Growth in Social Security Take

[amdx]

Anyone care to calculate the increase in how much social security is taken
from
your check from since its beginning?
It start at 1% of your first $3000
Now it's 15.3% of your first $106,400

Actual Rate
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Maximum Taxable Earnings
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

Inflation Calculator
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Between 1937 and 2009, I calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount
government takes from you to pay for social security.

Oh and SS is going broke, But it can be fixed just take more money from us.

Please do the math and correct me.
Mike

** this includes Medicare which I'll argue is part of social security.

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

Anyone care to calculate the increase in how much social security is
taken from
your check from since its beginning?
It start at 1% of your first $3000
Now it's 15.3% of your first $106,400

Actual Rate
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Maximum Taxable Earnings
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

Inflation Calculator
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Between 1937 and 2009, I calculate it as 36** times increase in the
amount government takes from you to pay for social security.

Oh and SS is going broke, But it can be fixed just take more money
from us.
Please do the math and correct me.
Mike

** this includes Medicare which I'll argue is part of social security.

Your inflation list sez

"$1.00 in 1937 had about the same buying power as $15.02 in 2009." Current
dollar power then is 1/15.02 or 0.0666 of that in 1937.

Your rate table sez

1% in 1937 went up to 15.3% in 1990 and later. An increase of, well, you
get it, 15.3 times.

Without knowing a person's total earnings, max taxable doesn't do anything
for me. I will assume all earnings are taxable, as mine are, which means I
don't need that figure.

So, 15.3 x 0.0666 = 1.019... Damn close to parity.

This can't be right. How am I missing the 36x increase?

 

[Jim Thompson]

Anyone care to calculate the increase in how much social security is taken
from
your check from since its beginning?
It start at 1% of your first $3000
Now it's 15.3% of your first $106,400

Actual Rate
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Maximum Taxable Earnings
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

Inflation Calculator
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Between 1937 and 2009, I calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount
government takes from you to pay for social security.

Oh and SS is going broke, But it can be fixed just take more money from us.

Please do the math and correct me.
Mike

** this includes Medicare which I'll argue is part of social security.

I have mixed feelings about Medicare...

It's a Ponzi scheme. It pays highly discounted fees to doctors, etc.
But it, in "free" form, covers only basic medical care and requires
substantial "co-pays". Thus I have to pay premiums for Part-B and
Part-D, plus a premium to a "supplemental" (private) insurer... out of
pocket ~$500/month.

That combination is _wonderful_. I receive excellent and speedy
treatment.

Wait until you're pushing 70 and let me know what you think then (if
Obama hasn't already declared you "surplus ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[amdx]

So, 15.3 x 0.0666 = 1.019... Damn close to parity.

This can't be right. How am I missing the 36x increase?

The maximun Taxable earnings in 1937 was $3000 at 1% tax rate so you paid
$30.
$30 in 1937 is equivalant to $450 in todays dollars.
The Maximum Taxable earning today is $106,400 you pay 15.3%.
That is $16,279.
$16,279 / $450 = 36.1

Working your way;

"$1.00 in 1937 had about the same buying power as $15.02 in 2009." Current
dollar power then is 1/15.02 or 0.0666 of that in 1937.

To find what we pay today in 1937 dollars we multiply .0666 x $106,400 =
$7086

The rate today is 15.3% so .153 x $7086 = $1063

In 1937 we paid $30 on our $3000.

Then $1063 / $30 = 35.4


If my logic is wrong someone else needs to explain it to me.
I didn't follow your logic and you have spouted so much nonsense
I wouldn't believe you anyway.
Have a nice day,
Mike

 

[amdx]

Between 1937 and 2009, I calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount

I have mixed feelings about Medicare...

It's a Ponzi scheme. It pays highly discounted fees to doctors, etc.
But it, in "free" form, covers only basic medical care and requires
substantial "co-pays". Thus I have to pay premiums for Part-B and
Part-D, plus a premium to a "supplemental" (private) insurer... out of
pocket ~$500/month.

That combination is _wonderful_. I receive excellent and speedy
treatment.

Wait until you're pushing 70 and let me know what you think then (if
Obama hasn't already declared you "surplus ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Jim, I can't argue that its not _wonderful_ , anytime someone else
buys you something expensive it's wonderful. But is it good for society
as a whole to pay for something you could pay for youself. It might get
into your expensive wine drinking, is that to high a price to pay?
Maybe
Jim would you check my logic and math, I'm not absolutely sure I
have it right, at a 36 multiple. Seems unbelievable, and it's still going
broke.

Mike

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

The maximun Taxable earnings in 1937 was $3000 at 1% tax rate so you
paid $30.
$30 in 1937 is equivalant to $450 in todays dollars.

The Maximum Taxable earning today is $106,400 you pay 15.3%.
That is $16,279.
$16,279 / $450 = 36.1

Working your way;



To find what we pay today in 1937 dollars we multiply .0666 x
$106,400 = $7086

The rate today is 15.3% so .153 x $7086 = $1063

In 1937 we paid $30 on our $3000.

Then $1063 / $30 = 35.4


If my logic is wrong someone else needs to explain it to me.
I didn't follow your logic and you have spouted so much nonsense
I wouldn't believe you anyway.
Have a nice day,
Mike

So, what you are saying is, I have to switch jobs too?

If I made $3000 in 1937, based on inflation I'd be making $45,060 today,
not $106,400.

If you want to switch jobs in the middle, you'll need a ratio.

 

[PeterD]

Anyone care to calculate the increase in how much social security is taken
from
your check from since its beginning?
It start at 1% of your first $3000
Now it's 15.3% of your first $106,400

Actual Rate
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Maximum Taxable Earnings
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series

Inflation Calculator
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Between 1937 and 2009, I calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount
government takes from you to pay for social security.

Oh and SS is going broke, But it can be fixed just take more money from us.

Please do the math and correct me.

Well, I guess now you understand why the governemnt has outlawed all
Ponzi schemes except their own...

 

[PeterD]

Your inflation list sez

"$1.00 in 1937 had about the same buying power as $15.02 in 2009." Current
dollar power then is 1/15.02 or 0.0666 of that in 1937.

Your rate table sez

1% in 1937 went up to 15.3% in 1990 and later. An increase of, well, you
get it, 15.3 times.

Without knowing a person's total earnings, max taxable doesn't do anything
for me. I will assume all earnings are taxable, as mine are, which means I
don't need that figure.

So, 15.3 x 0.0666 = 1.019... Damn close to parity.

This can't be right. How am I missing the 36x increase?

By using your non-existant math skills? Did you make it through the
third grade (yet?)

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

By using your non-existant math skills? Did you make it through the
third grade (yet?)

Null response.

 

[amdx]

So, what you are saying is, I have to switch jobs too?

No same job, making $7,068 in 1937, with a tax rate of 1% on the first
$3,000

If I made $3000 in 1937, based on inflation I'd be making $45,060 today,

That's correct.

not $106,400.

But now your taxed up to $106,400.

I see your error now, inflation and the increase in tax rate are a wash
but the
max limit that you pay on is 36 times higher.
Mike

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

No same job, making $7,068 in 1937, with a tax rate of 1% on the first
$3,000

That's correct.


But now your taxed up to $106,400.

I see your error now, inflation and the increase in tax rate are a
wash but the
max limit that you pay on is 36 times higher.
Mike

I made no error. Your problem setup was "Between 1937 and 2009, I
calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount government takes from you
to pay for social security." - but apparently you meant "maximum amount the
government can take from you" instead.

 

[amdx]

I made no error. Your problem setup was "Between 1937 and 2009, I
calculate it as 36** times increase in the amount government takes from
you to pay for social security." - but apparently you meant "maximum
amount the government can take from you" instead.

Ok, so a large amount of people are paying 36 times more than they would
have in 1937.
And I don't believe you think a plan that started with 36 people supporting
1 person,
can survive on the same dollars (inflation adjusted) now that we have 3
people
supporting 1.
The point was if you start a government program, it grows and grows and
grows!
Pretty soon we're going to run out of money, Oh, we already have, trillion
in debt,
social security is going broke. When will you grow up and realize goverment
takes to
much and is inefficient with what they take.
Mike

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

Ok, so a large amount of people are paying 36 times more than they would
have in 1937.

You left out the "up to" again. It would be interesting to see
actual figures.

And I don't believe you think a plan that started with 36 people supporting
1 person,
can survive on the same dollars (inflation adjusted) now that we have 3
people
supporting 1.
The point was if you start a government program, it grows and grows and
grows!

Nice hypothesis. You now have one data point.

Pretty soon we're going to run out of money, Oh, we already have, trillion
in debt,
social security is going broke.

Means testing, problem gone. So's your data point.

 

[amdx]

You left out the "up to" again. It would be interesting to see actual
figures.



Nice hypothesis. You now have one data point.



Means testing, problem gone. So's your data point.

So two families earning an average of $40,000 a year four 40 years.
Family #1 lives very frugally and has $800,000 of assets at retirement.
Family #2 lives paycheck to paycheck and retires with partially paid
for house and debt for two cars and credit cards. Assets of $26,000.
Now you think family #1 should not get the benefit of the money
they paid into the system but family #2 should!
Ever heard the term personal responsibility?
Mike

 

[Jim Thompson]

So two families earning an average of $40,000 a year four 40 years.
Family #1 lives very frugally and has $800,000 of assets at retirement.
Family #2 lives paycheck to paycheck and retires with partially paid
for house and debt for two cars and credit cards. Assets of $26,000.
Now you think family #1 should not get the benefit of the money
they paid into the system but family #2 should!
Ever heard the term personal responsibility?
Mike

I shouldn't point this out, but I will, just for fun ;-)

The more you pump into SS, the more you get back, though nothing like
you would with private investments.

Thus a whole bunch of you yellow-belly leftist-weenies are paying
dearly to provide MY large SS retirement income... Bwahahahahaha ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama: A reincarnation of Nixon, but without ANY scruples,
masquerading in politically-correct black-face.

 

[amdx]

800K would require saving $28,500.00 @ 5.5% interest ( compounded
annually). At 10%, it's $17,000.00. Just don't have a down year.

Check your math, 40 years x $20,000 is $800,000 without any interest.

If you saved $10,000 for the first 12 yrs only, @ 5.5% interest for 40 years
you would have over $800,000, The next 28 years of savings could pay
for Jim's extravagances.

Mike

 

[Jim Thompson]

Check your math, 40 years x $20,000 is $800,000 without any interest.

If you saved $10,000 for the first 12 yrs only, @ 5.5% interest for 40 years
you would have over $800,000, The next 28 years of savings could pay
for Jim's extravagances.

Mike

Extravagances? Me ? Julia-style beef bourguignonne momentarily
;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[OuroborosRex]

So two families earning an average of $40,000 a year four 40 years.
Family #1 lives very frugally and has $800,000 of assets at retirement.
Family #2 lives paycheck to paycheck and retires with partially paid
for house and debt for two cars and credit cards. Assets of $26,000.
Now you think family #1 should not get the benefit of the money
they paid into the system but family #2 should!
Ever heard the term personal responsibility?
Mike

Your solution is..?

 

[OuroborosRex]

So two families earning an average of $40,000 a year four 40 years.
Family #1 lives very frugally and has $800,000 of assets at retirement.
Family #2 lives paycheck to paycheck and retires with partially paid
for house and debt for two cars and credit cards. Assets of $26,000.
Now you think family #1 should not get the benefit of the money
they paid into the system but family #2 should!

Sounds kinda like insurance, doesn't it?

Ever heard the term personal responsibility?

I hear it constantly, usually from people pretending accidents never
happen. =)

 

[OuroborosRex]

Two problems with your assumptions: First, if they were taking some
percentage of the first $3000 back in 1937, then they shold be taking
some percentage of only the first $45,000 today. Not $106,400.

Should be, if everything else, including increase in number covered,
rising healthcare costs, etc. is excluded. Not possible in the real
world, of course.

Second, if we're talking about parity with inflation, then taking 1% of
$3000 back in 1937 would be the equivalent of taking 1% of $45,000
today. Not 15.3%.

Yep. And when I take that 45,060 into 106,400, times 15.3%, I get
the aforementioned 36x. Thanks!