Author Topic: Who is the oldest member of GB?  (Read 23688 times)

The Italian Lifter

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3582
  • I need an English dictionary!
Re: Who is the oldest member of GB?
« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2013, 12:36:12 AM »


Mr. MB ---------- 73
V. Basile -------- 71
Primemuscle ----- 69
Backday --------- 63
Funk 51 --------- 62
Musclecenter ---- 61
Max Rep --------- 59
Buffdnet -------- 57
Ronnierep ------- 57
Wez ------------  56
Gymrat ---------  55
Tommywishbone - 52
WalterWhite ----- 52
Agnostic -------- 51
Dyslexic --------- 50
US MUSL -------- 50
Groink ---------- 49
AJ -------------- 48
Hazbin ---------- 48
Dr. Chimps ------ 47
Arce ------------ 44
Bigdumbbell ----- 43
Honest ---------- 42
Soul crusher ---- 38
North of Italy

DroppingPlates

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 49987
  • Team Pocahontas
Re: Who is the oldest member of GB?
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2013, 01:15:07 AM »

syntaxmachine

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2687
Re: Who is the oldest member of GB?
« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2013, 04:28:55 AM »
And what kind of shady business would that be? This probably means you aren't paying into your own SS. Good luck with that when you get old and want or need to draw on it.

1. Working such that you don't pay into SS doesn't necessarily entail a "shady" enterprise, so your comment is a bit odd. As a random example, traders' (those who buy and sell instruments and hold them less for a year) profits don't count as 'earned income' and thus are not subject to SS taxes. In my case, I work for an overseas entity and thus an exempt from SS taxes.

2. I'm not paying into my own SS benefits, nor would I be even if I were paying SS taxes: I'd be paying for current retirees' benefits. And a future generation will pay for my (probably reduced) benefits if I ever draw from the program.

3. Thanks for the good wishes. The fact is that I shouldn't need any SS benefits. The income is paltry (the average monthly benefit is a whopping (~)$1,200, and less than that for a disabled person). Needing such income in old age represents a catastrophic failure to employ the very basics of personal finance.

My stepdad was self employed. He under claimed he income for decades, which lowered what he paid into SS. When the time came that he was not able to be as productive as he once had been and he applied for SS, I got a bit of a sad shock.

Well, sorry bro.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40804
Re: Who is the oldest member of GB?
« Reply #203 on: November 27, 2013, 02:14:28 PM »
1. Working such that you don't pay into SS doesn't necessarily entail a "shady" enterprise, so your comment is a bit odd. As a random example, traders' (those who buy and sell instruments and hold them less for a year) profits don't count as 'earned income' and thus are not subject to SS taxes. In my case, I work for an overseas entity and thus an exempt from SS taxes.

2. I'm not paying into my own SS benefits, nor would I be even if I were paying SS taxes: I'd be paying for current retirees' benefits. And a future generation will pay for my (probably reduced) benefits if I ever draw from the program.

3. Thanks for the good wishes. The fact is that I shouldn't need any SS benefits. The income is paltry (the average monthly benefit is a whopping (~)$1,200, and less than that for a disabled person). Needing such income in old age represents a catastrophic failure to employ the very basics of personal finance.

Well, sorry bro.

It certainly appears that you have your future finances all figured out and that is great.

Social Security was never meant to be one's sole income after they retired. You are right SSI and SSD doesn't pay enough live a decent life in retirement unless one has other income too. My wife gets SSD. Her benefit is around $1,200 a month. I have SSI and my benefit is a little over $1,500 a month. We would have to seriously downgrade our lifestyle to get by on this if it were all we had coming in. Fortunately we also have retirement income as a result of years of investment which has allowed us to live the good life, as it were, in retirement.

Although you are right in that what one pays into SS is used to fund current recipients benefits, it also is goes into the formula for calculating one's own benefits at the time of retirement. Many people believe the system is in trouble. This has been talked about for decades and yet there continues to be funds to cover the costs. I do think that when we allow government to raid SS for other expenditures, we are making a mistake. You can argue that people should save for their own retirement, but historically, this has not happened for the bulk of the population. With the economy being what it is today, more people at the low end of middleclass, I doubt many folks are able to invest in their own futures. In the years before SS people took care of their own. That was a good system. I don't see it happening these days very often.