• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minimum Wage vs Living Wage

cpwill said:
Oh. You mean sort of like Social Security, where the payments depend on how much you put in?
Click to expand...

But only up to a point, right? The maximum SS benefit, and you only get it if you wait until yer 70, is about $43K annually. If you retire at 62, you can get only $25K.
 
jaeger19 said:
1. No because people on social security often take out WAY WAY WAY.. more money than they put in. Meanwhile.. folks like me.. will put in way way way.. more than we take out.
Click to expand...

....no.

The extent to which a pension program is or is not crappy is not a defining feature that determines whether or not it is a pension program.

The fact remains that what you get out of OASI is determined by what you put in.

2. No.. because they are both social security.
Click to expand...

Both fall under the SSA, but are different programs. SSDI functions as insurance. OASI functions as a pension.

Incidentally, SSDI also is calculated based on what you put in. You really probably should abandon that argument.

3. No not really.. because if your spouse also qualifies for social security.. she doesn't get yours as well. one or the other.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that at that point she gets her OASI payment plus 50% of yours. It doesn't impact whether or not an item is definitionally a pension, but it would be interesting to see - can you cite your claim here?

4. And if the pension fund runs out. they are screwed.[/qutoe]

If it is a pension fund that runs out, yes. Many pension programs, however, do not run out, but are designed to last for the rest of the individual (and their survivors') life. Like, for example, the US military pension, and social security.

And if the pension fund runs out. they are screwed. Meanwhile.. despite what americans have put in over the years.. they will still get their social security checks despite outliving what they put in. Just like insurance.
Click to expand...

Actually it's just like a defined benefit pension plan. Again, the example of the military pension plan demonstrates the falseness of this attempted definitional boundary. You pay nothing. The military pays 3% of your base pay for 20 years, and then you get 50% of your high-three for the rest of your life (typically another 20-30 years), along with an attached benefits package. So the very first check you get you have already made back more than you paid in, and surviving a handful of years means you collect more than was paid in on your behalf.

Later Edit: I went back and ran a quick scenario. For an enlisted career, you draw out more in benefits than was paid in in about the first year of your pension.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
....no.

The extent to which a pension program is or is not crappy is not a defining feature that determines whether or not it is a pension program.

The fact remains that what you get out of OASI is determined by what you put in.



Both fall under the SSA, but are different programs. SSDI functions as insurance. OASI functions as a pension.

Incidentally, SSDI also is calculated based on what you put in. You really probably should abandon that argument.



My understanding is that at that point she gets her OASI payment plus 50% of yours. It doesn't impact whether or not an item is definitionally a pension, but it would be interesting to see - can you cite your claim here?

4. And if the pension fund runs out. they are screwed.[/qutoe]

If it is a pension fund that runs out, yes. Many pension programs, however, do not run out, but are designed to last for the rest of the individual (and their survivors') life. Like, for example, the US military pension, and social security.



Actually it's just like a defined benefit pension plan. Again, the example of the military pension plan demonstrates the falseness of this attempted definitional boundary. You pay nothing. The military pays 3% of your base pay for 20 years, and then you get 50% of your high-three for the rest of your life (typically another 20-30 years), along with an attached benefits package. So the very first check you get you have already made back more than you paid in, and surviving a handful of years means you collect more than was paid in on your behalf.

Later Edit: I went back and ran a quick scenario. For an enlisted career, you draw out more in benefits than was paid in in about the first year of your pension.
Click to expand...

I see.. so you are saying that if I put in 20,000 in my lifetime.. then I can draw only that money and what its earned?

Oh wait.. social security doesn;t work that way.. but my retirement does.

HMMM.

2. both function as insurance. And just like insurance you get a payout based on your premium that you paid in. but what you get is NOT what you paid in. In some cases.. you will never get out what you paid in.. in some cases you will get more money than I paid in which is how insurance works.

Not so my retirement.

I think this argument is working just fine.

3. Social security is not a pension fund.. its an insurance. Its even called an insurance

You are simply being obtuse.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah this doesn't make any sense cpwill, sorry.

A pension is a pension. Social security is not a pension. Social security is a form of insurance. People pay into it, and they are only compensated if and when they meet the criteria for compensation. A pension is an investment fund, it is ridiculous to equivocate SS to a pension on that basis alone.
 
jaeger19 said:
I see.. so you are saying that if I put in 20,000 in my lifetime.. then I can draw only that money and what its earned?
Click to expand...

No. That's a savings account.

Oh wait.. social security doesn;t work that way.. but my retirement does.
Click to expand...

Then your retirement is a savings account. Or a pension with a particularly ugly cap :shrug:

Which, again, is not a defining feature of "pensions".

This, for example: is how rapidly "what is paid in" is paid out for an enlisted military pension:

Pension.jpg

You will notice that it lasted less than a single year. And yet that pension benefit - and it is indeed a pension - will continue for the rest of the members' life, and then be inheritable by his survivors.

2. both function as insurance.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. SSDI transfers risk of individually unforeseeable events that are catastrophic in nature. OASI does not. OASI, instead, functions as a pension.

And just like insurance you get a payout based on your premium that you paid in.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case it is like a pension :)

But I like how you are desperately attempting now to shift, having been proven wrong, from your previous position that having a pay out that was determined by pay-in was a function of a pension, rather than insurance :lol:

Silly Jaeger.jpg


I think this argument is working just fine.
Click to expand...

You were wrong both about OASI and SSDI, as you claimed (see above) that being paid out according to what you had paid in was a function of pensions, as opposed to Social Security, which was insurance :D

3. Social security is not a pension fund.. its an insurance. Its even called an insurance
Click to expand...

Sure. And North Korea is called a Democratic Republic.

Function is controlling in deciding what something actually is. Not the title. OASI functions as a crappy pension program. That's what it is.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
No. That's a savings account.



Then your retirement is a savings account. Or a pension with a particularly ugly cap :shrug:

Which, again, is not a defining feature of "pensions".

This, for example: is how rapidly "what is paid in" is paid out for an enlisted military pension:

View attachment 67203477

You will notice that it lasted less than a single year. And yet that pension benefit - and it is indeed a pension - will continue for the rest of the members' life, and then be inheritable by his survivors.



That is incorrect. SSDI transfers risk of individually unforeseeable events that are catastrophic in nature. OASI does not. OASI, instead, functions as a pension.



Actually in this case it is like a pension :)

But I like how you are desperately attempting now to shift, having been proven wrong, from your previous position that having a pay out that was determined by pay-in was a function of a pension, rather than insurance :lol:

View attachment 67203478




You were wrong both about OASI and SSDI, as you claimed (see above) that being paid out according to what you had paid in was a function of pensions, as opposed to Social Security, which was insurance :D



Sure. And North Korea is called a Democratic Republic.

Function is controlling in deciding what something actually is. Not the title. OASI functions as a crappy pension program. That's what it is.
Click to expand...

whatever.. no its not..

Its insurance.. it was designed like insurance.. it works like insurance.. its even called insurance.

You are simply being obtuse.

Tell me.. what does the I in OASI stand for?

Hint.. its not "pension".
 
cpwill said:
No, the combined income that has to exceed $25K. Combined income includes monies received from Social Security. Specifically the formula is (AGI)+(Non-Taxable Interest)+((Social Security Benefits)/2).
Click to expand...

The maximum social security disbursement is currently $2639, which equates to $31668 annually. Using the formula provided, a person receiving the maximum benefit would be subject to taxation on $15834. After deductions, it would be pressing to see much of a tax bill at all.

In the event that the recipient $2083 or less, they will not be taxed. The same cannot be said for one receiving a pension of the same amount.


And I would still like to know whether or not you are willing to admit that you were incorrect earlier that a defining characteristic of pensions was that they did not have limits on survivorship.
Click to expand...

Defining characteristic? It is a glaring difference between a pension and O.A.S.I.. One is property, the other is social insurance.
 
cpwill said:
No. That's a savings account.



Then your retirement is a savings account. Or a pension with a particularly ugly cap :shrug:

Which, again, is not a defining feature of "pensions".

This, for example: is how rapidly "what is paid in" is paid out for an enlisted military pension:

View attachment 67203477

You will notice that it lasted less than a single year. And yet that pension benefit - and it is indeed a pension - will continue for the rest of the members' life, and then be inheritable by his survivors.



That is incorrect. SSDI transfers risk of individually unforeseeable events that are catastrophic in nature. OASI does not. OASI, instead, functions as a pension.



Actually in this case it is like a pension :)

But I like how you are desperately attempting now to shift, having been proven wrong, from your previous position that having a pay out that was determined by pay-in was a function of a pension, rather than insurance :lol:

View attachment 67203478




You were wrong both about OASI and SSDI, as you claimed (see above) that being paid out according to what you had paid in was a function of pensions, as opposed to Social Security, which was insurance :D



Sure. And North Korea is called a Democratic Republic.

Function is controlling in deciding what something actually is. Not the title. OASI functions as a crappy pension program. That's what it is.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you two are discussing...but whatever it is...someone has unleashed a wave of data/multi-quotes that is cpwill when he gets a head of steam going in a debate.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

'Release the Kraken!!!'

;) j/k
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
whatever.. no its not..

Its insurance.. it was designed like insurance.. it works like insurance.. its even called insurance.

You are simply being obtuse.
Click to expand...

The only one of those sentences that is true is "it's even called insurance."

Tell me.. what does the I in OASI stand for?

Hint.. its not "pension".
Click to expand...

You must have missed this part:

cpwill said:
Function is controlling in deciding what something actually is. Not the title. OASI functions as a crappy pension program. That's what it is.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what its title is, it is far more like a pension than it is like any other thing we have a word for. It is only "like insurance" insofar as every other pension could also be said to be "like insurance."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom