Pitiful portrait

[RobertNashville]

AND...

At this point, unless someone has a way to fix SS/Medicare without killing grandma I see nothing here worth further discussion...have a nice weekend everyone.

[Caster]

AND...

At this point, unless someone has a way to fix SS/Medicare without killing grandma I see nothing here worth further discussion...have a nice weekend everyone.

And that's the misery of the system. Because of someone else's incompetence, I am made to suffer and I am made financier to "grandma's" maintenance. Rubbish!

I'm not saying kill off the elderly, I'm not saying if given the choice I'd completely cut them off [though admittedly I'd want some time to consider it] It needs to be traced up the chain to a given point and cut off. Indiscriminately. Permanently. ALL forms of social programs. The only ones that would ultimately suffer will be the very ones most of the members here would rally against at any given assembly. BUT, this country has a spine like a gummy worm and nothing will ever progress to a positive again. Not here.

[JayC]

I respect your pluck. Even so, how many interviews have you had where the total compensation package (expressed as a number) was discussed, rather than simply salary/wage? From my experience, you have to be pretty far up the corporate ladder before this becomes a point of negotiation. For the most part, this information is not even available, and even when it is, we'd be naive to think the numbers hadn't been massaged at least a little in the employer's favor. An employee goes to work for a company because his/her salary is $50k/year, not because the total compensation package may be in the ballpark of $70k. It's as simple as that.

About the time you get upwards of 85k-90k a year, it starts to become part of the discussion... I'll give you an example...

Before being self employed, I worked for a large fortune 100 company... The salary difference between a senior engineer, and the VP of the department was maybe 45-55k a year... about 10k per level... engineer > manager > director > AVP > VP... but the VP got another 200+k worth of stock options every year, while the engineer didn't get any. The reason why? You don't have to pay FICA on stock options, and in most cases, only have to pay capitol gains taxes, instead of income taxes on the stock options (15% vs 33%)...

So, every year I asked my AVP to give me more stock options and less salary... because I was making money on the deal And so were they.

So, once you realize there are ways to reduce your tax burden, you start to become much more interested in the total package, not just in your salary... when I was interviewing for Director positions with other companies, I wanted to know about the health package, stock options and the other benefits long before I bothered asking how much they wanted to pay me.

[RobertNashville]

Food for thought...

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

[Caster]

Ask of me and I give freely. That's charity, the thing of which you speak.

Take from me, without asking, by hook by crook or by force & that's theft. Theives make me violently angry.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Caster

[RobertNashville]

Ask of me and I give freely. That's charity, the thing of which you speak.

Take from me, without asking, by hook by crook or by force & that's theft. Theives make me violently angry.

I'm not extolling the virtues of government largess (there are none); I simply quoted the above to illustrate the fate of those we cut off after having made them dependent on the government...it's even worse now because unlike England of that time period, we don't even have the work houses for such to go to.

[JPR1959]

Social Security is only a third of the problem. Don't forget about Medicare and Medicaid.

[Caster]

I'm not extolling the virtues of government largess (there are none); I simply quoted the above to illustrate the fate of those we cut off after having made them dependent on the government...it's even worse now because unlike England of that time period, we don't even have the work houses for such to go to.

Understood.

...boy, this country needs an enema.

[RobertNashville]

Social Security is only a third of the problem. Don't forget about Medicare and Medicaid.

The entire budget is the problem...all of it...every penny...every program...all of it and none of it should be off the table nor can it be off the table if we are going to get control of the overspending and debt before it overwhelms us.

[Oh Shoot]

Your "real world examples" are predicated on an erroneous belief and your refusal to understand the concept of compensation and that compensation is not $X/hour doesn't make it "Utopian"....

Good God. I swear sometimes you actually seem like a badly programmed debate bot.

All SeaSlug is saying is that if you work under a W-2 and make exactly $20K per year, your FICA is $1500

Same $20K self employed, it's $3000.

You can debate whatever you like about whatever "shell games" between you, your employer, and the gummit got you the W-2 $20K salary, but once that IS your salary, your employer is paying $1500. Not from your $20K, but on top of it. On your own, that $1500 extra comes from your $20K.

- OS

Edited March 4, 2011 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

Good God. I swear sometimes you actually seem like a badly programmed debate bot.

All SeaSlug is saying is that if you work under a W-2 and make exactly $20K per year, your FICA is $1500

Same $20K self employed, it's $3000.

You can debate whatever you like about whatever "shell games" between you, your employer, and the gummit got you the W-2 $20K salary, but once that IS your salary, your employer is paying $1500. Not from your $20K, but on top of it. On your own, that $1500 extra comes from your $20K.

- OS

I figured they were just blowing off steam.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm already paying ~50%-55% taxes... that is an estimate but here is how I come up with the math... I'm in the 33% tax bracket, I pay 15% (since I'm self employed) into FICA, that is 48%, then I pay 10% sales tax on anything I buy, lets say 50% of my income goes into taxable purchases, so that adds another 5% onto my tax bill... so we're at 52%, then I pay local property taxes, licenses and fees for my business, my vehicles, and business use taxes... So yeah my current tax burden is 50-55% or in that general range.

That doesn't take into account 'invisible' taxes... such as corporate tax rates increase the costs of products I buy... Or overhead from having to deal with a massive government bureaucracy.

Hi JayC

No doubt everybody gets hosed by the tax man. I've griped about it since my first job 43 years ago in the lowest bracket. However, a more accurate tax estimate would better bolster your argument.

Anyway, tis more desirable to make enough money to be in the 15 percent tax bracket rather than the 10 percent bracket. It is more desirable to make enough money to be in the 25 percent bracket rather than the 15 percent bracket. And all the way up to the top.

It is also good to smell the roses, enjoy the ride, count one's blessings.

====

What Are the Six Tax Brackets? | eHow.com

Assuming a 33 percent bracket, the actual fed tax rate is substantially lower. Ask your CPA or query your accounting software.

In the 33 pct bracket (single taxpayer)--

TaxOwed = (0.10 * $8500) + (0.15 * ($34500 - $8500)) + (0.25 * ($83600 - $34500)) + (0.28 * ($174400 - $83600)) + (0.33 * (NetIncome - $174400));

Ferinstance if last year you were at the very top of the 28 percent bracket at $174400 but this year you make a dollar more and hit the 33 percent bracket, then your tax bill would not rise by 32 percent (33 / 25). Your fed tax bill would only rise by a measly one-third of one dollar. Negligible difference of 8 cents on that one extra dollar (above the rest of your money that was taxed on lower brackets).

Fed tax is bad enough without making it sound even more worser than it is.

====

Higher income folk have the fabulous added benefit of the Social Security wage base (at least until the feds close the loophole). This limits the damage from SS tax.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A feller who nets $106,800 will pay 15.3 percent SocialSecurity/Medicare at a max $11,107.20 (total of employee and employer). The reaming is actually a little gentler for the self-employed (at least he doesn't pay EXACTLY double what an employee with the same net would pay)--

"Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business's net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact that employees' 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative "employer's half" of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don't get taxed on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn't get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don't pay general income tax on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn't pay FICA tax on it either."

Once you pass $106,800 net income, the social security tax drops off like the first stage booster of a space launch vehicle.

However the "HI" Medicare portion of the tax does not have a limit and so the effective SocialSecurity/Medicare rate above $106,800 drops to a measly 2.9 percent.

====

Anyway, ain't trying to make you feel any better about a bad situation. Just sayin-- If you ferinstance make $200,000, then yer income tax is NOT 33 percent of $200,000, and yer Social Security tax dang sure ain't 15.3 percent of $200,000.

If you spend half of your disposable income on sales-taxable goods, then that is obviously AFTER you have subtracted your Federal Tax. Ya can't spend Uncle Sugar's money on your goodies, and stay out of jail that is.

The sales tax WOULD NOT be 5 percent of your income. It would only be 5 percent of your after-tax income, whatever that happens to be.

[Oh Shoot]

...

No doubt everybody gets hosed by the tax man. I've griped about it since my first job 43 years ago in the lowest bracket.

Will never forget, one of my first jobs was digging ditches and bell holes for the local gas company in the summer. Paid weekly, 40 hours, 1.15/hr best I remember.

Third week, worked an hour or two overtime and my take home pay was slightly LESS than usual!

Real eye opener to a 14 year old kid.

- OS

Edited March 5, 2011 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

Good God. I swear sometimes you actually seem like a badly programmed debate bot.

All SeaSlug is saying is that if you work under a W-2 and make exactly $20K per year, your FICA is $1500

Same $20K self employed, it's $3000.

You can debate whatever you like about whatever "shell games" between you, your employer, and the gummit got you the W-2 $20K salary, but once that IS your salary, your employer is paying $1500. Not from your $20K, but on top of it. On your own, that $1500 extra comes from your $20K.

- OS

Okay...so you too think businesses actually pay taxes. ROTFLMAO

[Oh Shoot]

Okay...so you too think businesses actually pay taxes. ROTFLMAO

Yes, at least some do. I was a business for 10 years.

I paid taxes every year.

But taxes are not the issue here. I paid twice as much FICA as a sole proprietor than when I was an employee of other businesses -- that's the only issue to which I'm responding.

- OS

Edited March 5, 2011 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

Yes. I was a business for 10 years.

I paid taxes every year.

And I paid 15% more FICA than when I was an employee of other businesses.

- OS

Everybody today pays 15% FICA whether they are self employed or they work as an employee of a business...if you don't believe me that's fine...don't believe me.

When you were a business (and I'm assuming you mean you owned a business), if your product cost $10/unit to produce did you charge your customers only the $10 or did you charge more than that to have a profit and to cover the taxes you were going to have to pay on that profit?

Maybe you just paid the taxes out of the goodness of your heart and didn't take your tax burden into consideration when establishing your prices but I've worked for some of the largest corporations in the world and I've yet to work for one that didn't take their tax burden into consideration when pricing their product...corporations pay nothing in taxes that they didn't first charge their customers.

That is why if the government "taxes big business"; while some businesses will eat it in the short term, long term it's always the people who buy "big business's products" who truly pay the taxes.

EDIT:

Frankly, who gives a s**t whether anyone thinks they pay 7.5% or 15%???

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if they are going to kill grandma or not and to explain how they are going to fix a $1.3 (or more) TRILLION DOLLAR annual deficit???

Edited March 5, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

Everybody today pays 15% FICA whether they are self employed or they work as an employee of a business...if you don't believe me that's fine...don't believe me.

Fine. I don't.

When you were a business (and I'm assuming you mean you owned a business), if your product cost $10/unit to produce did you charge your customers only the $10 or did you charge more than that to have a profit and to cover the taxes you were going to have to pay on that profit?

I charged about 20% less than the traffic would bear, to undercut my competition both locally and nationally, and simply made all the money I could.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Fine. I don't.

I charged about 20% less than the traffic would bear, to undercut my competition both locally and nationally, and simply made all the money I could.

- OS

Great...now tell me how you are going to fix SS and Medicare and then the the other $1 Trillion per year we don't have.

[Oh Shoot]

Great...now tell me how you are going to fix SS and Medicare and then the the other $1 Trillion per year we don't have.

Oh, I have no plan for that. It may well be impossible at this point.

I guess you haven't read much of my "environmental economic determinism" over last couple years.

The planet will certainly shrug many of us off like fleas at some point. At crux, it's simply an upside down pyramid of supply and demand to an overpopulated planet, where fewer people's efforts are needed to supply the rest, and thus can't afford the higher cost of the resources.

Most all the world CAN be broke at the same time.

If we have a Depression like the 30's again, we'll lose a third of our population in 10 years. Maybe a higher percentage in fewer years. $10/gal gasoline and 25% unemployment might suffice to get it really cranking.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

Okay...so you too think businesses actually pay taxes. ROTFLMAO

They certainly do pay taxes.

Now I am going to guess you had econ 101 and think the taxe are rolled into the price of the product. This is where you are wrong. That notion assumes that products are priced according to how much it costs to make them. Oil costs about three bucks a barrel to get out of the ground, it sells for a hundred bucks. Oil, like most products are priced at what the market will bear. That is smart way to do things.

Glocks probably cost less than ten bucks to make but they aren't charging you 30 bucks for one.

The easy thing to think is that companies charge X(cost)+ Y(profit) but that just isn't how it works. Real companies calculate X(cost) and decide if they can sell it at a high enough Y to make a profit.

The cost can include taxes, dancing hula girls and whatever else you want. AS long as Y is greater than X they'll make the product.

It is easy, and wrongheaded, to imagine that the cost of taxes is just passed along to the consumer but that assumes that the company is selling only on price. It is likely true for commodities but untrue for things like iPods and so forth.

[RobertNashville]

They certainly do pay taxes.

Thanks for the education on price setting...I can't imagine why I wasted all those years in college - now I know the companies I've worked and work for have been so foolish and wrongheaded when setting their prices...I can't wait to go into work on Monday and tell everyone we've been doing it wrong all these years.

Even better, you just solved our $1.X Trillion dollar deficit and $14.X Trillion dollar debt - all we have to do is raise taxes on business...we;ll make them pay taxes and everybody else can go back to watching TV...Problem Solved!!!

Edited March 5, 2011 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Lester,

I realize, that my math is not meant to be an exact amount here... I know my effective tax rate is below 33% on income tax, probably more like 28-29%, that FICA has a cap that I reach each year, and that I spend less than 50% of my gross income on taxable purchases - but my business spends more than 50% of my gross income on taxable purchases... If anything I'm probably spending 7 or 8% of my gross income on sales tax when it's all said and done.

I was trying to make a point that I'm near or at the 50% mark already, and I showed some basic addition that at least gets in the ballpark of that estimate. Lets say you're right and instead of 55% I'm at 47% is it really that much of a difference? Is it morally right to ask me to give even more of my earnings to the government?

For us to support SS and Medicare for the baby boomer generation my taxes would have to go up a lot... even more when you factor in not going into even more debt in the process. We've got 100 TRILLION dollars in entitlements we've promised sitting out there, and to pay them all off we'd have to raise taxes to ~25-30% of GDP, today taxes are at ~15-18% of GDP, and my tax bill is nearing 50%, how much is it going to go up if I need to "pay my fair share" (what a joke) of that bill?

I'm figuring that 100 TRILLION is to cover the baby boomers for the next 20-25 years, and our economy today is about 14.5 trillion... so about 27.5% of GDP in today's dollars to pay that money off... Combine the need to raise taxes to cover these entitlements with the fact that the work force will be shrinking at the exact same time.

For example today work force is ~138 million, with ~65 million retired persons on government entitlements... about .47:1 ratio... in 2015 it's estimated that the work force will be 95 million, and retired persons will account for 73 million... about a .77:1 ratio... Think about that for a second... sometime in 2020's we'll get to a 1:1 ratio, where retired persons equal the number of people in the work force...

This is a train wreck coming down the tracks... It's going to tear this country apart unless we do something drastic.

Hi JayC

No doubt everybody gets hosed by the tax man. I've griped about it since my first job 43 years ago in the lowest bracket. However, a more accurate tax estimate would better bolster your argument.

Anyway, tis more desirable to make enough money to be in the 15 percent tax bracket rather than the 10 percent bracket. It is more desirable to make enough money to be in the 25 percent bracket rather than the 15 percent bracket. And all the way up to the top.

It is also good to smell the roses, enjoy the ride, count one's blessings.

====

What Are the Six Tax Brackets? | eHow.com

Assuming a 33 percent bracket, the actual fed tax rate is substantially lower. Ask your CPA or query your accounting software.

In the 33 pct bracket (single taxpayer)--

TaxOwed = (0.10 * $8500) + (0.15 * ($34500 - $8500)) + (0.25 * ($83600 - $34500)) + (0.28 * ($174400 - $83600)) + (0.33 * (NetIncome - $174400));

Ferinstance if last year you were at the very top of the 28 percent bracket at $174400 but this year you make a dollar more and hit the 33 percent bracket, then your tax bill would not rise by 32 percent (33 / 25). Your fed tax bill would only rise by a measly one-third of one dollar. Negligible difference of 8 cents on that one extra dollar (above the rest of your money that was taxed on lower brackets).

Fed tax is bad enough without making it sound even more worser than it is.

====

Higher income folk have the fabulous added benefit of the Social Security wage base (at least until the feds close the loophole). This limits the damage from SS tax.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A feller who nets $106,800 will pay 15.3 percent SocialSecurity/Medicare at a max $11,107.20 (total of employee and employer). The reaming is actually a little gentler for the self-employed (at least he doesn't pay EXACTLY double what an employee with the same net would pay)--

"Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business's net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact that employees' 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative "employer's half" of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don't get taxed on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn't get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don't pay general income tax on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn't pay FICA tax on it either."

Once you pass $106,800 net income, the social security tax drops off like the first stage booster of a space launch vehicle.

However the "HI" Medicare portion of the tax does not have a limit and so the effective SocialSecurity/Medicare rate above $106,800 drops to a measly 2.9 percent.

====

Anyway, ain't trying to make you feel any better about a bad situation. Just sayin-- If you ferinstance make $200,000, then yer income tax is NOT 33 percent of $200,000, and yer Social Security tax dang sure ain't 15.3 percent of $200,000.

If you spend half of your disposable income on sales-taxable goods, then that is obviously AFTER you have subtracted your Federal Tax. Ya can't spend Uncle Sugar's money on your goodies, and stay out of jail that is.

The sales tax WOULD NOT be 5 percent of your income. It would only be 5 percent of your after-tax income, whatever that happens to be.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

...Lets say you're right and instead of 55% I'm at 47% is it really that much of a difference? Is it morally right to ask me to give even more of my earnings to the government?

For us to support SS and Medicare for the baby boomer generation my taxes would have to go up a lot... even more when you factor in not going into even more debt in the process. We've got 100 TRILLION dollars in entitlements we've promised sitting out there, and to pay them all off we'd have to raise taxes to ~25-30% of GDP, today taxes are at ~15-18% of GDP, and my tax bill is nearing 50%, how much is it going to go up if I need to "pay my fair share" (what a joke) of that bill?

I'm figuring that 100 TRILLION is to cover the baby boomers for the next 20-25 years, and our economy today is about 14.5 trillion... so about 27.5% of GDP in today's dollars to pay that money off... Combine the need to raise taxes to cover these entitlements with the fact that the work force will be shrinking at the exact same time.

For example today work force is ~138 million, with ~65 million retired persons on government entitlements... about .47:1 ratio... in 2015 it's estimated that the work force will be 95 million, and retired persons will account for 73 million... about a .77:1 ratio... Think about that for a second... sometime in 2020's we'll get to a 1:1 ratio, where retired persons equal the number of people in the work force...

This is a train wreck coming down the tracks... It's going to tear this country apart unless we do something drastic.

Hi JayC

I think your revised estimate of your current tax is still on the high side, though granted it could easily reach or exceed that level in the future.

The population demographics and financial squeeze are not news. It was well known 40 years ago. I doubt if other old guys like MikeGideon or OhShoot, in the 1970's, expected social security to remain solvent. I certainly didn't and my friends certainly didn't. I'm surprised it has remained solvent this long.

If you want to talk quiet desperation, imagine paying social security tax for 40 years knowing full well it will probably collapse. I'm not being verbally abusive, just a joking tone here, but Suck it Up! Get used to it! Its not gonna get any better!

Simply because it has lasted this long rather than crashing during the Nixon-Carter-Reagan stagflation, makes me admit that perhaps it is more durable than I expected. Dunno when it will crash, and maybe just maybe we will muddle thru. The future is impossible to predict.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is invested in special Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the "intergovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intergovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public.

The solution IMO is to drastically cut govt and liquidate govt assets to pay off the debt. If a family gets in over their head and can't make more money, they have to sell off the TV and automobile and eventually the house. The Feds might really want to hang onto all that land and such, but it is like the wifey wanting to hold on to the TV when she can't afford it. Its gotta go whether you want to sell the TV or not.

In a bankruptcy, some creditors have priority over other creditors.

Most of that big blue slice is what the govt owes you and me. More of the blue slice is owed to old folks than young folks because they've been paying for those SS bonds a longer time.

The big orange slice is ferriners. Some of the other slices are ordinary USA citizens or corporations foolish enough to loan money to the govt.

If it comes time to default, then one thing I don't want is for ferriners and corporations and wealthy US citizens to have higher priority than the ordinary middle class citizens in that big blue slice.

In my opinion, the creditors in that big blue slice need to get paid first. If for no other reason, the creditors in the blue slice invested involuntarily. The creditors in the other slices invested voluntarily with their eyes open. They should have had expectation that they might get burned.

After we pay the blue slice, the middle-class citizens and middle-class retirement pools who have invested in govt bonds should be the second-highest priority.

I'm less worried about paying Bill Gates or King Saud if they happen to own any Treasuries. But in principle they should be paid too if there is any money left.

When politicians even including idiots like Sarah Palin start advocating cut social security so we can afford not to default on China and King Saud and Goldman Sachs, then this is an extremely wrong-headed way to look at it. Screw the middle class old folks so King Saud can get his investment back?

Edited March 5, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

Good logic Lester, but it's much easier to just dump out of our obligations. The good news for us... using jayC's numbers, it's going to be real hard to vote in a massive SS screwing. If the ratio does climb to 1:1, it would mean that half of the US would have to vote against their own best interests. I suppose they could take away our right to vote too.

[Guest Overtaker]

Is Social Security a ponzi scheme of epic proportions? You tell me:

The first Social Security recipient was Ida May Fuller. She retired after paying the payroll tax for 3 years for a total of $24.75. Her first check was for $22.54 and after her second check she had already received more than she payed it. She collected a total of $22,888.92!

Because I spent my entire life making payments on it. I'm not suggesting they need to rape you either. They just need to figure out who to screw, since they apparently have to screw somebody. You and I should be their last choice, not their first.

I hear this a lot from your generation. Your generation has also had their entire lives to reform the system, but instead you have spent the money in the general budget for your own benefit and have passed the buck to the next generation, expecting others to pay for your failure. Instead of funding your own retirement, you expect others to fund it for you. Others that were not even born to voice their opposition to your generation's irresponsible policies, yet are now expected to pay for them while you spend 15-20 years in leisure. How very convenient for you.

This has been a nice discussion, but I don't think the government has the balls to default on the boomers. It's fun for the young 'uns to talk about it, I guess. May be overlooking the fact that the boomers have lots of wealth and power. I doubt that it will ever turn into demonstrations in the street.

If your generation has so much wealth, why do you insist on generational wealth transfers?