- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This plan would save social security *and* reduce elderly poverty. Your thoughts?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:10 pm to La Place Mike
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:10 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
Don't you mean your 6.2%? The other 6.2% belongs to your employer.
If self employed, you pay the gull 12.4%. If employers didn't have to pay 6.2% wages would increase.
1
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:21 pm to stout
quote:
So you want SS to be even more socialist than it already is?
It's like you people don't remember what kind of piece of shite HHTM is
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:25 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
frick that. My wife and I have paid a hell of a lot more than what’s being proposed per couple per year. Give us what we put in over our working careers and we would could add to our nest egg very nicely. I will accept that.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:28 pm to csorre1
quote:
If self employed, you pay the gull 12.4%.
That's correct.
quote:
If employers didn't have to pay 6.2% wages would increase.
Maybe. Maybe not. There is no legal or contractual obligation for a company to pass those savings to the employee. When a worker is hired, they agree to a specific gross salary ($X), not a total compensation package that includes the employer’s tax liabilities. Because the employer’s share of FICA is classified as a business expense, much like rent or insurance, any reduction in that tax is technically a windfall for the company's bottom line. Whether an employee ever sees that money depends entirely on their bargaining power and the competitive pressure of the job market, rather than the original employment contract.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:42 pm to La Place Mike
You're a gem.
You've probably never heard of Cost of Employee. Or Total Benefits Package.
You've probably never heard of Cost of Employee. Or Total Benefits Package.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:43 pm to BHM
quote:
How the frick is it fair for one person to pay 3 or 4 times more than the next person but get the same SS check?
That's basically how taxes work. Rich people put most of the money into the coffers and get the same crappy government services that poor people use. I'm not saying I support this but you can't argue it's inconsistent with just about every other government operation.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:47 pm to Tigertittie
quote:
don't have a problem with this, give everyone the same. Which should be the minimum needed to survive.
Why does the government need to do this?
Let me keep my own 12.4% to invest & donate the proceeds to charities of MY choice
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:50 pm to BHM
quote:
If you want equal payouts then it's only fair to require equal inputs. How the frick is it fair for one person to pay 3 or 4 times more than the next person but get the same SS check?
No solution is fair. Millennials entering the middle part of their careers may never see social security, and yet they are expected to fund boomers until they die over the next 25 years. And if nothing is done and the system inevitably collapses, what happens to the millennials’ kids (and thus the boomers’ grandkids)? How is that fair to them? Not only do they get money drawn from their checks to fund older generations who were too fiscally profligate to be able to pay for their own benefits, they also get to see their kids saddled with a horrific fiscal crisis as they enter their own careers.
I used to roll my eyes at the intergenerational feuds on here and elsewhere, but I would trade places with someone born in the ‘40s or ‘50s in a heartbeat.
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:52 pm to meansonny
quote:
You've probably never heard of Cost of Employee. Or Total Benefits Package.
Sure I have.
The 'Total Cost of Employee' is an internal accounting metric used by a business to track overhead. It isn't a debt owed to the worker. Just because an employer budgets for taxes, insurance, and office space doesn't mean the employee is contractually entitled to those specific line items if the costs drop. An employee agrees to a Gross Wage ($X), not a percentage of the company’s total operating budget. If the cost of an employer's liability, like FICA, is repealed, that's a reduction in business expenses, not a mandatory raise for the staff.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 9:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Everyone over 65 who qualifies for SS is given 32,500/year- 150% of poverty line- instead of their current reimbursement. This would *reduce* the elderly poverty rate...
....FDR would be shocked at the current structure of the program
Like ALL gummint programs, this whole scheme was never intended to work as claimed from the beginning. Of course the numbers never worked. They have always known this.
In any case they are slow-rolling Universal Basic Income. Soon.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:07 pm to La Place Mike
You include office space in your cost per employee figures?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:09 pm to Hangit
quote:
FDR would be shocked that we pay people to sit on the porch and never lift a finger to procure food, while continually having babies for the working suckers to feed. Then having people with minor boo boos being paid to sit home. A lot of this waste comes from the money meant to sustain the elderly.
We have a vast population of breeding feral human beings. No nuclear family. No family planing period. Just breeding ferals that are sucking every red penny of taxes the working populace is having to pay. One breeder having 8 little ferals by 3 different male ferals and the cycle repeats.
And the new generation of ferals, having no father figure to lay belt to arse is the next breeding ferals.
It is like a nightmarish version of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:12 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
Like ALL gummint programs, this whole scheme was never intended to work as claimed from the beginning. Of course the numbers never worked. They have always known this.
Retirement age in 1940 was 65.
Average life expectancy was under 60.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:14 pm to meansonny
quote:
You include office space in your cost per employee figures?
You think you're so cute.
Including office space in the 'Cost of Employee' actually proves the point. A company budgets for a desk, a laptop, and 100 square feet of office space for every hire. If the company moves to a cheaper building or negotiates a lower rent, the employee doesn't get a raise equal to the rent savings. Just because a business budgets a certain amount for your existence at the firm (including FICA, insurance, and rent) doesn't mean you are contractually entitled to those line items if the costs drop. You agreed to a wage of $X, not a percentage of the company’s overhead.
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:17 pm to La Place Mike
I personally don't put overhead in the cost per employee.
They are 2 separate categories.
You do you.
Do you rent space from Regus? Add a suite for every employee you add? Maybe I could see the logic.
Most businesses don't rent office space 200 ft at a time. But you do you.
They are 2 separate categories.
You do you.
Do you rent space from Regus? Add a suite for every employee you add? Maybe I could see the logic.
Most businesses don't rent office space 200 ft at a time. But you do you.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:23 pm to meansonny
quote:
Retirement age in 1940 was 65.
Average life expectancy was under 60.
Mighty frightening life expectancy stat. But probably understandable then given The Great Depression, WW1, alcoholism, city sanitation problems, generational poverty, orphans and child-labor since the CW by that time.
Eventually the architects of SS knew that would improve. But still they also knew it was Ponzi Scheme, plus knew the Printing Press would cover all eventual "shortcomings".
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:35 pm to meansonny
You are always trying to prove how smart you are. It’s tiresome.
Whether you call it 'overhead' or 'cost per employee,' the principle is identical. A business budgets for many expenses required to keep a worker on staff. FICA, insurance, equipment, and yes, the space they occupy. If any of those costs go down, the employer isn't legally or contractually obligated to hand that specific 'savings' to the employee. The employee signed an agreement for Gross Wage ($X). If the government stops charging the employer a 6.2% tax, that is a reduction in the company's operating costs, not an automatic raise for the worker.
Whether you call it 'overhead' or 'cost per employee,' the principle is identical. A business budgets for many expenses required to keep a worker on staff. FICA, insurance, equipment, and yes, the space they occupy. If any of those costs go down, the employer isn't legally or contractually obligated to hand that specific 'savings' to the employee. The employee signed an agreement for Gross Wage ($X). If the government stops charging the employer a 6.2% tax, that is a reduction in the company's operating costs, not an automatic raise for the worker.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 11:09 pm to La Place Mike
Im not smart.
But that doesn't mean other people are always right
My wife has experience in the nonprofit markets.
Their budgets are 100% Cost of Employee.
If the employee doesn't need health insurance, then they can use all of the grant money towards salary.
If the employee needs health insurance, they can expect a $15k paycut in their salary.
I personally was offered a job about 7 years ago. I gave the prospective employer my total cost of employment. They wouldn't match, although the salary offer was attractive.
You aren't wrong. There is no obligation to pay the employee the comparable full cost of employment if "costs" happen to erode.
But you are wrong. A lot of times, the employer is bound by hard limits. More perks means less salary.
A lot of times, an employee isn't dumb enough to leave one salary for a higher one if it means they lose employee benefits in other areas.
Do you have any employees? Or have you ever had one?
But that doesn't mean other people are always right
My wife has experience in the nonprofit markets.
Their budgets are 100% Cost of Employee.
If the employee doesn't need health insurance, then they can use all of the grant money towards salary.
If the employee needs health insurance, they can expect a $15k paycut in their salary.
I personally was offered a job about 7 years ago. I gave the prospective employer my total cost of employment. They wouldn't match, although the salary offer was attractive.
You aren't wrong. There is no obligation to pay the employee the comparable full cost of employment if "costs" happen to erode.
But you are wrong. A lot of times, the employer is bound by hard limits. More perks means less salary.
A lot of times, an employee isn't dumb enough to leave one salary for a higher one if it means they lose employee benefits in other areas.
Do you have any employees? Or have you ever had one?
Posted on 2/26/26 at 2:45 am to Lou Pai
quote:
and yet they are expected to fund boomers until they die over the next 25 years.
That's a government mismanagement issue, not a funding issue. Had the collected taxes from boomers been properly invested and managed, the system would not need money from millennials to fund it.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 3:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Presumably, the richest paid in a lot more than the poorest.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News