No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

[fncceo]

I did

 

[easyt65]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

What a pile of opinionated horse shit...IMO

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The ones who paid in? Give them what's theirs....

From whom would you take the money? There is only $2.8 trillion in the system today. The system has accrued benefits owed of $30 trillion - well that is only the ones that paid in.

But how much is being pulled constantly from someone's pay? A LOT.

Agreed. The problem is that every penny of that "LOT" is used to pay benefits of existing retirees. For every dollar diverted away from SS has to be replaced by a dollar of a different tax. The question becomes on whom.

Just stop SPENDING. Cut the waste. Slash the agencies back to manageable and responsible proportions. No "tax" required.

If it becomes an entitlement for needy seniors, The size of the pool will be a third of what it currently is. MUCH more easily supportable by EXISTING (reduced) FICA taxes. Others not entitled, get a SUBSTANTIAL tax for the entirety of their working lives. Maybe with the provisions that they HAVE a portable retirement account that get PERSONALLY funded.

Congress can cut spending any time they want. It doesn't require some new excuse. Suggesting "just stop spending" doesn't work. Someone has to actually find spending to cut and then get congress to agree.

It is a little more complicated with Social Security. Congress can cut spending, and Social Security doesn't materially change because the system does not have a portal for cash. There is a reason for the way Social Security is financed. How long would a government program last that was designed to reward the person with the best job over the longest period of time. Benefits by and large target some of the richest people in the country. Do you think it is fair or sensible that Bernie Sanders and wife collect about $50,000 in benefits every year. How do you justify taking money from people who are actually poor to give to people who are no where near poor.

What he is saying is that the government should cut in place X so that the money can be diverted to Social Security. How can you justify that transfer? Why is Social Security more important than say debt reduction or student loan reform. FDR realized that once the program has general fund subsidies, it will be subject to the valuation of political priorities.

Means testing isn't all that easy, as determining someone's wealth isn't easy.

The problem with means testing is that it takes a program designed to lower the statistical probability of poverty ridden old-age into one that incentizies it.

Everyone already needs investments toward retirement. It's not as if SS is enough. And, people raid their 401k and other such accounts on a regular basis. Plus, it hasn't been that long since people had their homes stolen.

Insurance is not the same thing as an investment. Insurance is an expense, one that manages the cost of risk. Investments make a profit from taking risk. These aren't the same thing.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The ones who paid in? Give them what's theirs....

From whom would you take the money? There is only $2.8 trillion in the system today. The system has accrued benefits owed of $30 trillion - well that is only the ones that paid in.

There is NOTHING "in the system today".. Other than phony bookkeeping and fairy tales. Every SS deficit $ is a new bond on the backs of future taxpayers.

Existing retirees and those close to retirement should not be affected in any way. It's too late to "fix" the boom. We are in the crisis we warned about for 4 decades. All efforts should be underwriting either a stably funded future UNIVERSAL program or turn Soc Sec into a welfare entitlement in the future. Which is what most of the proposals do anyways.

It is IMMORAL to tell a roofer to work til they are 68 or 70 years to receive benefits. Folks making those kind of suggestions don't have an ounce of sense or a heart.

Really sad. And if this is the case, WHY are they still forcing people to pay into SS?

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

There is nothing more certain of the outcome that you want to avoid than doing nothing. Dependence on Social Security is rising as the system's financials are eroding. People tell you that we have 17 years to deal with the problem. Understand that means someone who is 68 today expects to be alive at the best case scenario. Every year we do nothing the size of the amount that we have to take rises from someone's mom.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

From whom would you take the money? There is only $2.8 trillion in the system today. The system has accrued benefits owed of $30 trillion - well that is only the ones that paid in.

There is NOTHING "in the system today".. Other than phony bookkeeping and fairy tales. Every SS deficit $ is a new bond on the backs of future taxpayers.

Existing retirees and those close to retirement should not be affected in any way. It's too late to "fix" the boom. We are in the crisis we warned about for 4 decades. All efforts should be underwriting either a stably funded future UNIVERSAL program or turn Soc Sec into a welfare entitlement in the future. Which is what most of the proposals do anyways.

It is IMMORAL to tell a roofer to work til they are 68 or 70 years to receive benefits. Folks making those kind of suggestions don't have an ounce of sense or a heart.

Really sad. And if this is the case, WHY are they still forcing people to pay into SS?

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

It was Bush that put forward the plan to privatize Social Security.

Well, he put forward what Repubs think of as a plan.

That is, it was a general idea for which there never was a plan.

It's kind of like their health care "plan" - kill what we have and then try to figure out what to do next. Hilarious, if these were SNL spoofs.

Nobody is suggesting killing it.

And any change has to be phased in very slowly.

People who get it now deserve it (for the most part).

Why?

Why do people who collect today deserve it more than the people who would be screwed in this transaction. Because they paid a lifetime - just like the people will who get screwed? Why because they participated in a voting block on any sensible reform over the course of the last 40 years. In 1983, these people elected Congress that deliberately raised the taxes and cut the benefits of those 17 and under at the time. You are saying that someone deserves it more than these people who have paid the most in taxes and absorbed the most cost?

As you can tell from the OP, there is no way to phase in a solution. In 1983, we raised the retirement age by 2 years over 40 years, primarily on those born 1960 and later. Now we are raising the retirement age by 2 years over 14, primarily on those born 1961 and later.

Yes, these changes would kill it. It would have the same name, just a serve an entirely different purpose.

 

[owebo]

There is NOTHING "in the system today".. Other than phony bookkeeping and fairy tales. Every SS deficit $ is a new bond on the backs of future taxpayers.

Existing retirees and those close to retirement should not be affected in any way. It's too late to "fix" the boom. We are in the crisis we warned about for 4 decades. All efforts should be underwriting either a stably funded future UNIVERSAL program or turn Soc Sec into a welfare entitlement in the future. Which is what most of the proposals do anyways.

It is IMMORAL to tell a roofer to work til they are 68 or 70 years to receive benefits. Folks making those kind of suggestions don't have an ounce of sense or a heart.

Really sad. And if this is the case, WHY are they still forcing people to pay into SS?

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

 

[my2¢]

Elections have consequences. Perhaps things would have been different if Hillary made an issue of it rather than running a purely negative campaign on Trump's tone?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Really sad. And if this is the case, WHY are they still forcing people to pay into SS?

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

 

[owebo]

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

I'm paying very close attention.....you are looking at SS through yesterday's eyes....I am looking at it through tomorrows eyes....the solution is not to be found in the past, as that failed.....

The future looks bright.....

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Elections have consequences. Perhaps things would have been different if Hillary made an issue of it rather than running a purely negative campaign on Trump's tone?

Not a dimes difference between Hillary and Trump on Social Security. The short version is that Clinton talked about taxes that she would not raise while Trump talked about jobs that he isn't going to create. The longer version is in a piece that I contributed to NewsMax.

Social Security Under President Trump Or Clinton

 

[Mac1958]

Democrats turned it into a tax now, which is why I have no problem killing it....

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

Joe I've skimmed over your plan from the site linked in your sig.

(I'm afraid "skimming over" is about the best I can do. I think I have some kind of weird internet ADD that prohibits me from spending too much time on stuff when I'm staring at a screen)

Anyway, I'm a CFP and I'm curious (of course) about how you have the funds invested in your plan. It looks like you have the funds invested in treasury debt, which makes sense given the fact that it would be (comparably) more stable while still providing better long term returns.

Have you considered putting some of those funds to work in equities, using the "target date" fund approach that decreases risk exposure with age? I suspect you have - what is your opinion on that strategy for this?
.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

I'm paying very close attention.....you are looking at SS through yesterday's eyes....I am looking at it through tomorrows eyes....the solution is not to be found in the past, as that failed.....

The future looks bright.....

So once you end payroll taxes how will you pay benefits? Keep in mind that just changing the name of the tax does nothing.

 

[owebo]

Elections have consequences. Perhaps things would have been different if Hillary made an issue of it rather than running a purely negative campaign on Trump's tone?

Not a dimes difference between Hillary and Trump on Social Security. The short version is that Clinton talked about taxes that she would not raise while Trump talked about jobs that he isn't going to create. The longer version is in a piece that I contributed to NewsMax.

Social Security Under President Trump Or Clinton

 

[owebo]

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

I'm paying very close attention.....you are looking at SS through yesterday's eyes....I am looking at it through tomorrows eyes....the solution is not to be found in the past, as that failed.....

The future looks bright.....

So once you end payroll taxes how will you pay benefits? Keep in mind that just changing the name of the tax does nothing.

Repay the IOUs......you do know Trump will be POTUS, right?

 

[initforme]

Cut the dept of education, transportation, commerce, and trim the defense budget. Put the money in the fund.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just do not want it taken from people getting and needing it now........like my mom for example. Many people.

People who put money in should get every cent back.

It should be ended so that no one contributes any longer.

All the ancillary liberal leaches who never paid into the system should be cut off immediately and a repayment plan created for them to return the money.

I want to be fair to the people who were fooled.....

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

Joe I've skimmed over your plan from the site linked in your sig.

(I'm afraid "skimming over" is about the best I can do. I think I have some kind of weird internet ADD that prohibits me from spending too much time on stuff when I'm staring at a screen)

Anyway, I'm a CFP and I'm curious (of course) about how you have the funds invested in your plan. It looks like you have the funds invested in treasury debt, which makes sense given the fact that it would be (comparably) more stable while still providing better long term returns.

Have you considered putting some of those funds to work in equities, using the "target date" fund approach that decreases risk exposure with age? I suspect you have - what is your opinion on that strategy for this?
.

That is a blast from the past. That piece is about 5 years old, and I sent to the Journal of American Economics. They passed.

The gist is that we can make the system more efficient by allowing people to pick their flavor of risk. Today risk is one size fits all. If we introduce risk into the equation, some will stay put in a trade of lower return but guaranteed. For others, they will trade the certainty of return for the ability to invest their SS in the stock market. Social Security owns the principal and the worker owns the income stream of the resulting investment. Essentially, SS can participate in the market with a covered put on the downside.

The concept requires a fiduciary intermediary say fidelity to invest the money so that the president of say Enron doesn't invest in his own company. That intermediary is free to invest per the client's request. When the worker reaches retirement, the money is converted by to US treasuries creates interest for the retiree, and eventually go back to SS when the retiree dies.

At retirement the money is converted to Treasuries to protect the SS system from poor investment. The target funds could generate a higher return, but it is risk that SS as the principal owner would absorb.

I appreciate your reading...

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Cut the dept of education, transportation, commerce, and trim the defense budget. Put the money in the fund.

So you want to fix Social Security by breaking everything else. Is that about right? You want the people who depend upon these services to take the cut.

If we cut defense, how do you justify not using the money for student loan reform or just paying down the debt. It can be argued the debt resulted from the retirees under-paiding their general taxes. Instead of paying sufficient income taxes, they put the money into SS and then lent the money to the government. This is like a parent putting all of his money into a 401K while running up the living expenses on the kid's credit card.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Elections have consequences. Perhaps things would have been different if Hillary made an issue of it rather than running a purely negative campaign on Trump's tone?

Not a dimes difference between Hillary and Trump on Social Security. The short version is that Clinton talked about taxes that she would not raise while Trump talked about jobs that he isn't going to create. The longer version is in a piece that I contributed to NewsMax.

Social Security Under President Trump Or Clinton

View attachment 102723

So Forbes, MarketWatch, TheHill, The Denver Post, Orlando Sentinel, etc. are all fake news. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make it fake.

I do invite people to tell me where the facts are wrong, that is how I learn. But that requires more work than snapchat.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I have bad news for you. That would be your parents and grandparents. The original collector of Social Security was Ida Mae Fuller. She paid $25 and collected more than $22000. How are you going to get that money back. She wasn't the only one. The typical retiree couple in 1960 collected $8 of benefits for every $1 contributed. How are you going to get that money back.

They were paid with money collected from current retirees in exchange for the promise of more benefits. People have talked about the coming crisis practically since inception.

If you end the contribution who will pay existing retires? Mind you at this point, many will not ever collect what they contributed in real terms.

Seems my news was bad for you.....

I am only advocating for return of what was paid in to people, and getting refunds from those who did not pay in.....

I advocate killing the tax, in its entirety....

I advocate letting the free market take care of it....

Simple, non complicated solution, centered on the individual, not the .gov....

It is not bad news any more than proposing that the tooth fairy replaces Social Security. If you end the tax, there is enough to pay existing retirees about a dime for every dollar owed. That leaves zero for returning 'what was paid in' for those people 16 to 62. If you return money where is it going to come from, dollars from heaven?

Having had this exchange before, we will trade notes and you will finally say just print the money. You want this to be an easy problem. Everyone does. My news is bad but I suspect that you aren't paying attention.

I'm paying very close attention.....you are looking at SS through yesterday's eyes....I am looking at it through tomorrows eyes....the solution is not to be found in the past, as that failed.....

The future looks bright.....

So once you end payroll taxes how will you pay benefits? Keep in mind that just changing the name of the tax does nothing.

Repay the IOUs......you do know Trump will be POTUS, right?

The system has a shortfall of $11.4 trillion now - assuming that every penny of the "IOUs" is repaid with interest. Thanks for your thoughtful idea. Do you have another $11.4 trillion in solution. Mind you that assumes that the workers of the next 75 pay 12.4% of wages for a system that is continuing to collapse at a faster pace.