you have opened up CD's, have you read what they give you?
It reads, 'For each account, the FDIC insures....' for each account
Not for all of your accounts, but each one... at least in Certificates of Deposit
Off topic, but why not, krs started this thread
I found that you can apply for welfare online, thats right, you can apply for cash benefits, food stamps, and medicaid, all on line, I had to read through the thing, and to sign or show any documentation, they want you to fax it. Interesting.
Maybe its to save money? NOT. You know how much programmers get paid?
And if you really need welfare.... your online? that was one thing you needed your own email addy I would only think, that if you really needed welfare or money badly, you would be selling your computer, and couldn't pay for an ISP. Sure you could
go to the library, and use hotmail...but if you don't have a fax machine, you have to pay to use one.
Its just that I showed this to my partner, who burst out laughing, saying he couldn't believe it.... he is a programmer, and it takes time and money to set up this stuff online, gov't money.
posted on August 20, 2001 04:20:59 PM new
REAMOND....Is that the democrat answer to SS problems? Raise taxes? I'm sure the younger tax base will love that idea. How much can the youth of the country carry?
Do the Democrats have a plan? Let's hear it. It may be better than the Republican plan, but we won't know, until we see it.
posted on August 20, 2001 04:30:28 PM new
Lessee, ok if he makes $85K a year he qualifys for welfare, foodstamps etc..
I'll let him know, he can knock the medical off his paycheck and really save some bucks
Computers are a necessity. Why are computers, or rather being online a necessity if you are an adult, not a kid in school, where I can see a kid in school, needing the Internet. (which makes me wonder, do they still make Encylopedias, and do they still have newspapers on paper any longer?)
edit cuz I need one of those old books called a dictionary
