Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

Top 100. Mar 8, 2005 9:17 AM

» snowchief2 - Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Max SS check posted by Normxxx:

Normxxx stated:

"The additional payin scarcely matters; only your highest 30 years are counted anyway. (I believe it's 30...It may be 40; I don't remember.)"

You are in the neighborhood Normxxx. smile

I read on the SSA site yesterday it is the highest 35 years. They also state that if the recipient had < than 35 years of employment, that a zero is used for each of those years for benefit calculation purposes.

I was unable to find the page to post a link.

I was able to find the full benefit age criteria.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/nra.html

-- posted by snowchief2

Top 101. Mar 8, 2005 9:20 AM

» BrianMcG - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by JeffChristy:

You wrote: "Before he would quit he would raise the price of his newsletter to $220.00 a year and pass all of the increased cost to his subscribers. I also expect most CEO's would get a pay raise to cover the increased cost. I think it would work out similar to the huge tax increase the government put on tobacco. The costs were all passed on to the consumers."

I agree that Brinker would not quit, unless, of course, he has holes in his head. (That is another question entirely.)

But I don't believe that tax increases are always passed on to the consumer. They are if demand justifies the increased prices, but not if they don't. Then cost-cutting must be imposed, and this often results in layoffs. The consequent unemployment can contribute to a recession. More people out of work means fewer workers supporting more retirees under the current pay-as-you-go system.

I heard that Bush was met at one of his rallies by a protester carrying a sign that read, "Keep your hands off MY Social Security." The funny thing is that there is no such thing as "my Social Security" for anybody in the current system. It's all just a future promise of the federal government, which the politicians can change any time it suits their purposes to do so.

A private account, in contrast, actually "belongs" to the account holder. He/she actually "owns" the account. It is property, not a government program. The account holder will make decisions about how it is invested. He/she can see it grow (or shrink) as the years pass by. It is something he/she can count on during retirement and, after death, when it comes time to pass on assets to heirs and beneficiaries.

IMO, Bush is absolutely right in his desire to promote "ownership" and the way of thinking that goes with it, instead of the kind of government dependency that social security engenders.

-- posted by BrianMcG

Top 102. Mar 8, 2005 10:44 AM

» bob90245 - Re: SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by BrianMcG:

IMO, Bush is absolutely right in his desire to promote "ownership" and the way of thinking that goes with it, instead of the kind of government dependency that social security engenders.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, the solution to social security seem to be as much a political debate as it is a debate for a financial solution. Many seniors were brought up with the dependency mindset fostered by Democrats from FDR onwards. So these seniors cling to the old ways and don't want to budge an inch. (Hence the "Keep your hands off MY Social Security" protest you mentioned). And given that seniors are an important voting block, their protests will be heard loudest (and heeded) by politicians.

[ Kirk's Editor Comment: I am NOT picking on you, but this is why I have to put an end to the posts here that debate politics. Go HERE if you want to debate politics. Any replies to the post that debate politics rather than discuss what Brinker said or recommended will be deleted. ]

-- posted by bob90245

http://www.ncpa.org/ncpa_calc/calcfig1.j...

Top 103. Mar 8, 2005 11:48 AM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by Kirk:

Depends on whether you are single or have a family. Currently the max seems to be $19368 for single and $33900 for a family. But it may have been $18000 last year (the maximum adjusts upwards as you add each year of the current taxable income and drop off an older-- lesser-- amount) of 31 years ago. Sounds like too big a jump though-- he might be several years behind.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 104. Mar 8, 2005 12:44 PM

» Normxxx - Supply and Demand

Supply and Demand

Most of the seniors already on SS have some memory of the '30s. It was a time when everyone had given up hope for "private enterprise" to rescue the economy. By 1938, all economists (except for some loonies on the fringes) had convinced themselves and each other, that oversupply was endemic in the 'industrial' age of 'mass production.' And, before you start laughing at them, note that just about every country in the world, except the U.S., is now in a chronic condition of oversupply.

So, if (when?) we go down the tubes, we take the whole world with us-- and repeat the '30s, or worse.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 105. Mar 8, 2005 1:09 PM

» BrianMcG - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by Normxxx:

[ Kirk's Editor Comment: I am NOT picking on you, but this is why I have to put an end to the posts here that debate politics. Go HERE if you want to debate politics. ]

You asked: "And the government can't take private property?"

The Fifth Amendment says they can't, but the Sixteenth Amendment has pretty well reversed that, at least when the government is exercising its power to tax income. So you make a valid point.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, John Marshall said "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The government can pretty well destroy whatever it chooses to by wielding its income tax powers. That is why many of us are so suspicious of income taxes.

There is no guarantee under any of these plans. IMO, however, it is better when people realize that money doesn't grow on trees. That they can't always rely on "the rich" to be frugal and productive so the government can tax their incomes to provide for any and all needs. They should learn that the way to provide for a secure retirement is by saving and investing prudently. It is patronizing to say that the average person is incapable of doing that. They can do it, under broad guidelines that would guard against utter improvidence. They can also learn that mistakes can be costly and should be avoided if possible. Under the present system, the most gosh-awful mistakes are made and the majority of the people are totally unaware. They don't much care, either, because there is always some "rich guy" who can be taxed to make up for the mistakes.

I don't think anybody in his right mind would advocate doing away with an economic safety net, so that people who, through their own fault or unavoidable misfortunes, are left destitute have nowhere to turn. Family and private charities should always respond to needs of this kind. When that is inadequate, however, there needs to be a backup, perhaps a more frankly needs-tested social security system. Bush doesn't advocate doing away with this kind of protection. And I remember Reagan repeatedly referring to the "safety net."

-- posted by BrianMcG

Top 106. Mar 8, 2005 1:19 PM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Supply and Demand

In response to Re: Supply and Demand posted by Kirk:

In other words, any economic position with which you disagree is "political?"

In every case, including where you specifically asked me for the current "max SS amount" there was no reference to BB in the post I was answering.

So long, it's been good to know you.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 107. Mar 8, 2005 1:27 PM

» BrianMcG - Re: Re: Supply and Demand

In response to Re: Supply and Demand posted by Kirk:

Before you chide me, I too have been guilty of straying from the subject here. Somehow that seems to be the nature of conversations, and what we have here are often exchanges that are more conversational than anything else. I have often wondered when speaking with a group of friends how we strayed from the original subject to another so unrelated. I wonder that too here. So I plead guilty.

-- posted by BrianMcG

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04...
http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-05socsec.htm

Top 108. Mar 8, 2005 4:18 PM

» permabear - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

"I personally would like to see social security benefits severely cut rather than raise taxes trapping us further in a failed system. After driving the wrong way for 1 hour, you turn around and be glad that you didn't go futher."

I can't let a comment like this go without being challenged.
[ Kirk's Editor Comment: I am NOT picking on you, but this is why I have to put an end to the posts here that debate politics. Go HERE if you want to debate politics. ]
So many folks on this board really have no perspective whatsoever about the value of social insurance programs like Social Security. Prior to Social Security, the elderly had the highest level of poverty. Today, largely because of Social Security, the elderly have a much lower poverty rate (see links above). Social Security is not about investing or making money. It is there to make sure that people have a floor level source of income to ensure that they can get by in their senior years. Sure people should save and invest more and plan better for retirement. But the fact is they don't. Americans are very poor savers. Without a floor level income, we will go back to the days of seeing our seniors out on the street pandhandling for money, or perhaps relying on their children to keep a roof over their heads. How many of you have your parents or grandparents living with you?

-- posted by permabear