Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.
Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
Social security in NOT insurance.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.
Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
Oh, INSURANCE, NOT a ponzi scheme
Greece? Yep, the world wide Banksters credit bubble and busr really hurt them, right?
How did that austerity conservatives preach about work in Europe again? lol
I did the math and a 10% flat tax on all income would bring in more than the tax code we have now and 10% is already the lowest bracket so everyone not already in the lowest bracket would get a tax cut and the lowest bracket would pay what they pay now. And I do not believe 10 cents on the dollar is a burden for anyone. People spend more than that a year on stupid crapWe can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.And that's your opinion.
I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?
i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.
history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.
but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.
but have a great day. I have to get working.
But it is not an "unfair" tax by any stretch.
If you want to address regressive taxes try the payroll tax or the fact that the government is screwing people by taxing all the gains in their retirement plans as regular income and not capital gains.
There are a lot more egregious things going on in our current tax codes that are actually harmful that no one from either side ever address.
And I do not align myself with any political party so I cannot really be partisan. In fact there are things from both parties that I support and don't support.
I'd rather take that approach than a 2 dimensional either or right or wrong point of view that so many of you seem to hold here.
I'd rather see every person treated exactly the same than have the government make special rules for some and not others.
we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.
and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.
It makes no sense to tax some dollars more than others.
And a flat tax would treat all dollars the same so that investment income would be taxed just like earned income.
I don't understand why people think a flat tax on income is unfair when every other tax we have are flat taxes.
In fact most state income taxes are flat taxes. So it's not unfair for a state to have a flat income tax but it is for the feds?
except that it does make sense. and right now, we have the lowest median tax rate of any time in the last several decades, maybe even the last 50 years. hasn't done much good, has it? your way of doing things, while purportedly fair, taxes the poor and working class at rates they can't afford in order to protect the wealth of the top 1%. also, laws regarding deductions and sheltering wealth already reduce the contribution of the top 1% to far less proportionately than middle and working class people pay.
again, see my link on the flat tax.
if your concern is so-called "small business" a flat tax is horrible since it does away with deductions for operating expenses. now, for someone like forbes, as i pointed out, such flat taxes set a base level on already existing "wealth" so that the bulk of the wealthiest's wealth is never taxed. that isn't "treating everyone the same", it is simply codifying and making permanent a virtual aristocracy. this goes directly counter to what was wanted by the founders, which, i thought, was of paramount concern to the right. why not on this subject?
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
I don't think you understand what SS is, and have it confused with an individual retirement plan. You do not elect to pay various amounts into SS nor is the money going into a personal account for you. Some of us have proposed allowing a partial privatization of SS to allow something like this, because it would be an improvement and would help SS remain solvent. However, the left ridicules the idea and insists on doing nothing to save the program.
If over the span of your working life, you contributed to SS 40 quarters or more, you will get a check for a specific amount each month, not based at all on what you paid in, but based on what is set by the government to pay SS recipients. When you die, your family gets a final SS payment of $212 and that's it. In the 60s, we added Medicare and Medicaid to the deal, so now you have people who draw from that pool of money who never paid a dime into SS. And that pool of money has been "borrowed" from by politicians who couldn't resist. It's now full of IOUs. This hasn't been a big deal up until now, but we currently have about 70 million baby-boomers about to retire.
In keeping with that fundamental wisdom, if the Founders had been able to anticipate the kind of monumental wealth the Industrial Revolution would eventually enable the Republic to generate, the Constitution would surely have prohibited the greed-driven accumulations which have led to the rise of a financial aristocracy.[...]
In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.
The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property
As it is, a noble legislative effort was made early in the post-Depression era to prevent exploitation of the working class by enabling rise of the union movement and the imposition of regulations governing the activities of banks and the finance industry. But beginning with the Reagan Administration this effort has been incrementally sabotaged by the systematic removal and circumvention of these preventive regulations.
More specific information of this sabotage of our relatively equitable economy is contained in the extremely informative video, Inside Job, which may be viewed free of charge via the URL in my signature line.
Oh bull. You people make up crap, claim others would think the same, and have no support whatsoever for such a statement. There is nothing in the federalist papers, or any other source, that suggest anything other than a support for property rights.
And there is no financial aristocracy. The only aristocracy is of leftists who mindlessly vote for leftists who have done nothing for them, except repeat endless claims of being against the aristocracy, that they themselves are a part of.
Yeah, I've seen Inside Job, which is more propaganda than truth. Dozens of empty claims, unimportant side factoids, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's funny how every time I meet some idiot who tosses around claims of aristocracy, and the founders would have supported X, they always referrence some half truth filled propaganda 'documentary' that fails to document anything. I'm only surprised you didn't start off with Michael Moron and his trash first.
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?
The $2 trillion that had been raised when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% to hide the tax cuts on the rich?
Weird, you don't think SS will be paid back?
Go ahead tell us how congress will repay the $2 trillion they borrowed and spent from SS. Hint, you can't.
No they don't. And SS keeps people in poverty not out of it.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
Except they get a better pay out on their INSURANCE. I know, lets get rid of the program that keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty, right? lol
If they owned the accounts the money was in they would truly be able to retire wealthy but as usual libs don't like to do the math
Social security in NOT insurance.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
Oh, INSURANCE, NOT a ponzi scheme
Greece? Yep, the world wide Banksters credit bubble and busr really hurt them, right?
How did that austerity conservatives preach about work in Europe again? lol
I did the math and a 10% flat tax on all income would bring in more than the tax code we have now and 10% is already the lowest bracket so everyone not already in the lowest bracket would get a tax cut and the lowest bracket would pay what they pay now. And I do not believe 10 cents on the dollar is a burden for anyone. People spend more than that a year on stupid crapWe can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.
history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.
but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.
but have a great day. I have to get working.
But it is not an "unfair" tax by any stretch.
If you want to address regressive taxes try the payroll tax or the fact that the government is screwing people by taxing all the gains in their retirement plans as regular income and not capital gains.
There are a lot more egregious things going on in our current tax codes that are actually harmful that no one from either side ever address.
And I do not align myself with any political party so I cannot really be partisan. In fact there are things from both parties that I support and don't support.
I'd rather take that approach than a 2 dimensional either or right or wrong point of view that so many of you seem to hold here.
I'd rather see every person treated exactly the same than have the government make special rules for some and not others.
we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.
and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.
It makes no sense to tax some dollars more than others.
And a flat tax would treat all dollars the same so that investment income would be taxed just like earned income.
I don't understand why people think a flat tax on income is unfair when every other tax we have are flat taxes.
In fact most state income taxes are flat taxes. So it's not unfair for a state to have a flat income tax but it is for the feds?
except that it does make sense. and right now, we have the lowest median tax rate of any time in the last several decades, maybe even the last 50 years. hasn't done much good, has it? your way of doing things, while purportedly fair, taxes the poor and working class at rates they can't afford in order to protect the wealth of the top 1%. also, laws regarding deductions and sheltering wealth already reduce the contribution of the top 1% to far less proportionately than middle and working class people pay.
again, see my link on the flat tax.
if your concern is so-called "small business" a flat tax is horrible since it does away with deductions for operating expenses. now, for someone like forbes, as i pointed out, such flat taxes set a base level on already existing "wealth" so that the bulk of the wealthiest's wealth is never taxed. that isn't "treating everyone the same", it is simply codifying and making permanent a virtual aristocracy. this goes directly counter to what was wanted by the founders, which, i thought, was of paramount concern to the right. why not on this subject?
I've been studying the flat tax for a while and I am convinced it is the fairest way to tax income. It is also the simplest and least expensive tax to enforce which would allow for billions in additional savings every year.
And since income isn't wealth saying that wealth is not taxed doesn't work.
No they don't. And SS keeps people in poverty not out of it.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.
Oh it's opposite world today???
Except they get a better pay out on their INSURANCE. I know, lets get rid of the program that keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty, right? lol
If they owned the accounts the money was in they would truly be able to retire wealthy but as usual libs don't like to do the math
Yes, because HISTORY says you are right, correct? lol
Fukkking crazy wing nutters!
Americans place in poverty by the federal governmentNo they don't. And SS keeps people in poverty not out of it.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.
Oh it's opposite world today???
Except they get a better pay out on their INSURANCE. I know, lets get rid of the program that keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty, right? lol
If they owned the accounts the money was in they would truly be able to retire wealthy but as usual libs don't like to do the math
Yes, because HISTORY says you are right, correct? lol
Fukkking crazy wing nutters!
Americans place in poverty by the federal governmentNo they don't. And SS keeps people in poverty not out of it.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.Oh it's opposite world today???
Except they get a better pay out on their INSURANCE. I know, lets get rid of the program that keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty, right? lol
If they owned the accounts the money was in they would truly be able to retire wealthy but as usual libs don't like to do the math
Yes, because HISTORY says you are right, correct? lol
Fukkking crazy wing nutters!
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?
The $2 trillion that had been raised when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% to hide the tax cuts on the rich?
Weird, you don't think SS will be paid back?
Go ahead tell us how congress will repay the $2 trillion they borrowed and spent from SS. Hint, you can't.
Social security in NOT insurance.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
Oh, INSURANCE, NOT a ponzi scheme
Greece? Yep, the world wide Banksters credit bubble and busr really hurt them, right?
How did that austerity conservatives preach about work in Europe again? lol
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?
The $2 trillion that had been raised when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% to hide the tax cuts on the rich?
Weird, you don't think SS will be paid back?
Go ahead tell us how congress will repay the $2 trillion they borrowed and spent from SS. Hint, you can't.
Well there are three possiblities, all of which are bad.
A: They could keep printing money, until inflation drives the country into ruins.
B: They could drive up taxes, until the country is in ruins.
C: They could cut benefits.
Cutting benefits would be the best possible alternative, but this will cause havoc with the poor pathetic morons that planned their sun-set years on the idea government would take care of them. I know such people. It would be devastating to them.
And ironically, all of those people have paid in enough money into Social Security to be millionaires, and will end up impoverished.
I personally have paid in enough into Social Security, that had I invested every dollar stolen by the government, into good mutual funds, I'd have at least a hundred thousand by now, and million by the time I retire. Instead, if I save nothing, I'll end up with less than $1,000 a month to live on when I retire.
Social security in NOT insurance.The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.
It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.
FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters
That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.
Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters
Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.
You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.
Oh, INSURANCE, NOT a ponzi scheme
Greece? Yep, the world wide Banksters credit bubble and busr really hurt them, right?
How did that austerity conservatives preach about work in Europe again? lol
Of course it is. It 'insures' people will retire impoverished. Has a extremely high success rate in the lower income levels.
Then what is it?Social security in NOT insurance.
(Excerpt)It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.
And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you
(Excerpt)It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.
And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you
Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:
How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News
(Close)
Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.
You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.
The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.
Ponzi scheme.Then what is it?Social security in NOT insurance.
