ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: What do you think?
Yes, socialism is bad! 7 33.33%
No, I love socialism! 14 66.67%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
Page 10 of 12
« First < 678910 1112 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Should we cut Social Security and Medicare benefits?
NJChiefsFan27 01:14 PM 02-25-2020
Scientific poll incoming!
[Reply]
Garcia Bronco 06:26 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Another nonsensical rambling post by a conservative trying to "logic" their way into deluding himself that S.S. is not a socialist program in america that is very popular and very effective at solving the problem it was created to solve.
It isn't a socialist program. The state holding your money in an account until you reach retirement isn't controlling the means of production. It's a retirement program. That's what it is. The government didn't seize nor eliminate private businesses for the purposes of retirement.

Now if you want to talk about the effectiveness of SS and Medicare in the present, that is a different debate.
[Reply]
Marcellus 06:40 PM 02-26-2020
Help me out here, isn't your SS payout based on what you paid in?
[Reply]
F150 06:54 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Help me out here, isn't your SS payout based on what you paid in?
Actually, no....its based on an indexed average wage that you made over the years you paid in then a formula is applied, additions or reductions applied based on when you chose to start getting ss benefits. then its adjusted based on cost of living adjusments after you reach 62
[Reply]
patteeu 07:01 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Help me out here, isn't your SS payout based on what you paid in?
Yes, there's an algorithm and it takes into account your earnings history. But it's not a linear relationship where someone who puts twice as much in gets twice as much out. The algorithm shifts the payback toward lower income workers so their return on their taxes paid is greater than the return a higher income worker gets.

If 100% of the high income workers' return on contributions were shifted to the low income workers, we'd all agree it was welfare and socialism.

If 0% were shifted, we'd all agree that it's basically a forced savings program.

Instead of either of these pure concepts, the algorithm shifts less than 100% but more than 0% to low income workers, so it's a hybrid.
[Reply]
patteeu 07:04 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by F150:
Actually, no....its based on an indexed average wage that you made over the years you paid in then a formula is applied, additions or reductions applied based on when you chose to start getting ss benefits. then its adjusted based on cost of living adjusments after you reach 62
That sounds more like a "yes, but" rather than a "no".
[Reply]
Rain Man 07:04 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Help me out here, isn't your SS payout based on what you paid in?
Originally Posted by F150:
Actually, no....its based on an indexed average wage that you made over the years you paid in then a formula is applied, additions or reductions applied based on when you chose to start getting ss benefits. then its adjusted based on cost of living adjusments after you reach 62
Yeah, what he said. If you paid in more, you'll get paid more, but there's a cap at the top end, and a floor at the bottom end. People who didn't pay in much will get the bottom end floor even if they didn't pay in enough to get it, and people on top end will make less than they should have based on their payments. (However, note that there's a cap on what you pay each year while working as well, so people with earned incomes in 2020 over $137,700 or so all pay the same amount in each year, with income above that amount not being taxed.)
[Reply]
Rain Man 07:05 PM 02-26-2020
I was too slow on my response. Patteeu's explanation is probably more straightforward than mine.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 07:29 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
It isn't a socialist program. The state holding your money in an account until you reach retirement isn't controlling the means of production. It's a retirement program. That's what it is. The government didn't seize nor eliminate private businesses for the purposes of retirement.

Now if you want to talk about the effectiveness of SS and Medicare in the present, that is a different debate.
Guess what we call government run programs that provide a benefit to people?

Hint its socialism.

What a dumbass.
[Reply]
Marcellus 07:31 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Yes, there's an algorithm and it takes into account your earnings history. But it's not a linear relationship where someone who puts twice as much in gets twice as much out. The algorithm shifts the payback toward lower income workers so their return on their taxes paid is greater than the return a higher income worker gets.

If 100% of the high income workers' return on contributions were shifted to the low income workers, we'd all agree it was welfare and socialism.

If 0% were shifted, we'd all agree that it's basically a forced savings program.


Instead of either of these pure concepts, the algorithm shifts less than 100% but more than 0% to low income workers, so it's a hybrid.
Thank you that was what I was getting at basically.

My mother died when I was 9 and me and my brothers received survivor benefits until we were 18. The amount of money had a cap though split between the 3 of us and as each brother turned 18 the money increased for the other brother still getting benefits. So by the time I was 16 I was the only one and the money hit around $600 a month.

Im guessing my mother didn't pay as much in as what we received but this was over a long period of time where money should have gained value and on top of that how many people die and have no survivors that get their remaining money? A shit ton.

Its not socialism its closer to a network marketing scheme you hope doesn't go broke before your get your return.
[Reply]
lewdog 07:59 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
And don't forget the tax rate.

All 401k withdrawals are taxed based on the tax rate of the year of withdrawal, which vary from year to year (sometimes, greatly).
Originally Posted by loochy:



Do you even Roth, bro?
This man.

I max my ROTH every year, so when I get old my only taxable income will be from my 401k/brokerage account. So I'll look dirt poor on paper and in the tax brackets, but will be raking in the money for total income when adding my ROTH to the mix.

Suck it government!


(I'm gonna guess Dane makes too much money to contribute to a Roth. Shit, I'm still poor.)
[Reply]
Garcia Bronco 08:06 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Guess what we call government run programs that provide a benefit to people?

Hint its socialism.

What a dumbass.
No b**** that's what you call it. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what socialism is yet you claim to support it. That's why we all laugh at you. I've shown your post the people i know and some of them think that you're the dumbest motherfuker on the planet. I remind them that you are not alone.
[Reply]
HemiEd 08:28 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Bugeater:
I knew a carpenter years ago that retired and moved to Corpus Christi, and a week later died of a heart attack. $2,000 would have been enough for him. :-)

Unfortunately there's no formula to calculate how much you will need in retirement because you have no idea how long you are going to live. Or how much you may rack up in medical bills along the way. Or how much your 401k will grow (or even...*gasp*...shrink) by the time you retire. Kind of hard to plan with so many unknowns.

Which makes a good argument to keep both SS and Medicaid....
Bug, Medicare is what we pay into and are eligible to receive when we are 65, Medicaid is the charity when they take your money and use it for charity.
[Reply]
HemiEd 02-26-2020, 08:34 PM
This message has been deleted by HemiEd.
HemiEd 08:37 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by F150:
Actually, no....its based on an indexed average wage that you made over the years you paid in then a formula is applied, additions or reductions applied based on when you chose to start getting ss benefits. then its adjusted based on cost of living adjusments after you reach 62
That is not entirely true. If you made 30k average your working career, you didn't pay in as much as someone that made 150k average and the amount you receive when you retire will reflect that.
[Reply]
F150 08:42 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
That is not entirely true. If you made 30k average your working career, you didn't pay in as much as someone that made 150k average and the amount you receive when you retire will reflect that.

I dont think we disagree
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 08:49 PM 02-26-2020
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
It isn't a socialist program. The state holding your money in an account until you reach retirement isn't controlling the means of production. It's a retirement program. That's what it is. The government didn't seize nor eliminate private businesses for the purposes of retirement.

Now if you want to talk about the effectiveness of SS and Medicare in the present, that is a different debate.
It isn't your money that the government holds in some account for you. If it was your money, you could leave it to your heirs. It is a program to transfer wealth from relatively poor people to wealthier ones. It is closer to theft than socialism.
[Reply]
Page 10 of 12
« First < 678910 1112 >
Up