How to fix SS Trump style

[Andylusion]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

I have researched SS for five years. The problem with Social Security is that no one is paying any attention to the system. The politicians don't care because the voters don't.

The idea that LBJ took money from SS is absurd on the surface. The system was a pay as you go program at the time. There was no money to take. The fact is that the 'fund' was never merged with the General Fund. The "fund" did not even exist to any material extent.

This is why I do not bother with solutions. People do not understand the problem - and they have no interest in looking at it until it shows up on their doorstep.

Here is the problem. Voters do not even listen to facts. They end their sentences with: calling it anything else is lying. You have a conclusion and you haven't spent probably 15 minutes thinking about this problem. FYI, the 2016 Trustee's Report will come out today. How many pages are you going to read? Just a guess, zero. That is the number that 300 million Americans will read.

I agree with you on all of that. But it is true that under LBJ the SS fund lost its identity completely.

SS today is a tax on working people, just as are welfare, food stamps, congressional salaries, and DOD.

No I would not agree with that. LBJ didn't change SS at all. Not at all.

Social Security was determined to legally be an income tax, and a welfare benefit, all the way back to 1937, just two years after being enacted.

SS was challenged all the way to the supreme court, in 1936, and a ruling given in 1937. You can look it up on the SS website itself.
Social Security History

In the argument to the supreme court, the opposition argued that a social insurance and trust fund was illegal.

The defense argued social security was just another tax... like any other payroll tax... and it was a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

The supreme court argued for the defense, that social security was just a tax and a welfare benefit, and thus constitutionally legal for the Federal government to do.

Social Security from the very start, to the present day is a tax, and a welfare benefit. That's all it has ever been. You call it insurance, or whatever, but legally speaking, and of course in it's practical use... it is simply a tax, and a welfare benefit. It always has been, and LBJ didn't do anything to change that.

The only thing LBJ did, was create a unified budget. That's it. Before LBJ, they had social security "off-budget", which means that the debt, and the revenue, and the liabilities were hidden.

This is exactly what Greece did in order to join the Eurozone. They hid the debts and liabilities off-budget. When the New Democracy right-wing party gained control, the first thing they did was unify the budget.

Similarly, LBJ placed SS on the main budget, where it should be. It's debts are government debts. It's revenues, are government revenues. It's expenses are government expenses.

Everything that Social Security does, is directly tied to the government finances, in every way. Thus it should be in the unified budget. Not split off, so we can pretend we have a surplus, even while our debts are growing, because it's "off-budget" somewhere hidden from the public eye.

 

[Andylusion]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Taking money from one person and giving it to another isn't "insurance." Neither is sending someone money for being old. Actually in no way is it "insurance." You're just regurgitating Democrat talking points

My auto insurance takes money from me, and gives it to someone else. It is called float.

Auto insurance companies do three things with money.

One, they invest the money. Invested money gains a return, which in turn reduces the cost of liabilities to premium payers.

Two, they pay themselves for the function of the service.

Three, they pool the money into a savings pot, and pay out of the pot.

SS does not have a pot. There is no saved cash to pay out claims. Nor does SS have investments. There are no assets owned by Social Security that can be paid out, or gain a return.

Moreover, an insurance company uses actuarial tables to determine what the premiums should be, in order to safe guard for solvency.

Social Security on the other hand, every single year, every penny collected, is paid out in full and spent. It is either paid out directly to all current recipients, or it is paid to the US government which spends it. This is why SS has at least $13 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, and last I checked, short of cutting benefits, would require a nearly 100% increase in taxes, to about 30% payroll tax to meet obligations.

No insurance company spends 100% of all revenue

They don't even pay themselves for the providing of the service. Tax payers pay the operators of the Social Security trust fund.

Moreover, no insurance company increases the cost of premiums, in direct relation to your pay. Nor do any insurance companies declare that you are entitled to automatic increases in benefits simply because you are older, younger, or in a special industry with special benefits.

Most important, no life insurance company provides nearly as crappy a policy as SS.

No insurance company says that your spouse receives only half the amount you would at retirement. And even less if the spouse retires early.

I can buy a $1 Million dollar insurance policy for $100, at age 45. If I die, my wife gets the full million. Doesn't matter how old she is when I die. Doesn't matter if she had children to take care of, or not.

SS on the other hand, I pay at the very minimum $200 a month in, and when I retire, I'll get less than a $1,000 month. If I die, my spouse will get less than the crappy amount I would have got, if they collect early. Even then, they have to wait until they reach the early collection age.

Regardless they will never get $1 Million out of the system, even for paying double how much a million dollar policy would cost.

Bottom line, there is absolutely nothing similar between Social Security, and insurance. Or investments for that matter. If I invest in a house, I don't lose half the value of the house, for selling it before my 65th birthday, or whenever. Nor do I lose the value of my stocks, or any other investment.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Never mind. I take all that back. You call greed wanting to get what you have already paid for. You aren't worth talking to.

Not at all, but I do call making a small sacrifice, like a minor cut in the proposed benefits in order to sustain the system for another generation or two to come, pretty reasonable and selfless. You know, much like the sacrifice your parents made for you during WWII, but who am I kidding. The Baby Boomers will never agree to that because it's always been all about you.

I think you may have the wrong generations. The parents of the boomers are the ones who initiated Social Security in the 1950s as a pay-as-go take from your children system. They voted in Medicare when the oldest boomer was about 20. I am not sure I see the sacrifice in these programs. Boomers are foolish enough to think that these programs will continue because 'they paid in'. It isn't about greed. It is about naivete.

I would agree. The Boomers are not guilty of greed, as much as ignorance. They actually think that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a "trust fund", and that they paid into it, and thus they are only getting back from it, what they paid into it.

They really believe that. Should they? Of course not. But then again, Social Security was sold as it being a trust fund, and thus people believe it, because their guy said so.

And really, has much changed? Obama sold "hope and change" and morons voted for him, believe in "Hope and Change". "Yes We Can".

Was the public foolish and stupid, to buy such cheezy slick advertising? Yes. But that's why democracy doesn't work. Whoever can dupe the most people, wins.

The bottom line is, people WANT to believe that they can...... have free health care. Have free housing. Have free retirement. Have mandated high wages. They want to believe it, and FDR convinced the nimrods that social security was a great "trust fund" that would save everyone when they got old. Yes it was a left-wing lie, as all left-wing promises are.... but it's not really greed. Stupidity and naivete.... sure.

The Trust Fund was very different in 1935 when the law was passed. It was the time going to be funded by payroll taxes. Over the 1940s, we removed the payroll taxes that would provide the revenue. Over the 1950s, Congress went bananas with benefit increases because voters didn't have to pay for them. The consequence is that the Trust Fund is real - real small.

 

[AntonToo]

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

Umm....would you want to actually live in those wonderful "thousands of years"?

And selfish and narcissistic? For having some concern for fellow Americans and conscience slightly beyond your own picket fence? Sounds a bit upside down.

I ague the opposite of what you spelled out. The pro-socialist, pro-social security, pro- government take care of them, people don't have any concern for their fellow Americans.

I live in Ohio. Did you ever read about the Great Dayton Flood, of 1913? Dayton Ohio was nearly wiped off the map by a massive flood.

National Cash Register, which was head quartered in Dayton, had their employees build boats, and produced over 300 boats, in a few days time. They organized search and rescue, on their own, with the company support.

Cleveland got hammered by the flood, but on it's own accord, because Dayton was far worse, with hundreds of people killed, sent aid to flooded Dayton, from flooded Cleveland.

You remember on the Monopoly game board, that square "community chest". That wasn't a joke. Community Chest was a charity organization, created to help in just such situations. They loaded trains with food and supplies, nurses, and equipment. Loaded the trains up at each stop along the way until supplies had to be left at the stops for the next train.

All to help save Dayton Ohio. Private fund raisers, raised over $2 Million in 1913 dollars, which today would be $50 Million dollars, from average common citizens. That's not including food, lumber, and other goods donated. That just raw money.

And the Community Chest, is now what we know as the United Way.

The amount of aid that was given to Dayton Ohio, was staggering compared to the today.

And the difference is obvious. In that day, back in 1913, the average people thought it was their duty to care for their fellow citizens. The people believed it was partly their job to help each other.

Today, the average citizen when asked about helping in disasters, would respond FEMA. After Katrina hit New Orleans, what was the buzz all about? How badly FEMA did. Remember the complains about FEMA after Katrina? Where were the discussion of private help from fellow citizens? Didn't happen.

Then Sandy, and Rita, and the list of complains against FEMA never ends. What happened to the endless aid from private citizens that saved Dayton in 1913? Where did all that help go?

Well it's government job now. The average citizen doesn't give a crap, because it's governments job. The only thing the average people do is give blood. Where are the trains filled to over capacity with supplies? Doesn't happen. Where are the $50 million dollars in private charity raised to help a troubled city? Doesn't happen.

No no.... it's Governments job. We'll vote for a government program, and substitute that for "caring about our fellow citizens", by not caring at all, and complaining about FEMA.

We don't help out our neighbors anymore. We just vote for welfare, and say "why isn't government doing enough for the poor?", while we do nothing at all ourselves. We just vote for higher taxes, and claim "That rich guy over there should do more", while you do everything you can yourself, to avoid as much taxes as you can.

Sorry, but those people in the white picket fences, cared far more about their fellow neighbors and friends, than people today do.

You only see that in rare instances now. The mid-west flood of 2008. They didn't wait for government to come fix their lives, they helped each other. You didn't hear them complain much about FEMA either. Of course those are conservative christian people, which the left-wing hates. Just ask them.

So what you are saying is that one example of private charity supposedly working in 1913, vs one recent example of government emergency assistance program supposed failure is proof that charity works and government doesn't.

Tell me if I'm mis-characterizing your post, but it doesn't sound very convincing to me.

You say $50 million was the extent of charitable help in today's dollars was an impressive showing? Well the extent of overall federal assistance in the wake of Katrina was $120 BILLION dollars, or 240000% more help in raw $help comparison.

$120 billion in Katrina federal relief wasn't always assured

 

[Andylusion]

Never mind. I take all that back. You call greed wanting to get what you have already paid for. You aren't worth talking to.

Not at all, but I do call making a small sacrifice, like a minor cut in the proposed benefits in order to sustain the system for another generation or two to come, pretty reasonable and selfless. You know, much like the sacrifice your parents made for you during WWII, but who am I kidding. The Baby Boomers will never agree to that because it's always been all about you.

I think you may have the wrong generations. The parents of the boomers are the ones who initiated Social Security in the 1950s as a pay-as-go take from your children system. They voted in Medicare when the oldest boomer was about 20. I am not sure I see the sacrifice in these programs. Boomers are foolish enough to think that these programs will continue because 'they paid in'. It isn't about greed. It is about naivete.

I would agree. The Boomers are not guilty of greed, as much as ignorance. They actually think that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a "trust fund", and that they paid into it, and thus they are only getting back from it, what they paid into it.

They really believe that. Should they? Of course not. But then again, Social Security was sold as it being a trust fund, and thus people believe it, because their guy said so.

And really, has much changed? Obama sold "hope and change" and morons voted for him, believe in "Hope and Change". "Yes We Can".

Was the public foolish and stupid, to buy such cheezy slick advertising? Yes. But that's why democracy doesn't work. Whoever can dupe the most people, wins.

The bottom line is, people WANT to believe that they can...... have free health care. Have free housing. Have free retirement. Have mandated high wages. They want to believe it, and FDR convinced the nimrods that social security was a great "trust fund" that would save everyone when they got old. Yes it was a left-wing lie, as all left-wing promises are.... but it's not really greed. Stupidity and naivete.... sure.

The Trust Fund was very different in 1935 when the law was passed. It was the time going to be funded by payroll taxes. Over the 1940s, we removed the payroll taxes that would provide the revenue. Over the 1950s, Congress went bananas with benefit increases because voters didn't have to pay for them. The consequence is that the Trust Fund is real - real small.

No, there is no trust fund. Not real small, or real anything. It's a myth.

Second, it isn't a trust fund. It's a tax and welfare system. So of course the government is going to change it. That's what government does. It changes things to get people to vote for them. Promoting an increase in benefits here, to win an election there, and the politicians in question are long gone before the consequences show up, and everyone blames the poor sap in office at the time. Clinton started a sub-prime bubble that blew up in 2008 under Bush. Clinton won his elections, and Bush got the blame. Now Hillary is going to put Billy in charge of economic policy again.

This is normal operating procedure.

As for removing payroll taxes that would provide the revenue.... I don't know what you are talking about.
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Be hard pressed to locate a year in which the tax rates went down, or were removed from the payroll tax, or where the cap went down.

Clearly it has consistently been there, and increased routinely.

 

[Andylusion]

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

Umm....would you want to actually live in those wonderful "thousands of years"?

And selfish and narcissistic? For having some concern for fellow Americans and conscience slightly beyond your own picket fence? Sounds a bit upside down.

I ague the opposite of what you spelled out. The pro-socialist, pro-social security, pro- government take care of them, people don't have any concern for their fellow Americans.

I live in Ohio. Did you ever read about the Great Dayton Flood, of 1913? Dayton Ohio was nearly wiped off the map by a massive flood.

National Cash Register, which was head quartered in Dayton, had their employees build boats, and produced over 300 boats, in a few days time. They organized search and rescue, on their own, with the company support.

Cleveland got hammered by the flood, but on it's own accord, because Dayton was far worse, with hundreds of people killed, sent aid to flooded Dayton, from flooded Cleveland.

You remember on the Monopoly game board, that square "community chest". That wasn't a joke. Community Chest was a charity organization, created to help in just such situations. They loaded trains with food and supplies, nurses, and equipment. Loaded the trains up at each stop along the way until supplies had to be left at the stops for the next train.

All to help save Dayton Ohio. Private fund raisers, raised over $2 Million in 1913 dollars, which today would be $50 Million dollars, from average common citizens. That's not including food, lumber, and other goods donated. That just raw money.

And the Community Chest, is now what we know as the United Way.

The amount of aid that was given to Dayton Ohio, was staggering compared to the today.

And the difference is obvious. In that day, back in 1913, the average people thought it was their duty to care for their fellow citizens. The people believed it was partly their job to help each other.

Today, the average citizen when asked about helping in disasters, would respond FEMA. After Katrina hit New Orleans, what was the buzz all about? How badly FEMA did. Remember the complains about FEMA after Katrina? Where were the discussion of private help from fellow citizens? Didn't happen.

Then Sandy, and Rita, and the list of complains against FEMA never ends. What happened to the endless aid from private citizens that saved Dayton in 1913? Where did all that help go?

Well it's government job now. The average citizen doesn't give a crap, because it's governments job. The only thing the average people do is give blood. Where are the trains filled to over capacity with supplies? Doesn't happen. Where are the $50 million dollars in private charity raised to help a troubled city? Doesn't happen.

No no.... it's Governments job. We'll vote for a government program, and substitute that for "caring about our fellow citizens", by not caring at all, and complaining about FEMA.

We don't help out our neighbors anymore. We just vote for welfare, and say "why isn't government doing enough for the poor?", while we do nothing at all ourselves. We just vote for higher taxes, and claim "That rich guy over there should do more", while you do everything you can yourself, to avoid as much taxes as you can.

Sorry, but those people in the white picket fences, cared far more about their fellow neighbors and friends, than people today do.

You only see that in rare instances now. The mid-west flood of 2008. They didn't wait for government to come fix their lives, they helped each other. You didn't hear them complain much about FEMA either. Of course those are conservative christian people, which the left-wing hates. Just ask them.

So what you are saying is that one example of private charity supposedly working in 1913, vs one recent example of government emergency assistance program supposed failure is proof that charity works and government doesn't.

Tell me if I'm mis-characterizing your post, but it doesn't sound very convincing to me.

You say $50 million was the extent of charitable help in today's dollars was an impressive showing? Well the extent of overall federal assistance in the wake of Katrina was $120 BILLION dollars, or 240000% more help in raw $help comparison.

$120 billion in Katrina federal relief wasn't always assured

Actually I listed dozens of examples. You apparently didn't read everything I wrote.

Welfare and food stamps, are examples of failure. Real help, helps people out of their situation. Welfare leads people to stay in welfare. The examples of that are endless.

And FEMA has been criticized every single time, in nearly every single event it has been involved. And that $120 Billion didn't go to poor people. Some money was never used.
Auditors Still Finding Misused FEMA Katrina Funds

Even to this day, they are finding grants given to cons, and front companies.

Plus while you claim FEMA did more than private charities, you ignore that this is largely due to government forcing out private charities.

Again, it's a mentality. If you believe government job is to help your fellow citizens, then why should you?
http://cafehayek.com/2005/09/government_tell.html

Government told Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans. Private citizens with boats, were told to leave New Orleans.
After Katrina, the Residents of New Orleans Saved Themselves

Besides all of that, you missed the main point. You claimed people now 'care' about their fellow citizens.

I say differently. It's not the dollar amount that makes the difference here. It's the personal interaction.

That $120 Billion FEMA blew on crap, wasn't a showing of goodwill. It was showing of brutal force. It was money forcibly confiscated under threat and coercion by government, on working people, and given out in loans and grants to wealthy people with influence.

That $50 million in 1913, was purely the voluntary donations of caring people, who had goodwill towards their neighbors. People who put in their own effort to give towards the well being of their fellow citizens. Not coerced, not forced, not threatened. Voluntary good will.

That $50 Million, shows more good will, than trillions given by government.

And by the way, that $50 milllion DID more good, than the $120 Billion by government. Unlike FEMA which discovered people will making up scams to get the money, Dayton used the money well.

 

[Dana7360]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

I'm sorry but there are some things that the family just can't take care of.

My dad had cancer and we took care of him from diagnosis to death. He died in our family home with all of us around him.

One part of my family is in the medical profession and we took care of him very well until he died.

My grandmother and mom were another situation all together. They both had alzheimers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that all alzheimers patients have to be put in a locked facility when they get to a certain stage of the disease. Mostly for their own protection. Some wander. I've read reports of alzheimers patients walking to the wrong house thinking it was theirs, then being shot and killed.

My grandmother was found walking her neighborhood with my grandfather's guns in her hands.

There are some conditions that require the patient to be put in a facility for their own protection and the protection of others.

Medicare doesn't pay for nursing home facilities. The patient has to pay for it themselves if they have any assets. They can get medicaid but can't have any assets up to 5 years prior to applying. So my grandmother's house had to be sold so she could get medicaid. My mom prepared for it. She saved and invested to have the money for nursing home care. She and the rest of us paid for the care until she died last year. My mom never spent a day alone in the facility. My siblings and I took turns. There are 4 of us so everyone had their day. I had the 3rd day because I'm the 3rd child.

We took extremely good care of both of our parents in the last stage of their lives. The thing is, most do. We just sometimes need help to do it.

It's a cop out to say that people don't take care of their parents anymore. It's just not true. I've watched all of my friends do the same thing with their parents.

Social security isn't welfare. In my case I've been paying into it since 1976. When I first started working at age 16. So after more than 50 years of paying into it, I believe I should get my money back.

Just like most Americans. We paid into it for up to or over 50 years. All we're doing is saving extra money for our retirement and getting that money back.

 

[Andylusion]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

I'm sorry but there are some things that the family just can't take care of.

My dad had cancer and we took care of him from diagnosis to death. He died in our family home with all of us around him.

One part of my family is in the medical profession and we took care of him very well until he died.

My grandmother and mom were another situation all together. They both had alzheimers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that all alzheimers patients have to be put in a locked facility when they get to a certain stage of the disease. Mostly for their own protection. Some wander. I've read reports of alzheimers patients walking to the wrong house thinking it was theirs, then being shot and killed.

My grandmother was found walking her neighborhood with my grandfather's guns in her hands.

There are some conditions that require the patient to be put in a facility for their own protection and the protection of others.

Medicare doesn't pay for nursing home facilities. The patient has to pay for it themselves if they have any assets. They can get medicaid but can't have any assets up to 5 years prior to applying. So my grandmother's house had to be sold so she could get medicaid. My mom prepared for it. She saved and invested to have the money for nursing home care. She and the rest of us paid for the care until she died last year. My mom never spent a day alone in the facility. My siblings and I took turns. There are 4 of us so everyone had their day. I had the 3rd day because I'm the 3rd child.

We took extremely good care of both of our parents in the last stage of their lives. The thing is, most do. We just sometimes need help to do it.

It's a cop out to say that people don't take care of their parents anymore. It's just not true. I've watched all of my friends do the same thing with their parents.

Social security isn't welfare. In my case I've been paying into it since 1976. When I first started working at age 16. So after more than 50 years of paying into it, I believe I should get my money back.

Just like most Americans. We paid into it for up to or over 50 years. All we're doing is saving extra money for our retirement and getting that money back.

Social Security is welfare. That's what it is legally. That's how they argued it when it was created.

Yes you paid into it. Just like you paid all your taxes. That doesn't change what it is. You pay into SNAP too, and it's still welfare. You paid into government funded housing, and it's still welfare. You paid into free phones, and it's still a welfare program.

Social Security is not a retirement fund. There is no fund. Social Security isn't an insurance scheme. There is no insurance assets, or actuarial tables.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. That's how it was designed, and how it works. The money you paid into social security is gone. Completely gone. It's been given out beneficiaries who collected, while you were paying in.

In a retirement account, the money you pay in, is invested, and grown, and thus when you get older, you withdraw from your retirement account the assets purchased with the money you put in. You... are taking YOUR money from YOUR investments. That's what real retirement is.

In Social Security, the system runs the same way Bernie Madoff ran his scheme. New investors (new Social Security payers like you), paid off old investors, (Social Security retirees).

I'm just telling you how the system works. The money that is taxed from you, is given out to people currently retired, and it gone. They consume that money, and it's gone. Your money... is gone. This is how the system has worked since its inception.

Each generation when it retires, hopes the next generation will pay enough taxes, to cover their benefits. And this is why the tax rate went from 1%, to now 15% of income.

You don't know when the breaking point will happen. But at some point, this system will break. I promise you, unless it is drastically changed, this system WILL break. It always does. Greece is a perfect example. People simply stopped paying their taxes, because they were too high. And pensioners were left destitute.

So this is the warning. From me to you.... you can tell me and everyone until the end of time, that "I paid into the system so I deserve it".... but in the end, this system *WILL* fail. No question about it. Start saving money. Soon. Now. Today. Start investing wisely.

Because when the sh!t hit's the fan, you don't want to be like the idiots in Greece that are now broke and impoverished, because "We paid into the system and we deserve it". All that doesn't matter. All that matters is, the public isn't going to pay the taxes to fund social security's ever increasing costs. No amount of demanding it, is going to change this.

I'm just a messenger. Better take the warning, while you have time.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security isn't welfare. In my case I've been paying into it since 1976. When I first started working at age 16. So after more than 50 years of paying into it, I believe I should get my money back.

Just like most Americans. We paid into it for up to or over 50 years. All we're doing is saving extra money for our retirement and getting that money back.

Explain the reasoning. The terms under which you contributed to the system were simple. You contribute today and maybe a future generation will do the same for you. Those terms have been clear since 1960 when the Supreme Court said SS benefits are not an earned interest.

It sounds like you want to change the terms which were applied by the people that you voted for over your working life. You want to take from current workers and leave them with an even less favorable deal. Let's not pretend that this is about fairness and what you are owed. You just don't want the consequences of your trust in politicians to fall on you personally.

 

[AntonToo]

That $120 Billion FEMA blew on crap, wasn't a showing of goodwill.

Ok, there is clearly no going going to be middle ground for us when you operate from insane givens like that.

FEMA is on organization that specializes in emergency assistance. They go to their work everyday dealing with these issues. They are responsible to the people elect unlike private organizations and I would not trust another organization more then I would trust them to handle aid in disaster zone.

Yea they screwed up with Katrina (by the high standard we set for them), but because they are RESPONSIBLE to people the shoe dropped, people got fired and organization changes made. Private charities? You got no say and a lot of times no idea where your money went. You think you know what happened to that chump change $50 million private charities managed to put togather in 1930s? Think again.

It is the constitutional duty of our federal government to provide for the welfare of the state - I leave it to them and when I don't like how they are doing it I bitch and vote.

 

[Andylusion]

That $120 Billion FEMA blew on crap, wasn't a showing of goodwill.

Ok, there is clearly no going going to be middle ground for us when you operate from insane givens like that.

FEMA is on organization that specializes in emergency assistance. They go to their work everyday dealing with these issues. They are responsible to the people elect unlike private organizations and I would not trust another organization more then I would trust them to handle aid in disaster zone.

Yea they screwed up with Katrina (by the high standard we set for them), but because they are RESPONSIBLE to people the shoe dropped, people got fired and organization changes made. Private charities? You got no say and a lot of times no idea where your money went. You think you know what happened to that chump change $50 million private charities managed to put togather in 1930s? Think again.

It is the constitutional duty of our federal government to provide for the welfare of the state - I leave it to them and when I don't like how they are doing it I bitch and vote.

First off, you are still missing the primary point. You made a claim about the mentality of the public. Taking money from working people by the force of a gun, and giving it out to others, is not charity, and not caring. It's no more "care about your neighbor" than if I came into your home with a gun, shove it in your face and demanded your money, and then gave $20 of the money I stole from you, to a beggar on the way out.

If I did that, you would never conclude that ME or YOU were somehow "caring" in that situation.

The fact is, people of times past cared far more for each other, than the America of today by far. And often people care less, specifically because they think government should take care of it, so they don't have to.

But beyond that, you are speaking from total ignorance. I am well aware of what FEMA does, and how often they have failed in nearly every single situation they have been involved in. And even in the situations where they did do things.... what little they did was overshadowed by companies.

Walmart moved far more supplies and aid into the flood zone of New Orleans than FEMA ever did. Walmart moved supplies into position before Katrina ever landed. Walmart moved more power generators into the New Orleans area a week before the storm hit, than FEMA did a month after.

And that's just one company. Dozens planned in advance, and provided support for New Orleans in response to Katrina. Yet you want to put your faith in FEMA? Just like the Sandy survivors did? Did you read how screwed over they were by FEMA? Not including the now notorious missing money, nearly $5 Million in cash that magically disappeared. Oh, and lets not even talk about the $5.8 Million that FEMA is demanding to be repaid. How many charities do you know, hunt down people who got money from them, and demand repayment?

There's your "modern caring society" for you. But hey, you want to trust FEMA over private charities, knock yourself out.

 

[Conservative65]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

I'm sorry but there are some things that the family just can't take care of.

My dad had cancer and we took care of him from diagnosis to death. He died in our family home with all of us around him.

One part of my family is in the medical profession and we took care of him very well until he died.

My grandmother and mom were another situation all together. They both had alzheimers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that all alzheimers patients have to be put in a locked facility when they get to a certain stage of the disease. Mostly for their own protection. Some wander. I've read reports of alzheimers patients walking to the wrong house thinking it was theirs, then being shot and killed.

My grandmother was found walking her neighborhood with my grandfather's guns in her hands.

There are some conditions that require the patient to be put in a facility for their own protection and the protection of others.

Medicare doesn't pay for nursing home facilities. The patient has to pay for it themselves if they have any assets. They can get medicaid but can't have any assets up to 5 years prior to applying. So my grandmother's house had to be sold so she could get medicaid. My mom prepared for it. She saved and invested to have the money for nursing home care. She and the rest of us paid for the care until she died last year. My mom never spent a day alone in the facility. My siblings and I took turns. There are 4 of us so everyone had their day. I had the 3rd day because I'm the 3rd child.

We took extremely good care of both of our parents in the last stage of their lives. The thing is, most do. We just sometimes need help to do it.

It's a cop out to say that people don't take care of their parents anymore. It's just not true. I've watched all of my friends do the same thing with their parents.

Social security isn't welfare. In my case I've been paying into it since 1976. When I first started working at age 16. So after more than 50 years of paying into it, I believe I should get my money back.

Just like most Americans. We paid into it for up to or over 50 years. All we're doing is saving extra money for our retirement and getting that money back.

Social Security is welfare. That's what it is legally. That's how they argued it when it was created.

Yes you paid into it. Just like you paid all your taxes. That doesn't change what it is. You pay into SNAP too, and it's still welfare. You paid into government funded housing, and it's still welfare. You paid into free phones, and it's still a welfare program.

Social Security is not a retirement fund. There is no fund. Social Security isn't an insurance scheme. There is no insurance assets, or actuarial tables.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. That's how it was designed, and how it works. The money you paid into social security is gone. Completely gone. It's been given out beneficiaries who collected, while you were paying in.

In a retirement account, the money you pay in, is invested, and grown, and thus when you get older, you withdraw from your retirement account the assets purchased with the money you put in. You... are taking YOUR money from YOUR investments. That's what real retirement is.

In Social Security, the system runs the same way Bernie Madoff ran his scheme. New investors (new Social Security payers like you), paid off old investors, (Social Security retirees).

I'm just telling you how the system works. The money that is taxed from you, is given out to people currently retired, and it gone. They consume that money, and it's gone. Your money... is gone. This is how the system has worked since its inception.

Each generation when it retires, hopes the next generation will pay enough taxes, to cover their benefits. And this is why the tax rate went from 1%, to now 15% of income.

You don't know when the breaking point will happen. But at some point, this system will break. I promise you, unless it is drastically changed, this system WILL break. It always does. Greece is a perfect example. People simply stopped paying their taxes, because they were too high. And pensioners were left destitute.

So this is the warning. From me to you.... you can tell me and everyone until the end of time, that "I paid into the system so I deserve it".... but in the end, this system *WILL* fail. No question about it. Start saving money. Soon. Now. Today. Start investing wisely.

Because when the sh!t hit's the fan, you don't want to be like the idiots in Greece that are now broke and impoverished, because "We paid into the system and we deserve it". All that doesn't matter. All that matters is, the public isn't going to pay the taxes to fund social security's ever increasing costs. No amount of demanding it, is going to change this.

I'm just a messenger. Better take the warning, while you have time.

I ran a few numbers on the SS estimation calculator.

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

I'm sorry but there are some things that the family just can't take care of.

My dad had cancer and we took care of him from diagnosis to death. He died in our family home with all of us around him.

One part of my family is in the medical profession and we took care of him very well until he died.

My grandmother and mom were another situation all together. They both had alzheimers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that all alzheimers patients have to be put in a locked facility when they get to a certain stage of the disease. Mostly for their own protection. Some wander. I've read reports of alzheimers patients walking to the wrong house thinking it was theirs, then being shot and killed.

My grandmother was found walking her neighborhood with my grandfather's guns in her hands.

There are some conditions that require the patient to be put in a facility for their own protection and the protection of others.

Medicare doesn't pay for nursing home facilities. The patient has to pay for it themselves if they have any assets. They can get medicaid but can't have any assets up to 5 years prior to applying. So my grandmother's house had to be sold so she could get medicaid. My mom prepared for it. She saved and invested to have the money for nursing home care. She and the rest of us paid for the care until she died last year. My mom never spent a day alone in the facility. My siblings and I took turns. There are 4 of us so everyone had their day. I had the 3rd day because I'm the 3rd child.

We took extremely good care of both of our parents in the last stage of their lives. The thing is, most do. We just sometimes need help to do it.

It's a cop out to say that people don't take care of their parents anymore. It's just not true. I've watched all of my friends do the same thing with their parents.

Social security isn't welfare. In my case I've been paying into it since 1976. When I first started working at age 16. So after more than 50 years of paying into it, I believe I should get my money back.

Just like most Americans. We paid into it for up to or over 50 years. All we're doing is saving extra money for our retirement and getting that money back.

Is it your money when you start getting back more with SS than you put into the system. I understand how it works and where the money comes from in order to pay those now drawing from it.

In a sense, SS is a type of welfare although not in the same way as welfare programs like food stamps, etc. I ran a few numbers on the SS website estimation calculator. It asked for date of birth, date of retirement, current income, and whether you wanted the estimate in today's or inflated (future) dollars. I ran two calculations. Other than current income, the other information was the same. I ran one with an income 4x that of the other. What it showed supported what I already knew. The person making the 4x higher income didn't get 4x a higher distribution. Shouldn't the person making 4x as much get 4x as much each month when both start drawing since both had contributions put in at the same percentage?