President Obama's September 8, 2011 Speech Begins At 7PM

[Mikeg]

.......Since the beginning of this year, [[and continuing on, if his plan is approved) the government instituted a "payroll tax break" for all working folks. Since I am a bookkeeper and do payroll, I discovered that this tax break is by way of decreased the amount of money that employees contribute into their Social Security fund. The employers amount did not decrease...just the employees.

So what does that mean? That means that even LESS money is going into Social Security for your retirement. Sure, it's a tax break right now...but if there is ANY hope of you getting Social Security when you retire, there will be less benefits available because you did not contribut the full amount from your paychecks.......I would rather have contributed fully so my monthly retirement benefit would be larger.

Your SS retirement benefit amount is based on your wage earning history, not your contributions made via withholding. Therefore, if everything else remains the same, this "payroll tax break" will not reduce the amount of your future monthly SS checks.

Here's a good reference article: How to Predict Your Social Security Payout

Here's the likely fallout from the deficit/debt crisis that will negatively effect us retirees and soon-to-be retirees: 5 Ways a Big Deficit Deal Will Whack Your Retirement

[Blueidone]

I stand corrected...thanks Mikeg for the information.

[oladub]

and guess whose wages HAVE gone up 26%? that's right, CEOs!

...and under Obama!

[mjs]

Firstandten, what's your basis for 8%? That would require 360,000 more hires than layoffs every month until election day. I think Obama's recent average is 200k with 260k being his best and zero as his most recent. Due to population growth, it takes 200k just to hold the line on the unemployment rate. Since unemployment is higher than it was when he took office and higher than it was six months ago, his and Bernanke's ideas just don't work any better than they did when FDR tried them.

Your SS retirement benefit amount is based on your wage earning history, not your contributions made via withholding. Therefore, if everything else remains the same, this "payroll tax break" will not reduce the amount of your future monthly SS checks.

Here's a good reference article: How to Predict Your Social Security Payout

Here's the likely fallout from the deficit/debt crisis that will negatively effect us retirees and soon-to-be retirees: 5 Ways a Big Deficit Deal Will Whack Your Retirement

But everything else is not equal. The total contributions is down. Less in means less available means the inevitable result of payroll rate reductions is even deeper cuts. Good intentions does not trump math or consequences for our actions.

Spreading these facts is not in my best personal interest. The faster Obama can crash the worst financial investment of my life, the less my losses. I'm worried about the majority of americans that lack sufficient other sources of retirement income. If we're so willing to exchange long term social security stability for short term unemployment growth, why not hold the contribution rate at 6.2% and offer an early buyout program? If they retire in the next six months, they will have two our three years added to their benefits calculation or get a lump sum bonus in their first retirement check. Gradually raise the rate to 7.5% and we can offer better packages and avoid cuts. For a family making $50k a year, thats $50 a month to keep a job and a retirement.

[oldredfordette]

$50 a month that will be gobbled up with rising gas and food prices. Better to leave it in the system for when they need it.

[East Detroit]

The stock market has issued an appropriate appraisal of the President's speech - down 2.6% so far today.

Too bad that 401ks have people thinking that their good/bad fortune is the same as Wall Street's.

[Detroitej72]

From everything I've read, most economists blame the drop on Wall Street to the problems in Europe, not anything in the president's speech. But, of coarse that doesn't make for good fodder with the ditto heads on Fox.

This country needs to look at countries like Germany and why they are weathering this storm better than most. First, they are much more progressive and more than 2 political parties. They have more social safety nets, which are good for the economy despite what conservative talking heads say. Another novel concept they embrace is that they actually manufacture products. More manufacturing = more jobs, and more jobs = better economy. It's a simple concept, but most CEO's and politicians here refuse to embrace it.

[coracle]

Too bad that 401ks have people thinking that their good/bad fortune is the same as Wall Street's.

I'm not sure what that means, but I will say that as my investment interests diminish in this Obama Fantasy Land I get small pleasure that I am only taking approx. 60% of the losses on paper. The other 40% loss is being taken by the government in lost taxes.Typical socialism; in their overwhelming desire to control the development of profit they have to do surgery on themselves to penalize the voters they dislike.

[firstandten]

From what I have been hearing from various analyst 8 percent along with a perception that the economy is going in the right direction will be needed for reelection. So he is putting his second term on the line with this jobs bill. That's why he is starting 14 months in advance. He will make this bill a part of his overall campaign strategy. His job is not to convince the true believers or nonbelievers [[like the folks on this board) but the indie voter. If the Repubs fight him too hard he can then say this were ideas you supported in the past. The Repubs realize that since the first thing that came out of Canters mouth was there are areas we can work with the President on.

[313WX]

From everything I've read, most economists blame the drop on Wall Street to the problems in Europe, not anything in the president's speech. But, of coarse that doesn't make for good fodder with the ditto heads on Fox.

This country needs to look at countries like Germany and why they are weathering this storm better than most. First, they are much more progressive and more than 2 political parties. They have more social safety nets, which are good for the economy despite what conservative talking heads say. Another novel concept they embrace is that they actually manufacture products. More manufacturing = more jobs, and more jobs = better economy. It's a simple concept, but most CEO's and politicians here refuse to embrace it.

On top of that, in order to encourage companies to hire the unemployed, their government is subsidizing 67% of their wages while cutting the unemployment extensions.

[Detroitej72]

Many companies have a policy of not hiring anyone who is unemployed, that is pretty treasonous if you ask me.

[coracle]

Many companies have a policy of not hiring anyone who is unemployed, that is pretty treasonous if you ask me.

Can you list the many companies that operate this policy? [[or at least some of the better known ones). Maybe you can point towards many that are openly stating this constraint in there employment ads.

[Jimaz]

Many companies have a policy of not hiring anyone who is unemployed, that is pretty treasonous if you ask me.

Yes, I've heard the same thing. Many are openly stating this constraint in their employment ads. There's even talk of making it illegal to do so.

It seems to be a counterproductive strategy. Essentially they're choosing to create then enter a bidding war to recruit employees who may otherwise be perfectly content with their current salary.

My theory is that it's an attempt by HR [[Human Resources) employees to arbitrarily reduce their own heavy workload at the expense of their employer. [[HR ultimately writes the ads, afterall.)

Corporations hire in mysterious ways.

On a positive note, I'm seeing a lot more help wanted signs lately. A local restaurant needs a waitress. A Wendy's is flashing a prominent sign luring aspiring managers. A hardware store is sporting two openings, stock & cashier. I don't attribute this to Obama's speech but it's good news regardless.

[Zacha341]

Hah! ROTFL!

"Mo [[of the people's) Money,
Mo [[of the people's) Problems"

[Detroitej72]

Can you list the many companies that operate this policy? [[or at least some of the better known ones). Maybe you can point towards many that are openly stating this constraint in there employment ads.

Sony was one of the first I read about, they even had that stated on their job posting site, but have since removed it since the "mainstream media" have pointed it out. They have claimed it was a misunderstanding but to me it sounds like they are covering their tracks.

[Jimaz]

Sony was one of the first I read about, they even had that stated on their job posting site, but have since removed it since the "mainstream media" have pointed it out. They have claimed it was a misunderstanding but to me it sounds like they are covering their tracks.

And of course removing the language doesn't necessarily mean they'll discontinue that policy. It's still a silly policy, even if only from the perspective of the employer's self interest.

It's good to be the king. Kings don't have to think so hard. LOL!