|
3 with pros and cons? shocking. you'd think it would be all cons seeing as how it's a bunch of lawbreakers.:rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
With the social acceptence of single mother/teen pregnancy and the government providing lifetime support including healthcare, I'm afraid 'welfare mom' has become an acceptable vocation for young girls when it was originally intended as a safeguard for assisting a woman in need. |
Quote:
People should have to pass multiple tests before they should be allowed to become parents. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
but at least you are looking to stimulate something |
Quote:
Instead of dealing with bad parenting we turn our heads and throw money at more teachers, police and ultimately jail guards to compensate for the bad parents’ actions and the subsequent results. But then again faulting a 15-16 yr old for bad parenting is akin to a 2-3 year old sticking their hand in a flame. It's a catch-22. Both get burned but the injury to the new mother is far worse. Perhaps going after the sire's parent(s) as well, provided he was underage, for support and to recoup or limit the government's role as primary supporter would be a detriment? |
Quote:
|
More illegal immigrant news for Dell
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090202673.html
Selected excerpts: Quote:
|
Quote:
“In response to a research inquiry for a book I am writing on the economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants. That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.” He went on with ”About 180,000 unauthorized immigrants received about $1 billion in fraudulent benefits in 2007, Goss said. These benefits are subtracted from the net contribution.” So using Mr. Goss’s figures $13 billion were contributed to Social Security in 2007 by ‘unauthorized workers’ after adding back on the billion he subtracted for fraud. After using the 5.6 million worker number he quoted we arrive at an average contribution per worker of $2,321.00. Since the SS and Medicaid contribution is 7.65% of first 90K earned we learn that the average yearly wage for an illegal worker in 2007 was $30,539.00. So now Mr. Goss has let the truth out. I would think there are 5.6 million American workers ready and willing to go to work today for 30K per year no matter how dirty the job. I'd also like to ask Mr. Goss the amount of children these ‘unauthorized workers’ have with them. If it averages out to anything more than a half child per worker the $2,321 contributed to SS is swallowed up in the first semester of school with a courtesy daily lunch. I'll let RIOT figure out the ER room health costs incurred and will leave out uninsured motor vehicle accidents, crime, etc etc etc. Stephen Goss showed his bias throughout the piece using ‘unauthorized’ instead of illegal. To him someone robbing his neighbor’s house isn’t a home invader or burglar but an unauthorized visitor. |
I think you would have to base it at 12% for social security, not 6%.. Either you pay all 12% or your company matches your 6%...
so go with 12% if you are trying to figure out peoples salaries. |
Quote:
I'm not sure Goss included the employers contribution? If he did then he should have added and their employers everytime he typed 'unauthorized immigrants' or reduced their total contribution by half. |
Quote:
If that employee isnt working, the 6% match isnt coming in. If you are self employed you have to pay 12% anyway. Plus 19k sounds a lot more like the salary of an illegal than 30k. |
The National Immigration Law Center says the money is directed towards the Earnings Suspense File, which is a repository for Social Security taxes which are paid by illegal immigrants who have either used false identities, forged document or incorrect Social Security numbers.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ret_stash.html The U. S. government is getting the benefit of those SS payments. I doubt they're being held in any "Suspense" file. The suspense is how the U. S. government is diverting those funds to pay for something other than the SS Program - much the same as they've diverted a LOT of SS funds. If all the money paid into SS over the decades actually had stayed in a SS account, the program wouldn't be in any trouble whatsoever. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
exactly... its legal stealing |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Social security payments wouldn't be as high as they are IF the government hadn't frittered away endless amounts of taxpayer SS payments with no intention of paying it back, and IF there wasn't that "Earnings Suspense File" where billions of $$'s are supposedly languishing.:rolleyes: |
[quote]
Quote:
HOWEVER: Under current law, employees pay a 6.2% Social Security tax on all wages earned up to $106,800 (in 2011) and self-employed individuals pay 12.4% Social Security self-employment taxes on all their self-employment income up to the same threshold. For 2011, the Senate passed 2010 Tax Reform Act gives a two-percentage-point payroll/self-employment tax holiday for employees and self-employeds. As a result, employees will pay only 4.2% Social Security tax on wages and self-employment individuals will pay only 10.4% Social Security self-employment taxes on self-employment income up to the threshold. Quote:
All which still doesn't address the truth that there is no immediate Social Security crisis whatsoever. |
Social Security for 2011 is 4.2% for employees. However, factoring in a Medicare payment, the total employee FICA contribution is 5.65% - my error for saying 6.2%
Further - http://www.federalbudget.com/ SOCIAL SECURITY is not part of the Federal Budget. It is a separate account and has its own source of income ("Payroll Taxes"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading.... As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus". Government agencies that borrowed from the trust fund, now have to pay the money back. But they've spent it. Where will they get it? More bail outs (taxes) coming. And here is a "must read" about the problem. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...zi_scheme.html Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole! http://www.federalbudget.com/socsec.html Here is a link to the Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/P...a/fundFAQ.html and their latest Report (August 2010). https://www.socialsecurity.gov/press...e10-pr-alt.pdf Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed. Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page. http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security. http://www.federalbudget.com/rootproblem.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Only in your world Riot. You dont have to worry about 2037 and beyond. Typical democrat view, just thinking about themselves and the present. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
kudos Princeth Doreen... you kicked some butt on this topic |
Quote:
|
[quote]
Quote:
You've just posted a shotgun of information about Social Security. Good But the fact remains: Social Security is fine, doing nothing at all, until 2037. At that point, doing nothing, it would still be able to pay out 78%. All it needs is another little tweek, as it's had in the past. Again, you've posted nothing to indicate that the above statement, what the Social Security administration says is the truth, what they have calculated will happen, is false. Social Security has never missed an obligation - it's the most successful social program in the world, ever. |
[quote=Riot;750969]
Quote:
It's the first time in the history of SS that a COLA payment hasn't happened - two years in a row. Hear any warning bells? How bad does it have to get before you'll realize the program is in trouble? How high a % in payroll deductions and how the amount of wages? And, how is the government going to repay all the money it "borrowed" from the fund? More taxes, more bailouts, etc. And, is there really any money in the "Suspense" fund - you know that account where all the SS payments supposedly go to for the pmts made using fictitious SS #'s? |
Quote:
Quote:
Right now Social Security is meeting 100% of their obligations, easily, and are predicted to do so until 2037. At that point they can meet 78% of their obligations. There's been nothing posted to disprove the SS Administrations math on that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Riot, I think your main problem on this issue is that you feel that 2037 is ways away.
its in the not so distant future... so much so that it will effect everyone born in 1970 and after. some people care about their childern, and their grandchildrens future. |
I do not know how to multiple quote. Sorry!:o
To answer your questions 1 by 1 - 1. Yup - I know what the acronym means. I find it impossible to believe that there was no cost of living increase for the past two years. I can't even begin to list the # of items I'm now paying more for than I did 2 years ago including reserved seats at Saratoga.:) 2. You keep repeating yourself about 78% covering in 2037. I don't see where this is any indication that the program isn't in trouble. 3. Do you realize that while the % deduction has remain unchanged over the past 10 years, there's been a tremendous increase in the amount of wages that that % comes out of? $87,900 in 2004 and $106, 200 in 2010 & 2011. Yup, they reduced it 2% for 2011, but they're not paying a COLA increase, so it washes. Additionally, the amount of SS money taxable has increased over the years. We now pay 100% IRS tax every single $ of our SS income. 4. It's there? You say it's there? Where? Money borrowed was spent. It has to be replaced. How is it going to be replaced? Raise the tax - right? 5. Silly me believing in any government conspiracy theory. Pardon my mirth. Bernie Madoff is a light weight compared to the mendacity of the U.S. government in manipulating taxpayer dollars - and this can be said for any administration - regardless of political party. ************** I thank God we don't have to depend on social security payments in retirement because we surely would be standing on the dole lines if we hadn't made some alternative retirement plans. For those of you bemoaning the fact that you're financing our monthly SS payments, whose monthly payments were we financing when we paid into the "system" for 40 years? So, NO, I don't feel guilty collecting monthly SS payments. But, I do feel badly for those in their 20's and 30's who are paying dearly into the system with no or little prospect of collecting anything when it comes their turn to retire. I do hope they are planning some alternatives. |
Quote:
I do not think that Social Securities' being able to meet 100% of obligations for the next 27 years, and then being able to meet 78% of obligations, qualifies as an immediate crisis of historic and scary proportion. Nor do I think it justifies panic and immediate significant overhaul or privatization of the entire system, as Wall Street and the GOP are salivating for. It calls for the predicted and anticipated, well-planned and calm tweek. This is no surprise. We knew it was coming. There is an easy fix to massively fund Social Security heavily, in excess, with tons of money, for decades. That is to simply raise the cap up to $200,000 or so. I support the above solution. Because then the SS payroll takeout could even be lowered in the future. Alternative solutions being floated are to cut benefits, raise the payroll takeout (you pay more), raise the retirement age, or to privatize the system (give private corporations the funds to invest for us - shrudder! ) I do not support any of those solutions. Passing any of those second solutions also requires the public to be scared Social Security is about to crash, that there is a crisis that requires such significant changes. What do you support? |
Quote:
Paragraph 2 - exactly! |
I support privatization...
like a 401k where I have the options on where it is invested. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.