I've kept quiet long enough re:SS

[n2mark]

Here it goes,

I've been retired since March and if it were not for SS I would not be able to do this. Okay, I do have a pension , a fairly good pension and SS although if SS was not available to me probably would lose my house.

I had annuities, really easy to obtain in a crisis which I did do. I was alone with two children. Thank God I could not touch SS or my pension both kept me the funds needed in my now retirement. These were both very safe accounts. Thank God these funds were not available to me, probably would have spent them when we did not have enough food or other needs. But, we followed my salary and lived accordingly. I am so thankful funds were taken out of my salary and could not touch. I am not sure if I had the opportunity if I would put money in the stockmarket as this is iffy, I like the safe plan, take my money, put it in an insurance plan and pension. The stockmarket is not safe. I knew several people who were going to retire within the past year but couldn't, all their money was in 401K's and they lost a lot of money and also friends who had money in the stockmarket lost a lot too. My gratitude is for the SS and my safe pension plan(imy pension is a good and safe plan, not government controlled).

Interesting though, when I retired my pension plan had me fill out a W2 before retiring, SS did not do this until tax time, thank you very much IRS. IRS caused me a little problem during tax filing because of this.

Let me say I am against privitization or personal SS savings. Can you imagine the payout when you retire? People who have annuities or 401K's are going to be paying taxes on this money at the rate you retire. I did. You may not pay taxes on the money now, wait until you retire. The gov is going to get you.

Not edited....

[applegrove]

1. I do think we all need an adjunct to our SS. My big worry is that

the GOP are so intent on destroying SS (for structural reasons mostly) and want to institute a sales tax (that would make it hard to collect information on incomes) that an adjunct retirement savings plan would not work.

I think that is why the GOP will not put forward the adjunct plan that many nations like Canada have. Because it depends on continued income tax. And the GOP freepers are convinced they can erase all that!!

[ChairOne]

2. SS was meant to be one of 3 retirement legs.....

.... never to be one's sole source of income. The other two are (2) personal savings, and (3) company pension.

Given 3 all three legs of the stool, and not just the one taken out of context, why do you think there needs to be an "adjunct" to SS? And precisely what is the nature of this adjunct, and where does its $ come from?

[n2mark]

3. I am so for SS

that was an insurance for me except for the problem of taxes. I like the way things are now for me. At my work I put in a certain amount for my pension and my employer did the same. Shrub just wants to get rid of the employer giving money into SS abd pensions. He is protecting big business in all this.

[gratuitous]

4. Just so

Social security is intended to provide a floor. One doesn't live like royalty on it, but it's nice to be assured that there is a certain minimum amount that you will retire on.

The privatizers and their ilk, however, are not dependent on that floor. They're safe and secure in their retirement, but for some reason, it bothers them no end that a very large segment of the population isn't reduced to penury after retirement. Nothing seems to aggravate the idle rich more than the notion of "idle" po' folk.

[applegrove]

5. I think what they really want is to get rid of income tax

and replace it with a sales tax that would catch all the illegals and make them pay taxes. Then nobody pays taxes on income.

But an adjunct retirement savings plan gives people a tax break on a certain amount of income a year (like 16%) so that you don't pay taxes on whatever you have put in your retirement account that year. You only pay taxes on it when you take it out. And it works to really encourage people to maximize their savings because of the tax breaks (I don't know but your income may end up in a lower tax bracket too if you are middle class and you save up to the maximum each year).

Thing is this really great tool to get people to save only works when people are actually paying income tax in a progressive system. So for the rich in America ... they would never want that because their dream is to replace the income tax system with Sales tax. So the elites (Bush) will never go for an adjunct account based on tax incentives. Because it works but it implies the rich will have to pay income tax for the next 75 years and I don't think they have any plans to do that.

[n2mark]

6. I'm not financial saavy

but I found out the little money I did save on my own was not worth it. The taxes I paid after retirement was almost the amount I saved. The taxes in 82 are different from the taxes in '04. Tax free sounds great on savings until you want to collect.

[applegrove]

7. You are forgetting the compounding of interest & stock growth.

It works! And if you are in a position to be paying taxes at retirement - you are doing okay indeed.