Official Social Security Poll

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by tripods68

I totally agree with you. SS does forces people to join. However, they are jobs out there (i believe over 2 million+ aren't covered by Social Security). For example, California teachers with credentials and employed in any K12 public system, or Community Colleges don't pay into SS. They have their own pension system (CalSTRS) Teacher's Retirement, and define contribution account 403(b) to rely on for their retirements. Also, all Correctional Officers that works for California Department of Corrections do not pay into SS. They belong to Public Retirement System (CalPERS) which is the largest public pension in the US.
You will also find many local governmental agencies or city governments throughout California that pays employees 100% share to portions of their SS contributions. Unfortunately for me, my BU and classification ain't strong enough to eliminate SS contribution. But at least I have both CalPERS, ROTH, 457, and little Social Security if not BK when I reach that "critical mass".

Bottom line: Not all jobs forces everyone to participate into Social Security. You just have to look elsewhere and be willing to relocate. California isn't a bad place to look for jobs either.

Tripod -- I've worked in the CalPERS system and while this seems true, it's also not. I've worked in technically two different counties within CalPERS.... one did deduct SSI from my salary and the second did not. So, I do not know if it's a consistent policy, but maybe eacy county determines whether or not to deduct SSI from wages earned?

When I look at the SS Statement rec'd recently, I can see "blank" SSI contributions on those years that I worked for the second public agency, but the first 8 years from the original public agency are not blank, and I know that the tax forms were done accordingly.

As for the original posters contentions/question, I would not "op out" either. My folks are in their late 70's and early 80's and use the basic SS to pay their bills and live. I am happy to contribute a portion of my current earnings to help support the elders that have worked before me.

JC what if your folks were not able to meet financial obligations of their "after retirement" years; what if something happened that were to devestate their retirement funds as a whole? Are you going to take care of them? What happens if you cannot do that either? Do they go out on the street?

[mr priceless]

just thought i would chime in with my 2 cents here. I'm 17, have a full time job, and pay the 6.2% SS tax. I voted NOT to opt out.

And here is where the flaw is. I don't want to be in your boat. I want freedom to do as I wish and that is something you are not understanding.

jc, in all honesty you are most certainly correct about being more efficient at allowing your own retirement plan to grow into a better return with the additional 6.2%....but we aren't contributing to the plan for ourselves at retirement age, we're helping support those who can't support themselves, for whatever reason, and there's several legitimate ones.

Please understand. Even though I pay what I estimate to be 18-20 % of my gross check, there's still money that I can sock away to an interest compounding account after all expenses covered. Sure, you COULD have had more in your IRA by age 65 or whatever, you'll have enough. You're a smart kid. But I really like that quote by Winston Churchill. Most of us teenagers are heartless bastards. We are tons more fortunate than others and continue to receive better education on what to do with our finances than say, what others were educated about 30-50 years ago. (Many were unaware of how the bank invests your savings in order to deliver you the interest to your account until FDR brought it to light during the great depression.)

Anyway, my point is you can still sock away enough for retirement to live comfortably and still pay that 6.2%, regardless is SS is still around or not. Like you would willingly write grandma and grandpa a check every month. Please.

Otherwise, tell me how that other boat you found is doing for ya

[jc3900]

Mr. Priceless: The actual tax you are paying though is 12.4%. The 15% that I quoted includes medicare, which in my mind should also be ousted asap. Anyway, the thing that kills me about ss and all the other entitlements is that they are forced charity and an awfully inefficiant charities at that. My only question is why can't I opt out. How come if I get a job pretty much anywhere in the united states do I have to pay into it. Here is another, very important, thing to think about. How in the world did the United States go a 150 years without these programs? What happened to the poor then. They did not starve to death. So, the argument that we absolutley need these programs doesn't work as we went without them for so many years.


Oh and someone should put that benjamin franklin quote. It went along the lines of the countries that give the most to the poor, have the most poor people.

[Scanner]

Anyway, the thing that kills me about ss and all the other entitlements is that they are forced charity and an awfully inefficiant charities at that.

Ehhhhhnnnnt!!!! Wrong. Medicare is actually 97% efficient. That is, only $3 of every $100 collected is used for administrating the benefit. The rest goes back out to health care. Blue Cross is lucky if they achieve 90% efficiency.

My only question is why can't I opt out.

Because you are part of society, benefit from it, and you have to sacrafice. It's part of you being an American citizen.

Just like you can't opt out of school taxes. . .if you don't use the schools. Or opt out of general taxes, because you don't use the roads.

How come if I get a job pretty much anywhere in the united states do I have to pay into it.

See above.

Here is another, very important, thing to think about. How in the world did the United States go a 150 years without these programs? What happened to the poor then.

Prior to SSI, being elderly was almost synomous with being poor. Prior to Medicare. . .people's life savings and inheritances to their 17 year old clueless sons or grandsons were wiped entirely out by the last 2 weeks of medical bills.

Why?

Because who in their right mind would insure a 70 year old male with diabetes, high blood pressure, and prostate hypertrophy?

Would you open up an insurance co. that did that?

If you did, you'd be out of business in 3 months.

This is why Medicare has to be a welfare state and private insurance can't do the job.

They can't even do the job on a 40 year old male anymore.

They did not starve to death.

No, we are the land of plenty. . .but many elderly went hungry and without meds. Lifespans were shorter.

So, the argument that we absolutley need these programs doesn't work as we went without them for so many years.

There's a great book you should read - "The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible!" by Otto Bettman (do an amazon search).

You are glorifying the Good Old Days as per the Archie Bunker song ("Boy the way Glenn Miller played") but in reality, they were times of retched poverty, public disease, crime, forced child labor.

It was because of socialized programs (yup. . .I guess socialism) that American society advanced.

It's a bitter pill to swallow because I like to think capitalism solves everything.

It's just unfortunately not true.

[disneysteve]

Well said, Scanner. jc3900, you seem to have this notion that everything in the country was peaches and cream years ago. That isn't true. First off, the lifespan was much shorter - around mid 50's at the turn of the 1900s. So there wasn't much of an elderly population to deal with. Now, the average is mid 70s and many are living into their 80s, 90s and over 100.

Yes, people were poor and hungry. Read your history.

[sweeps]

Scanner, you hit it out of the park with that post.

[maat55]

It's a tough question to answer, but I voted yes because I think SS is socialistic. The difference in this country now, from a hundred years ago, is dramatically more socialistic.

It would be hard for this society to become responsible enough to abolish SS, but it needs to be phased out. Personal responsibillity, keeps a nation on it's toes. The more socialistic this country becomes, the weeker it becomes. IMO.

[rooskers]

I am going to have to agree with JC and would like to extend his arguement. I think I shouldn't have to pay property taxes to support my local schools, fire department, police department and any other service I have never used. Since I was home schooled I never received funds for my education but my parents had to pay for it out of pocket. I say those little twirps should have to pay their own way. I have never used the police for anything in my life and am willing to take the risk I won't have to so I would like to opt out of that as well. I have fire insurance on my house so if it starts to burn let it I would like to opt out of paying for the fire department. I don't live in a big city and have a very low probability of being exposed to terrorists so I think only people in big cities should have to pay for things like the FBI, CIA, military and such (I opt out). I am a stay at home dad and drive on maybe 10% of the roads in my town so I would like to only have to pay 10% of what I am currently paying. Wait JC your just about to finish school and part of my tax money was used to pay for that I think it is only proper that I and the rest of the citizens who have paid into the system send you a bill. Of course we will need to charge interest starting from around kindergarten so it may take you a little while to pay that off. Hopefully you will only go to a private college that doesn't get money from the state or you may have to pay back the working adults in that state too.

[sweeps]

I don't like property taxes because homeowners and landowners carry the whole burden for the services. And your taxes go up when property values go up, but then never go down when property values go down.

Rooskers, my problem with your argument is you are benefiting from services whether you realize it or not. Just because the police haven't come to your place doesn't mean you don't benefit from their protection. What about things like road repairs, snow shoveling, etc? If everyone opts out, who's going to do it? And even though you don't live in a city, you benefit from military protection -- that was a ridiculous argument.

[disneysteve]

I think rooskers was being sarcastic.

[sweeps]

Oh yeah, oops.

[rooskers]

Sweeps I tryed to make my arguement so ridiculous that the sarcasm would seep through your computer screen. I know it doesn't come across well over the computer.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by rooskers

Sweeps I tryed to make my arguement so ridiculous that the sarcasm would seep through your computer screen. I know it doesn't come across well over the computer.

Yeah, after Steve pointed out the sarcasm and I read it a second time I felt like a bit of an idiot. Guess I was out of it.

[Ima saver]

Actually, you do not receive s/s benefits until you are 62 and two months. I know, because Iwas born on the 23rd of November. I did not get my first check until the 4th wednesday in January, following my 62nd birthday.

[Scanner]

Actually, rooksers had an argument that a lot of home schoolers have - they want to opt out of paying school taxes (which is usually a %age of property tax).

If you study history, one of the main motivations for enacting schools wasn't a benign sense to educate our youth. . .it was to keep the "urchins" off the street. So. . .it was a social measure aimed at preventing crimes like loitering, begging, petty theft and vandalism.

The teacher was little more than a truant officer and baby sitter.

It was only til later that yeah. . .we actually expect them to learn something, not just be better citizens.

So. . .point is. . .even if you homeschool, you benefit from public schools by keeping the urchins off the street.

[LuxLiving]

And to think of all the wear and tear our homeschooling family didn't put on the streets driving 5 kids back and forth to their various schools and activities!! Nor any of those nasty icky carbon emissions.

And we're not even going to count against you the numerous days you were able to work $$$ because my little darlings didn't bring their germs to school for your kiddo to catch and bring home to you!

And I'm going to leave it up to you to calculate how many minutes I shaved off of each of your days by not having to wait behind me in line at the various bus stops or school pick up zones!

Nor any of those extra minutes that your lil' Johnny got with the teacher because she didn't have to spend them with my kids!!

[rooskers]

Just want to bring the subject back on track. Do I like paying into social security with the possibility that I might not receive anything in return, no. Is it a socialist program to some extent, yes it is. However millions of retirees depend on it for most of their income and that figure is just going to get worse as more baby boomers retire (my parents included).

I am by no means rich but I can afford a house, cable tv, toys, the occasional night out with my wife, vacations once in awhile, etc... and I am still able to safe. If I can do all this and still pay taxes what do I have to complain about.

It helps other people I still life a comfortable life. Is it it the best system or can it be fixed I don't know but what I do know is that letting people opt would not be in the interest of almost all people in the U.S. Now you might say why didn't those people save more and why should I care if they have no money. Well those are valid questions and you don't have to care for those individuals but what you do care about is the stability and safety our country has right now. You start starving millions of retireesand making them homeless there will be problems. Is this fair they didn't save and I have to pay for social stability no but then again we all learn sooner or later that life isn't fair.