Because, Nordic Countries

[17thfabn]

7 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

My experience with folks of that age is that they don't believe they will get any Social Security retirement, anyway.

I was 22 when the age for my group was raised to 67 for full retirement. It was 1983.  Billy Idol's "White Wedding", The Police's "Every Breath You Take (The Stalker Song)" and ZZ Top's "Sharp Dressed Man" were at the top of the charts. The long national nightmare that was disco had ended. The company I worked for offered an IRA with a 25% match on the first 6%. I wasn't making much, but the 6% out of the paycheck wasn't a big deal. 40 years latter it is a nice chunk of change.

In 1983 the social security system was in much worse shape than it is now. Most of us 20 and 30 somethings didn't think social security would be there by our time. Yet it still slogs on. 

A quick fix would be to lift the upper range you stop paying social security on. It is currently $176,000. Would effect about 6 % of the U.S. population. They could add in a fourth bend point to keep payouts down for the added money coming in. It is always popular to soak the high earners. 

[Ivanhoe]

Not a good look for Norway;

 

https://forsvarfolkeretten.no/2025/05/28/request-for-the-arrest-of-netanyahu-adviser/

Quote

The organizations Defend International Law, Jewish Voices for a Just Peace, and The Palestine Committee of Norway have submitted a request for the arrest of Israeli citizen Hananya Naftali, who is visiting Norway to participate in events organized by With Israel for Peace (MIFF) and the political party Konservativt.

 

[Rick]

On 5/27/2025 at 8:52 PM, 17thfabn said:

I was 22 when the age for my group was raised to 67 for full retirement. It was 1983.  Billy Idol's "White Wedding", The Police's "Every Breath You Take (The Stalker Song)" and ZZ Top's "Sharp Dressed Man" were at the top of the charts. The long national nightmare that was disco had ended. The company I worked for offered an IRA with a 25% match on the first 6%. I wasn't making much, but the 6% out of the paycheck wasn't a big deal. 40 years latter it is a nice chunk of change.

In 1983 the social security system was in much worse shape than it is now. Most of us 20 and 30 somethings didn't think social security would be there by our time. Yet it still slogs on. 

A quick fix would be to lift the upper range you stop paying social security on. It is currently $176,000. Would effect about 6 % of the U.S. population. They could add in a fourth bend point to keep payouts down for the added money coming in. It is always popular to soak the high earners. 

An old, long, and most importantly, an accurate post about the Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security.

"

Social Security Ripoff

January 29, 2007,

A few weeks ago I got my annual "Your Social Security Statement" from the government. This is a statement carefully crafted to look like it’s telling you a lot while at the same time covering up Social Security’s dirty little secret. But with a spreadsheet and 5 minutes of work, one can figure out what is really going on.

The statement shows the total of my social security taxes paid into the system, including the employer share. It also shows my taxed earnings per year, and my "benefits." The main benefit is the monthly annuity payment Social Security will make to me after I retire. My statement shows that $140,139 total taxes have been paid into the system on my behalf over the last 25 years. Based on these taxes and (this is important) the assumption I and my employer will continue to pay in at least $7440 per year until I retire, I can expect an annuity at retirement age of 67 (under current law, which the statement makes clear can be changed at any time) of $1,985 per month.

So I built a spreadsheet (click to download excel file), going back to my first year of employment. Each year, I added the social security taxes to savings, and grew the accumulated balance by some interest rate. For past years I used actuals from the report, for future years I used the $7440 tax number the report uses to calculate the social security payout.

This allowed me to answer a question: If I had been able to take these social security taxes and instead put them in a savings plan, and then took the accumulated balance out at age 67 and bought an annuity (at current rates), what would be my monthly payment? Well, assuming a very conservative after-tax rate of return of 5%, I would have $1,077,790 at age 67 to buy an annuity, which at current rates quoted on the Vanguard site, would give me $7,789 a month until I die. This return is just about four times the amount I get from having the Social Security Administration manage the money for me instead. Ugh. Also note that I did not assume "risky" equity investments or whatever straw man anti-reformers are using nowadays. If I assume a higher return of 8% (the stock market in the 90’s returned something like 18%) then my annuity will be $17,860 per month, or 9 times the Social Security payout. Double ugh.

In fact, this all opens up the obvious question, what actual rate of return is Social Security paying out on your "premiums?" Well, in fact we can calculate this with the same spreadsheet. I plugged in 2% for the interest rate. No go — resulting annuity is to high. Then I plugged in 1%. Still too high. Could the government be paying you 0% on your money? I plugged that in. Still too high. In fact, the implied rate of return on my money in the Social Security system is -0.8% a year. In other words, not only is the government not paying me any interest, they are charging me to hold my money."

"

Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior economic adviser, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, professor of Economics at Boston University document the looming Social Security and Medicare crises in "Is War Between Generations Inevitable?". They report that "A male reaching 65 years of age today (in 2000, the year of their study) can expect to receive $71,000 more in government 'transfer' benefits (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels, but mainly from Social Security and Medicare) than he will pay in taxes (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels) before he dies. A 65-year-old female can expect a net gain of more than twice that amount; she can expect $163,000 more in benefits than she will pay in taxes.

The picture is not so rosy for people who entered the labor force in 2000. They will pay far more in taxes than they will receive from transfer programs. Expansion of elderly handouts, such as prescription drugs, will make things worse. "For example: A 20-year-old female can expect to pay $92,000 more in taxes than she will receive in transfer benefits over her lifetime. The future looks more than three times as bleak for her male cohort, who can expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he will ever receive in benefits."

Why is Social Security a better deal for today's seniors? Just look at what they paid in. From 1937 to 1949, the maximum annual Social Security tax was $60. It remained under $200 until 1956. After 1956, Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance was added and in 1966, Medicare was added. It wasn't until 1969 that maximum Social Security taxes exceeded $2,000. Today, the maximum annual Social Security tax is $13,000 and the maximum annual benefit is $25,000.

As with any Ponzi scheme, the people who get on board early make out. This is pointed out by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler of the Congressional Research Service in their report "Social Security Reform" (October 2002) They say, "Until recent years, Social Security recipients received more, often far more, than the value of the Social Security taxes they paid. ... For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years." My question is: How can anyone who draws out every penny he's put into Social Security in a few years say that he's not living at the expense of another?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/who-cares-about-our-future.html

 

[17thfabn]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

An old, long, and most importantly, an accurate post about the Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security.

"

Social Security Ripoff

January 29, 2007,

A few weeks ago I got my annual "Your Social Security Statement" from the government. This is a statement carefully crafted to look like it’s telling you a lot while at the same time covering up Social Security’s dirty little secret. But with a spreadsheet and 5 minutes of work, one can figure out what is really going on.

The statement shows the total of my social security taxes paid into the system, including the employer share. It also shows my taxed earnings per year, and my "benefits." The main benefit is the monthly annuity payment Social Security will make to me after I retire. My statement shows that $140,139 total taxes have been paid into the system on my behalf over the last 25 years. Based on these taxes and (this is important) the assumption I and my employer will continue to pay in at least $7440 per year until I retire, I can expect an annuity at retirement age of 67 (under current law, which the statement makes clear can be changed at any time) of $1,985 per month.

So I built a spreadsheet (click to download excel file), going back to my first year of employment. Each year, I added the social security taxes to savings, and grew the accumulated balance by some interest rate. For past years I used actuals from the report, for future years I used the $7440 tax number the report uses to calculate the social security payout.

This allowed me to answer a question: If I had been able to take these social security taxes and instead put them in a savings plan, and then took the accumulated balance out at age 67 and bought an annuity (at current rates), what would be my monthly payment? Well, assuming a very conservative after-tax rate of return of 5%, I would have $1,077,790 at age 67 to buy an annuity, which at current rates quoted on the Vanguard site, would give me $7,789 a month until I die. This return is just about four times the amount I get from having the Social Security Administration manage the money for me instead. Ugh. Also note that I did not assume "risky" equity investments or whatever straw man anti-reformers are using nowadays. If I assume a higher return of 8% (the stock market in the 90’s returned something like 18%) then my annuity will be $17,860 per month, or 9 times the Social Security payout. Double ugh.

In fact, this all opens up the obvious question, what actual rate of return is Social Security paying out on your "premiums?" Well, in fact we can calculate this with the same spreadsheet. I plugged in 2% for the interest rate. No go — resulting annuity is to high. Then I plugged in 1%. Still too high. Could the government be paying you 0% on your money? I plugged that in. Still too high. In fact, the implied rate of return on my money in the Social Security system is -0.8% a year. In other words, not only is the government not paying me any interest, they are charging me to hold my money."

"

Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior economic adviser, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, professor of Economics at Boston University document the looming Social Security and Medicare crises in "Is War Between Generations Inevitable?". They report that "A male reaching 65 years of age today (in 2000, the year of their study) can expect to receive $71,000 more in government 'transfer' benefits (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels, but mainly from Social Security and Medicare) than he will pay in taxes (of all kinds at both the federal and state levels) before he dies. A 65-year-old female can expect a net gain of more than twice that amount; she can expect $163,000 more in benefits than she will pay in taxes.

The picture is not so rosy for people who entered the labor force in 2000. They will pay far more in taxes than they will receive from transfer programs. Expansion of elderly handouts, such as prescription drugs, will make things worse. "For example: A 20-year-old female can expect to pay $92,000 more in taxes than she will receive in transfer benefits over her lifetime. The future looks more than three times as bleak for her male cohort, who can expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he will ever receive in benefits."

Why is Social Security a better deal for today's seniors? Just look at what they paid in. From 1937 to 1949, the maximum annual Social Security tax was $60. It remained under $200 until 1956. After 1956, Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance was added and in 1966, Medicare was added. It wasn't until 1969 that maximum Social Security taxes exceeded $2,000. Today, the maximum annual Social Security tax is $13,000 and the maximum annual benefit is $25,000.

As with any Ponzi scheme, the people who get on board early make out. This is pointed out by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler of the Congressional Research Service in their report "Social Security Reform" (October 2002) They say, "Until recent years, Social Security recipients received more, often far more, than the value of the Social Security taxes they paid. ... For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years." My question is: How can anyone who draws out every penny he's put into Social Security in a few years say that he's not living at the expense of another?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/who-cares-about-our-future.html

I'm not defending the system.

Social security is very loaded to help those at the bottom. The formula for calculating benefits is very complex. There are factors to adjust for inflation. 

This is not exact. But some one making around $20,000 a year on average adjusted for inflation most of their life will probably get around $18,000 a year. If you made twice that you may only get 40% more. If you made three times as much you may only get 60% more. Higher earners subsidize low earners. 

[Ivanhoe]

Another factor is that the COLAs for existing recipients doesn't keep up with inflation. My father surprisingly retired at the age of 57 or 58, in the mid 1980s. It appeared to make sense, as his life expectancy at the time was only 68. He lived into his early 90s, so one might think he drained the coffers of far more than he paid in. The reality, though, was that in 2019 his SSI check was only in the neighborhood of $600. Due to unexpected* longevity he received more than he paid in, but not by massive amounts. 

* Unexpected by the SSA's actuaries, but most normies at the time would have predicted he would make it into his mid to late 70s. 

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Another factor is that the COLAs for existing recipients doesn't keep up with inflation. My father surprisingly retired at the age of 57 or 58, in the mid 1980s. It appeared to make sense, as his life expectancy at the time was only 68. He lived into his early 90s, so one might think he drained the coffers of far more than he paid in. The reality, though, was that in 2019 his SSI check was only in the neighborhood of $600. Due to unexpected* longevity he received more than he paid in, but not by massive amounts. 

With even a modest rate of return, say the Treasury bill rate he would have had far more money than what he received over 30 years. As I said before, for the average earner, they would get far more if the money they and their employer paid into the system was invested in a conservative manner. Part of this is due to subsidizing low earners, people who have to retire on disability, and orphans. 

[Ivanhoe]

Not a good look for Norway;

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-807744

Quote

Model and actor Enok Groven, 40, had come to Israel in March to help the IDF with logistics through the Sar-El program. The Christian Norwegian said that he had been inspired to prepare food rations and sort uniforms for several weeks after watching the footage of rescuers when they first entered the grounds of the Nova music festival, where hundreds of attendees were slaughtered and wounded by Hamas terrorists on October 7.

 

Quote

 

The Slit ‘an Vintage shop was tagged with graffiti several times even before Groven had returned home. “Zionist” was spray painted in yellow across the storefront, and another time “Child murderer, stay where you are” was scrawled across the window.

The glass door has been broken by vandals, and two anti-Israel activists attempted to jump on the shop window to break it, Groven claimed. When they failed, they allegedly went to another second-hand shop with pro-Israel owners and broke their window instead.

 

ISTR reading something about window breaking in a history book.

[Yama]

Euro Jackpot is a pan-European lottery which offers some of the biggest jackpots in Europe. In 2014, an elderly Finnish retiree from Helsinki won 61 million Euros in it.

In a truly bizarre twist, the winner turned out to be a retired SUPO agent and he used the jackpot (or most of it, anyway) to fund Finnish security services counter-intelligence operations. The man was described as being top analyst in the trade, who had uncovered around 25 Russian cover operatives during his career. He died last year, and this year journalists got whiff of the scheme as part of larger investigation about security police operations and their legality.

Coincidentally (?), 61 million is roughly equivalent to SUPO's annual budget.

 

Edited October 11, 2025 by Yama

[Tim Sielbeck]