I'm not a member of an eligible religious organization, and even if I were, the opt-out eligibility is not automatic and is difficult to obtain.You can opt out of SS.
How To Opt Out Of Paying Social Security Tax
Look at your paycheck closely and you'll notice a 6.2% tax taken out of your pay for "FICA." Can you get out of paying this Social Security tax?www.investors.com
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…
- Thread starter HoosierLife
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Actually, no. Get rid of the annual deficit and you'll be able to start paying off some of the more than 30 trillion dollars we owe. 30% would just be enough to do that. Last year would have taken a 22% cut across the board to break even.
Oh, and one of the biggest items can't just be cut, Interest on debt.
For cutting spending you have to be pragmatic, period. Wanting to kill something like SS is fine, it just will never happen. For those who want this, get over it. The baby boomers are the largest voting block today. They are also the largest recipients of SS payments. They will not agree to cuts. Next to them are the Gen X'rs. They've been paying in most of their lives. Think they are willing to cut? They don't have much time to invest a whopping extra 6.2%. The millennials are the next largest voting block and right now they're paying for the boomers AND Gen X. Anyone think they want to put all that money in and never get anything themselves?
My point is you cannot win a vote to just kill SS.
But..................
Maybe you could win a vote to slowly transition it into something else? Something you may believe more in or at least not be as p****d off about.
So say we could come up with a program (SSII?) that said everyone over the age of 40 on the effective date will always have SS in its current form. It won't change. This the baby boomers would be fine with and Gen X would be Okay with. So they won't oppose it.
Then for those aged 20 - 40 they are put into a "hybrid" program. 50% of their retirement will be based on the current SS system while the other 50% will be based on a program based on personal choices of investment. So they have the safety(?) of current SS model with the benefit of controlling half of the money.
Finally, those under 20 will be placed into an entirely NEW system. One with government regulation like 401K laws but that is 100% controlled and invested by the worker.
Under all of this you could give people the ability to opt out by choice and get that whopping 6.2% back in their pocket, but they will NEVER get anything from SS. They could literally wind up on the streets if they F*** up their retirement planning.
Will this get us what we want today? Heck no. But it will in 60 years, mostly. By then all the baby boomers and most of the Gen X will be dead. Some of the millennials will be dead or close to it. All the rest to follow will have a self directed no government money retirement program.
This would be a lot better than what we have now and in 60 years phase all SS off of the federal budget.
That's just SS and nobody will agree with it 100%. But if you could get about 60% to agree with it then you'd have a real chance of passing something like it.
Regards,
Doug
My point is you cannot win a vote to just kill SS.
But..................
Maybe you could win a vote to slowly transition it into something else? Something you may believe more in or at least not be as p****d off about.
So say we could come up with a program (SSII?) that said everyone over the age of 40 on the effective date will always have SS in its current form. It won't change. This the baby boomers would be fine with and Gen X would be Okay with. So they won't oppose it.
Then for those aged 20 - 40 they are put into a "hybrid" program. 50% of their retirement will be based on the current SS system while the other 50% will be based on a program based on personal choices of investment. So they have the safety(?) of current SS model with the benefit of controlling half of the money.
Finally, those under 20 will be placed into an entirely NEW system. One with government regulation like 401K laws but that is 100% controlled and invested by the worker.
Under all of this you could give people the ability to opt out by choice and get that whopping 6.2% back in their pocket, but they will NEVER get anything from SS. They could literally wind up on the streets if they F*** up their retirement planning.
Will this get us what we want today? Heck no. But it will in 60 years, mostly. By then all the baby boomers and most of the Gen X will be dead. Some of the millennials will be dead or close to it. All the rest to follow will have a self directed no government money retirement program.
This would be a lot better than what we have now and in 60 years phase all SS off of the federal budget.
That's just SS and nobody will agree with it 100%. But if you could get about 60% to agree with it then you'd have a real chance of passing something like it.
Regards,
Doug
That's why I want to be the benevolent tyrant. You can't put a cake in front of a kid and expect him not to vote to keep it. Sometimes it takes a parent to step in and say, no. That's not good for you, and take it away.
I will make myself Grand Poohbah of the United States (GPOTUS). I will kill SS swiftly with a dull blade, and end all frivolous spending. I will enact my put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is tax system. And you all will like it. Or else.
I will force freedom and self-determination upon the masses. They will thank me for it. Men will learn how to put air in tires again. Women will learn how to make good sandwiches again. Which, BTW, they can do at the newly constructed Jamil Culinary School for Women, located at the former location of the OSU Toilet Bowl Stadium.
Men will be men again. Women will be women again. And they will like it. Or else.
Oh. And I will remove all gun laws except the one that makes it a crime to threaten or murder people.
I agree with getting rid of it, just not killing it today. No matter how it's done if you truly just shot it in the head today you'd also kill millions of Americans who rely on it for most (if not all) of their income. The economy would collapse. There has to be some sort of gentle shift away from it. Don't like my idea? Fine. But just killing it today would be bad on multiple levels. We didn't get here overnight, we can't just get rid of it overnight.
By the time the millennials will have significant say to be able to kill it, they won't want to because they've paid in all their lives. Would you have wanted to pay 6.2% of your income for he last 30 years only to vote that you don't want a return on that money? A few, maybe. Most, no way.
--------------------
Folks, I believe we all have the same goal. We just disagree on how to get there. This is the problem with politics. Most liberals AND conservatives (not the loonies on the extremes of both sides) agree on the broad goals: good schools, low crime, strong economy, etc. The problem is we disagree on how to get there. The devil truly is in the details. It's those details that rip us apart. And without compromise from both sides (again, ignoring the loonies) problems will fester and grow.
Too often we let perfect get in the way of good.
Regards,
Doug
My dicktatership will honor current debts incurred by prior, retarded partly socialist politicians. We’ll pay back what’s owed as a lump sum. But only what’s owed.
But after the current balances are disposed and the put your money where your mouth is tax system is in place, if you want social security you better write a check for it. It’s up to you.
And, whatever wars you think are worthy to fight. Get yer checkbook out. War is expensive.
AndreusMaximus
Master
No, the economy would not collapse. The economy would be benefit.
If I spent my whole life borrowing from my Dad, promising to pay him back when he retired, but then when he retires instead murder him and keep all the money for myself, would that lead to my financial ruin? No, it would be a financial gain for me. It would also be immoral and abhorrent, and I would deserve whatever punishment society would hopefully visit upon me, but if I managed to avoid getting caught, it would make me richer, not poorer.
The same principles apply on the societal level. If we take the older generation, particularly those who are not producing anything anymore, and decide that all the money that government confiscated from them over their lifetime is now just going to be straight up plundered and never returned to them, and they can all go screw themselves and starve, that would overall boost the economy because it would mean less inflation, less debt, and/or more money to spend on other things. It would also be horrible, unethical, and evil, but it would not hurt the economy.
I've never understood why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. Everyone understands it on the individual level. You never hear anyone make a stupid claim like "stealing money is wrong, and anyone who gets away with stealing money is going to financially ruin himself" or "if you don't provide financial support for your disabled children you're going to end up poor." But then when you talk about society as a whole, so many feel the need to claim that if we stop giving X group benefits, it will collapse the economy, whether X group is elderly, retired, disabled, etc, etc. It's the complete opposite of the truth. We provide support for the disabled because that's what a moral people does, despite the fact that it's a drain on our economy. We should pay back what was promised to those who were plundered by the government through so-called "social security" because it's the right thing to do.
But if we wanted to throw our moral principles out the window and boost the economy to the max, with no regard for the cost in innocent lives, then the surest way to do that would be to take all the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and every other person who can't produce material goods or services anymore, and send them off to extermination camps. It's horrible and sickening to even think about such a thing, but if you can't see that it would benefit the economy, you don't understand the first thing about economics.
As uncomfortable as it is to think about, the fact is that in both individuals' lives, and at the societal level, doing what is moral, and doing what is of financial benefit, are more often than not at odds with each other. Until we can all face up to this simple, harsh reality, all our economic planning is going to be based on fiction and fairytales.
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
SS isn’t killing the country. It’s all the government waste in the other crap. Get rid of 50% of the government workers. Teachers, fireman, police, military, politicians all get a ton of benifits and $$$ at retirement for life, then they get SS on top. Had a guy here in Wabash County, was state trooper 20 years retired, became a teacher 20 years retired, became a sheriff 8 years retired. He now gets benifits every month from 3 jobs plus he can get his SS. And some of you want to take the $1200 a month only income some have to live off away. Brilliant. By the way no politicians should get any retirement or benefits. Lay off the ATF, FBI and IRS while you’re at it also.
Since so many people seem to support government actions that don't negatively impact them, I'll join in. Eliminate all Social Security payments except for retirement, as has been confiscated workers' entire lives. For example, no disability payments. Also, as mentioned upthread, if you didn't pay in, you don't get to take out.
No, the economy would not collapse. The economy would be benefit.
If I spent my whole life borrowing from my Dad, promising to pay him back when he retired, but then when he retires instead murder him and keep all the money for myself, would that lead to my financial ruin? No, it would be a financial gain for me. It would also be immoral and abhorrent, and I would deserve whatever punishment society would hopefully visit upon me, but if I managed to avoid getting caught, it would make me richer, not poorer.
The same principles apply on the societal level. If we take the older generation, particularly those who are not producing anything anymore, and decide that all the money that government confiscated from them over their lifetime is now just going to be straight up plundered and never returned to them, and they can all go screw themselves and starve, that would overall boost the economy because it would mean less inflation, less debt, and/or more money to spend on other things. It would also be horrible, unethical, and evil, but it would not hurt the economy.
I've never understood why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. Everyone understands it on the individual level. You never hear anyone make a stupid claim like "stealing money is wrong, and anyone who gets away with stealing money is going to financially ruin himself" or "if you don't provide financial support for your disabled children you're going to end up poor." But then when you talk about society as a whole, so many feel the need to claim that if we stop giving X group benefits, it will collapse the economy, whether X group is elderly, retired, disabled, etc, etc. It's the complete opposite of the truth. We provide support for the disabled because that's what a moral people does, despite the fact that it's a drain on our economy. We should pay back what was promised to those who were plundered by the government through so-called "social security" because it's the right thing to do.
But if we wanted to throw our moral principles out the window and boost the economy to the max, with no regard for the cost in innocent lives, then the surest way to do that would be to take all the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and every other person who can't produce material goods or services anymore, and send them off to extermination camps. It's horrible and sickening to even think about such a thing, but if you can't see that it would benefit the economy, you don't understand the first thing about economics.
As uncomfortable as it is to think about, the fact is that in both individuals' lives, and at the societal level, doing what is moral, and doing what is of financial benefit, are more often than not at odds with each other. Until we can all face up to this simple, harsh reality, all our economic planning is going to be based on fiction and fairytales.
I disagree. The entire economy would collapse from the effect of trying to kill millions of elderly OR shifting the burden elsewhere.
Millions of elderly live on the verge of poverty. Many are in nursing homes that take their SS payments to fund their care. When it stops thousands of nursing homes across the country would go out of business. Overnight. Where would we put these elderly then? Another government program I know you would not want. OR, force them to live with family that may not be able to support them, presuming they have a family at all. Presuming they have no family OR family that refuses to take care of them, what is your solution? You must have one before putting their nursing home out of business.
There are many elderly who are making it in their own homes, barely. Take away their lifeline of SS then what do we do? Same problem with those in nursing homes with a little bit of a cushion that maybe(?) selling their home would give them a few years of safety. And then what?
The vast majority of Americans, conservative and liberal, would not want to see peoples parents and grandparents thrown into crisis. There would be NO vote for it. That is reality. So killing overnight is an option that is entirely beyond achievement. Again, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. And I don't think killing it overnight would be perfect but far from it.
I agree 100% with reducing and/or removing social programs. I 100% disagree with just shutting most (not all) of them down instantly. They didn't just pop up overnight and trying to get rid of most of them overnight would be catastrophic.
This is something worth discussing!
However, about 9 million Americans receive SS disability benefits today. What do we do with them?
I used to drive disabled people. Some of them were born disabled. Many into poor families that had no way to save or invest for them. Some of them, not all, could have been trained to do a skill but weren't due to societal biases at the time.
My best friend who passed away a little more than a year ago was disabled. Treatment for hepatitis C made him blind at around age 50. He could have applied for SS disability AND gotten it without a problem. However, that just wasn't in is character. He enjoyed computer programming, was good at it, and just had to wear glasses thick enough to stop a small caliber round to continue at his well paying job. But if he were a 50 year old truck driver there would be no question that the options would have changed.
The older people are when they become disabled the harder it is for them to be retrained. In some cases impossible. Not all people are able to relearn. And even presuming someone were able to be retooled, how do we pay for it if they cannot?
But this would be a good place to start looking at the data and exploring options without trying to kill the whole thing all at once.
Regards,
Doug
Kill it, or don't. I don't care. I just want to be able to stop participating. I'll let the government keep everything it's collected from me to date in SS taxes, and promise never to claim SS benefits, if I can opt out of contributing, today.
Of course, letting us do that would kill it. So, essentially, anyone who argues that it should be kept on life-support through forced wealth redistribution (i.e. compulsory SS taxes) is arguing in favor of socialism.
Yeah... that's already happened. The money they paid in was already plundered. They are now paying them with the money I'm forced to contribute - which is why a) I want out of the Ponzi scheme, and b) I'm planning my retirement as if I'll never see a penny of SS, because it's almost certain that I won't.
Erin Houchin sent me txt...
Hi, it's Congresswoman Erin Houchin. This week, the House will begin consideration of a new Speaker of the House. I'd like your input. Please let me know who you would like to see rise to this leadership role https://houchin.cbapp3.com/s/PDuN5mB STOP2END
Hi, it's Congresswoman Erin Houchin. This week, the House will begin consideration of a new Speaker of the House. I'd like your input. Please let me know who you would like to see rise to this leadership role https://houchin.cbapp3.com/s/PDuN5mB STOP2END
Well Chip, I'm less than 4 years (closer to 3) from retirement, and while I'm not depending on SS for my retirement, I damn sure want to get what I can back out of what I've paid into it for the last 47 years or so. So, out of politeness, I will refrain from saying what I want to about claiming I'm arguing in favor of socialism. That ship has sailed. You're young enough that you might be able to just write it off. I'm not.
Lets be real, you can't cut spending.
But there's 2 sides of the equation for balancing the budget. Either bring in more money or cut spending.
You can bring in more money by drilling for oil and mining materials. You don't have to cut spending when you're as blessed with resources as we are. You just have to allow those resources to be harvested.
The people like their socialism, they just need to understand it has to be funded.
But there's 2 sides of the equation for balancing the budget. Either bring in more money or cut spending.
You can bring in more money by drilling for oil and mining materials. You don't have to cut spending when you're as blessed with resources as we are. You just have to allow those resources to be harvested.
The people like their socialism, they just need to understand it has to be funded.
Just make it legal for citizens to run their private financial transactions in the exact same manner and with the same accounting tricks and loopholes as the government.
how many businesses will be screaming in the ears of congress that they will be put into bankruptcy?
how many businesses will be screaming in the ears of congress that they will be put into bankruptcy?
Couch it however you want, but if you're advocating for the government to force me to pay into a system so that you can be paid out of that system, it is what it is.
You're not getting back what you paid into the system, because what you paid in was already spent. The only way the current beneficiaries get paid is because they are being paid what I and others are currently paying into the system.
I have no choice but to write it off, because there's zero chance I'm going to see anything I pay into SS. And, yes: taking money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's retirement is wealth redistribution - i.e. socialism.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- SAILORGOLF46
- grillak
- sharkey
- OneBadV8
- bgcatty
- Ford Truck
- KellyinAvon
- gassprint1
- hhi7410
- Lefty Lawless
- Ziggidy
- Skullglide
- patience0830
- 2WheelinTrucker
- Longhair
- rbhargan
- Splagt
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- Ranger Rick
- Hopper
- Brandon
- Gaffer
- Eagle
- KG1
- Larry!!!
- mcapo
- trip007
- Simon6101
- Kinkopet33
- ChristianPatriot
- Cavman
- indyblue
- IndianaRidgeRunner
- Hoosier Carry
- AndreusMaximus
- williamsburg
- blain
- jspy5
- Lee9
- HKFaninCarmel
- Telliott
- radar8756
- thegeez
- Paulw007
- diverjes06
- snowwalker
- lonehoosier
- ComeJesuscome
- Lost Californian
- matt4shadow