rdc@pyuxh.UUCP (J. L. Bauer) (04/15/85)
Well, its April the 15th and we have all fulfilled our social obligations by paying our taxes. I am left with the feeling that I have been reamed where the sun never shines by the big bad IRS without the benifit of vaseline. It came in dry folks. To prevent further violation of my pocket, I was thinking of deducting my Social Security taxes next year. This being that Social Security taxes do not qualify as income. Income is money that I can spend NOW. Also your contribution to SS is taxed twice, the first time as ordinary income, the second time when you collect it, if you live long egnough. Another point, If the IRS allows you to deduct for an IRA why not say that your SS is an IRA, albeit an enforced one and allow the same writeoff ? I know, the poor retirees need more money on their fixed income and it has to come from somewhere, so why not us. My opinion on this is most sour. I am not my brothers keeper and these people have had their whole lives to prepare for retirement and if they come up short at retirement time they have only themselves to blame. Does anybody know if the IRS has been challenged on this and what are the odds that I will incur the wrath of the IRS if I pull such a stunt next year ?
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (04/16/85)
<<< I suppose that most of the net has already given up any hope of ever seeing any money come back from social security, but you should consider what happens if you do. If you make more than a certain amount then up to 50% of your social security is taxed and added to your adjusted gross income. The way this is computed does some funny things to your marginal tax rate. Normally if you go out and earn one additional dollar it will add one dollar to your adjusted gross income and you pay 1 times your marginal rate more tax dollars. With Social security you could find that each additional dollar you earn adds one dollar to your adjusted gross PLUS kicks an additional 50 cents of Social security from non taxed to taxable. Your marginal tax rate now is 50% higher than before. Your total tax dollars paid is less than if social security were fully taxed but after all this is the second time you paid it. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/16/85)
> To prevent further violation of my > pocket, I was thinking of deducting my Social Security taxes next year. > This being that Social Security taxes do not qualify as income. Income > is money that I can spend NOW. Also your contribution to SS is taxed twice, > the first time as ordinary income, the second time when you collect it, if > you live long egnough. > Does anybody know if the IRS has been challenged on this and what are the > odds that I will incur the wrath of the IRS if I pull such a stunt next > year ? Since the booklet of instructions that comes with the tax forms says explicitly that Social Security taxes are not deductible, I think the IRS position on this is pretty clear. I'm not going to tell you what you should expect, but if I tried to pull a stunt like deducting my social security taxes, I would expect to be sent a bill for the difference, plus penalties and interest, plus $500 for filing a frivolous return.
tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) (04/16/85)
> ... > I know, the poor retirees need more money on their fixed income and it > has to come from somewhere, so why not us. My opinion on this is most sour. > > I am not my brothers keeper and these people have had their whole lives > to prepare for retirement and if they come up short at retirement time > they have only themselves to blame. > ... You may believe that you are not your brother's keeper, I guess that's your decision to make. But you sound an awful lot like the fellow, witnessing a pedestrian in a crosswalk who has been hit by a drunk driver, and grumbling that the pedestrian was at fault since he should have been driving instead of walking. I guess I come from a different educational process -- one which emphasizes compassion and instills the remembrance that one day we may find ourselves in a position of needing someone else's compassion. Sorry to take up other folks' time with a posting, but this sort of attitude is really disgusting. -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted
br@duke.UUCP (Balu Raman) (04/19/85)
In article <632@ssc-vax.UUCP> tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) writes: >> ... >> I know, the poor retirees need more money on their fixed income and it >> has to come from somewhere, so why not us. My opinion on this is most sour. >> >> I am not my brothers keeper and these people have had their whole lives >> to prepare for retirement and if they come up short at retirement time >> they have only themselves to blame. >> ... > >You may believe that you are not your brother's keeper, I guess that's your >decision to make. But you sound an awful lot like the fellow, witnessing a >pedestrian in a crosswalk who has been hit by a drunk driver, and grumbling >that the pedestrian was at fault since he should have been driving instead >of walking. I guess I come from a different educational process -- one >which emphasizes compassion and instills the remembrance that one day we >may find ourselves in a position of needing someone else's compassion. >Sorry to take up other folks' time with a posting, but this sort of attitude >is really disgusting. >-- I totally agree with you and I think I also had almost the same up-bringing as you had.But, why not keep grandma and grandpa at home and taking care of them instead of them being supported by SS. I would rather opt not paying the SStaxes but support the retirees directly. By leaving the responsibility to the govt. we are creating a big mess here. I was really saddened when one old man said: " One parent can take care of 10 children but not 1 of the 10 children can take care of 1 parent". Sorry folks, I am really sad about the state of old people. Its time we did something about that. Balu Raman, br!duke!.......
mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (04/23/85)
In Message-ID: <5762@duke.UUCP> From: br@duke.UUCP (Balu Raman) >>> I am not my brothers keeper and these people have had their whole lives >>> to prepare for retirement and if they come up short at retirement time >>> they have only themselves to blame. >>> ... >> >>You may believe that you are not your brother's keeper, I guess that's your >>decision to make. But you sound an awful lot like the fellow, witnessing a >>pedestrian in a crosswalk who has been hit by a drunk driver, and grumbling >>that the pedestrian was at fault since he should have been driving instead >>of walking. I guess I come from a different educational process -- one >>which emphasizes compassion and instills the remembrance that one day we >>may find ourselves in a position of needing someone else's compassion. >>Sorry to take up other folks' time with a posting, but this sort of attitude >>is really disgusting. >>-- >I totally agree with you and I think I also had almost the same up-bringing >as you had.But, why not keep grandma and grandpa at home and taking care of >them instead of them being supported by SS. I would rather opt not paying the SStaxes but support the retirees directly. By leaving the responsibility to the >govt. we are creating a big mess here. I was really saddened when one old man >said: " One parent can take care of 10 children but not 1 of the 10 children >can take care of 1 parent". Sorry folks, I am really sad about the state of >old people. Its time we did something about that. >Balu Raman, br!duke!....... Goodness, why do we persist in viewing retired people as helpless? There are many who must rely on social security for financial wellbeing for a great variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that they should be considered as totally dependant in other ways. Old people also value their independence from their offspring and shouldn't be forced to live with them until such a time as both parties feel it is the right thing to do (each case has it's merits). There is no instant solution to these matters. Some old people have no children. Some people out-survive their children. Some people have children who are not in a possition to support their parents (handicapped possibly or not financially sufficiently well off) Some people don't get on with each other (children can be just as difficult as old folks -- I'm stating a fact not apportioning blame). Some people's children don't even live in a suitable region (how would you like to retire and live with your grandson if he were single and an North Sea diver or arctic research scientist or war correspondant or...) Some people... well I could go on for hours like this but I think I've made the point. Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. The fact that it has been mismananged and may not be most efficiently organized now, is neither here nor there. Any civilised society cares and feels it has a responsibility to the members in the society who for one reason or another cannot cope adequately with life (be they old, physically or mentally handicapped, poor, ill struck by natural disaster or whatever). Sometimes the problem is transient, sometimes it is not. And it is to these ends that Social Security is in part addressed. In this sense it is a safety net that for all the abuse it receives still lets some of the most needy through (if all the effort of preventing abuse were rechanelled into finding the truly needy, this would be a much better place). The concept is extended in most implementations to providing some independence from individuals and charity to the recipients. We've come a long way from the 19th century poor houses, lets keep it that way. And, the extended family is largely inapplicable to the late 20th century for many reasons -- often, it just ain't a practical proposition whatever one might wish. Sorry for taking so much space, but i feel strongly about this issue. -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
jrl@harpo.UUCP (jrl) (04/23/85)
It seems that the discussion of SS taxes being deductible as is state
and local taxes is valid. It seems that the problem is that promises were
made in prior years and there has to be some way of keeping them. Perhaps
it was a simpler time when people thought that nothing could go wrong with
the economy and they thought they might be able to make it without govt.
assistance. The post-war era was one of great growth and most people
thought everything would be fine in 30 or 40 years. However a blind faith
in the govt. and the economy did not make a comfortable retirement possible
for a great many people. Today's worker knows better. He trusts no one,
and Uncle Sam is at the top of the list.
There can be many solutions to the growing problem of retirement
income. One is to continue to pay yeaterdays workers their share that
they have earned, and to stop the system with all new workers entering
the system. These workers would be expected to provide for their own
fund by an IRA or other finincial instrument. The money needed for the
current crop of retirees can be met by cutting the defense budget. (Just
think of all the money being spent on weapons and systems that everyone
prays that won't ever be used)
Another solution is to allow the parents of a new deduction (child)
to deduct say 5K for the childs retitement fund. A type of trust fund
could be set up like an IRA in the childs name and will accumulate
interest until the time for retirement, say 55 years. 5K in a money
market fund should grow quite large in 55 years (bar any economic distress).
Of course there are some who could not afford even 1K for such a thing, those
people should not have any children anyway, since they are in dire straights.
Still another solution would to be to raise the corporate tax rate
to a fair level, above the general tax rate. Corporations should be glad
to do business in a captialist market, and judging from the 'Public be damned
attitude of some of them they should provide something for their tools beside
some small pension and a gold watch.
It sems to come down to the social obligation of the government to
the people. Political inducments that were offered to the masses are
turning out to be a real expensive social experiment. Medicade, medicare,
AFDC, WICS, Social Security are costing you and me a lot of money now, and
the cost will only go up in the future if these programs are'nt controlled.
It can be said that the Medicare system is directly related to the extreme
cost (in terms of GNP) of health care. People should take some more thought
and responsibility in their own lives. For example a welfare mother who can't
survive in a decent manner should not get pregnant, for her sake, the childs,
and society.
Today's retiree has it much better than we might in 30 years. They
were able to buy homes they can sell after 55 and keep the profits, some
of them even owned a vacation home. They had large families, because they
could afford it. Their personal and social security tax rate was much lower
then and they had more bucks to play around with. Contrast that with a worker
who is entering the system today. His tax rates are the highest in American
history, and he is told to wait until 67.5 until he can collect his SS
benefit in full. Buying a house is a dream, not commonplace. It takes two
incomes to raise one child in a decent manner. In short he has a lot more
to worry about today.
In short it would be nice if we could condition the masses not
to expect every need to be met by some government social program. But
to make today's worker pay thru the nose for yesterdays political
mistakes is wrong and might cause problems in the future.dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) (04/25/85)
In article <434@hou5h.UUCP> mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) writes: > >Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their >working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. The fact >that it has been mismananged and may not be most efficiently organized >now, is neither here nor there. > RIGHT? That's like saying that you have a right to something valuable in return for your taxes - a nice idea but contrary to most of recorded history. One of the problems with social security is that during the depression politicians didn't want to call it a tax so they pretended that it was "your" money being "invested" in order to be "returned" to support you when you retire. Unfortunately, the immediate social problem was to provide for existing indigent elderly who hadn't contributed a dime to the system. So in fact the benefits enjoyed by the current retired have always been paid for by the current working. This was fine until the population of current retired started growing faster than the population of current working. At that point it became apparent why the government outlaws pyramid schemes: it likes to retain its lucrative monopoly. But like all pyramid schemes, a finite universe implies that the people who got in first did a lot better than the people who got in last. Fortunately the government has the power to change the rules and to require everyone to play. I don't object to the taxes as much as to politicians who can't call a tax a tax or a tax increase a tax increase. However people do generally get the government they deserve... David Hough
brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown) (04/25/85)
In article <2695@harpo.UUCP> jrl@harpo.UUCP (jrl) writes: >Of course there are some who could not afford even 1K for such a thing, those >people should not have any children anyway, since they are in dire straights. Surprise!! Guess what social class usually has the most children? You guessed it, the lower social classes. Usually, the lower the social class, the more children per family. Besides, one thing that most New Righters (and I assume that jrl is a New Righter, judging from the way that he/she writes) tend to forget: Social Security was created for a VERY good reason; banks, pension funds, and so forth were failing left and right during the 1930's. Anybody who thinks that banks can't fail again hasn't looked at the Third World debt level recently. Eric C. Brown brownc@utah-cs ...!seismo!utah-cs!brownc Execute People, not Programs!!
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/26/85)
>/* dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) / 10:17 pm Apr 24, 1985 */ >Fortunately the government has the power to change the rules and to require >everyone to play. I don't object to the taxes as much as to politicians >who can't call a tax a tax or a tax increase a tax increase. However people >do generally get the government they deserve... > >David Hough Yes, it certainly is grand that the gov't. extorts money from EVERYONE! People do generally get the gov't. they deserve? Are you saying that all or most Asians deserved Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, . . .?
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (04/26/85)
> In article <434@hou5h.UUCP> mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) writes: > > > >Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their > >working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. Another point that hasn't come up yet is that Social Security payments (and, of course, taxes) increased grossly in the 60s and 70s. The result is that retired people whose working lives were mostly earlier than that recoup their total lifetime payments in very few years--and they can expect to live for a decade or two. After that it's all gravy. Is the "promised payout" to be based on the contributions made earlier, or on what can be extracted from today's workers? Do today's taxpayers have a right to raise SS taxes to 25%, as will be necessary if they (we!) are to get the same benefits as today's retirees do? We should all raise large families! More workers in 30 years time is the only solution to the problem.
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (04/27/85)
> We should all raise large families! More workers in 30 years > time is the only solution to the problem. Yeah, but who wants to live in that crowd? I guess all solutions are painful. Anyway, I think an important factor which should be kept in mind when considering how to clean up this mess is that the people collecting Social Security today were *forced* to pay into the system. Therefore they, unlike welfare recipients, do have some amount of "right" to get something back. This makes Social Security somewhat unique amoung goverment programs, and why I don't think it is appropriate to reduce the cost-of-living adjustments. Cliff Shaffer ...!rlgvax!cvl!cas
dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) (04/30/85)
In article <1690002@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >People do generally get the gov't. they deserve? Are you saying that >all or most Asians deserved Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, . . .? LOTS of people "voted" for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, (Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc...) with their feet or their weapons. Of course, many came to regret their bad judgment soon enough, but then it was too late. David Hough
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (04/30/85)
This discussion belongs in net.politics net.taxes is (was) designed for questions and answers concerning the filling out of form 1040 and equivalent bureaucracy concerning taxes and tax laws. Thank You Tom Slack
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (05/01/85)
> This discussion belongs in net.politics. Net.taxes is (was) designed > for questions and answers concerning the filling out of form 1040 and > equivalent bureaucracy concerning taxes and tax laws. > Tom Slack I completely disagree. The list of newsgroups says net.taxes is for "Tax laws and advice", not specifying whether the laws are to be discussed or just stated. Net.politics is grossly swollen because it already has too many sub-areas--it's been suggested that it ought to be broken up into more manageable pieces, but surely it makes sense to have discussions elsewhere any time we get a reasonable excuse, like the presence of a specialized newsgroup like net.taxes. Anyway, what would be in this group at times other than near to April 15? John Purbrick ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) (05/02/85)
> > In article <434@hou5h.UUCP> mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) writes: > > >Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their > > >working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. > > Another point that hasn't come up yet is that Social Security payments (and, > of course, taxes) increased grossly in the 60s and 70s. The result is that > retired people whose working lives were mostly earlier than that recoup their > total lifetime payments in very few years--and they can expect to live for a > decade or two. After that it's all gravy. The person who got Social Security check #0000001 had made only one month's contribution to the fund before receiving payments. The numbers I remember are: contributions = $20 payouts =~ $20,000. She lived to collect about 15 years of Social Security checks. Bob Devine
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (05/04/85)
> Goodness, why do we persist in viewing retired people as helpless? There > are many who must rely on social security for financial wellbeing for a > great variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that they should be > considered as totally dependant in other ways. Old people also value their > independence from their offspring and shouldn't be forced to live with > them until such a time as both parties feel it is the right thing to do > (each case has it's merits). There is no instant solution to these matters. > Furthermore, these people have contributed to the SS pot through their > working lives and have a RIGHT to expect the promissed payout. The fact > > Any civilised society cares and feels it has a responsibility to the > members in the society who for one reason or another cannot cope adequately > > We've come a long way from the 19th century poor houses, lets keep it > that way. And, the extended family is largely inapplicable to the late 20th > century for many reasons -- often, it just ain't a practical proposition > whatever one might wish. > > Sorry for taking so much space, but i feel strongly about this issue. > -- > Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh) Even I feel very strongly about this issue but I totally disagree with the views above. If I decide that I shall not depend on the SS after my retirement then why should I pay it right now. The taxation rate as it is so high and when coupled with FICA deductions, the amount one takes home is nowhere comparable to the gross salary. I think the whole concept of sustaining people by charity i.e. unemployment benefits/welfare/SS etc. etc. is incorrect because it cannot be permanent solution. It is simply surviving because of inertia and the rate of contributions to it is not keeping pace with the increase in the number of people trying to claim it. Leaving aside the complex economics of the entire issue, it is apparent that the economic solutions being provided are temporary. An economy fluctuating the way US economy does from recession to sudden spurts of boom is ample evidence that economy is not healthy. Also, since the whole concept of welfare has evolved, where has it taken the country - TO BECOMING A DEBTOR NATION with a whopping budget deficit. How long do you think charity can be done when you don't have the money ? Now all that does not mean that I am heartless about the problems of homeless, old etc. etc. but I just don't think that the solution is correct. It's just a temporary one and some day either they will have to stop making payments or will run out of money. Sanjay Tikku -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.
andy@altos86.UUCP (Andy Hatcher) (05/06/85)
I would gladly give up and all the contributions that I have ever made into Social Security and any future payments, if I could just stop making new contributions. I doubt very strongly whether SS will be around when I get to retirement age (I am now 26). I am certainly not depending on it (I have 2 IRA's and a 401k plan, as does my wife). What people don't seem to realize (or care about) is that SS can not be a selfsustaining benifit plan. All the money that goes into the system is used to pay existing claims, but by the time the contributor reaches retirement age the cost of living has gone up, and the number of retired people has increased. Social Security is just like the pyramid schemes you read about in the newspaper: 10 people contribute $2000 a year into SS to support one person's benefits of $20,000 when those 10 people reach retirement age, there will have to be 100 people (or more, because of cost of living increases) to support them. The problem is that you very quickly run out of people to pay. If SS were run the same way as an IRA it wouldn't be so bad, the money contributed would be set aside in an account, just for you, invested for you and would not be used for anything else, a small portion of the money collected for you, could also be used to buy life and disability insurance for you. I think that sooner or later, the government is going to have to bite the bullet and eliminate the SS program as we now know it. Anyway, enough rambling, Andy Hatcher Altos Computer Systems ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!vecpyr!altos86!andy P.S. All opinions are my own, etc. etc.