Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (72384)	1/17/2000 11:02:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Please, either become less arrogant, or less spectacularly wrong..... Do you think that might even be possible? LOL!! JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (72384)	1/17/2000 11:31:00 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Both of you might benefit by examining the information available direct from the Social Security Administration: ssa.gov It is actually rather complicated. For the average person, eligibility for standard disability insurance benefits is determined by the number of quarters any earnings caused a contribution to the Social Security trust fund. 40 Quarters of contributions are required. The quarters need not be consecutive. There are special provisions for disabled widows and widowers, and disabled children. Workers who have not contributed over a period of 40 quarters are generally ineligible. For those workers who have not contributed for 40 quarters, and who demonstrate financial need among other requirements, a federal/state co-operative program, called SSI, pays benefits. The SSI program is administered by each state. The benefits are determined by each state, subject to a minimum. COLA increases, for example, are not guaranteed under this program. In the 1990's, because of California budget restraints, many SSI payments were reduced and almost all saw no cost of living increases. Hope this helps.

To: Neocon who wrote (72384)	1/17/2000 12:45:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm trying (once again) to follow why anyone would dwell on these peripheral programs when it comes to SS. Its obvious SS is eating up way too much of any federal spending and the lions share of the $$ are the core beneficiaries... don't you agree? Cut waste if you want, and all these peripheral programs but that is small potatoes. I can't understand why the retirement age isn't raised to 72 immediately, can you? This is a real crisis for the young - the current recipients hardly paid anything - is it too much to ask for just a little honest leadership from Washington? Heres this again: Social Security Tax rates: FICAa SECA Maximum Taxable Earningsb 1940 1.00% -- $ 3,000 1950 1.50% -- $ 3,000 1960 3.00% 4.50% $ 4,800 1970 4.80% 6.90% $ 7,800 1980 6.13% 8.10% $ 25,900 1990 7.65% 15.30% $ 51,300 1997 7.65% 15.30% $ 65,400 (OASDI) No limit for HI Message 12583794