An (Ultra?)-Conservative Post from Mike.

Post #63,264 by mmoffitt 11/16/02 4:56:46 PM Reply	An (Ultra?)-Conservative Post from Mike. I despise Social Security taxes. I wish they would eliminate it. As a Sole Proprieter, I pay entirely too much to keep the last generation in suntan oil in Florida. Nobody was ever meant to collect it and there's absolutely no chance that I'll ever get my FICA tax money back. I know that the eligibility age will rise until it gets back to where it started (men are eligible the year they die, women can get it for a year before they die) and the benefits will be substantially less than they are now if/when I ever become eligible. It has to be that way because the current system gives money to people in excess of what they paid in plus interest for about a decade and without regard to whether or not they need it. I have a solution for this, but no fscking politician would ever run with this agenda because only the old bastards vote and votes are what keep the pols on the gravy train. Since this is my favorite forum and there are more smart people here than anywhere else I know of, I'm going to put my idea down here so that it may be critiqued. Who knows? I might someday run for Congress (my Congressman is Mark Souder who is an absolute idiot). My Proposed Social Security Rule: Subject SS check collection to "needs analysis". -> This would call for debate, but I'd say exclude home ownership (admittedly a gapping whole, but might be necessary for compromise). Then look at total assests including trust funds for which the retiree has control over trust disbursements. My More realistic (possibly passable) SS Rules: 1. Everyone gets back what they paid in plus interest (for sole proprietors like me, the full amount, for employees, the amount deducted from all their paychecks). 2. At age 65, they can take the above amount out in one lump sum. If they do that, they get nothing else from the SS Admin. 3. If they elect to take regular checks, pay them out according to monthly installments based upon life expectancy. If they die before it's all paid out, roll the amount over to a beneficiary. 4. When they've been paid back, subject them to a more rigorous needs analysis than that suggested above. That's fair and it assures those of us paying 16% of our income to the elderly now that we are not being robbed. Whadaya think? bcnu, Mikem
Post #63,276 by boxley 11/16/02 5:49:34 PM Reply	A couple of changes first you do get socked for an additional 7.5% but get to write off stuff a working person would only dream about. After having my own business for 5 years then working as an employee I had a shit when I saw how much taxes they were collecting. income based needs assessment not asset based, set an amount of 40k per year based on last years tax return. Assign all monies except a small stipend to medicare if they are in a nursing home. If you want to collect encourage immigration (illegal is better cause they wont collect the tax they pay) we need 100 million new faces to pay us off. Se habla pensionair? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,610 by mmoffitt 11/18/02 1:04:54 PM Reply	Interesting. I was playing around with numbers for myself and it appears that in order to "take home" as much money as a 75K/year employee job would pay me, I need to have more than 90K/year in the door.
Post #63,628 by boxley 11/18/02 2:39:45 PM Reply	depends on the job and are you taking all allowable expenses? I used the flat rate per mile on the car, paid myself federal perdiem when out of town and used the allowances for my dedicated home office, telephone, insurance, supplies, equipment etc. all things I need as an employee but cannot write off. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,826 by mmoffitt 11/19/02 2:18:27 PM Reply	Even with all that. Given the same "gross" I do not take home nearly as much as I would as an employee. Then count other bene's like health insurance, paid vacations, and quickly you conclude that there are significant dis-incentives to hang your own shingle. YMMV ;-) Mikem
Post #63,277 by Another Scott 11/16/02 5:53:44 PM Reply	SS has morphed over the years. If you make the changes you suggest, then there would still be large parts of the program that will need to be funded somehow. (I'm too lazy to look this up at the moment, so I welcome corrections.) Initially, Social Security was an old age and survivor's benefit to keep people from living in poverty after they retire. In that, it's been quite successful. The elderly make up a much smaller percentage of people in poverty than in the pre-SS days. As you point out, the initial age for retirement benefits was 65 when the average life expectancy was less than 60 (IIRC). People living longer, and retiring at 62 (and getting partial benefits) or 65 (or 67+ for people like me) is putting stress on the system. In addition, SS was expanded to pay benefits to people with certain disabilities - "Supplemental Security Income". Even children can get these benefits. Etc. So lots of things are going on. SS was never intended to be an investment - at least not the way it was set up (though it may have been sold that way at times over the years). It's a tax that most of us pay so that the elderly won't live in poverty. And so that others will have certain benefits. And in the 1970's cost-of-living adjustments were made automatic rather than requiring a vote of Congress. This added huge costs to the system (just as inflation was high) without any pressure on Congress to increase taxes to pay for it. I don't think that SS should be structured so that people should be guaranteed to get all their taxes back with interest. I do think that the taxes should be restructured. For instance, I don't agree with the income cutoff (i.e. I think all income should be subject to SS taxes, not just that below 75k or whatever it is now). I think that retirees should be subject to reasonable taxes so that those who are well off should pay a reasonable amount in income and SS taxes. And I agree that the SS taxes for those self-employed, private contractors, post-docs, sole-proprietors, etc., are ruinous and should be restructured. I think lump-sum distributions would be disasterous even if the money could be found. People would assume that it was a lottery winning and that there'd be pressure on the system to pay them when that money's gone. "We don't want millions of people on SS losing their homes and living in cardboard boxes! We've got to do something!" Similarly, I think if the US wants to continue to have the benefit of older people not living in poverty, then I think there has to be some general tax to pay for it. Having SS be solely an individual account wouldn't guarantee that benefit, IMO. I don't think anything about SS nor Medicare is going to change, even for the better, until younger people start voting in greater numbers. As you say, politicians pander to them because they vote in such great numbers. :-( My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #63,492 by a6l6e6x 11/17/02 10:05:49 PM Reply	Disagree on at least one point. Looking for special treatment are you? :) 1. Everyone gets back what they paid in plus interest (for sole proprietors like me, the full amount, for employees, the amount deducted from all their paychecks). What's your problem with the employer contribution to SS? It is part of the total expense of having an employee and if it can easily be thought of a part of the pay that needs to redirected to the Feds. As some who has run a corporation (with one employee -- me!) you can be sure that if the employer contribution was not required, the available funds would be in my pay. Alex "Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these."\t-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Post #63,609 by mmoffitt 11/18/02 1:02:31 PM Reply	Because it is the EMPLOYER'S money, not the employee's.
Post #63,612 by mhuber 11/18/02 1:22:38 PM Reply	Well, that's an arguable point It hasn't been transferred to the employee, but it was (unless the employee is an idiot) a factor in the negotiations. The employee was paid less in order to cover the cost - and both sides know it. In negotiations over w-2/10-99 status, it is a rather significant factor. How many people work over-the-table instead of under just to get that 7.5%? I considered not quiting a job in which I was losing money in order to get that (and other) tax paid. If I were in a better financial position, I'd keep driving courier (my costs per IRS milage allowances are higher than my pay) as a tax loss. This is sort of an FOB situation, rather like the question of who's money the bank robber stole if cash from/to your account was on the counter when he pulled the gun. ---- Whatever
Post #63,663 by a6l6e6x 11/18/02 5:07:54 PM 11/18/02 5:19:29 PM Reply	Right on! It's a "matching contribution" not unlike one for 401-K plan. Alex "Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these."\t-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18) Edited by a6l6e6x Nov. 18, 2002, 05:19:29 PM EST Expand All History
Post #63,823 by mmoffitt 11/19/02 2:10:07 PM Reply	Gullability Abounds. So, if the costs of production (and labor is a cost of production) drops, the savings are shared with non-shareholding employees? On what planet? Do you really think that if tomorrow the mandatory employer contribution to your FICA taxes was dropped, that you'd see any gain on your paycheck? You can't be that naive. Technology has boosted productivity in the past 20 years. How much of those savings have been passed on to employees? Are we earning more in real wages? Have we kept our pay the same and started working fewer hours/week? Have lay-offs ended? Of course not. That is NOT the way American capitalism works. Any savings of any business are passed on almost exclusively to the shareholders, almost never to the wage slaves of the shareholders. Geesh! And I thought you were playing along at home.
Post #63,869 by Ashton 11/19/02 5:54:36 PM Reply	Yes, as with 'Doze pure Crap.. we're inured to the scam now.
Post #64,048 by mhuber 11/20/02 11:18:18 AM Reply	In most cases I'd agree But when one of the options is 10-99 status and the negotiations are serious (as opposed to the usual situation where the employer ofers and the employee says "yes" more or less automaticaly) it can be a factor. I've had contracts where the client explicitly offered me a higher rate if I'd take 10-99 status. (And in case the IRS is reading this, it was legitimate - the other 10-99 qualifications applied, I set the hours and working conditions, used my own equipment, and in every way was operating as an independant contractor.) ---- Whatever
Post #63,554 by andread 11/18/02 9:54:41 AM Reply	need more and better SS taxes 1) eliminate the income level cutoff(currently aroung 89k) tax whole income 2) tax unearned income (like dividends) 3) tax stock market transactions 4) have a minimum SS tax to catch the loopholers it's supposed to be "social" security and while we're at it, elect governments that are sane enough to make things like SS, Health Care, Education the top priorities A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]

Welcome to IWETHEY!