- 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 2/26/26 at 8:44 am to La Place Mike
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:44 am to La Place Mike
quote:
The other 6.2% belongs to your employer.
1
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:02 am to La Place Mike
quote:That is a fairly naive take.
The other 6.2% belongs to your employer.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:04 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I’d be fine with doing away with social security altogether.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:07 am to Tigertittie
here's the problem with that jethrine we all don't pay in the same, your benefit is tied to how much you pay in. i'm guessing you're hearing this for the first time.
this is the problem the middle class not paying taxes. in this day and age if you're stuck in the middle class that's on you. you have nobody to blame but yourself.
anybody with even ounce of talent and ambition has found their way out of the middle class.
this is the problem the middle class not paying taxes. in this day and age if you're stuck in the middle class that's on you. you have nobody to blame but yourself.
anybody with even ounce of talent and ambition has found their way out of the middle class.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:29 am to Harry Rex Vonner
Why is it wrong? Again, as I stated in other post, it's a tax on the employer not the employee. The employer is under no contractual obligation to pay the extra 6.2% to the employee.
I am not saying an employer will not give it to the employee if SS is ever abolished. The smart ones and or the ones that care about their employees will. Again, the point is the employer is not contractually obligated to pay it to the employee nor is the employee automatically entitled to it.
I am not saying an employer will not give it to the employee if SS is ever abolished. The smart ones and or the ones that care about their employees will. Again, the point is the employer is not contractually obligated to pay it to the employee nor is the employee automatically entitled to it.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is a fairly naive take.
It's a 'naive take' to believe an employee is automatically entitled to the 6.2 % tax on the business. If the government didn't mandate the tax the employer damn sure wouldn't be paying it.
If the employer wants to compensate the employee with their tax windfall then more power to them and I believe they should. It's good business.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
SS typically pays interest on the "Trust Fund" that is below the rate of inflation resulting in a negative interest rate based on constant dollars.
Had it been put into a simple stock index, the returns and benefits would be 4 or 5 times greater. The swamp prefers their shell game where it gets to borrow from the fund on the cheap.
Had it been put into a simple stock index, the returns and benefits would be 4 or 5 times greater. The swamp prefers their shell game where it gets to borrow from the fund on the cheap.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:48 am to La Place Mike
quote:You've not been an employer. Had you been, you'd realize the full 12.4% comes out of your pocket. Employers competing for quality applicant pools would roll the 6.2% into employee comp almost universally.
it's a tax on the employer not the employee. The employer is under no contractual obligation to pay the extra 6.2% to the employee
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:56 am to meansonny
quote:
Retirement age in 1940 was 65.
Average life expectancy was under 60.
That number is skewed by infant and childhood mortality rates.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:58 am to Auburn1968
quote:Assuming dividend reinvestment the number is more like 15-30 x, literally. Over 45yrs a 3% SS ROI yields about $3.80 for every $1 contributed. $1 in the market over that span would yield > $100. SS is a sickening rip off.
Had it been put into a simple stock index, the returns and benefits would be 4 or 5 times greater.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:05 am to stuntman
quote:You lost from the get go. Neither Medicare nor SS are welfare programs. Recipients paid into it their entire working careers. Some as high 15.4% if they were self employed. If they were W2 workers, then the employer matched the employee's contribution which could have been part of their salary/wages were it not for Social Security. You can't change the rules on someone who has spent their careers paying into something and then rip it out from under them. It would like confiscating your 401 after 40 years of working.
if I could snap my fingers all social welfare programs from government would end today.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:08 am to Diamondawg
Bring back personal responsibility.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Wouldn't that have to be for people just entering the work force going forward but then the government would have to come up with the $1.5T paid out each year since there is no new money coming in to support the Ponzi? It's criminal what they have done to have the SS system get into the shape it is in.
E.g., Obligatory 529-like plans where payroll contributions roll into an account inaccessible until age qualification. Then access would only be to stipulated monthly withdrawals based on holdings. The contents of the account could be limited to US Treasuries, or it could be an S&P ETF. Residuals would be passed on in inheritance as with any portfolio.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:14 am to dickkellog
quote:so democrats haven’t destroyed America?
this is the problem the middle class not paying taxes. in this day and age if you're stuck in the middle class that's on you. you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:16 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It is so hard to understand how a person could think this way. No matter how much of your own money you've put into this compulsory system, everyone gets the same back? No thanks, comrade.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 10:20 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:28 am to Kirk Herbstreit
quote:You mean turn the clock back to 1933 and set up the Social Security program so money paid in, goes into a trust and invested for market returns and never to be stolen? The only money that leaves is to qualified recipients. Like that responsibility?
Bring back personal responsibility.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You've not been an employer.
Yes, I have had employees.
quote:
you'd realize the full 12.4% comes out of your pocket.
Seriously? That's weak coming from you. I expected better. Simple question, did the employee agree to work for ($X) amount or was the agreement to work for ($X+6.2%)? You would be shocked the at the amount of people that don't know their employer pays that extra 6.2% FICA tax or even check to see if their deduction are correct but that's a different topic.
quote:I don't disagree with that statement and I never said this wouldn't happen. It makes good business sense for them to do it. My point is, and I don't know why this so hard to understand, the 6.2% the employer is mandated by law to pay on behalf of the employee is not included in the original contract for wages between the employer and the employee therefore the employee is not automatcally entitled to the 6.2% if SS is abolished nor are they automatically entitled to a refund.
Employers competing for quality applicant pools would roll the 6.2% into employee comp almost universally.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 10:38 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 11:17 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
As someone who doesn't like SS and Boomers who created the situation...
Heck no. Those high earners already spent their lives paying higher taxes, then you hit them again? Get outta here.
People just want to bleed other people dry. And yes that goes for Boomers who won't do ANYTHING about Social Security and will stick everyone else with their bill. Whatever group takes that on, and it's likely to be Millenials or Gen Z, kudos to them. We know it won't be Boomers.
And to the Boomers who will get in a tizzy, your "Give me what I put in + interest" routine - You still don't get it - SOMEONE is going to take the hit, why not spread the hit around, why not figure something out. You know politicians won't touch SS because you'll all make them face the wrath.. SO either 1) The sham continues as long as it can until it breaks, or we continue to have to import people to solve it or 2) We spread the fix around and everyone takes a hit or 3) One group probably takes a massive hit.
The only logical, reasonable choice is 2, but Boomers have proven they won't even do that, so here we are.
Heck no. Those high earners already spent their lives paying higher taxes, then you hit them again? Get outta here.
People just want to bleed other people dry. And yes that goes for Boomers who won't do ANYTHING about Social Security and will stick everyone else with their bill. Whatever group takes that on, and it's likely to be Millenials or Gen Z, kudos to them. We know it won't be Boomers.
And to the Boomers who will get in a tizzy, your "Give me what I put in + interest" routine - You still don't get it - SOMEONE is going to take the hit, why not spread the hit around, why not figure something out. You know politicians won't touch SS because you'll all make them face the wrath.. SO either 1) The sham continues as long as it can until it breaks, or we continue to have to import people to solve it or 2) We spread the fix around and everyone takes a hit or 3) One group probably takes a massive hit.
The only logical, reasonable choice is 2, but Boomers have proven they won't even do that, so here we are.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 11:20 am to csorre1
quote:
Or they could let me keep my 12.4% and I could do with it whatever I want.
Like putting it in your 403B that’s getting 14% right now…
Posted on 2/26/26 at 11:21 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Here is the issue with that.... my dumbass cousins will receive more in SS than me when I would have paid waaaaaaayyy more in because they are in their late 30's, are friken lazy, and just don't wanna work.
If that is even a consideration, there needs to be an amount of time worked requirement. Else you will see a lot more people lay at home and refuse to work when they can work. Because they are going to windfall from SS.
Oh and... it will encourage people working for cash. Because their advantage is two fold. They don't pay taxes on it.. and their SS would increase by NOT reporting it.
If that is even a consideration, there needs to be an amount of time worked requirement. Else you will see a lot more people lay at home and refuse to work when they can work. Because they are going to windfall from SS.
Oh and... it will encourage people working for cash. Because their advantage is two fold. They don't pay taxes on it.. and their SS would increase by NOT reporting it.
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 11:45 am
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News