PDA

View Full Version : tPF How would you fix/eliminate Social Security?



Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:00 PM
Archer0915 mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?

del
01-28-2016, 09:07 PM
change the maximum taxable earnings to about double what it is now

means testing

increase the age at which one can start collecting

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 09:08 PM
For one the initial phase out would start by making it need based. It is not a retirement program.

Next SSi re-evaluations and job training for those who are not actually disabled. Furthermore the living situations of those getting the SSi payments would be reviewed and those who really do not need it would have it adjusted or stopped.

Families would need to start picking up the tab for their older family members. No more dumping mom and pop in a home.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:21 PM
For one the initial phase out would start by making it need based. It is not a retirement program.

Next SSi re-evaluations and job training for those who are not actually disabled. Furthermore the living situations of those getting the SSi payments would be reviewed and those who really do not need it would have it adjusted or stopped.

Families would need to start picking up the tab for their older family members. No more dumping mom and pop in a home.

Need based? Meaning everyone wouldn't be able to receive SS?

Matty
01-28-2016, 09:24 PM
Sounds idiotic. Just more wealth distribution. Why the hell would you take it from everyone and redistribute it to only a few? Sucks eggs to be a progressive.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:25 PM
Sounds idiotic. Just more wealth distribution. Why the hell would you take it from everyone and redistribute it to only a few? Sucks eggs to be a progressive.

Progressives aren't advocating that, as far as I'm aware.

Matty
01-28-2016, 09:26 PM
Progressives aren't advocating that, as far as I'm aware.


I am calling the people in this thread who do advocate it progressives. Sorry if I was unclear.

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 09:39 PM
Need based? Meaning everyone wouldn't be able to receive SS?
Bingo!

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 09:40 PM
Sounds idiotic. Just more wealth distribution. Why the hell would you take it from everyone and redistribute it to only a few? Sucks eggs to be a progressive.

So where is my SSi then? Oh everyone is not eligible!

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:42 PM
Bingo!

So, spend your entire life paying into SS, and never get that money back unless you meet the need-based criteria.

Otherwise, you're SOL and lose the money you spent your life paying into the system and somebody else gets to use your money that you worked for and they did not.

How is that at all acceptable?

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:42 PM
I am calling the people in this thread who do advocate it progressives. Sorry if I was unclear.

That doesn't make much sense. It's not progressive in the slightest.

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 09:45 PM
That doesn't make much sense. It's not progressive in the slightest.

It is finance. Revenues and expenditures.

Common
01-28-2016, 09:53 PM
@Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323) mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?

First of all I dont pay attention to people like Archer anyone who makes statements like abolish social security obviously doesnt need it to exist like many senior citizens.

I do not need social security to survive or even live well, so my statements here are not for my self interest but for others.

Young people dont understand and its realistic they cant understand what its like to be too old to work. Or too old to be hired. Not every older person is physically capable of making a living.

Heres where EVERYONE needs to pay attention. Social security will be far more important going forward than it is today. Id say half on SS today have pensions. Corporations dont want to pay for pensions anymore out of greed of course they say they cant afford it while they give millions up millions in bonus to the execs..

You have people who work all their lives dont make much money and certainly dont make enough to exist and save for retirement. Who will have nothing or next to nothing. If you dont have social security and medicare YOU STILL PAY and may pay even more. Because at least they people on it paid into it.

How do you fix it existing Social Security, just stop the govt from stealing from the fund and putting it in the treasury. THATS WHAT HAS IT BROKE. Republicans and Democrats alike have robbed the fund blind.
Once the theft is stopped, then separate disability from OLD AGE social security. Its not Social Security that people paid into all their lives then start collecting when they are 63 or 66. Its people 21 yrs old collecting disability social security and right up the scale thats murdering the fund. So many collecting Disability SS that should not have it period. CHange those two things and Social Security is solved for those who really need it.

Matty
01-28-2016, 09:56 PM
That doesn't make much sense. It's not progressive in the slightest.


Sure as hell is, just like the current tax system is progressive.

Tahuyaman
01-28-2016, 10:16 PM
How would you fix/eliminate Social Security?


Odd question. Ow would you fix / eliminate it? Those are two vastly different things.

I think you fix first it by restoring the integrity of the social security trust fund. Right now that trust fund is broke. The money has been spent and replaced with IOU's. Once that trust fund was raided it was doomed.

Second, a portion of that money needs to be invested in the private economy just like your private investment portfolio

Third, the retirement age needs to be raised. And no more paying social security benefits to people who contributed nothing into the system.

If you want to eliminate it, do nothing. It will eliminate itself within the next decade if left alone.

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 10:27 PM
First of all I dont pay attention to people like Archer anyone who makes statements like abolish social security obviously doesnt need it to exist like many senior citizens.

I do not need social security to survive or even live well, so my statements here are not for my self interest but for others.

Young people dont understand and its realistic they cant understand what its like to be too old to work. Or too old to be hired. Not every older person is physically capable of making a living.

Heres where EVERYONE needs to pay attention. Social security will be far more important going forward than it is today. Id say half on SS today have pensions. Corporations dont want to pay for pensions anymore out of greed of course they say they cant afford it while they give millions up millions in bonus to the execs..

You have people who work all their lives dont make much money and certainly dont make enough to exist and save for retirement. Who will have nothing or next to nothing. If you dont have social security and medicare YOU STILL PAY and may pay even more. Because at least they people on it paid into it.

How do you fix it existing Social Security, just stop the govt from stealing from the fund and putting it in the treasury. THATS WHAT HAS IT BROKE. Republicans and Democrats alike have robbed the fund blind.
Once the theft is stopped, then separate disability from OLD AGE social security. Its not Social Security that people paid into all their lives then start collecting when they are 63 or 66. Its people 21 yrs old collecting disability social security and right up the scale thats murdering the fund. So many collecting Disability SS that should not have it period. CHange those two things and Social Security is solved for those who really need it.

And people who want to keep up this same shit are lacking the mental faculties to understand what I am talking about.

Phase it out. The rich do not need it and the cheats should not get it.

del
01-28-2016, 10:32 PM
And people who want to keep up this same shit are lacking the mental faculties to understand what I am talking about.

Phase it out. The rich do not need it and the cheats should not get it.


and there's no other kinds of people?

that's stupid.

Peter1469
01-28-2016, 10:32 PM
For younger people allow them to privatize their SS in plans like the Thrift Savings Plans offered to the military and government employees.

texan
01-28-2016, 11:11 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0

No way to get it out it stays under the same rules as SS, it would be your choice on being privatized.

Archer0915
01-28-2016, 11:15 PM
For younger people allow them to privatize their SS in plans like the Thrift Savings Plans offered to the military and government employees.

Exactly it can be phased out and those getting it who need it still get it. Those who do not, do not.

Furthermore people have an expiration date, let the go! Billions spent on the walking dead.

Subdermal
01-28-2016, 11:44 PM
For one the initial phase out would start by making it need based. It is not a retirement program.

Next SSi re-evaluations and job training for those who are not actually disabled. Furthermore the living situations of those getting the SSi payments would be reviewed and those who really do not need it would have it adjusted or stopped.

Families would need to start picking up the tab for their older family members. No more dumping mom and pop in a home.

Needs based? Do you focking know how much of my money I've dumped into that POS program?!?

I'll let you know what needs based means. It means that I NEED MY FOCKING MONEY BACK.

Here's how you fix SS:

1. Offer privatized fund management tiered for those of various ages: the youngest receive the most variety of options, from aggressive investing to conservative. The return is based upon the choices, and are optional. Allow 80% of the increased returns as a result of this far more intelligent form of investing to be returned to the original taxpayer, and 20% of it to fund existing liabilities for those who are too old to justify investing aggressively.

2. Pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting raiding the fund.

3. That's all that is needed.

zelmo1234
01-29-2016, 12:55 AM
change the maximum taxable earnings to about double what it is now

means testing

increase the age at which one can start collecting

All great ideas, but in the end you still have a program that is a promise of poverty.

zelmo1234
01-29-2016, 12:58 AM
I have posted this many times. Using the average rate of return in managed accounts, and moving money into securities as the person nears retirement would end the need for a SS program.

Ad to this the fact that a life long minimum wage earners that would retire on a SS of about 1200.00 a month with the current plan. Would retire with about 55K in income under the investment plan and leave nearly 700K to their children.

I would also be the means to gain control of the national debt and eventually (about a125 years) pay it off.

Cthulhu
01-29-2016, 01:07 AM
Archer0915 mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?
Step one: stop sending out checks and deposits.

The end.

I tear my band aids off quickly. The rest will learn to adapt. Or die trying.

Trying and failing has nobility in it. But not trying is worthy of nothing.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

gamewell45
01-29-2016, 01:12 AM
For one the initial phase out would start by making it need based. It is not a retirement program.

I think since most companies no longer offer a defined pension plan, SS is a safety net for many people who cannot afford to put away monies in a 401.k plan or who make poor investment decisions and lose most or all of their monies.


Next SSi re-evaluations and job training for those who are not actually disabled. Furthermore the living situations of those getting the SSi payments would be reviewed and those who really do not need it would have it adjusted or stopped.

What would be the litmus test for those whom you feel are not actually disabled? And how would you determine who needs an adjustment (would it be to reduce or increase payments?) or have it stopped?


Families would need to start picking up the tab for their older family members. No more dumping mom and pop in a home.

Putting the responsibility on the families won't work since you cannot legally force them to care for their parents and/or if the elderly person has no family, then what?

gamewell45
01-29-2016, 01:15 AM
I have posted this many times. Using the average rate of return in managed accounts, and moving money into securities as the person nears retirement would end the need for a SS program.

Ad to this the fact that a life long minimum wage earners that would retire on a SS of about 1200.00 a month with the current plan. Would retire with about 55K in income under the investment plan and leave nearly 700K to their children.

I would also be the means to gain control of the national debt and eventually (about a125 years) pay it off.

What happens if they make poor investment choices and lose most if not all of their investments?

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 05:41 AM
Exactly it can be phased out and those getting it who need it still get it. Those who do not, do not.

Furthermore people have an expiration date, let the go! Billions spent on the walking dead.

I agree it has to be phased. The people who paid in aren't at fault that the Ponzi Scheme is failing. That is what all Ponzi schemes do.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 05:42 AM
Needs based? Do you focking know how much of my money I've dumped into that POS program?!?

I'll let you know what needs based means. It means that I NEED MY FOCKING MONEY BACK.

Here's how you fix SS:

1. Offer privatized fund management tiered for those of various ages: the youngest receive the most variety of options, from aggressive investing to conservative. The return is based upon the choices, and are optional. Allow 80% of the increased returns as a result of this far more intelligent form of investing to be returned to the original taxpayer, and 20% of it to fund existing liabilities for those who are too old to justify investing aggressively.

2. Pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting raiding the fund.

3. That's all that is needed.

The TSP (https://www.tsp.gov/index.html)has #1 covered.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 05:43 AM
I have posted this many times. Using the average rate of return in managed accounts, and moving money into securities as the person nears retirement would end the need for a SS program.

Ad to this the fact that a life long minimum wage earners that would retire on a SS of about 1200.00 a month with the current plan. Would retire with about 55K in income under the investment plan and leave nearly 700K to their children.

I would also be the means to gain control of the national debt and eventually (about a125 years) pay it off.

Paying off the debt is a misallocation of resources. We can trim the debt a lot with strategic defaults and do much better.

The Federal Reserve could take a haircut. :wink:

PolWatch
01-29-2016, 05:55 AM
Need based? Your need is based on how you vote? There would be no chance that the criteria would be jerked around to benefit one group or the other...nah, never happen.

'People have an expiration date....walking dead'? It would be better economically if old people were just starved to death....it would also be a sure increase in for the funeral business.

Increase retirement age? Great idea for all of you who spend your working years sitting at a desk.....not quite the same view from those who do physical jobs.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 06:43 AM
Need based? Your need is based on how you vote? There would be no chance that the criteria would be jerked around to benefit one group or the other...nah, never happen.

'People have an expiration date....walking dead'? It would be better economically if old people were just starved to death....it would also be a sure increase in for the funeral business.

Increase retirement age? Great idea for all of you who spend your working years sitting at a desk.....not quite the same view from those who do physical jobs.

Yup but the fact is, as long as there is a monetary system,..

How about we do away with all big pharmaceutical?

I just find it strange that all these things work in conjunction to increase profits for everyone buy the taxpayer.

Billions are made off of cheap and unhealthy food, billions are made off of the treatments for those who get sick from this food, billions more are made off of doctors giving prescriptions to those who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles,.. It is manipulated medicine where if you do not need drugs to live then you need some anyway.

How many times has a doctor said eat better or you are going to die?

Expire? Yup I am ready and I have been on a death bed before and refused medication. Hell the population issue is because people are not allowed to fucking die anymore. No kids, no family, no nothing and a medical facility sucking the tax-payer dry keeping a 90 year old alive who would rather be dead.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 06:53 AM
For one the initial phase out would start by making it need based. It is not a retirement program.

Next SSi re-evaluations and job training for those who are not actually disabled. Furthermore the living situations of those getting the SSi payments would be reviewed and those who really do not need it would have it adjusted or stopped.

Families would need to start picking up the tab for their older family members. No more dumping mom and pop in a home.

Essentially you would make it the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. If that is the case, why not just end it, and transfer the resources to an existing welfare program. Why do you want to change SS into what we already have.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 06:58 AM
So, spend your entire life paying into SS, and never get that money back unless you meet the need-based criteria.

Otherwise, you're SOL and lose the money you spent your life paying into the system and somebody else gets to use your money that you worked for and they did not.

How is that at all acceptable?

We are responsible for the people that we elect. In the past, we elected people who promised us benefits in the future in exchange for paying off past promises. The Congress that we elected underpriced our benefits, leaving the cost to future workers who have no vote. Now if those future workers - us - complain about fulfilling the promises that the politicians our parents elected made to our parents that is somehow unacceptable.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 07:07 AM
First of all I dont pay attention to people like Archer anyone who makes statements like abolish social security obviously doesnt need it to exist like many senior citizens.

I do not need social security to survive or even live well, so my statements here are not for my self interest but for others.

Young people dont understand and its realistic they cant understand what its like to be too old to work. Or too old to be hired. Not every older person is physically capable of making a living.

Heres where EVERYONE needs to pay attention. Social security will be far more important going forward than it is today. Id say half on SS today have pensions. Corporations dont want to pay for pensions anymore out of greed of course they say they cant afford it while they give millions up millions in bonus to the execs..

You have people who work all their lives dont make much money and certainly dont make enough to exist and save for retirement. Who will have nothing or next to nothing. If you dont have social security and medicare YOU STILL PAY and may pay even more. Because at least they people on it paid into it.

How do you fix it existing Social Security, just stop the govt from stealing from the fund and putting it in the treasury. THATS WHAT HAS IT BROKE. Republicans and Democrats alike have robbed the fund blind.
Once the theft is stopped, then separate disability from OLD AGE social security. Its not Social Security that people paid into all their lives then start collecting when they are 63 or 66. Its people 21 yrs old collecting disability social security and right up the scale thats murdering the fund. So many collecting Disability SS that should not have it period. CHange those two things and Social Security is solved for those who really need it.

Just some facts : The data on poverty in the elderly is largely poorly collected. It excludes large amounts of a retirees income.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0121-biggs-social-security-reform-20160121-story.html

There is zero evidence that any money in SS has been misused. SS lends money to the government on more favorable terms than private pensions get. Stealing from SS would require the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world, coming from people who can't keep a stained dress quiet. It is possible, but that possibility is at best remote.

Disability is already separate from the OASI, and DI is tiny compared to OASI.

The foundation of Social Security isn't need. It is contribution. We put those contributions in place to give workers a legal, moral, and political right to benefits.

zelmo1234
01-29-2016, 07:25 AM
What happens if they make poor investment choices and lose most if not all of their investments?

It as I have said is a managed account. Like a 401K but unlike a 401K they are not allowed to sell low and buy high like people do in the private sector. It is totally managed.

So for example if you are turning 55 in 2009 when about a third of your money was going to be moved to securities, then the fund would not have moved that money until 2012 when the market had recovered.

All of the people on the left toss this up, but it is a false flag. But if you really believe it is not a false flag, then stop bitching about income inequality. because all of the rich people are going to lose there money in the marker and end up poor.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 07:27 AM
Needs based? Do you focking know how much of my money I've dumped into that POS program?!?

I'll let you know what needs based means. It means that I NEED MY FOCKING MONEY BACK.

Here's how you fix SS:

1. Offer privatized fund management tiered for those of various ages: the youngest receive the most variety of options, from aggressive investing to conservative. The return is based upon the choices, and are optional. Allow 80% of the increased returns as a result of this far more intelligent form of investing to be returned to the original taxpayer, and 20% of it to fund existing liabilities for those who are too old to justify investing aggressively.

2. Pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting raiding the fund.

3. That's all that is needed.

The problem with Social Security is the disconnect between the public and its problems. 20% of the return? 100% of the entire payroll tax is now used to pay benefits. 100% of the existing retirees are too old to invest anything. Any dollar diverted from SS to a personal account of a younger worker must be replaced with a new tax on the younger worker. All you are doing is renaming the tax, and created a system of forced savings.

There is nothing to suggest that the fund has been 'raided'. The SSA says that the idea is an urban legend. In order for them to be wrong, there would need to be a conspiracy the size that the world has never known. We want to believe that there has been a raid because it is an easy explanation to those who have contributed to much. It is what you want to believe. The fact is that your parents and grandparents voted for people who gave them dollars of benefits for dimes of cost.

The issue of Social Security reform is the discussion of upon whom the $0.90 will fall.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 07:29 AM
Essentially you would make it the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. If that is the case, why not just end it, and transfer the resources to an existing welfare program. Why do you want to change SS into what we already have.

No I would put it back to what it was intended to be, WELFARE!


Social Security Act of 1935
The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
PREAMBLEAn act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


APPROPRIATION
SECTION 1. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1936, the sum of $49,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Social Security Board established by Title VII (hereinafter referred to as the Board ), State plans for old-age assistance.

zelmo1234
01-29-2016, 07:39 AM
Paying off the debt is a misallocation of resources. We can trim the debt a lot with strategic defaults and do much better.

The Federal Reserve could take a haircut. :wink:

Which would be fine for you and me, but defaults destroy the dollar and would crush the poor and lower middle class.

If you reform the system like I am saying, by the third generation the tax revenues are so massive and entitlement spending is nearly gone. The debt will take care of itself.

The average worker currently takes home less than 2K per month in SS That same worker would have the folloing results

At the retirement age of 67, the 401K balance will be $1,419,757.45. It is equivalent to $871,900.33 now in purchasing power.
If withdraw monthly, you can withdraw $10,809.88 per month after retirement. At 67, it is equivalent to $6,638.56 now in purchasing power. At 90, it is equivalent to $5,280.58 now in purchasing power.
If retrieving annually, you can retrieve $131,377.65 per year after retirement. At 67, it is equivalent to $80,681.54 now in purchasing power. At 90, it is equivalent to $64,177.47 now in purchasing power.
Total contributions: $149,695. Total interests: $2,871,991. Total payouts: $3,021,686.

And instead of never paying taxes and taking from the system? They become life long tax payers.

And if they did anything at all in the private sector which about 50% of them do? you would add another 50% to this.

zelmo1234
01-29-2016, 07:49 AM
The problem with Social Security is the disconnect between the public and its problems. 20% of the return? 100% of the entire payroll tax is now used to pay benefits. 100% of the existing retirees are too old to invest anything. Any dollar diverted from SS to a personal account of a younger worker must be replaced with a new tax on the younger worker. All you are doing is renaming the tax, and created a system of forced savings.

There is nothing to suggest that the fund has been 'raided'. The SSA says that the idea is an urban legend. In order for them to be wrong, there would need to be a conspiracy the size that the world has never known. We want to believe that there has been a raid because it is an easy explanation to those who have contributed to much. It is what you want to believe. The fact is that your parents and grandparents voted for people who gave them dollars of benefits for dimes of cost.

The issue of Social Security reform is the discussion of upon whom the $0.90 will fall.

Not really. Yes if you start letting younger workers invest, you will burden the system. but if you get rid of all the waste in the government by cutting each department by 10% and getting rid of a few like the DOE for example, you would create a situation that the increase in debt would be manageable.

Because as those that are on the old system die out in say 50 years and those on a partial system would be gone in 75. you can deal with it.

The reason is every year the burden becomes less. so even if you add 10 trillion to the debt, the long term is there would be NO SS payments. Add to that the fact that most of the people that would have been a burden would be life long tax payers. Those leaving money to their children would change there tax brackets.

the Debt disappears in 125 years... And at that point you would be able to include nearly all of the employer contributions in the investment program doubling the retirement income.

At that point imagine if you were a life long minimum wage earner. you would then retire with over 1 million dollars and 50K per year in retirement income, If you only wanted to live off the interest.

No imagine what happens to the value of the dollar when the national debt starts to drop? the purchasing power of the dollar would be massive.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 08:12 AM
STATE OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE PLANSSEC. 2. (a) A State plan for old-age assistance must
(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them;
(2) provide for financial participation by the State;
(3) either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer the plan, or provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to supervise the administration of the plan;
(4) provide for granting to any individual, whose claim for old-age assistance is denied, an opportunity for a fair hearing before such State agency;
(5) provide such methods of administration (other than those relating to selection, tenure of office, and compensation of personnel) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the efficient operation of the plan;
(6) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Board may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports; and
(7) provide that, if the State or any of its political subdivisions collects from the estate of any recipient of old-age assistance any amount with respect to old-age assistance furnished him under the plan, one- half of the net amount so collected shall be promptly paid to the United States. Any payment so made shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation for the purposes of this title.
(b) The Board shall approve any plan which fulfills the conditions specified in subsection (a), except that it shall not approve any plan which imposes, as a condition of eligibility for old-age assistance under the plan-
(1) An age requirement of more than sixty-five years, except that the plan may impose, effective until January 1, 1940, an age requirement of as much as seventy years; or

(2) Any residence requirement which excludes any resident of the State who has resided therein five years during the nine years immediately preceding the application for old-age assistance and has resided therein continuously for one year immediately preceding the application; or (3) Any citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen of the United States.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

Old age assistance denied? How? If they are of age how can they be denied? Oh millionaire!

Oh and: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/millionaires-receiving-social-security

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 08:16 AM
So, spend your entire life paying into SS, and never get that money back unless you meet the need-based criteria.

Otherwise, you're SOL and lose the money you spent your life paying into the system and somebody else gets to use your money that you worked for and they did not.

How is that at all acceptable?
Archer0915

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 08:26 AM
@Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323)

And? We never see the billions that go to foreign aid! Do you have an O-Phone? You paid for that. Do you get any welfare? You paid for that! Get over this shit, it is a damn tax not an ira! It was never meant as an IRA. All of this shit is a big money transfer machine.

401k? wealth transfer that sends jobs off shore.

Retirement? Yeah, own your home, take care of your body and have a life partner (wife, husband, same sex partner,..) that takes care of themselves. Work until you die.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 08:28 AM
No I would put it back to what it was intended to be, WELFARE!

I would check Title II, which is what we actually call Social Security today.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 08:35 AM
I would check Title II, which is what we actually call Social Security today.

The original act not the stuff that people voted themselves.

When the people can vote themselves the money of others, the country is lost. When the takers outnumber the givers the country is lost.

About the only way we could fix it is do away with the monetary system and go to a credit system where if you work you get what you want and if you can and do not you are executed. When you become unable to contribute to society then you are take care of by the society you helped. If one has an impairment (a true impairment) then they should be taken care of by said society. Never happen.

Cigar
01-29-2016, 08:43 AM
@Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323) mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?

By keeping Republicans and Wall Streets Hands off of it.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 08:47 AM
By keeping Republicans and Wall Streets Hands off of it.

No! It is not the politicians on either side it is their owners and constituents.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 08:57 AM
The original act not the stuff that people voted themselves.

When the people can vote themselves the money of others, the country is lost. When the takers outnumber the givers the country is lost.

About the only way we could fix it is do away with the monetary system and go to a credit system where if you work you get what you want and if you can and do not you are executed. When you become unable to contribute to society then you are take care of by the society you helped. If one has an impairment (a true impairment) then they should be taken care of by said society. Never happen.

First, Title II is in the original act. Second, the original act called for payroll taxes of 6% which were sufficient to make the system self-sustaining.

I think you are talking about changes that occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, where the cost was reduced and the benefits were increased substantially.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 09:01 AM
By keeping Republicans and Wall Streets Hands off of it.

The classic strawman diversion. The GOP has supported Social Security since inception. In 1983, the GOP President and GOP-controlled senate supported a reform that retrieved the system from insolvency. In 2005, GWB recommended that we give younger voters an opportunity to save for the future, but guaranteed the benefit levels of those 55 and older. That idea didn't get out of a GOP-controlled committee. You might as well say by keeping the paws of leprechauns off of it. It is the long version of do-nothing and hope that the actuarial analysis of SSA is wrong.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 09:04 AM
First, Title II is in the original act. Second, the original act called for payroll taxes of 6% which were sufficient to make the system self-sustaining.

I think you are talking about changes that occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, where the cost was reduced and the benefits were increased substantially.


No I would put it back to what it was intended to be, WELFARE!


https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

Old age assistance denied? How? If they are of age how can they be denied? Oh millionaire!

Oh and: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/millionaires-receiving-social-security

Read the linked posts, parts in red! It was never intended for the wealthy or as retirement for all, it was intended to be used where needed. Yes you must click the little redirect to the post to see the quote.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 09:09 AM
Not really. Yes if you start letting younger workers invest, you will burden the system. but if you get rid of all the waste in the government by cutting each department by 10% and getting rid of a few like the DOE for example, you would create a situation that the increase in debt would be manageable.

Because as those that are on the old system die out in say 50 years and those on a partial system would be gone in 75. you can deal with it.

The reason is every year the burden becomes less. so even if you add 10 trillion to the debt, the long term is there would be NO SS payments. Add to that the fact that most of the people that would have been a burden would be life long tax payers. Those leaving money to their children would change there tax brackets.

the Debt disappears in 125 years... And at that point you would be able to include nearly all of the employer contributions in the investment program doubling the retirement income.

At that point imagine if you were a life long minimum wage earner. you would then retire with over 1 million dollars and 50K per year in retirement income, If you only wanted to live off the interest.

No imagine what happens to the value of the dollar when the national debt starts to drop? the purchasing power of the dollar would be massive.

I think you are confusing the meaning of billions and trillions. Every man woman and child could work exclusively for Social Security for a year, and the system would not be solvent. You can cut 10% of the budget, and you will not even off set the cost of time to the system.

The basic plan here is that our great grandchildren will pay the taxes that we won't. Today workers get the promise of future benefits for paying for the retirement of seniors. Under your plan the workers in the future will get nothing to pay off the debt that was created to pay for the retirement of seniors.

In 125 years, 50K will buy a month of rent.

Sorry if I pass on your utopia.

nic34
01-29-2016, 09:11 AM
change the maximum taxable earnings to about double what it is now

means testing

increase the age at which one can start collecting

First 2 definitely.

No. 3 yes for CEO's, NO for coal miners.

Cigar
01-29-2016, 09:13 AM
No! It is not the politicians on either side it is their owners and constituents.

I have no problem contributing to my country for the benefit of Americans in their time of need ... so long as they feel the same for me.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 09:15 AM
Read the linked posts, parts in red! It was never intended for the wealthy or as retirement for all, it was intended to be used where needed. Yes you must click the little redirect to the post to see the quote.

You are talking about parts of the law that may not even exist anymore. You need to read Title II from your link.

Here are the words of AJ Altmeyer (who ran SS in 1944)

"A sound contributory social insurance system has four main characteristics. First, it provides for benefits on a specific and predetermined basis. Second, it provides these benefits as a matter of right without a means or a needs test. Third, it finances these benefits largely out of contributions made by or on behalf of the beneficiaries. Fourth, it provides a long-range systematic method of financing rather than a year-to-year unsystematic method."

The irony of your link is that it understates the problem. Yes, 7% of beneficiaries may be millionaires. What is missing is that they tend to collect above median amounts. In other words, SS is not a welfare program.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja1144a.html (it is overall an interesting piece of history particularly for those who think that the problem is theft from the system)

nic34
01-29-2016, 09:16 AM
Sounds idiotic. Just more wealth distribution. Why the hell would you take it from everyone and redistribute it to only a few? Sucks eggs to be a progressive.

I don't know about you, but I've been paying my own SSI taxes AND contributing to IRAs all my life.

I EXPECT BOTH from GOVERNMENT AND BANKSTERS.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 09:21 AM
I have no problem contributing to my country for the benefit of Americans in their time of need ... so long as they feel the same for me.
My mother gets SS. If she did not live with me she would do without. I am fine with her (had my father here until he died) living with me but what about all those out there in need who worked their entire life to be abandoned by their children (or who had no kids) to a home where they are abused and neglected? How about the ones who live alone or the old couple who who makes a choice between food and rent?

Millionaires get it and that was never the intent. Many who do not need it, get it.

Also don't even get me started on the SSi bullshit. People who fuck themselves up and then get a check!

Yeah medicare! A person who smoked all their lives and still does it or drinks all the time and has liver issues getting their lives artificially extended at the expense of others.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 10:07 AM
My mother gets SS. If she did not live with me she would do without. I am fine with her (had my father here until he died) living with me but what about all those out there in need who worked their entire life to be abandoned by their children (or who had no kids) to a home where they are abused and neglected? How about the ones who live alone or the old couple who who makes a choice between food and rent?

Millionaires get it and that was never the intent. Many who do not need it, get it.

I gave you a link to the guy who ran SS in 1944. There are endless quotes from FDR that say the exact opposite of your belief. Where in any document do you find anything about means testing SS. The link you provided in the past wasn't the right part of the legislation.




Also don't even get me started on the SSi bull$#@!. People who $#@! themselves up and then get a check!



Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:08 AM
I gave you a link to the guy who ran SS in 1944. There are endless quotes from FDR that say the exact opposite of your belief. Where in any document do you find anything about means testing SS. The link you provided in the past wasn't the right part of the legislation.



Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.

I provided it and even put it in red. NEED!

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:09 AM
Social Security Act of 1935


The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
PREAMBLE
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


APPROPRIATION
SECTION 1. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1936, the sum of $49,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Social Security Board established by Title VII (hereinafter referred to as the Board ), State plans for old-age assistance.


...

STATE OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE PLANSSEC. 2. (a) A State plan for old-age assistance must
(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them;
(2) provide for financial participation by the State;
(3) either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer the plan, or provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to supervise the administration of the plan;
(4) provide for granting to any individual, whose claim for old-age assistance is denied, an opportunity for a fair hearing before such State agency;
(5) provide such methods of administration (other than those relating to selection, tenure of office, and compensation of personnel) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the efficient operation of the plan;
(6) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Board may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports; and
(7) provide that, if the State or any of its political subdivisions collects from the estate of any recipient of old-age assistance any amount with respect to old-age assistance furnished him under the plan, one- half of the net amount so collected shall be promptly paid to the United States. Any payment so made shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation for the purposes of this title.
(b) The Board shall approve any plan which fulfills the conditions specified in subsection (a), except that it shall not approve any plan which imposes, as a condition of eligibility for old-age assistance under the plan-
(1) An age requirement of more than sixty-five years, except that the plan may impose, effective until January 1, 1940, an age requirement of as much as seventy years; or

(2) Any residence requirement which excludes any resident of the State who has resided therein five years during the nine years immediately preceding the application for old-age assistance and has resided therein continuously for one year immediately preceding the application; or (3) Any citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen of the United States.


Denied! It could be denied! How the hell can an entitlement based on age be denied?

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 10:12 AM
I provided it and even put it in red. NEED!

What you provided was from Title I. You might as well have pulled in text from Food Stamp legislation. You realize that Title I and Title II are completely separate. I think SSI is a 1970s creation. It is difficult to contain a conservation when you are pulling in text from completely unrelated programs.

Matty
01-29-2016, 10:12 AM
I don't know about you, but I've been paying my own SSI taxes AND contributing to IRAs all my life.

I EXPECT BOTH from GOVERNMENT AND BANKSTERS.


I agree. They took that money from me. I wasn't given a choice on whether or not I wanted to participate, they flat out took it. Now someone decides I don't need it and they want to give my earnings to someone Else That is redistribution and a shitty progressive idea.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:13 AM
What you provided was from Title I. You might as well have pulled in text from Food Stamp legislation. You realize that Title I and Title II are completely separate. I think SSI is a 1970s creation. It is difficult to contain a conservation when you are pulling in text from completely unrelated programs.

And I said it was never the intent! NEED! The preamble spells it out!

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:15 AM
I agree. They took that money from me. I wasn't given a choice on whether or not I wanted to participate, they flat out took it. Now someone decides I don't need it and they want to give my earnings to someone Else That is redistribution and a $#@!ty progressive idea.

Well they take plenty more! Why dont you ask for all your taxes back?

Fucking shortsightedness.

Bo-4
01-29-2016, 10:15 AM
First 2 definitely.

No. 3 yes for CEO's, NO for coal miners.

Gotta agree, blue collar physical labor takes its toll on the body.

No increase in retirement age for those guys.

Of course there will be a lot of grey area in certain occupations.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 10:19 AM
I agree. They took that money from me. I wasn't given a choice on whether or not I wanted to participate, they flat out took it. Now someone decides I don't need it and they want to give my earnings to someone Else That is redistribution and a $#@!ty progressive idea.

Actually you had an opportunity to vote against the idiots to created the mess. Now you want to be bailed-out of your poor voting record by people who didn't even have a chance to vote. The redistribution here is from people who had no vote to people who had an opportunity to vote responsibly but didn't.

Cigar
01-29-2016, 10:49 AM
I'd hate to know how all these people over the ago 70 would be living in this country without Social Security.

We've experience that seen long ago ...

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:53 AM
I'd hate to know how all these people over the ago 70 would be living in this country without Social Security.

We've experience that seen long ago ...

Hows many wealth people get it while older people who need it, and perhaps a little more, waste away in ghettos and nursing homes?

Cigar
01-29-2016, 10:54 AM
Hows many wealth people get it while older people who need it and perhaps a little more waste away in ghettos and nursing homes?

This I believe is complete Bull Sh!t ... People like Donald Trump should NOT draw for SS

IT's just taking money from those who are in need.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 10:56 AM
This I believe is complete Bull Sh!t ... People like Donald Trump should NOT draw for SS

IT's just taking money from those who are in need.

We agree!

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 11:00 AM
This I believe is complete Bull Sh!t ... People like Donald Trump should NOT draw for SS

IT's just taking money from those who are in need.

Explain the logic. Social Security was specifically designed to not have means-tests. It has never been designed to help people who are in need. Today 1/5th of seniors in the lowest income quintile are not even eligible. It sounds like you don't like the program as it is, and want to change it to your ideology. If that is so, why not just be honest and say end it, and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program like SSI.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 11:02 AM
Explain the logic. Social Security was specifically designed to not have means-tests. It has never been designed to help people who are in need. Today 1/5th of seniors in the lowest income quintile are not even eligible. It sounds like you don't like the program as it is, and want to change it to your ideology. If that is so, why not just be honest and say end it, and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program like SSI.

How are 1/5 not eligible? Did they pay nothing?

Matty
01-29-2016, 11:02 AM
This I believe is complete Bull Sh!t ... People like Donald Trump should NOT draw for SS

IT's just taking money from those who are in need.


Then don't force the money out of his pockets. Let him spend his money.

PolWatch
01-29-2016, 11:16 AM
The idea that people would be able to care for their parents while raising a family is Utopian. I'm sure many people would like to be able to do so but reality rears its ugly head.

'Americans are feeling better about their job security and the economy, but most are theoretically only one paycheck away from the street.

Approximately 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a new survey of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 11:32 AM
How are 1/5 not eligible? Did they pay nothing?

In all likelihood, they worked less than 10 years. Millions do not participate in Social Security. Up to 1983, Federal Employees for example didn't participate.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 11:36 AM
The idea that people would be able to care for their parents while raising a family is Utopian. I'm sure many people would like to be able to do so but reality rears its ugly head.

'Americans are feeling better about their job security and the economy, but most are theoretically only one paycheck away from the street.

Approximately 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a new survey of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07

The wealthiest age demographic of all is households headed by someone 65 and older. We are taking money from people who actually are in poverty, and giving it to people on balance that aren't remotely close. Social Security is old-age insurance, not a poverty prevention plan. We pretend that it is so that the voters will remain terrified of reform today - even if it means much harsher reforms in the future.

Archer0915
01-29-2016, 01:29 PM
We pretend that it is so that the voters will remain terrified of reform today - even if it means much harsher reforms in the future.

Sorry for deleting the rest of your post but this I agree with 100%

I do see death panels - it is unavoidable!

I swear it is like a conspiracy with government in the lead.

People start living healthy because it is not going to be here long term.

donttread
01-29-2016, 01:53 PM
@Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323) mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?


I have always seen SS and Medicare as benefits I was mandated to pay in towards for my entire adult life. It was supposed to be earmarked money separate from the abyss that is the general fund.
As suck the 7-8 % I have paid in is mine. The fact that the feds mismanaged and co- mingled ( crimes that can get CPA's arrested) is not my problem, since this money taken from both me and my employers at knife point was NOT a general tax.
I want my money back with interest that a properly managed large fund would have produced over the same time period. I'll take it from there.

Joetheeconomist
01-29-2016, 01:59 PM
I have always seen SS and Medicare as benefits I was mandated to pay in towards for my entire adult life. It was supposed to be earmarked money separate from the abyss that is the general fund.
As suck the 7-8 % I have paid in is mine. The fact that the feds mismanaged and co- mingled ( crimes that can get CPA's arrested) is not my problem, since this money taken from both me and my employers at knife point was NOT a general tax.
I want my money back with interest that a properly managed large fund would have produced over the same time period. I'll take it from there.

This is the problem with the system. We aren't paying attention. The money is separated from the general fund. What you contributed was largely given to then retirees in exchange for the promise that future workers might do the same. They very well may take the same deal, but you can't tell them that they owe you anything. You had a vote. If you think that the problem is that the money was put into the general fund, the public may be sorry that you weren't paying attention, but it isn't their obligation to compensate you for it.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 04:40 PM
Which would be fine for you and me, but defaults destroy the dollar and would crush the poor and lower middle class.

If you reform the system like I am saying, by the third generation the tax revenues are so massive and entitlement spending is nearly gone. The debt will take care of itself.

The average worker currently takes home less than 2K per month in SS That same worker would have the folloing results

At the retirement age of 67, the 401K balance will be $1,419,757.45. It is equivalent to $871,900.33 now in purchasing power.
If withdraw monthly, you can withdraw $10,809.88 per month after retirement. At 67, it is equivalent to $6,638.56 now in purchasing power. At 90, it is equivalent to $5,280.58 now in purchasing power.
If retrieving annually, you can retrieve $131,377.65 per year after retirement. At 67, it is equivalent to $80,681.54 now in purchasing power. At 90, it is equivalent to $64,177.47 now in purchasing power.
Total contributions: $149,695. Total interests: $2,871,991. Total payouts: $3,021,686.

And instead of never paying taxes and taking from the system? They become life long tax payers.

And if they did anything at all in the private sector which about 50% of them do? you would add another 50% to this.

Spending that money on creditors is malinvestment. Selective default does not need to greatly harm the US. It would force us to start making more of our own stuff and minding our own business.

Make the economy strong and new creditors will come out of the woodwork.

It happens with other nations.

It happens in every day with individuals.

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 07:10 AM
Gotta agree, blue collar physical labor takes its toll on the body.

No increase in retirement age for those guys.

Of course there will be a lot of grey area in certain occupations.

https://www.aei.org/publication/raising-the-social-security-retirement-age-progressive-or-regressive/

The real problem is that none of us are living that much longer. More of us are living average. The projected life prospects of a retiree in 2000 are roughly the same as one in 2050 because the retirement age has risen two years.

Common
01-30-2016, 07:23 AM
The idea that people would be able to care for their parents while raising a family is Utopian. I'm sure many people would like to be able to do so but reality rears its ugly head.

'Americans are feeling better about their job security and the economy, but most are theoretically only one paycheck away from the street.

Approximately 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a new survey of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07

They are also one day away from losing their job

Peter1469
01-30-2016, 08:26 AM
Some people make bad decisions in life. Others were born with less ability.

donttread
01-30-2016, 11:12 AM
This is the problem with the system. We aren't paying attention. The money is separated from the general fund. What you contributed was largely given to then retirees in exchange for the promise that future workers might do the same. They very well may take the same deal, but you can't tell them that they owe you anything. You had a vote. If you think that the problem is that the money was put into the general fund, the public may be sorry that you weren't paying attention, but it isn't their obligation to compensate you for it.

The government owes me this money based upon the context it was taken under. Period. Stop fucking occupying half of the ME and pay the savings back to the SS fund they have raped over the years. Did you know that the original participants only paid in about 2% of their income to SS vs. the 7% plus we have paid? Another intriguing option is to trace all the SS fund mismanagement to particular congresses and seize their assets , as they are so quick to do to people nation wide based upon mere accusation.
But this money was earmarked and somebody's got to put it back. There is more than enough fluff and even illegal operations funded by the federal budget to make things right. Those who say otherwise are liars or parrots








a

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 11:25 AM
The government owes me this money based upon the context it was taken under. Period. Stop $#@!ing occupying half of the ME and pay the savings back to the SS fund they have raped over the years. Did you know that the original participants only paid in about 2% of their income to SS vs. the 7% plus we have paid? Another intriguing option is to trace all the SS fund mismanagement to particular congresses and seize their assets , as they are so quick to do to people nation wide based upon mere accusation.
But this money was earmarked and somebody's got to put it back. There is more than enough fluff and even illegal operations funded by the federal budget to make things right. Those who say otherwise are liars or parrots

People currently pay 12.4% (now including disability which was added after people paid 2%) not 7%. In order for you to get paid in full, we would need to increase that to 15-16.5%. Mind you, that will pay you, but today's workers will continue to face shortfalls when they retire.

You comment is the easy route. You blame someone else. It is easy to talk about theft, but difficult to prove. Thus far, there is zero evidence that the government has taken more from the system than the bonds it provided. Today those bonds are what separate the system from immediate benefit reductions of 10%. So there is no suggestion that the money will not be repaid.

70 years of documents have warned us of common sense. You can't sell dollars for dimes. There is exact zero paperwork to support the largest conspiracy theory in the history of man: that the system has been raided or raped for resources. Comically enough, the 'rape' is the only reason that the system can still pay full benefits. Given the choice between the two, people want to believe in the conspiracy. They don't want to accept any personal responsibility for the problem the system has today.

Matty
01-30-2016, 11:29 AM
People currently pay 12.4% (now including disability which was added after people paid 2%) not 7%. In order for you to get paid in full, we would need to increase that to 15-16.5%. Mind you, that will pay you, but today's workers will continue to face shortfalls when they retire.

You comment is the easy route. You blame someone else. It is easy to talk about theft, but difficult to prove. Thus far, there is zero evidence that the government has taken more from the system than the bonds it provided. Today those bonds are what separate the system from immediate benefit reductions of 10%. So there is no suggestion that the money will not be repaid.

70 years of documents have warned us of common sense. You can't sell dollars for dimes. There is exact zero paperwork to support the largest conspiracy theory in the history of man: that the system has been raided or raped for resources. Comically enough, the 'rape' is the only reason that the system can still pay full benefits. Given the choice between the two, people want to believe in the conspiracy. They don't want to accept any personal responsibility for the problem the system has today.


They do owe him. They took his money without his permission.

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 11:41 AM
They do owe him. They took his money without his permission.

Here is the sad fact. The only way that he will get repaid is if we take money from someone else without their permission. The only difference between him and the future worker who will get mugged is he had a vote. He voted for people who took his money under these terms : you contribute on the basis that a future worker might do the same. They very well might. Those terms were defined in 1960 in Flemming V Nestor. His money was taken and he wants to blame others.

I have been wrong before - and will be again. JMO, I think that the longer we moan about non-existent theft to placate the voter base the sooner you are going to meet President Frank Underwood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM

donttread
01-30-2016, 11:48 AM
People currently pay 12.4% (now including disability which was added after people paid 2%) not 7%. In order for you to get paid in full, we would need to increase that to 15-16.5%. Mind you, that will pay you, but today's workers will continue to face shortfalls when they retire.

You comment is the easy route. You blame someone else. It is easy to talk about theft, but difficult to prove. Thus far, there is zero evidence that the government has taken more from the system than the bonds it provided. Today those bonds are what separate the system from immediate benefit reductions of 10%. So there is no suggestion that the money will not be repaid.

70 years of documents have warned us of common sense. You can't sell dollars for dimes. There is exact zero paperwork to support the largest conspiracy theory in the history of man: that the system has been raided or raped for resources. Comically enough, the 'rape' is the only reason that the system can still pay full benefits. Given the choice between the two, people want to believe in the conspiracy. They don't want to accept any personal responsibility for the problem the system has today.

You are wrong from the first paragraph on. First of all, I was only referring to my portion but yes, your employer pays in a equal amount. Properly managed a decent portion of anyone's retirement. But it wasn't properly managed now was it? Second, disability beyond the fund that person paid in should of been provided for under another program, not SS.
The feds should make this right, pay everybody back what we've paid in plus interest and encourage current earners to invest in there own retirement with the money that will no longer be taken from them for so called social security.
There's plenty of money to fix the system. All we need to do is stop imperializing the world

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 12:04 PM
You are wrong from the first paragraph on. First of all, I was only referring to my portion but yes, your employer pays in a equal amount. Properly managed a decent portion of anyone's retirement. But it wasn't properly managed now was it? Second, disability beyond the fund that person paid in should of been provided for under another program, not SS.
The feds should make this right, pay everybody back what we've paid in plus interest and encourage current earners to invest in there own retirement with the money that will no longer be taken from them for so called social security.
There's plenty of money to fix the system. All we need to do is stop imperializing the world

Economists generally accept that the employee bears the full cost of payroll taxes - all 12.4%. The employer's share is reflected in lower wages.

The guy who ran SS in 1944 disagreed with your statement : "Properly managed a decent portion of anyone's retirement". He said that if managed as Congress was doing the costs would continue to rise to a point where it was unaffordable by the average worker. We created the EITC in the mid-70s to offset the 'high cost of social security's payroll taxes'. You can't sell dollars for dimes.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja1144a.html

"There's plenty of money to fix the system" where is your facts to support this belief? The Trustees have warned you for years that the system is unsustainable. Instead of understanding the problem, you want to believe that there is no problem. Blaming SS's problems on theft is not far removed from believing in leprechauns used it to fill the pot of gold.

I am happy to be wrong, but provide any shred of evidence.

donttread
01-30-2016, 12:52 PM
They do owe him. They took his money without his permission.


Not only that but they took my employers money as well, reducing my salary obviously. And they took it for an earmarked purpose. It is high time we held the government accountable to spend earmarked money ONLY for it's clearly defined purpose and make doing otherwise a felony.

donttread
01-30-2016, 01:00 PM
Economists generally accept that the employee bears the full cost of payroll taxes - all 12.4%. The employer's share is reflected in lower wages.

The guy who ran SS in 1944 disagreed with your statement : "Properly managed a decent portion of anyone's retirement". He said that if managed as Congress was doing the costs would continue to rise to a point where it was unaffordable by the average worker. We created the EITC in the mid-70s to offset the 'high cost of social security's payroll taxes'. You can't sell dollars for dimes.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/aja1144a.html

"There's plenty of money to fix the system" where is your facts to support this belief? The Trustees have warned you for years that the system is unsustainable. Instead of understanding the problem, you want to believe that there is no problem. Blaming SS's problems on theft is not far removed from believing in leprechauns used it to fill the pot of gold.

I am happy to be wrong, but provide any shred of evidence.


Agree with your first paragraph mostly, although it assumes a free labor market , the existence of which is sometimes debatable. "As for plenty of money to fix the problem. Just take all federal government expenditures and subtract those which are Constitutionally authorized. The remainder would be a staggering amount of money. Further, if it is somehow acceptable to create e-money out of thin air to use to kill people and provide other non working people benefits, or to lavish congress with insanely ridiculous retirement benefits , or to arm some of the most unstable countries in the world: Why should we draw that line at the government making good on their commitment to their own citizens.? Bet your economic gurus never had a single thought outside their box did they?

Chris
01-30-2016, 01:03 PM
Here is the sad fact. The only way that he will get repaid is if we take money from someone else without their permission. The only difference between him and the future worker who will get mugged is he had a vote. He voted for people who took his money under these terms : you contribute on the basis that a future worker might do the same. They very well might. Those terms were defined in 1960 in Flemming V Nestor. His money was taken and he wants to blame others.

I have been wrong before - and will be again. JMO, I think that the longer we moan about non-existent theft to placate the voter base the sooner you are going to meet President Frank Underwood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM


While I agree you are entitled to nothing, return on investment is not an entitlement.

Truth Detector
01-30-2016, 01:05 PM
Archer0915 mentioned in his own thread that he wants to phase out Social Security. My question is: How would you fix or eliminate Social Security?

You don't FIX an incredibly stupid Ponzi Scheme forced upon the idiot citizens of this great nation too stupid to see this is NOT remotely connected to "security" or "retirement."

A better question would be "why does the Government think the citizens are too stupid to plan for their own retirement and security and recognize this scheme for what it is; a way to FUND Government deficit spending?"

A better solution is to abolish this abomination the minute the new Republican President and Congress is seated in 2016 and pass legislation that ENCOURAGES savings and retirement planning rather than DISCOURAGES it.

Imagine if a private corporation were to try something like this; forcefully taking money from people promising them a pathetic return that cannot be carried over to their heirs when they die, ends the month of your death regardless of when you die (make sure it is at the beginning of the month), pays your heirs a worthless death stipend of $250 (don't try to find a funeral establishment that can do bury them for that), and takes your money and in return, hands you an IOU YOU will be forced to pay the interest on.

The Government would come down on them and the CEOs jailed. Yet we, the sheeple, sanction Government to do just that to is.

People are really, really clueless and stupid who support such a scheme.

But yes; those already vested in this abomination would still get their SS payouts until all obligations have been settled.

Green Arrow
01-30-2016, 01:08 PM
Here is the sad fact. The only way that he will get repaid is if we take money from someone else without their permission. The only difference between him and the future worker who will get mugged is he had a vote. He voted for people who took his money under these terms : you contribute on the basis that a future worker might do the same. They very well might. Those terms were defined in 1960 in Flemming V Nestor. His money was taken and he wants to blame others.

I have been wrong before - and will be again. JMO, I think that the longer we moan about non-existent theft to placate the voter base the sooner you are going to meet President Frank Underwood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I would love to have President Frank Underwood. It would be refreshing to have someone in power that truly understands​ power. That hunger and drive for power exists within all of us, we just don't all choose to let it breathe and live.

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 01:14 PM
Imagine if a private corporation were to try something like this; forcefully taking money from people promising them a pathetic return that cannot be carried over to their heirs when they die, ends the month of your death regardless of when you die (make sure it is at the beginning of the month), pays your heirs a worthless death stipend of $250 (don't try to find a funeral establishment that can do bury them for that), and takes your money and in return, hands you an IOU YOU will be forced to pay the interest on.

The Government would come down on them and the CEOs jailed. Yet we, the sheeple, sanction Government to do just that to is.


See MFGlobal. Client money was taken and invested in a security that was known to be worthless (MFGlobal paper). As the company was preparing bankruptcy papers, the company took client money and invested it in MFGlobal paper. The ensuing investigation found not only that the CEO was aware of it, but had a tape of a phone call in which he ordered it.

The CEO is not in jail. He did not face any criminal charges. So no the government would not come down on them at all.

Dr. Who
01-30-2016, 01:26 PM
First of all I dont pay attention to people like Archer anyone who makes statements like abolish social security obviously doesnt need it to exist like many senior citizens.

I do not need social security to survive or even live well, so my statements here are not for my self interest but for others.

Young people dont understand and its realistic they cant understand what its like to be too old to work. Or too old to be hired. Not every older person is physically capable of making a living.

Heres where EVERYONE needs to pay attention. Social security will be far more important going forward than it is today. Id say half on SS today have pensions. Corporations dont want to pay for pensions anymore out of greed of course they say they cant afford it while they give millions up millions in bonus to the execs..

You have people who work all their lives dont make much money and certainly dont make enough to exist and save for retirement. Who will have nothing or next to nothing. If you dont have social security and medicare YOU STILL PAY and may pay even more. Because at least they people on it paid into it.

How do you fix it existing Social Security, just stop the govt from stealing from the fund and putting it in the treasury. THATS WHAT HAS IT BROKE. Republicans and Democrats alike have robbed the fund blind.
Once the theft is stopped, then separate disability from OLD AGE social security. Its not Social Security that people paid into all their lives then start collecting when they are 63 or 66. Its people 21 yrs old collecting disability social security and right up the scale thats murdering the fund. So many collecting Disability SS that should not have it period. CHange those two things and Social Security is solved for those who really need it.
Agree, it should not be a slush fund. If it is to be a pension fund, it should not be funding disability. Perhaps disability should just be another category of regular taxation or a separate deduction.

donttread
01-30-2016, 02:01 PM
While I agree you are entitled to nothing, return on investment is not an entitlement.


Had I made the investment myself under full disclosure of the risk then I might be entitled to nothing. But the minute started taking money at knife point for "our own good" they became liable to properly manage that money. Therefore I sure as hell an entitled to my fucking money!

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 02:20 PM
Agree, it should not be a slush fund. If it is to be a pension fund, it should not be funding disability. Perhaps disability should just be another category of regular taxation or a separate deduction.

Disability is a separate deduction. At this point, the division is 1.8% for DI and 10.6% for OASI.

What makes you think that it is a slush fund. In 1983, the system had zero reserves and carried promises to 40 years of workers. Between 1983 and today the system has built a reserve of $2.8 trillion about 60% of which comes from interest. The actual contributions aren't sufficient to cover the subsidies to the system. So it is an anti-slush fund starting in 2013.

Joetheeconomist
01-30-2016, 02:20 PM
Had I made the investment myself under full disclosure of the risk then I might be entitled to nothing. But the minute started taking money at knife point for "our own good" they became liable to properly manage that money. Therefore I sure as hell an entitled to my $#@!ing money!

Flemming V Nestor was a supreme court decision from 1960 - what more disclosure are you looking for?