Social security rat hole

Any of the financially savvy posters care to comment? Is this the same thing as the donut hole?


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to ... nt_popular



"Meyer reiterated a point that he made in Bank Investment Consultant in which he pointed out that "Individuals born between 1943 and 1954 should never claim benefits between the ages of 62 and one month through 63 and 11 months, nor should they claim benefits between 65 and five months through 67 and seven months."

That article goes on to point out the same thing that Meyer told us that day , “Meyer worked through an example of a single person who claimed benefits at 62, just before the beginning of the rat hole, versus claiming benefits on "the other side of the rat hole.” Claiming benefits outside the rat hole gave the individual 20% more in monthly income. "

Sure, I will bite.

When you take money away from people at threat of violence or imprisonment, you should not have any expectations for what will be done with the money that is no longer yours.

When you make fake rules to run an economy, anyone with half a brain will figure out a way to optimize the new system and those without smarts or who are lazy will get screwed by not knowing. In other words, the govt makes the smart and rich richer and the poor and stupid poorer, this is designed into the system. The other part of the design is to get you to NEVER talk about it that way, even though it is obvious, and get people like LJ to sing the praises because they cannot even discuss the issues with any reason or logic.

So the system that is in place to take care of the stupid and lazy will punish them more, like minimum wage, workman's comp, this list goes on and on, it reads like the list of regulations we have, oh it is the list of regulations we have.

The solution, don't pretend it is a retirement program, SS for old folks is for old folks that failed at their economic life -treat it like the welfare that it is. Those that did fail, accept that failure and we will help you, show us how you failed. Those that did not fail, don't take money from your failing starving govt and neighbors. Those that are young, plan not to fail, your world would not go from good to bad just because the govt is not going to give you some small fraction of what it takes to live.

The best way to deal with this is to know the rules and find ways to minimize your SS tax burden, then you can invest the money yourself in the countless ways that will provide a higher return and there is simply less to debate.

But if you are going to depend on SS, figure out these rules and game (read - optimize) them like all the people you elected.

on that note wrote: Sure, I will bite.

When you take money away from people at threat of violence or imprisonment, you should not have any expectations for what will be done with the money that is no longer yours.

When you make fake rules to run an economy, anyone with half a brain will figure out a way to optimize the new system and those without smarts or who are lazy will get screwed by not knowing. In other words, the govt makes the smart and rich richer and the poor and stupid poorer, this is designed into the system. The other part of the design is to get you to NEVER talk about it that way, even though it is obvious, and get people like LJ to sing the praises because they cannot even discuss the issues with any reason or logic.

So the system that is in place to take care of the stupid and lazy will punish them more, like minimum wage, workman's comp, this list goes on and on, it reads like the list of regulations we have, oh it is the list of regulations we have.

The solution, don't pretend it is a retirement program, SS for old folks is for old folks that failed at their economic life -treat it like the welfare that it is. Those that did fail, accept that failure and we will help you, show us how you failed. Those that did not fail, don't take money from your failing starving govt and neighbors. Those that are young, plan not to fail, your world would not go from good to bad just because the govt is not going to give you some small fraction of what it takes to live.

The best way to deal with this is to know the rules and find ways to minimize your SS tax burden, then you can invest the money yourself in the countless ways that will provide a higher return and there is simply less to debate.

But if you are going to depend on SS, figure out these rules and game (read - optimize) them like all the people you elected.

SS has nothing to do with the older folks (as you call them) that failed at anything. It is not welfare either. Not sure where you get your info from. My folks did not fail at anything. My dad planned for his retirement, made sure he would have the money to live comfortable and his SS is a small portion of that. The majority comes from other forms.

SS cuts off at gross income of $106,800/year. As previously PROVED, it is not part of the budget and therefore not relevant to budget discussions.

It was paid-into the system by all Americans, and when you reach retirement you start drawing the money you have put in. It is not welfare.

And you're right...I'm not going to debate it with selfish, knuckle-dragging Randroid sociopaths.

LJ, thanks for pointing it out, but just about everyone knows that SS is a regressive tax with an upper limit...making sure that poor pay way more of their income than the rich.

Yes I was harsh with failed. Really what I mean is that they worked their whole life and did not or were not able to save enough to live until they died after they were no longer able to earn reasonable income for their effort. I am sorry, but if it is a small portion of their income, and they don't need it and we don't have enough of it (money that is), the right thing to do is not take it. If they need it, I am reasonably glad to give it...

...especially because their son has served, and apparently with great pride, and perhaps they did too. I don't want to be in bunk wars, but once someone is willing to die for me and my country, I am willing to have me and my govt support them and their family to a minimum standard forever, they could have given up everything and did give up something regardless. I might change the system, but as long as it exists there is no more liberal place I would allow money to flow from govt than my defenders....but this would not happen via SS, it would be associated with your or their service to the country.

Again, gotta love that progressives support a regressive tax program. You would think at a minumum that the LJs of the world would try and make the rich pay their fair share - or even some share. The most Mitt Romney paid in SS taxes, including employer matching, assuming he is self employed is $17,347.20. That would be his cap (based on your number and the 4.2% and 6.2% rates charged). But I bet you he didn't even pay that, because I bet his earned wages was less than the threshold.

Anyone think that SS should have the cap removed and move from regressive to a flat tax or go a whole 'nother step and make it progressive? Anyone think that SS tax should apply to other types of income? Would it be reasonable if you buy a house for $50k and sell it for $100k to pay SS tax on the difference and more tax the bigger the difference is?

This is that BS fair share issue where people worship the %. Where's the % in this one, the rich are paying a way lower % and it is by absolute design.

If you had read what I've written here for the last 4-5 years, you would know the number of times I've suggested, campaigned for and stated that if there is ANYTHING I would do, it would be to remove that limit on SS income, and make EVERY CITIZEN pay it on EVERY DOLLAR of their income, no matter how much they made. The system would be solvent and stable for 100+ years.

So thank you for your uninformed, and as usual, irrelevant assumption about my support for something that I regard as regressive, that shouldn't be.

Oh and LJ, you keep making these knuckle dragging type comments, but you have over 11,000 posts and rarely debate anything - your posts are devoid of content - you honestly sound like you would be a brutal dictator if anyone actually gave you any power.

Your way of convincing others that you should have the say in their lives is to tell them they should shut up and they are as dumb as animals.

All these people you show absolutely no respect for, why do you pretend to care about so many other people you don't know, when you treat us, people that really are in your life, whether you like it or not, like absolute shit? Do you punch your family when you come home? What gives with not having the ability to get into the content, the why and the what if? Who put you up on this horse, who told you that nothing ever has to be justified? Who told you name calling was anything except sign of a lack of intelligence?

I gotta tell you, the main reason I keep coming back is how disgusting I find you as a person or I should say as an on line personality. I am constantly amazed at how pig headed you can be (to speak in your animal language). You make 285bound a unique place for the ages. I may be long winded, but geeeez.

And in response to your last post - you don't post about details of your beliefs much, just of what they are and that people need to learn to accept your way of life or suck it up, etc. or you only skim the surface and do it often and to be even more annoying as to bounce around and never get into the meat of anything. Even in your response, you only go as far at to propose flat tax. Sorry if I did not catch all your posts, cool that you want to spread the burden around. Your justification style, your lack of faith in others and your passion about the use of force to manage society still disgust me. Feel free to show me a collection of posts where you are willing to take any issue to an in depth level. I know you will respond that you have nothing to prove and don't care what I think. Thus you will only prove my point or fulfill my request.

Never mind, you were right, I will just suck it up and do whatever you and your cohorts think is right, just give me a comprehensive list on how to live in one place so I don't have to read 11,000 posts to learn how to be a good person.

Hey On That Note, do you really think worker's comp is for the lazy and stupid? Do you know what the "i" in "ssi" stands for? There's no i's in welfare....or taxes...oh, it's insurance . Insurance people paid into all their lives. But you don't have any respect for that...till a military man points that out to you. Then you'll allow his folks to take because their son served. My dad served...does this allow me to take too? Feeling a bit grandiose in your new found authority of determining who's worthy of mooching off the system? You are "reasonably glad to give it"?...Really?

I bet you're a "self made man", eh? Did it ALL by yourself...except for the military that protected your freedom...except for the govt that maintained a capitalist economy for you to participate in...except for the society that built the infrastructure around you that allows you to spout off online. It's okay...I'm reasonably glad to give these things to you.

Blazer Bob wrote: Any of the financially savvy posters care to comment? Is this the same thing as the donut hole?


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to ... nt_popular



"Meyer reiterated a point that he made in Bank Investment Consultant in which he pointed out that "Individuals born between 1943 and 1954 should never claim benefits between the ages of 62 and one month through 63 and 11 months, nor should they claim benefits between 65 and five months through 67 and seven months."

That article goes on to point out the same thing that Meyer told us that day , “Meyer worked through an example of a single person who claimed benefits at 62, just before the beginning of the rat hole, versus claiming benefits on "the other side of the rat hole.” Claiming benefits outside the rat hole gave the individual 20% more in monthly income. "

I was hoping pine and Joe would have something to contribute. I was born between 43 and 54.

Bob, never heard of any rat hole in SS? The rules are complex though, anything is possible if the Gov't is running it with 20,000 pages of rules and regulations.

http://www.bankinvestmentconsultant.com ... 254-1.html

The authors 2nd link in your article had sketchy info about this, and really didn't explain the reasons. Makes me skeptical since he is in the business of financial advising and writing books and software on SS. If I had to guess, it is probably related to the rule changes for the baby boom generation extending age from 65-67. Kinda sucks if you have to have an advisor to make sure you don't fall into a SS rat hole. LOL

Here is some info on the years and age changes.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/IncRetAge.html