Why should someone be punished because they choose to invest their Social Security deductions into a personal account (with the hope for a better long term outcome) rather than using the current method? I say that Social Security should have two options: (1) The current method being used as well as (2) allowing future recipients to have a personal account where they are able to invest as they may choose. Those who are willing to assume more risk and are willing to "sink or swim" and accept an uncertain final outcome should not be penalized.
Hall, my sentiments exactly - Parents having to pay for expenses that St Jude does not cover while their child is there, loss of income for parents when parents are there, etc. My pet peeve is the fact that St Jude's pays their two top executives over $1 Million/year each, and the top staff members are paid high salaries as well. Sure, they help lots of kids....but they could help a lot more if they cut that compensation to $150,000/year each, as well as cut the compensation of their very well paid staff, A true charity should be "lean and mean", not paying their staff even more than what they would earn in the free market.
I always check Charity Navigator before I donate to any charity. I want 90% plus of my donations to go to the people who really need it. Here's some examples of charities that I will not donate to: (1) The Wounded Warrior Project - I don't know if they've cleaned up their act yet, but this charity (just a few years ago) was giving only 60% of donations to the victims needing them. Also - the donations are directed only to veterans who have served in Desert Storm and afterwards, and this fact is not made transparent; you have to research this to find it out. What about the wounded warriors of WWII, Korea and Vietnam - why don't they count? (2) St Jude Children's Research Hospital - As of 2022 (the latest info that I could find) the two ex-officio directors receive compensation of over $1 Million per year. And they call themselves a charity???? There are other "charities" where the CEOs/head honchos receive even more than that. Come on - that's not operating as a charity; that's operating as a business disguised as a charity, with the 503(c) designation giving the organization the added benefit of not having to pay taxes. That's just 2 examples. The other things that I look for are high administrative costs and high fundraising cost - 2 big red flags. With that said - my charitable donations go to local organizations that are fiscally responsible, compensate their organization heads more reasonably and use the majority of the money to help those in need.
Comments
340 Million? You're talking about the entire American population. For the year 2023, only about 183 million Americans paid FICA taxes.
Post: You versus Social Security – Quinn is betting against you.
Link to comment from May 14, 2025
So who is Dana Ferris anyway?
Post: Am I Really Married?
Link to comment from May 14, 2025
Why should someone be punished because they choose to invest their Social Security deductions into a personal account (with the hope for a better long term outcome) rather than using the current method? I say that Social Security should have two options: (1) The current method being used as well as (2) allowing future recipients to have a personal account where they are able to invest as they may choose. Those who are willing to assume more risk and are willing to "sink or swim" and accept an uncertain final outcome should not be penalized.
Post: You versus Social Security – Quinn is betting against you.
Link to comment from May 5, 2025
Hall, my sentiments exactly - Parents having to pay for expenses that St Jude does not cover while their child is there, loss of income for parents when parents are there, etc. My pet peeve is the fact that St Jude's pays their two top executives over $1 Million/year each, and the top staff members are paid high salaries as well. Sure, they help lots of kids....but they could help a lot more if they cut that compensation to $150,000/year each, as well as cut the compensation of their very well paid staff, A true charity should be "lean and mean", not paying their staff even more than what they would earn in the free market.
Post: Does Charitable Giving Make Things Better?
Link to comment from February 5, 2025
I always check Charity Navigator before I donate to any charity. I want 90% plus of my donations to go to the people who really need it. Here's some examples of charities that I will not donate to: (1) The Wounded Warrior Project - I don't know if they've cleaned up their act yet, but this charity (just a few years ago) was giving only 60% of donations to the victims needing them. Also - the donations are directed only to veterans who have served in Desert Storm and afterwards, and this fact is not made transparent; you have to research this to find it out. What about the wounded warriors of WWII, Korea and Vietnam - why don't they count? (2) St Jude Children's Research Hospital - As of 2022 (the latest info that I could find) the two ex-officio directors receive compensation of over $1 Million per year. And they call themselves a charity???? There are other "charities" where the CEOs/head honchos receive even more than that. Come on - that's not operating as a charity; that's operating as a business disguised as a charity, with the 503(c) designation giving the organization the added benefit of not having to pay taxes. That's just 2 examples. The other things that I look for are high administrative costs and high fundraising cost - 2 big red flags. With that said - my charitable donations go to local organizations that are fiscally responsible, compensate their organization heads more reasonably and use the majority of the money to help those in need.
Post: Does Charitable Giving Make Things Better?
Link to comment from February 4, 2025