Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Earth to Hooper, Earth to Hooper! Come in, Hooper!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 4, 2011 at 5:25 am #712918
JanSParticipantnow, if I became a corporation, like an S-corp., or a c-corp…then I would be paying into unemployment for myself…and be able to draw..but I’m not that…
January 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm #712919
redblackParticipantskeeter: you think the government is redistributing wealth? really?
do you know how much wealth the top 2% have?
pretty much all of it. and they’re not letting it go.
January 4, 2011 at 4:38 pm #712920
dawsonctParticipantRedblack, if my labor doesn’t create value greater than my employer is paying to employ me, then they won’t employ me. The money paid to UI is there because people made more money from my labor than it cost them to employ me.
—
Thanks RarelyEver, I prefer my drinks wet and real! Maybe next forum meet-up!
January 4, 2011 at 5:23 pm #712921
JoBParticipanthooper1961…
finally we get to the key words…
you CHOSE to start your own business.
you didn’t even look for another job…
which btw.. makes you ineligible for unemployment.
so much for that high road
January 4, 2011 at 5:25 pm #712922
JoBParticipanttanyar23..
help me understand this….
if your car insurance company wants you to put in 8 hours a week gratis to collect on an accident claim.. that’s ok with you?
how about your medical insurance? willing to put in 8 hours a week for them before they pay your medical claims?
god forbid you collect on a loved one’s life insurance.. how long do you think you should put in 8 hours a week for them to collect?
the point is that insurance is insurance.
unemployment insurance is an insurance program.
your employer pays the premiums for you as a part of your employment package.
In this case Uncle Sam replaces the insurance company as the insurer…
which means that we the taxpayers don’t have to pay profit on this insurance program.
like clockwork..
employers all over the nation pay into this insurance program for every individual employed.
Uncle Sam (we the taxpayers) only pay out when a business decides that it has to.. or wants to… lay off workers.
The “cost” to employers only increases when they make it a practice to regularly dismiss workers for their own convenience… discouraging them from playing the labor market by hiring for small fluctuations in demand then laying off workers till demand increases.
of course, many employers now circumvent that safeguard by hiring only from temp agencies… whose workers never get unemployment benefits.
while a whole lot of attention has been paid to the cost of unemployment extensions which are paid by Uncle Sam (we the taxpayer.. the insurer)… i have yet to see an actual accounting of dollars in versus dollars out.. say over a 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 year time period.
i am too tired this morning to go looking for one… but i am guessing the numbers would put an end to the current high cost of extending unemployment benefits news story.
we would have seen the numbers by now if the long term cost exceeded what has been paid into the program.
unemployment insurance and social security are basically self sustaining insurance programs that happen to be administered by the government instead of by a private profit making corporation…
which makes them a good deal for taxpayers.
the bad news is that these programs are not in a true locked box trust…
the US govt can replace the cash we taxpayers pay into those programs with US govt treasury bonds otherwise known as IOUs.
You want to get mad…
get mad at the politicians who are raiding your private insurance company to pay for corporate welfare and wars…
they are doing the same thing to your self supporting insurance programs that unscrupulous lenders did to the mortgage industry.
entitlement programs?
my a..
January 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm #712923
RarelyEverParticipant..ss!
January 4, 2011 at 7:09 pm #712924
MercyMoiParticipantJoB, I feel smarter after reading your #30 comment. I’m yoinking your examples of how ridiculous a requirement would be to volunteer time when filing other insurance claims. Great points!
January 4, 2011 at 7:39 pm #712925
hooper1961MemberJob – it’s the entitlement mentality that is a problem. most current social security recipients are receiving far more in benefits than they paid in that is not fair to future generations.
unemployment ok just jack the rate on the employers yet this increases costs of goods and services provided.
it is the entitlement mentality that needs to be fixed.
January 4, 2011 at 9:34 pm #712926
dhgParticipantHooper: I can’t agree more.
Except, the people I know on unemployment are very grateful and thankful they get a check while looking for work AND attending classes to better themselves. They don’t feel entitled, they just like being able to live without begging.
THE CEO’s, however, that’s a different story. Who’s job is actually worth $400 million per year? The amount of money the financiers and Wall St. boys award themselves is out of control. Billion dollar bonuses? Handed out by the taxpayers?! It is obscene and needs to be controlled.
This is where Obamacare helps a lot. Medicare costs 3% in administrative costs and now, by law, health insurance companies can only use 20% of their income for administration, advertising and bonuses. This will help to curb the excesses and bring down health care costs. We don’t want to see any more multi-billionaires who made their money on denying health benefits. These are the “entitled” ones who need to be stopped.
January 4, 2011 at 10:17 pm #712927
KBearParticipantActually, it’s the “what’s mine is mine and to hell with everyone else” mentality that’s the problem. As citizens and taxpayers, we’re all entitled to certain services from our government, and ignoring the needs of the sick, the poor, and the unemployed does not make our country greater.
January 4, 2011 at 10:25 pm #712928
ZenguyParticipantI worked for the unemployment for the last thirty-plus years. Became unemployed because people were greedy and fearful (WaMu), never thought I would need the system, but glad it was there.
January 4, 2011 at 11:28 pm #712929
hooper1961Memberdhg – everyone puts there pants on one leg at a time; no one is worth $400,000,000 a year that is obscene
January 5, 2011 at 1:26 am #712930
JoBParticipanthooper1961
i don’t know about you ..
but when i pay for insurance and the unexpected happens and i have to collect on it
i feel entitled.
i made the payments…
or in the case of unemployment.. they were made on my behalf as part of my employment compensation
so i deserve to collect when i need the benefits.
as for the social security recipients that you think are receiving far more today than they paid into the system..
sorry bucko but that is just plain wrong.
social security recipients who are currently collecting pretty much paid into the system from their first working day and pretty much haven’t exceeded what they and their employers paid into it.
If boomers live long enough.. and that is one very big if… they might collect more from the system than they and their employers paid into it.
on the other hand..
they might cross the street and get hit by a mack truck tomorrow…
or by the conservative political backlash
and never collect a cent.
after all.. these are the same folks who have already successful looted their pensions and their IRAs and are trying to take away their medical benefits as we speak :(
Now.. if you want to talk about the disabled..
yes.. many of us have already received more than we paid into the system…
but that’s what we paid those insurance premiums for.. isn’t it?
you are familiar with the concept of annuity programs.. aren’t you?
January 5, 2011 at 2:49 am #712931
redblackParticipantdawson: i wasn’t arguing the efficacy of UI; i think the system is justified as-is, and i agree that labor generates capital far beyond wages.
i was just correcting a common misconception that UI is a matching fund, like LNI.
January 5, 2011 at 3:50 am #712932
hooper1961MemberJob
From data on line the average earning in the US in 1960 was about $30,000 (in 2006 dollars). The Social Security tax rate was 3% (for comparison it is currently 12.4% that is 4 x’s the rate in 1960). Thus contribution of $900 (that is automatically adjusted to 2006 $’s). the average monthly benefit is $1,073 (in 2010 $’s) that say is 10% higher than in 2006; thus about $900/month. Thus 1 year of work and the payback is in one month of retirement. Say 47 years of work 18 to 65. Thus you have earned 47 months of retirement; roughly 4 years factor in some investment gains that say doubles the amount to 8 years. That is for a person who worked from 18 to 65. The average life expectancy is 78.4 years. Thus after reaching the age of 73 (65 + 8) it is money not earned.
I realize my above math is rough (I am not a rocket scientist) but it is clear from the data that the average Social Security recipient is indeed receiving more in benefits than they paid into the system. Thus reducing benefits to be in line with what they paid in is reasonable.
Regarding unemployment don’t get me going on this; the fact is the government HAS ALREADY INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT TAX RATES significantly to pay benefits well in excess of what has been paid into the system. thus you are not entitled to continued benefits that have already been exhausted
January 5, 2011 at 4:02 am #712933
tanyar23ParticipantOk,ok I surrender! :) No 8 hrs of volunteer work for those receiving unemployment insurance. I’ve seen the light!!! Although it would be good for the resume and good for the community.
However, social security is going to be a struggle. Soon, it will be 2 employees supporting one person who is receiving social security. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17767992 It was definitely not that way when it started.
I thought this was some interesting reading. I know wikipedia is not the best source in the world, but it is useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
January 5, 2011 at 4:14 am #712934
hooper1961Memberyes its either raise taxes or reduce benefits or a combination of both to keep social security solvent. reducing benefits to be in line with payments made into the system would be the most fair solution
medicare is heading for a train wreck; spending on medicare needs to be rained in. the reality is that some procedures are really really expensive with doubtful outcomes or life extensions of a few months. does it make sense to expend limited government resources for a 90 year old who has had a long life?
January 5, 2011 at 4:34 am #712935
elikapekaParticipantHooper, you have a real thing about taking something away from somebody to make things “fair.” It always seems to be your solution. What would be “fair” would be to remove the earnings cap on the FICA tax. Everybody would pay it on all earnings. Problem solved.
January 5, 2011 at 5:37 am #712936
JoBParticipanthooper1961..
ok rocket scientist…
if the retiree only earned the same income for all of their working life.. and the percentage paid to social security remained the same… you might be right…
well, except for the part that you have to double those numbers because employers pay into social security on a worker’s behalf as part of their compensation package…
but… those who have invested 51 years (working from 15 to 66..
that’s right..most of us boomers were working at 15 for less than a dollar an hour…
only earned the “average wage” for 1960 in 1960.
as an example.. first hubby is a good one. a high school graduate with a year or so of college who was smart and got a really good full time job to support his family in 1969.
in 1969.. he made 10K and was proud to do so. When he retired in about 2005 he was pulling 100K plus…
I don’t know how the increments went up since i wasn’t budgeting his paychecks for most of that period.. but i do know that the 10K adj to 2006 dollars he started with was substantially less than what he was making (and contributing) by the time he retired…
and he’s not done…
tho i don’t have a clue what he is making consulting… i am pretty sure he is still contributing the maximum FICA which for a self employed taxpayer is roughly 15%…
and he has another 5 years to contribute before he collects a single penny.
Even then he tells me he plans to continue consulting in his retirement which means he will still be paying into the system while he collects.
social security has no cut off age for FICA tax.
oh.. and when he finally collects.. if he lives that long… he will be paying taxes on 85% of his social security income.
funny how that works isn’t it.
rocket scientist i’m not…
but those years as an accountant really pay off when a complicated formula like social security is reduced to simplistic terms by people who don’t take all of the variables into account.
The point is moot however.
Aside from the fact that the amount of your payment is dependent upon the average of your top 35 year’s earning… it doesn’t matter what you paid into social security as long as you paid enough premiums to qualify for payment.
Social Security is not a retirement account with vested benefits like your IRA.
It’s an insurance program.
“Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
You say your wife paid in and never collected though her son did.
that’s how insurance programs work. You pay in to protect yourself against loss of income for retirement or disability or death of a spouse (assuming of course that your have children or are of retirement age yourself).
if you live long enough and pay enough premiums you collect. if you don’t, you don’t.
it really is that simple.
January 5, 2011 at 5:45 am #712937
JoBParticipanttanyar23
it is true that there will be a current employee FICA tax shortfall when the boomers all retire…
and that the social security trust fund (the excess payments) will eventually fall short even if the govt makes good on it’s IOUs to the fund…
but that is only because the boomers FICA taxes financed the social security payments for workers who had not invested a lifetime paying FICA taxes…
the problem is that the program was initially unfunded… and that the US govt has borrowed against the funds…. not that boomers didn’t adequately fund their own social security payout.
January 5, 2011 at 5:47 am #712938
hooper1961Membermy son received less than 30 cents on the dollar paid into the system. and people ought to be given a choice of not participating in the system and privately investing the money instead. obviously those that choose to do it alone would have to sign that they are making the choice and therefore no bailout from government
the fact remains that the average current retiree is reaping more in benefits than they paid in. a combination of reducing future cola increases and increasing taxes is the pragmatic thing to do.
January 5, 2011 at 6:36 am #712939
JoBParticipanthooper1961…
your wife didn’t pay into a retirement account…or if she did it wasn’t social secrity…
she and every other working person who is required to pay FICA taxes paid into an insurance pool that spread the risks for everyone.
the “fact” does not remain that the average current retiree is reaping more in benefits than they paid in… that’s jsut a conservative talking point…
though it is a possible that some individuals will eventually be paid more from the program than the combination of what they paid and what their employers paid in their behalf if they live long enough.
but.. and this is a really big but…
even if your “fact” was true… it still doesn’t matter.
several other people who didn’t get the chance to collect everything they paid into the pool fund the difference.
that’s the basic concept of insurance…
the reason you don’t get to personally opt out (unless you happen to work in a category that is exempt from FICA) is the same as the rationalization for mandatory car insurance.
if you don’t pay your insurance and you have an accident and don’t have the funds to cover the costs then someone else has to pick up the tab…
that’s the uninsured motorist part of your insurance bill that you still get to pay…
because even though it’s the law too many people decide that it just doens’t apply to them.
You pay so we don’t have to pick up your tab.
As for investing your FICA dollars yourself..
you might want to take a good look at the actual return on the dollars you have invested in your IRA.
i don’t know about you.. but the gut of retirement accounts by wall street’s mad dash towards short term profit taking means we aren’t counting on those accfts to provide anything resembling income in our retirement.
We had best all hope social security survives the idiocy of people like you who repeat the entitlement mantra without ever figuring out that social security is an insurance pool run by the people who benefit from it without paying profit centers on top of management fees on top of actual management costs.
It’s the most cost effective program possible to ensure us all from the risk of destitution in our retirement… and it is still not likely to be enough to allow us to remain in the homes we invested blood sweat and tears to create for ourselves.
buck up hooper and stop letting the professional swindlers distract you from their pickpocketing ways…
all you have to do is stop your who done you wrong song long enough to look and you will see that the hand lifting your wallet isn’t your fellow taxpayer.
January 5, 2011 at 6:48 am #712940
hooper1961Memberjob – fica is a rip off system. winners are if one spouse works and the other is stay at home; but if both partners work it is a flat out lose system.
the fact remains the average current retiree is reaping more in benefits than they paid in. the system is going broke, the us government iou’s will break the system. it’s cut benefits or increase taxes. and cutting benefits to better align with payments made into the system is only fair.
January 5, 2011 at 8:47 am #712941
HMC RichParticipantOh Tanyar, you gave up too soon but the entitlements are going to rip this country apart if we don’t raise the benefits age and and find some way to fund this situation better. Pay as you go (ponzi). At least my Grandparents and father will be supplemented. I am glad for them.
Hooper, since employers already paid in the UI, I think you are barking up the wrong tree, unless unfunded unemployment is passed (just happened) and maybe if we are past the cut off of funding, then a little “volunteer” work for benefits would be good.
I claim every now and then. It is nice to have but if it wasn’t there I would be looking just a little, and I mean a little, more for stop gap work, until I found a better job in my field or went into a new field altogether.
Basically, I can get more money from claiming Unemployment than working for $20.00 an hour. Seems strange, and that is why I rarely claim, but I must admit I do.
I am proof that if you are getting assistance, there is less incentive to find a job sooner. On the other hand my quality of life with my family is one of the reasons I don’t mind making and working less these days. I am thoroughly enjoying being with my four year old son, instead of listening to some career mid-management corporate asshole telling me what I usually already know. I hate corporate brown nosers.
I am inclined to side with Hooper that some benefits need to be cut. We may have our FICA taxes raised to help. Then again, I can see why some want 30 million illegal aliens to pay into the system (filling the gap of the 40 million who weren’t allowed to become adults, let alone children) SORRY – HIJACKED THE THREAD. Chupacabra alert.
JoB, if it, Social Security, is so cost effective, why in Paul Krugman’s underwear is it going broke? Here is an interesting link from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html
So, Greenspan has the answers.
January 5, 2011 at 3:11 pm #712942
redblackParticipanthooper: how could one working person’s SS pay-out for a married couple possibly be a “winner?” if two people work, they are both paying into and drawing from SS.
and i’m not sure what kind of world you want to live in, but if a citizen is allowed to opt out of SS and he either gets hosed from private investment – or decides to do nothing with that money, which is a more likely scenario – i don’t think that allowing him to just die quietly in an alley somewhere is an option.
do you?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.