gamb00ler

NO! You did not understand that article correctly. Read it again... it addresses the gap between the payouts and the replenishment from current contributions. The gap is real but your assumption that the gap is covered from general government revenues is INCORRECT! The gap is covered by a slow contraction of the SS/Medicare trust funds. The SS/Medicare funds initially built up a very large reserve when the demographics of working population were much more tilted towards younger contributors. As the baby boomers started to retire, the outflow of benefits began to exceed the inflow of contributions. As a result the large reserve declined probably starting prior to 2010. But... the reserves are still there but quickly declining. The reserves will be totally spent in about 10 years from now. EVEN THEN current law will not allow general government revenue to cover the shortfall.... this will cause the SS benefits to be reduced by about 20%.

You're correct that employers pay 50%... I stated that in my previous responses in this thread. I was never an employee so I funded 100% of my benefit. But that 50% from the employer is like a forced retirement contribution that matches the employees contribution. It is not a tax that goes into the government's general funds. Both contributions go into the SS/Medicare trust funds which can only be used to fund benefits to the qualified contributors. That's the legal environment under which employment takes place in the USA. None of those funds ever could be available to anyone's children unless given to them by the employer or employee. If you wish to live in a lawless land.... you've come to the right place.

That's not a realistic view at all..... your employment exists in an environment where you and the employer are subject to the laws of the land. One of those laws is that the employer has no option other than to pay the FICA. So.... there is no lost "potential" wage in a land of laws.

I think that may be more than 100% wrong. SS is completely funded by contributions collected from employed people via the FICA taxes and a tad bit more from the tax some people pay on their SS benefits. Those collected funds belong 100% to those who contributed through payroll deductions based upon wages/salaries already paid. Your ignorance is truly stunning.

I think you need to read the details about FICA deductions a few more times. The money you contributed towards SS benefits (and Medicare) was not subjected to Federal income tax. Those funds have never been taxed. The amount of FICA taxes you paid were deducted from your wage/salary income and income tax was levied on the remainder after that deduction. If you were self-employed you paid 100% of the FICA taxes but if you earned a salary/wage you only paid 50% of FICA and your employer paid the other 50%. To make it 100% clear... if you earned $1000/week you paid about 75$ in FICA tax and so did your employer. You paid income tax on only (1000-75) 925$ and all of the $150 went into the SS and Medicare trust funds. I don't think federal income tax was charged on any of the funds that were paid into the SS/Medicare trust funds. When qualified contributors reached retirement age they receive Medicare and retirement benefits. Only the retirement benefits are taxed after some exemption and the marginal tax rate is never higher than 85% of the regular marginal income tax rate.

He knows who he's talking to.

When you pay the FICA taxes that fund SS.... you don't pay tax on what essentially are the premiums that fund your retirement benefits. The money that employed people pay into SS Trust funds was not taxed when earned. All my FICA taxes came from self-employment but I'm sure that employers also don't pay income tax on the 50% of the FICA taxes that they send to the government on behalf of the employees.

Essentially the tax on SS benefits makes the SS program slightly more progressive in that the taxpayers with lower incomes get to keep more of their benefits than those with higher incomes.

He has probably confused ill-informed opinions with "facts" and doesn't realize that non-fiction books generally contain the data supporting the facts.

Obviously spoken by someone who has never done their own taxes and is completely unfamiliar with the details of the interaction between a higher standard deduction and net tax payable. Remember to periodically alternate which foot is in your mouth so that you don't end up hobbling around permanently.

lol. Most Drugs aren’t carried across the Southern border….. they’re hidden in cargo. Wake up FFS

Those threads are like the soapy water I spray on the pests in the garden. Do you get the picture?

I'm so glad you stopped pretending to have rational thoughts.

.....and your mommy tied an idiot string to your mittens so you couldn't lose them. Have you not improved since your pre-school years? I hope so! Well, so has the world's knowledge of COVID compared to the first go-round!

I think that is a rather narrow view of the motivations that Canadians felt at the outbreak of WWII. I grew up in a very rural part of Canada surrounded by a real melting pot of English, Irish, Scottish, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Danish, Czech, Ukrainian etc farmers. Most of those were second generation immigrants with some first or later generations as well. Being born in '53, of course I never discussed WWII with them but I knew later generations as being very family oriented and still maintaining ties to their 'mother' countries.

Do you know the business end of a shovel from the other?

Do you argue with the insects that find a home in your garden?

Especially in Trump's case because his money either was inherited, grifted or the result of off loading personal debts to his soon to be bankruptcy bound businesses.

Because your extrapolations are based on a distorted interpretation of reality, they are laughable at best.

Probably the only reason you don't cut and paste is because there are no publications dumb enough to provide material you would find suitable.

retired to TH to obsess about Trump opponents

It was the same result for me in Nov '21. I took passport, bank book, Thai DL and residence certificate (COR) to the TRD office in Nong Hoi, CM. The COR I had was an extra one I asked for when I got one to open a bank account. All done in 20 minutes. I have bank accounts at 4 Thai banks. None of them do any tax withholding from interest now.

I've sent >> 10K US$ dozens of times. The only extra attention received was one time when the receiving Thai bank called to ask if I wanted to exchange for ฿ immediately or wait.

I don't deal with Barclays, but their website shows total fees for a SWIFT transfer to Thailand are 37 GBP. Don't let Barclay's do the exchange. Check the Thai bank's exchange rate... not Barclays. The WISE website shows they would charge 108 GBP for a single transfer of 18,180 GBP (800k baht). This doesn't seem to be a difficult decision. https://www.barclays.co.uk/ways-to-bank/international-payments/s-t/

And they're extra protected by the double layer tinfoil hat.