You are quite succinct and articulate...I like it. Would you explain to a new viewer what the
response score is all about? Thx
Social security
- Thread starter SLB_SA
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
response score is all about? Thx
Thank you, I think, 
, and if I were a sociologist or otherwise a researcher I might be able to explain a response score, but I am not.
I did find this definition online, in the article below: “a method used in research analysis to assign numerical values to responses in a survey or questionnaire.”
https://pollthepeople.app/ai-survey...ing is a method,in a survey or questionnaire.
And, being one of those people whose eyes cross with anything more complicated than basic math, I can’t explain beyond that.
, and if I were a sociologist or otherwise a researcher I might be able to explain a response score, but I am not.I did find this definition online, in the article below: “a method used in research analysis to assign numerical values to responses in a survey or questionnaire.”
https://pollthepeople.app/ai-survey...ing is a method,in a survey or questionnaire.
And, being one of those people whose eyes cross with anything more complicated than basic math, I can’t explain beyond that.
Sky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 116
Happy New Year Rugged Survivalist of Cannibalistic Capitalism. What bothers me most is the psy opts calling SS an "Entitlement" Can we talk entitlements tall the politicians have been on the tax teet making insider deals, rallying for Corporate interests, giving themselves raises and more days off that the ole proletarian protestant work ethic would laugh in their graves at, not to mention the joke of public servants whose sole purpose is too serve the shareholder-corporate classes. I'd love to see one politician live on the average SS monthly stipend.I agree. Sometimes people think it is un-American to tax the wealthy or expect them to chip in more, but they are neglecting the fact that it's not just tax breaks and SS where the rich profit.
They benefit from the our immense natural resources (Eg, ranchers, mining companies, and oil companies) and from our university system where research is done for all kinds of things (medical, pharmaceutical, engineering, computing, science, etc.) They take taxpayer funded research and patent it... then profit. Then price gouge us into poverty.
Taxpayers pay for wars so that we can secure/steal the natural resources belonging to other countries FOR our corporations. On & on there is grift taking place for the rich. So they can become even more rich. Elon Musk is one example, of many. This has been going on since our country was formed.
There have been corrections and we are overdue for another. Tax the rich.... including corporations. After all, corporations are people
Sky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 116
Happy New Year Rugged Survivalist of Cannibalistic Capitalism. What bothers me most is the psy opts calling SS an "Entitlement" Can we talk entitlements all the politicians have been on the tax teet making insider deals, rallying for Corporate interests, giving themselves raises and more days off that the ole proletarian protestant work ethic would laugh in their graves at. Not to mention the joke of public servants, whose sole purpose is too serve the shareholder-corporate classes. I'd love to see one politician live on the average SS monthly stipend.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2021
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 1,090
Regards politicians and money... Where to start?
IMHO they should not be allowed to use their inside knowledge or influence when investing. The 1st day of their service should be accompanied by them turning over all their personal investments to a blind trust that would have no more knowledge or influence than the rest of us. Same for SC justices, BTW. I'm unsure how to discourage them from passing legislation that benefits their donors. Maybe getting some campaign finance reform might be a good first step. How the current political financing is considered anything but open bribery is beyond me.
Back to this thread, I doubt very much that ANY of our congressmen and women will ever have to depend on SSI. Does that impact their attitude toward it? I would guess so. It doesn't mean that some of them might not actually care about the welfare of those that do. But, I am equally certain that many are more driven by what their financial backers care about. And that is not the welfare of those who depend on SS.
IMHO they should not be allowed to use their inside knowledge or influence when investing. The 1st day of their service should be accompanied by them turning over all their personal investments to a blind trust that would have no more knowledge or influence than the rest of us. Same for SC justices, BTW. I'm unsure how to discourage them from passing legislation that benefits their donors. Maybe getting some campaign finance reform might be a good first step. How the current political financing is considered anything but open bribery is beyond me.
Back to this thread, I doubt very much that ANY of our congressmen and women will ever have to depend on SSI. Does that impact their attitude toward it? I would guess so. It doesn't mean that some of them might not actually care about the welfare of those that do. But, I am equally certain that many are more driven by what their financial backers care about. And that is not the welfare of those who depend on SS.
eDJ_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,530
- Reaction score
- 1,281
Just read about the Sanders bill. I'm not keeping up with politics
~~~
A solid majority of Republicans are all in on raising the retirement age, first from 67 to 69 and then to 70. Both moves would effectively cut benefits for everybody and favor upper income earners, whose life expectancies are far higher.
No way, says Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “When half of older Americans have NO retirement savings, we don’t need to cut Social Security. Legislation I introduced last year would make Social Security solvent for 75 years, expand benefits by $2,400 a year, and NOT raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”
The Sanders bill, co-authored with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would impose payroll taxes on any work income over $250,000; in other words, the cap would be reset at $250,000. House Democrats have their own reform bill, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, sponsored by Connecticut Rep. John Larson. It would set the cap at $400,000.
More:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/raise-the-cap-on-social-security
~~~
A solid majority of Republicans are all in on raising the retirement age, first from 67 to 69 and then to 70. Both moves would effectively cut benefits for everybody and favor upper income earners, whose life expectancies are far higher.
No way, says Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “When half of older Americans have NO retirement savings, we don’t need to cut Social Security. Legislation I introduced last year would make Social Security solvent for 75 years, expand benefits by $2,400 a year, and NOT raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”
The Sanders bill, co-authored with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would impose payroll taxes on any work income over $250,000; in other words, the cap would be reset at $250,000. House Democrats have their own reform bill, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, sponsored by Connecticut Rep. John Larson. It would set the cap at $400,000.
More:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/raise-the-cap-on-social-security
user 25174
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 25
Despite the popular (to some) idea that certain parties "provide the American Dream", the facts are there if one peels back the source(s) and looks at the truth ..
"Democrats.org" ..
In 1935, Democrats and President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. In 1965, Democrats and President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare.
--- Ever since, Democrats have continually fought to defend these cornerstones of the American Dream in the face of attempts to dismantle or undermine both. ---
From : "The Hill"
"The last cut in
Social Security benefits was in 1983.
When then-Sen. Biden (D-Del.) and 25 other Senate Democrats, along with 163 House Democrats, provided the large majority of votes to pass the last cut to Social Security benefits"
Just Sayin'
"Democrats.org" ..
In 1935, Democrats and President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. In 1965, Democrats and President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare.
--- Ever since, Democrats have continually fought to defend these cornerstones of the American Dream in the face of attempts to dismantle or undermine both. ---
From : "The Hill"
"The last cut in
Social Security benefits was in 1983.
When then-Sen. Biden (D-Del.) and 25 other Senate Democrats, along with 163 House Democrats, provided the large majority of votes to pass the last cut to Social Security benefits"
Just Sayin'
Just read about the Sanders bill. I'm not keeping up with politics
~~~
A solid majority of Republicans are all in on raising the retirement age, first from 67 to 69 and then to 70. Both moves would effectively cut benefits for everybody and favor upper income earners, whose life expectancies are far higher.
No way, says Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “When half of older Americans have NO retirement savings, we don’t need to cut Social Security. Legislation I introduced last year would make Social Security solvent for 75 years, expand benefits by $2,400 a year, and NOT raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”
The Sanders bill, co-authored with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would impose payroll taxes on any work income over $250,000; in other words, the cap would be reset at $250,000. House Democrats have their own reform bill, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, sponsored by Connecticut Rep. John Larson. It would set the cap at $400,000.
More:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/raise-the-cap-on-social-security
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,530
- Reaction score
- 1,281
One of the dangers of voting straight ticket. And not knowing how candidates have voted in the past.
user 25174
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 25
I fully agree.
Seems these days the "deeds" of some outweigh needs of the many.
rruff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 1,316
Not only that, but the average life expectancy for everybody actually peaked in ~2014. Kinda hard to make the case that we are living longer...
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2021
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 1,090
I would also point out that political parties change over time. The "Party of Lincoln" (Republicans) was anti-slavery, and the Southern Democrats were Confederate racists. Since the Johnson era Civil Rights bill was passed the two major parties have flipped geographically and politically. Even in recent memory the GOP has changed drastically from the "Big Tent" of Reagan and McCain to the MAGA folks wanting to toss out RINOs.
I think we all need to be better at watching how individuals actually vote and basing our opinions on that. Too many politicians that vote against infrastructure show up to take credit for the new bridge opening up and still get reelected!
I think we all need to be better at watching how individuals actually vote and basing our opinions on that. Too many politicians that vote against infrastructure show up to take credit for the new bridge opening up and still get reelected!
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 838
A good you tube about SS polls & the future of SS
mpruet
Well-known member
I’m not so sure about the polls. I don’t know the demographics of his audience so don’t know how skewed the results are. But I do have some opinions (so what else is new…)
Fundamentally the issue of SS is how to fund your life once you are no longer working.
First of all I personally think that 401Ks are a wonderful for many workers to gain enough wealth to have a good retirement. I’ve seen a lot of people get a successful retirement from them. But to be successful with a 401K, you’ve got to be willing at a younger age to accept a degree of risk and be willing to transfer a good sized percentage of your income into the program. Folks who have done this over the years are generally in a much better position to not absolutely need SS. From that perspective privatizing SS wouldn’t be a bad thing. Also privatizing SS would in effect allow your SS nest-egg to become an inherited item, which is not the case now.
However another thing that I’ve always hated is that the small business or personal private business only has the traditional or ROTH IRA to build a retirement nest-egg and those have such a small cap on them that it’d be really difficult to build up a large retirement nest-egg. So I really think that they need to be raised to the same level as the 401K - if the person has no access to a 401K.
I don’t really see a problem with lifting the cap on payments into SS on the salary income. The problem is that the highly wealthy don’t necessarily have a high salary. They tend to get their wealth through option grants and the original owners of a corporation get their wealth from the selling of a portion of their corporation through the IPO, or later when they sell additional shares in the after market. Since those are taxed as capital gains, then the income is not taxed as part of the payroll tax.
One other advantage that I see with privatizing SS - sort of like a ‘forced IRA’ - is that more folks would become familiar with the behavior of the market. That would make them much more prepared for managing their wealth as they approach retirement. Why is this important? Well I’ve heard hundreds of times folks say something like “I retired in 2008 and lost everything in my nest-egg.” Of course that means that they panicked during the recession and sold out in the down market. Of course that’s usually the worst time to sell. People who remained in saw their wealth skyrocket over the next 10 years.
So I personally think that a private forced retirement plan would be a good idea. The problem is how to deal with the folks in retirement now. Some companies that had pension plans in the past would give a lump sum to the employee upon retirement, and I suppose that could be done. But I don’t think that would be a good idea because so many of the folks needing SS do not have any experience with managing larger sums of money. Probably the best thing that most could do would be to purchase an immediate annuity, but there is a problem with that as well since annuities generally don’t have a cost of living annual adjustment, nor are they inherited. But still I personally think that a forced privatized retirement system would be much better overall than what we have now, but the question is how to get there…
Fundamentally the issue of SS is how to fund your life once you are no longer working.
First of all I personally think that 401Ks are a wonderful for many workers to gain enough wealth to have a good retirement. I’ve seen a lot of people get a successful retirement from them. But to be successful with a 401K, you’ve got to be willing at a younger age to accept a degree of risk and be willing to transfer a good sized percentage of your income into the program. Folks who have done this over the years are generally in a much better position to not absolutely need SS. From that perspective privatizing SS wouldn’t be a bad thing. Also privatizing SS would in effect allow your SS nest-egg to become an inherited item, which is not the case now.
However another thing that I’ve always hated is that the small business or personal private business only has the traditional or ROTH IRA to build a retirement nest-egg and those have such a small cap on them that it’d be really difficult to build up a large retirement nest-egg. So I really think that they need to be raised to the same level as the 401K - if the person has no access to a 401K.
I don’t really see a problem with lifting the cap on payments into SS on the salary income. The problem is that the highly wealthy don’t necessarily have a high salary. They tend to get their wealth through option grants and the original owners of a corporation get their wealth from the selling of a portion of their corporation through the IPO, or later when they sell additional shares in the after market. Since those are taxed as capital gains, then the income is not taxed as part of the payroll tax.
One other advantage that I see with privatizing SS - sort of like a ‘forced IRA’ - is that more folks would become familiar with the behavior of the market. That would make them much more prepared for managing their wealth as they approach retirement. Why is this important? Well I’ve heard hundreds of times folks say something like “I retired in 2008 and lost everything in my nest-egg.” Of course that means that they panicked during the recession and sold out in the down market. Of course that’s usually the worst time to sell. People who remained in saw their wealth skyrocket over the next 10 years.
So I personally think that a private forced retirement plan would be a good idea. The problem is how to deal with the folks in retirement now. Some companies that had pension plans in the past would give a lump sum to the employee upon retirement, and I suppose that could be done. But I don’t think that would be a good idea because so many of the folks needing SS do not have any experience with managing larger sums of money. Probably the best thing that most could do would be to purchase an immediate annuity, but there is a problem with that as well since annuities generally don’t have a cost of living annual adjustment, nor are they inherited. But still I personally think that a forced privatized retirement system would be much better overall than what we have now, but the question is how to get there…
Last edited:
mpruet
Well-known member
One thing to mention about SS payments. As many probably know, the highest 35 quarters of your payments into SS determine your payout. But also the payout formula uses an inverse progressive plan. What that means is that the first 1000 dollars put into SS by an individual gets a higher return than the second 1000 dollars. The return is not calculated in a straight line. That means that the person who paid less into the system is getting a higher percentage return than the person who put in more. Now the dollar amount of the person who put in more might be higher, but his percentage ROI is lower. So the payout plan does favor the poorer than the richer.
bullfrog !
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2021
- Messages
- 1,346
- Reaction score
- 1,569
^^^ You are assuming people are educated and well read enough to manage money and make informed decisions. Have you ever been to a casino in this country and seen the amount of people in them at slot machines? Not very good odds of them managing a retirement fund well in my opinion. I believe there was several billion dollars bet on the last Super Bowl and how many lottery tickets get sold in this country? lol!!! There are a lot of uneducated and illiterate hard working people in this country do you really think they would be up to the task or understand the market?
Last edited:
mpruet
Well-known member
That’s why I said that there would be a problem with folks already receiving SS money. They don’t have any experience with larger sums of money.
One of the things that I noticed from my friends in the 401K plans that I was in was that they regularly saw the ups and downs of the market and learned what kind of risk they could accept. And since the downs could easily be 10s of thousands of dollars, they learned managing much better.
I agree that there are a lot of uneducated folks but I also think that if they got exposure to the market in their 20s, that they would learn how to control the ‘slot machine mentality’ as they approached their peak earning years.
mpruet
Well-known member
Another possibility would be to have better control what investments were available and how those investments could be dispersed. Most 401k plans used by business have fewer than 40 funds you can invest in from short-term bond funds, dividend funds, all the way to small-cap start ups, and are often ranked by risk. Maybe you wouldn’t be allowed to just cash out, but could only take fixed annual disbursements, but which could increase much like a COLA. Maybe you could transition from more risky funds to less risky, and maybe annual disbursements would be required to follow some form of th 4% rule. Don’t know for sure.
mpruet
Well-known member
Probably the biggest disadvantage would be the issue of the inverted progressive payout strategy that I mentioned before. The poorer folks would no longer have a higher percentage ROI that I mentioned above. But then that might be overcome because the market has tended to have a much higher ROI than SS does overall.
bullfrog !
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2021
- Messages
- 1,346
- Reaction score
- 1,569
The Security part of Social Security is what matters to many.
Similar threads
