Obama '08?

Who says that all gays and minorities are liberal Democrats? I read somewhere that in the Congressional elections last year, Republican candidates won 23 percent of the gay vote. (Not that I support either party. I'm just commenting.)

FICA IS A POOR INVESTMENT FOR BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE US ECONOMY.

For someone whose annual icome is $50,000 for 44 years, the annual payment to FICA is 0.124 x $50,000 = $6,200 (paid by the self employed or paid jointly by the employee and the employer).

The annuity accumulation factor with an investment in 3% US Savings Bonds for 44 years = 89.04840911.

The annuity payment factor from those 3% US Savings Bonds for 35 years = 0.04653929.

The product of these two factors = 4.144249736.

Thus, for a 44 year annual payment into the 3% US Savings Bonds of $6, 200, the annual retirement income for 35 years would be 4.144249736 x $6,200 = $25,694.35 to the payer or to the payer's heirs (e.g., their children).

Whereas FICA would pay $19,608 per year only until the payer died.

The investment in 3% US Savings Bonds would produce an annual retirement payment $6,086 more than would the investment in FICA.

Those people who anticipate they will live more than 100 years will have to make an additionsl investment in 3% US Savings Bonds to pay for their retirement in those additional years.

Why is it that no matter how often we tell you that the majority of workers did not earn $50k thirty years ago, you continue to use that number? It's no wonder you cannot learn new tricks; it remains stagnant.

Show us evidence that the average worker's pay thirty years ago even approached $50k?

When you start your calculations from a number that doesn't even approach reality, you end up with numbers that are only a figment of your imagination.

Except you are talking out of your ass as usual ican.

Someone that made $50,000 for each of the last 44 years did NOT pay that much for every one of those 44 years.
In 1966 the maximum paid by employee and employer combined was $462. The employee paid $231. The employer paid the other half.

In 1980 the maximum paid by employee and employer combined was $2360.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a4.pdf

You are just f**** stupid ican.

ican continues to talk out of his ass anywhos; I have kept financial records of our marriage since 1963, and through last year, we have collected more than 2.5 times in social security benefits of what we paid into FICA, and I expect to keep collecting for a few more years. Besides all that, we have been under Medicare since we both retired at 65, and have benefited from only paying the necessary co-pays for doctor, drugs, lab, and other health care services. I was treated from prostate cancer a several years ago, and at that time radiation treatment costs were between $35,000 and $50,000 according to the research I did on the net. (Since it was a national survey, I believe those of us living in Silicon Valley pays more or in the top range of that cost.) I didn't pay a penny during eight weeks of treatment. When I was in Austin visiting my son a couple of years ago, I had blood in my stool, so I called Kaiser, and they told me to go to emergency right away. The hospital's bill from Austin was over $1,300, and Kaiser paid only about a tenth of that as full payment. I didn't pay a dime.

Without Medicare, I would have been responsible to pay for that emergency room service.

ican doesn't know much of anything.

It's the only way he can justify his opinions about how taxation is theft. He has to convince himself he paid in more than he will get in return otherwise he is a socialistic thief.

I'll have to admit at being a socialistic thief; but the government/devil made me do it! LOL

Your argument is silly.

There are many people in the middle class who have been paid an average of $50,000 or more per year for 44 or more years. But that is irrelevant for comparison of the relative merits of FICA versus 3% US Bond investments. You are free to pick any yearly salary you think average for the middlle class. I'll then compute the FICA and 3% US Savings Bond equivalents for that salary. Then maybe you will finally learn that 3% US Savings Bond are superior to FICA investments.

Absent your alternate estimate of average 44 year income, my calculations based on an average annual income of $50,000 are good enough for a valid illustration of the relative merits of FICA versus comparable investments in 3% US Savings Bonds.

AND, don't forget FICA payments stop when you die. The 3% US Bond payments continue to the individual's heirs if the individual dies before he/she is 100 years old.

That is not irrelevant; that's the reason why 43% of workers have less than $10,000 in savings today. If you count the number that has no savings, that number goes up dramatically. That's FACT, not fiction, like your posts.

Show us how many Americans made $50,000 44-years ago that you used for your calculations. Also, show us how they invested those amounts when there were IRS rules disallowed those fixed amounts in those early years?

Here are some other FACTS missing from your calculations:

They do, don't they?

Most assumptions are silly. A family friend is gay and his fiance is a gay Republican. Both are dear to us.

Who is "us"? Last I heard you are single..

Why are you embarrassing yourself by asking who the us in my statement is? Go back and read what I wrote.

Dont need to, as I dont believe that we have the right to speak the mind of anyone but our mates, and my understanding is that you dont have one....

Sillier and sillier . . .

'"family", hawkeye, do try reading. Disowned your kids, have you?

It doesn't matter if they made $300,000 every year for 44 years. You can't claim they would have paid more in SS than the maximum SS collected in those years. You are a f**** idiot ican. You have been told and given links to the actual numbers and you persist in your fantasies. How do you manage to feed yourself on a day to day basis if you are this stupid?

His mommy feeds him.

I believe you just did.

Social Security On-Line offers this chart of the national average wage index for the period that ican is ranting about:


Year Index
1971 6,497.08
1972 7,133.80
1973 7,580.16
1974 8,030.76
1975 8,630.92
1976 9,226.48
1977 9,779.44
1978 10,556.03
1979 11,479.46
1980 12,513.46
1981 13,773.10
1982 14,531.34
1983 15,239.24
1984 16,135.07
1985 16,822.51
1986 17,321.82
1987 18,426.51
1988 19,334.04
1989 20,099.55
1990 21,027.98

When indexing an individual's earnings for benefit computation purposes, we must first determine the year of first eligibility for benefits. For retirement, eligibility is at age 62. If a person reaches age 62 in 2011, for example, then 2011 is the person's year of eligibility. We always index an individual's earnings to the average wage level two years prior to the year of first eligibility. Thus, for a person retiring at age 62 in 2011, we would index the person's earnings to the average wage index for 2009, or 40,711.61. We would multiply earnings in a year before 2009 by the ratio of 40,711.61 to the average wage index for that year; we would take earnings in 2009 or later at face value. (See two examples of indexed earnings.)