Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-18-2012, 10:38 PM   #57
Registered User


 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,198
As a small business owner, I have a certain amount of flexibility in exactly how I take my income, and how much SS tax I pay. Once I did the math as far as cost/benefit if I structured my salary to pay the max SS tax. Then I woke up and continued to put the max into my simple ira. SS only pays me back a buck out of every 3 I put in.

And that's not counting the 7% of total company payroll I have to pay out of pocket.

I fully intend to get back every penny I and my wife paid in, plus a resaonable interest rate. Somehow.....
__________________

__________________
JimM68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-18-2012, 10:44 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bakersfield CA
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimM68 View Post
As a small business owner, I have a certain amount of flexibility in exactly how I take my income, and how much SS tax I pay. Once I did the math as far as cost/benefit if I structured my salary to pay the max SS tax. Then I woke up and continued to put the max into my simple ira. SS only pays me back a buck out of every 3 I put in.

And that's not counting the 7% of total company payroll I have to pay out of pocket.

I fully intend to get back every penny I and my wife paid in, plus a resaonable interest rate. Somehow.....
Jim
You said it much better than I did. An employee and employeer pay the same amount as a small businessman, but the employee doesn't have the same options for pension investment as the businessmen. They must rely on the social security system, only. I am a small businessman, and know of what you speak, and whole heartedly agree with your comments.
__________________

__________________
CarlGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 10:46 PM   #59
Moderator Emeritus
 
TXiceman's Avatar


 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Texas Boomers Club
Oklahoma Boomers Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Full Time, TX Home Base
Posts: 17,150
Blog Entries: 21
The system was set to be doomed because of the way it is based. As long as the population continued to grown and people did not live too long, the base would support the older ones. But now the massive numbers of Baby Boomers are hitting the system and the population growth is not there to support it.

This is especially the case with the mishandling of funds by our corrupt an inept leaders in DC.

I will happily just go away and not expect a nickle of SS payments if they will just give me back every nickel I put into the system over the years and pay me just 5 % on my money.

Ken
__________________
Amateur Radio Operator (KE5DFR)|Full-Time! - 2012 6.7L Ford Crew Cab Dually -2013 HitchHiker Champagne 38RLRSB - Travel with one Standard Schnauzer and one small Timneh African Gray Parrot
TXiceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 10:47 PM   #60
Member
 
SoIlBoy's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 85
Don't hate me, but just to make 1 thing clear. All congressmen elected since 1984 DO pay into Social Security. They are in the same retirement plan as any Federal employee. They also pay for and choose from the same health insurance plans as other Federal employees.

I don't like politicians either, but I do like discussions to argue facts, not fiction.

I'm not, and never have been an elected official.

__________________
SoIlBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 10:50 PM   #61
Moderator Emeritus
 
RickO's Avatar


 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Litchfield Park, Arizona
Posts: 10,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnytaxman View Post
If you ever wonder why we, as a nation, are in trouble, then you just need to read through these preceding 50 posts. I think I counted two people that would actually make a sacrifice to help save the system. Wow!!! Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind that tree.

...

At my income level, which I would hope would be close to what it is now after I retire, I really won't need the full amount of Social Security so I shouldn't be drawing the full amount. I will work at least until I'm 70 so I will be continuing to pay into the system. The current max is just over $110,000 and next year it goes to just over $113,000 based on current projections. Any form of government assistance should be need based, not an entitlement.
This is a very interesting thread and I'm learning a lot... but I have a couple of questions:

1) It was my belief that SS was established as a program to provide a minimal level of retirement income for ALL who had paid in to it...and yes, some unfortunates which hadn't. Benefits would be paid according to the schedules established at the time and revised by congress since.

I did not believe it was created as a "welfare" program where the government would simply add another tax to income which would go in to the general fund and then be distributed to whomever the government felt needed it most. Although we were never guaranteed a specific rate of return, and many people withdrew much more than they ever paid in, the benefits we were told to expect were somewhat proportional to what we paid in.

I know starting in the 1960s the "trust fund" was raided so at least part of the above statement about "general fund" has come to pass, but am I wrong for feeling that our government should stand by the original philosophy of the program?

2) If you feel that Social Security should be structured such that higher earners pay more in to the system than lower earners... and furthermore the lower earners should draw much more than those who don't "need" it... how far do we carry that logic?

Should the government determine how much of our income we "need" to keep?

3) If the majority of readers of this thread felt that they WERE willing to sacrifice in order to "save the system"... what possible assurances could be offered that this same debacle would not simply happen again? If there's a proposal to turn our supplemental retirement program in to a welfare system that is funded by those who "don't need" it then it should be called that and not just a fine tuning of social security.



Just some thoughts which crowd my twisted little mind.

Rick
__________________
Rick, Nancy, Peanut & Lola our Westie Dogs & Bailey the Sheltie.

2007 Itasca Ellipse 40FD
RickO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 10:55 PM   #62
laj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXiceman
The system was set to be doomed because of the way it is based. As long as the population continued to grown and people did not live too long, the base would support the older ones. But now the massive numbers of Baby Boomers are hitting the system and the population growth is not there to support it.

This is especially the case with the mishandling of funds by our corrupt an inept leaders in DC.

I will happily just go away and not expect a nickle of SS payments if they will just give me back every nickel I put into the system over the years and pay me just 5 % on my money.

Ken
I would even just take my money, forget the 5 percent
__________________
laj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 10:56 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bakersfield CA
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickO View Post
This is a very interesting thread and I'm learning a lot... but I have a couple of questions:

1) It was my belief that SS was established as a program to provide a minimal level of retirement income for ALL who had paid in to it...and yes, some unfortunates which hadn't. Benefits would be paid according to the schedules established at the time and revised by congress since.

I did not believe it was created as a "welfare" program where the government would simply add another tax to income which would go in to the general fund and then be distributed to whomever the government felt needed it most. Although we were never guaranteed a specific rate of return, and many people withdrew much more than they ever paid in, the benefits we were told to expect were somewhat proportional to what we paid in.

I know starting in the 1960s the "trust fund" was raided so at least part of the above statement about "general fund" has come to pass, but am I wrong for feeling that our government should stand by the original philosophy of the program?

2) If you feel that Social Security should be structured such that higher earners pay more in to the system than lower earners... and furthermore the lower earners should draw much more than those who don't "need" it... how far do we carry that logic?

Should the government determine how much of our income we "need" to keep?

3) If the majority of readers of this thread felt that they WERE willing to sacrifice in order to "save the system"... what possible assurances could be offered that this same debacle would not simply happen again? If there's a proposal to turn our supplemental retirement program in to a welfare system that is funded by those who "don't need" it then it should be called that and not just a fine tuning of social security.



Just some thoughts which crowd my twisted little mind.

Rick
If you pay for something, insurance, it is NOT welfare. It is only welfare, if you do NOT pay for receiving benfits.
__________________
CarlGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 11:02 PM   #64
Moderator Emeritus
 
RickO's Avatar


 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Litchfield Park, Arizona
Posts: 10,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlGeo View Post
If you pay for something, insurance, it is NOT welfare. It is only welfare, if you do NOT pay for receiving benfits.
And if you pay for something you can never receive because it's going to others who haven't paid in and "need" it. Is that welfare?

You do raise an interesting point concerning the "insurance" aspect though, but to my knowledge, the system has never been presented as just an "insurance" against becoming destitute.

Rick
__________________
Rick, Nancy, Peanut & Lola our Westie Dogs & Bailey the Sheltie.

2007 Itasca Ellipse 40FD
RickO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 11:41 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnytaxman View Post
If you ever wonder why we, as a nation, are in trouble, then you just need to read through these preceding 50 posts. I think I counted two people that would actually make a sacrifice to help save the system. Wow!!! Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind that tree.

So if I make over $150,000 and I'm old enough to draw my SS then I shouldn't have my benefits cut because of.....why? Social Security is administered by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. So SS is just another form of welfare. Welfare for someone making over $150,000 doesn't seem to be a good prospect, but the logic pushed by past governments is that you paid it in so you can draw it back out, even though they will draw out way more than they paid in.

The system is in trouble because too many people have been added to the roles, people live too long, and there is a ton of abuse within the system. When the system started it was a safety net for those who could not take care of themselves. It has evolved from that to an "entitlement" that some posters apparently are opposed to.

If we want the system to survive, and apparently not everyone does, then we will all have to make changes. As I like to ask my friends who talk about keeping all spending intact I just ask them one simple question.....What are we going to do when the money runs out? Right now the top 5% of taxpayers pay 75% of all taxes and if we go a lot higher some will do just as the one founder of Facebook has done. They just go to where the taxes are lower.

At my income level, which I would hope would be close to what it is now after I retire, I really won't need the full amount of Social Security so I shouldn't be drawing the full amount. I will work at least until I'm 70 so I will be continuing to pay into the system. The current max is just over $110,000 and next year it goes to just over $113,000 based on current projections. Any form of government assistance should be need based, not an entitlement.
Seriously? After being promised something and paying into the system, I'm supposed to take a cut because the people entrusted to run the system mismanged it? Horsefeathers! I've already have been screwed out of fourteen months of the full benefits I was promised! The Feds stole from the system so they need to fix it, not me!
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 11:49 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXiceman View Post
The system was set to be doomed because of the way it is based. As long as the population continued to grown and people did not live too long, the base would support the older ones. But now the massive numbers of Baby Boomers are hitting the system and the population growth is not there to support it...

Ken
That's not 100% true. There was enough going into the system to support the Boomers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXiceman View Post
...This is especially the case with the mishandling of funds by our corrupt an inept leaders in DC...

Ken
That is the real reason for the problem. If the greed Feds had left the money alone and didn't keep adding benefits, the system would solvent now and would stay that way.
__________________
LadyFitz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 06:58 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Western NY
Posts: 2,801
Lady Fitz, you just hit on a major part of the problem. Originally Social Security was meant as a safety net for retirees. There were no pension plans for workers. All anyone could rely on was their own savings. Many had those savings wiped out in the Depression. The government stepped in and created Social Security. At the time of the creation of the system the average life expectancy in the US was around 62. Now, if you survive to 60 the odds are 4 to 1 that you will make it to 80.

So we started with a safety net for workers and then we added widows and orphans. Still a system that would seem to work. That is a system that would seem to work as long as those who work and contribute to the system continued to increase. Then we added disability for those who "couldn't work." If you are wondering why that is in quotes, it's because many, if not most, people on Social Security Disability are capable of performing some employable function but choose not to. Many who were added into the system were people who were handicapped to such an extent that they could never work in any way shape or form. Those people never contributed to the system yet they continue to draw on the system.

In more recent times we added those who reached full retirement age. Those who continue to work even though they have reached full retirement age and begin to draw benefits. Prior to that change one could not draw full benefits until age 70 and continue to work.

These and other changes have contributed to a system that is now faced with major problems. Adding Medicare into the mix has not helped and will continue to be a major drain on a strained system.

Okay, so real simply what can we do to fix it? Many Americans have died for this country, but how many are willing to part with some of their "entitlements" for the good of their country?
__________________
2011 Berkshire 390bh (traded) 2018.5 Entegra Aspire 44R on order
wnytaxman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 07:11 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Albany GA
Posts: 376
SS system has been added to by well intentioned Congressional members. They looked at each add as needed, but did not look at the big picture. The big picture is the budget and how much money there is to spend. To congress sacrifices just mean they have found more money to spend. Both political parties have been very guilty of this.
__________________
shaman52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 07:19 AM   #69
Registered User


 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,198
These last few posts are getting to the meat of it...

SS was created to replace or augment personal savings, back when many were barely scraping by. It's intended to hopefully provide "just enough", not full comfort and luxury. That's why the salery cap for the tax. Rich(er) people are supposed to have both the sense and the means to take care of thier own saving for retirement.
It IS supposed to be a trust fund, with all the money that goes in, staying in. This was the politicians biggest mistake, raiding that trust fund to finance the war in southeast asia in the 60's...
It is also a way to force employers to pay into a pension fund for thier workers, and at better than 7% of payroll, it does that very well.

Unfortunately, the payouts from the system no where near match what private investment would do with 14% of salery... :(

Unfortunately I fear this whole discussion is going to wander "off the road"...
__________________
JimM68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 01:13 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnytaxman View Post
...Okay, so real simply what can we do to fix it? Many Americans have died for this country, but how many are willing to part with some of their "entitlements" for the good of their country?
Again, why should I be the one to pay for the "deliberate mistakes" of others in my own country (which is not even close to being the same as defending us from people in other countries). The government screwed up the system so the government needs to fix it. They could start by cutting the salaries of politicians (like that will ever happen), cutting out the pork (I'd spell it out but that would get the thread shut down), etc.
__________________

__________________
LadyFitz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.