Who is able and going to put the SS increase into savings

Vida May said:
I have Social Security and Supplemental Social Income. If I have more than $2000, my payment is cut until I am below $2000. I get punished for being frugal and $2000 hardly covers the cost of moving or some car repairs. To me, the system we have penalizes low-income people and it is not very intelligent because it keeps me in a constant state of insecurity.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what happens to me, in a similar way. I only have regular SS pension benefits, but since i was a housewife for most of my life, I do not get much SS benefits.
Whatever they add to my SS benefit, the government then takes out of my EBT benefits, so I actually do not ever get any real increases in being able to have money to cover rising costs of everything .
The government gives with one hand and takes away with the other at the same time. This happens every year, and it makes no sense to me.
If we need more money to have the cost of living increase, then why take it away from the low income person who actually needs it the most?
 

mathjak107 said:
I never meant to apologize as stating a fact requires no apology.

not working is a personal choice , raising a family is a personal choice ..all our kids have great careers and work ,that was there choice .

everyone we knew in my own generation worked while raising a family unless they were wealthy .

my mom was disabled from a massive attack giving birth to my sister .

even she worked from home while taking care of the home taking in typing from companies .

so while no one is saying it is easy raising a family millions do it while working ..

but all that still has nothing to do with what the poster claimed about being penalized .

social security is a user funded insurance program .

it is means tested by how much one gets per dollar paid in by income earned .

the lower the income the greater the payment you get per dollar you paid , plus ssi is welfare .

so it rubs me the wrong way when someone claims they are penalized when clearly they are getting far more then they paid in to collect .

the key word here is social security is user funded
Click to expand...

You are the one with started your post "sorry" so I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to apologize. Maybe the the question should be were you there front and center with doing the baths, the homework, reading before bedtime. Cooking the dinner, doing the dishes, putting a load of towels in the washing machine so you could dry them in the morning. Did you unload the dishwasher in the morning, did you get the kid up for school, fix the breakfast, do the dishes, take the kid to school, make the beds, put the trash out, get something out of the freezer and plan for dinner. My husband did not realize all these things had to happen, it was just a given, it was like a miracle, it had nothing to do with me. I kid you not, he had no clue. The only thing he saw was how life was supposed to be.

I then went off to work a full time job, might I say that also provided the health insurance for our family. I will never understand a man that does not think a mother and homemaker does not need and deserve social security that provides enough for her to have a decent life. No, I am not in that position. I had a job, that back in the day had a thing called profit sharing. I was the one that made sure something went into the retirement accounts every month. I was the one handling all the bills. I was also very savy money wise, I could run a home on a dime when needed. I was the one that made sure something went into savings emergency fund every month. I was the one that went without so our son had everything he needed including those stupid expensive sneakers to fit in.

I was the one that put money aside so we could attend my husband's family reunions, where we spent thousands of dollars of dollars on a 3 day trip. I was the one that saved all that money so when he got cancer we did not have to worry. I am angry, you bet, after all the hard work, all the planning, all the dreams for retirement, I sit here alone because he would not got to the doctor because he did not want to take time off from work.

So, yeah, I am a bit twisted but do not think that a woman that was a full time Mom and homemaker did not earn her due. I know few men that could handle a job outside the home and also the duties of a homemaker. I don't know you, if you were/are married, if you had children, if you wife worked or was a homemaker but I give credit where credit is due.
 
yes actually i did do my share as both my wife and i worked.

but this discussion has nothing to do with anyone persons situation .

it simply has to do with a claim that someone said they were penalized because they get both social security and welfare which is what ssi is and they felt it wasnt enough . they may even reduce one because of the welfare .

and the answer is , no your are not penalized at all and are receving more per dollar paid in then higher earners .

nothing else about raising a family is involved here . the whys of someones situation are not involved here be it family , health or other wise ..

only the facts of what they said are incorrect .

it is as off base as saying i am getting tax payer money but i am being cheated because i should get more tax payer money .

it is a statement that make no sense .

one may feel it takes more to live then they get but that does not mean they are penalized when they are already getting more then just their earning records allow them to , compared to others who are part of the same social security system.

so we are not talking anyones situation , its merely the facts about how things work , whether you think its a good or bad thing how it works is irrelevant as it is what it is . which is a user funded insurance program that pays lower wage earners more per dollar paid in then high wage earners ..

whether the amount suits you has no bearing …. I think I should get more from ss then they pay too .but irrelevant
 

Last edited:
I get where you are coming from but don't agree with what the system is coming from. I say these people, and sometimes might be men. If a decision have to be made that someone must be home to take care of the home and children, they should not be penalized based on income outside of the home.
When there are children that must be cared for with disabilties one parent should be available to take care of that child. Even if the working parent is able to provide the neccessary income for the child and the home the other parent should not be penalized for being out of the so called working place.

They should be granted the same in SS in benefit. IMO, parents that deicde that a parent at home is the best thing for their child/children should not be be subject to a lesser social security than others. True, they have made the choice but if they have never relied on public benefits to raise their family, they should be entitled to to full benefits as any other working family. IMO I will say I am not expert in these laws and would never claim to be so. I just know there are women out there that would have to preferred to work outside the home but were prevented to do so because of their husbands view of the world.

It is horrible to say they are some men, even today, that don't want/allow their wifes to work outside the home. For many years I worked with women who husband's would call the office on payday, they wanted to come pick up the wife's paycheck as soon as she got it. It made me want to cry every time.That their husband felt the need to keep them so dependent, so under control, that had no rights to decide how the money she earned was spent It is was/is something that no person should tolerate, female or male. It is abuse, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Like I said , in my opinion not working is a personal choice … millions of us worked and or work and raise families so I don’t buy the old housewife argument .

in fact if we have to change anything to save social security I say start to get rid of spousal benefits and everyone eats what they kill .

it is an antiquated idea and benefits those married , while millions of single parents get nothing extra.

the ss system does not have the luxury of paying those more who didn’t even pay in enough to get what they are getting .

you have one ex husband paying spousal to multiple ex wives ….it is a marriage based system that is unfair to the unmarried.

it isn’t a welfare system , it is user funded and only those who fund it should participate in it in my opinion. All should be treated as singles as like I said millions are single and raising families.

why should they get less from ss then someone married who is collecting spousal Benefits .
 
Last edited:
mathjak107 said:
Like I said , in my opinion not working is a personal choice … millions of us work and raise families so I don’t buy the old housewife argument .

in fact if we have to change anything to save social security I say start to get rid of spousal benefits and everyone eats what they kill .

it is an antiquated idea and benefits those married , while millions of single parents get nothing extra.

the ss system does not have the luxury of paying those more who didn’t even pay in enough to get what they are getting .

you have one ex husband paying spousal to multiple ex wives ….it is a marriage based system that is unfair to the unmarried.

it isn’t a welfare system , it is user funded and only those who fund it should participate in it in my opinion. All should be treated as singles as like I said millions are single and raising families.

why should they get less from ss then someone married who is collecting spousal
Click to expand...

Sorry, I will have to revisit this tomorrow, have to go get some sleep.
 
Blessed said:
I would also say back in the day society expected women to run the house. Keep the home fires burning, clean house, laundry done, meals on the table, raise the kids and all that entails. In my case, my Mom was also in charge of a huge vegetable garden in the spring and summer. She did not plant it but did the everyday work to have a good harvest. There was the canning, freezing and processing of all that food that tooks us through the winter so we never felt without anything. She worked as hard even harder than my step dad.
Click to expand...
I agree that women worked as hard as men. My post was addressing the idea that men were privileged - both men and women had 'expected' roles.
 
I want to thank mathjak107 for publically announcing his opinion that I depend on welfare that I have not earned. Wow, that pissed me off and I finally have come back fighting. I don't want to hijack this thread I just want people who agree with mathjak that women do not deserve respect, dignity, and security from the civilization we live in, and therefore it is okay to trap them in complete insecurity if they must depend on SSI to supplement their Social Security.

This quote is from the philosophy forum where I have taken my fight for the dignity and honor women deserve.

"Teachers and nurses and secretaries did women's work for low wages because they were motivated by a notion of being good women who give all they have to their families and communities. If they got pay, their pay was more like a tip as what we give a waitress than a wage based on their merit and their need to support their families. They were so disrespected and taken for granted. Today women are no longer tolerating that painful reality as I have until today. This is a serious economic, social, and political problem. We all see that this is going to destroy our nations unless we can turn things around and we are at each other's throats politically pushing and shoving in power struggles that have nothing to do with reasoning, human dignity, respect, or being a democracy."
 
Last edited:
You keep twisting the discussion to fit your poor me agenda .

I only pointed out that between ssi and social security you are not being penalized at all …

but feel free to argue away but it has no bearing to what I comme need on.

you not feeling you are being given enough has nothing to do with your payments being penalized.

I love how you Worked in the I don’t respect women part .

the only thing missing with what you attributed to me saying is you didn’t start it with once upon a time
 
Wow - some very interesting discussions going on here while I was offline.

To begin with, I understand and agree with @mathjak107's main points. SS is basically a user funded pension plan structured to pay out to those who participate. SS eligibility is not a value judgment on the merit of various people's contributions to their families, the world at large, nor is it an estimation of how hard people worked.

An issue being glossed over here is that SS is funded not only by employee contributions, but also by employer contributions. Every dollar an employee puts into SSDI is matched by their employer, and that portion is NOT deducted from employee paychecks. It's part of a business' cost of having employees.

Stay at home parents are free to participate in SS. Just as people are legally mandated to do for nannies, housekeepers and the like, spouses can legally employ their spouses for stay at home work.

Those spouses can be remunerated for their work by those who benefit from it, i.e. their family. However, that family must behave as an employer, including paying payroll taxes. SS alone is 6.2% to the employer and another 6.2% to the employee, so 12.4% tax right off the top on the first $147K paid out per year.

Teachers, nurses, childcare workers, and other jobs traditionally filled by women offered lower salaries not because women voluntarily donated part of the their time as a philanthropic gesture but because the system (which is to say the men in charge) valued women's at lower rates of pay and could get away with paying them less. Happy to say, that situation has been improving over the years, though there are still many yards to go before we get to the finish line.

I've known women in these fields my entire life. Not a single one was happy to be paid less than male counterparts in jobs that required similar hours, education or dedication. They joined unions, went on strike, sued, and otherwise disrupted the system to get what they'd earned.
 
Last edited:
When I was in high school, a lot of girls wanted to go into teaching. They knew it didn't pay as well as other careers, but they wanted summers and school holidays off. They weren't victims - they weighed the pros and cons and made their choices.
 
perChance said:
I agree that women worked as hard as men. My post was addressing the idea that men were privileged - both men and women had 'expected' roles.
Click to expand...
How were men privileged? Are men still privileged? I don't want this to go to wage disparity just want to understand your thought that men were privileged.

Certainly can't compare the 50's to decades later when so many changes took place in the economy.

As for the ongoing discussion about women working at home for no wage that has nothing to do with earning a wage & paying into the Soc. Sec. system. My example of that is by choice my wife worked at home doing all the work & it was a lot of work until our sons were old enough to be left at home for a short period of time after school. She applied for & got a full time job in production. Wage & benefits were good. Both men & women earned the same pay for the job.

Both choices were just that choices. We have a common pot where our money is deposited. My wife has credit cards in her name with a score of 810. Rather than wonder about financial needs in retirement & senior years we took an active role in our future.
 
My SS increase is more than eaten up by inflation and also pending increases in the HOA fees.

@Vida May - sadly it has grown on me over the years that sometimes it best to be dishonest. I hate being dishonest but statistically men are extremely dishonest and the world has been shaped by them. What I would suggest is that when you can afford it, buy gift cards for yourself that don't expire and/or put cash under the mattress, so that you can build up a bigger emergency fund without being penalized. A $2000 limit is ridiculous and shame on legislatures that make laws like that, they obviously have not lived in economic insecurity.

They should adjust the laws, maybe they should make it similar to an HSA with rules about how the emergency fund can be used (like for car repairs and home repairs), and then allow it to be a more realistic amount.

I had a coworker frustrated by this too. She had a disabled daughter who had a low paying job and an old car, and the limit on savings was just so small that my coworker worried about her daughter's future all the time.
 
mathjak107 said:
advice for committing fraud
Click to expand...
LOL that is right, sorry if it offends you. By personality traits I am highly conscientious so it has taken many many years for me to be crushed down to the point of accepting the reality. I look back and laugh at myself once when I was questioned by the FBI for a security clearance and they asked me a hypothetical 'what would you do if' type question and my response was a flabbergasted 'but that would be illegal!'. Breaking laws was outside my concept of the universe.

But years of observing men at work, who fake results, lie, pretend, claim experience they don't have etc, and use all that dishonesty to get hired and promoted unjustly, and experiencing rules that only punish people who follow them while others are not suffering the effects -- like stupid Nebraska laws before online sites were applying state taxes, Nebraskans were required to remit state taxes themselves for their online purchases, and I remember grumbling about it at work and a [male of course] coworker said 'but nobody bothers to do that!'. Grrrr.

Here's a quote I found, I am not at all surprised, I've known so many men who want to be paid cash to avoid declaring income:
Roughly 30 percent of men are fine with lying to the IRS compared with 18 percent of women, and 25 percent of men were willing to lie for lower auto insurance rates compared with 16 percent of women.​
​
Twice as many men (16 percent vs. 8 percent) are fine with lying about their income on a credit card or loan application.​
​
“Some of the differences were much larger than we thought,” Richardson said.​
 
Last edited:
mathjak107 said:
Depends on where you stand now compared to the day you started retirement .
as well as your allocation.
As well as the draw rate you are taking
Click to expand...
I think that if you have a calculated monthly draw rate at the start of retirement, attacking that rate vigorously and consistently for as long as possible, as best you can, provides a margin of safety. Try as best you can to stay below the calculated draw each month, if you can.

So far, for the first 6 years of our combined retirement we have been able to do only RMD/12. Most retirement accounts are Roths, meaning that the RMD is ~6K per year.

We had initially calculated, or Schwab did, a $2500 per mo draw rate to allow my wife a 105 year covered lifespan. We found that due to other income sources we did not need to do this, and the draw rate for 2023 will be $450 per mo.

And no, I don't plan to spend my last cent as I take my last breath. That's what I used to say before we had a kid. I was almost 50 then, so it wasn't all that hard. I'd already done a lot of stuff.
 
Blessed said:
I am saving for tomorrow, I have a good life only because of saving. I often worry what would happen if I ran out of money. I don't want to think about having to sell the house, not have the ability to to feed myself and the dogs. I don't want to have to depend on my son to help me. It is just not my future, it is the son, his family and pets.
Click to expand...
EGGZ-ACTLY!!!
 
HoneyNut said:
LOL that is right, sorry if it offends you. By personality traits I am highly conscientious so it has taken many many years for me to be crushed down to the point of accepting the reality. I look back and laugh at myself once when I was questioned by the FBI for a security clearance and they asked me a hypothetical 'what would you do if' type question and my response was a flabbergasted 'but that would be illegal!'. Breaking laws was outside my concept of the universe.

But years of observing men at work, who fake results, lie, pretend, claim experience they don't have etc, and use all that dishonesty to get hired and promoted unjustly, and experiencing rules that only punish people who follow them while others are not suffering the effects -- like stupid Nebraska laws before online sites were applying state taxes, Nebraskans were required to remit state taxes themselves for their online purchases, and I remember grumbling about it at work and a [male of course] coworker said 'but nobody bothers to do that!'. Grrrr.

Here's a quote I found, I am not at all surprised, I've known so many men who want to be paid cash to avoid declaring income:
Roughly 30 percent of men are fine with lying to the IRS compared with 18 percent of women, and 25 percent of men were willing to lie for lower auto insurance rates compared with 16 percent of women.​
​
Twice as many men (16 percent vs. 8 percent) are fine with lying about their income on a credit card or loan application.​
​
“Some of the differences were much larger than we thought,” Richardson said.​
Click to expand...
Yes advocating fraud does offend me
 
mathjak107 said:
Yes advocating fraud does offend me
Click to expand...
Boy oh boy. This thread, and talk of money and taxation, reminds me of two very, very comical, but appropriate responses to each situation that I saw in two separate Japanese movies.

The first was from A Taxing Woman, a romantic comedy where a female tax agent, the Japanese equivalent of the IRS, is trying to catch a newly rich guy whom she suspects of cheating. And only in Japan would the hero or heroine be an IRS agent.

At one point he tells her, in exasperation:

"You don't know what it's like, what it took, to come from poverty to having several millions.

"It's like you're a man dying of thirst, and you are standing before a water tap with a drinking glass, but the water can only come out of the glass very slowly. So you put the glass under the tap and as you watch it slowly fill, you desperately want to pull the glass back and drink all the water that you've got in the glass. It would not be enough, and so you'd have to refill several times. There are several standing behind you and you'd have to go the end of the line and start again.

"But with great effort you watch the water slowly climb in the glass. You are tempted to pull it out and drink when it's half full, three quarters full, but you don't give up.

"You wait until the water has filled the glass and is flowing over. Then you lick the outside of the glass as it overflows.

"You never take the glass away."

That one was about how to save, and after I heard it, I actually adopted it. I still do it.

The other example was from a samurai movie, and it was from the point of view of a bunch of very poor villagers. The samurai were coming to collect taxes for the noble, and it was up to the samurai to judge how much to take and how much to leave.

So at one point a villager runs into the hut and says:

"The samurai are only about 10 minutes away!"

And a village elder says:

"Hide the rice, and act dumb!"

Boy, two great, great pieces of advice, huh? ;^)
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top