Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[BluesLegend]

You have to encourage investment to make money grow. How do you think we became the wealthiest and strongest country in just a few hundred years, socialism?

Oh that's gonna leave a mark.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean like raising the cap. eg. making the wealthy pick up even more of the tab?

That's exactly right.

Thank goodness they have little footsoldiers like you as human shields.

Damn we are a stupid country.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lib please it was the DEMOCRATS who stole all the surplus SS contributions Reagan got flowing into the system. Stole it and spent it. Now after Dems stole OUR SS money and spent it, we have trillions in worthless IOU's from them. How are Democrats going to pay us back our SS money, hold a bake sale? Now asshole Dems are proposing to RIG SS so that most people will DIE before they can collect a dollar in benefits. Dems truly are assholes!

Nah, you don't even understand your own lies.

Yes, one party is standing in the way of keeping the programs viable. The GOP.

You can bleed from your wherever all night, this will still be a fact when you're done.

 

[tahuyaman]

It is the last time the Republicans controlled all of Congress and the White House.

Paul Ryan was a neo-con. He’s been marginalized.

 

[tahuyaman]

Bush 43 tried to kill Social Security and his party tried to kill Medicare

Not true. Bush advocated giving people the option of privately investing a very small percentage of their social security funds.

 

[gipper]

So one rich guy pays $5,000,000 in taxes and some poor guy pays $53 bucks

What's your point?

Think. Think about it.

 

[gipper]

Oh, this country is way beyond stupid.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

We get the politicians we deserve.

The gimme gimme gimme is almost always done by the rich. And why not? They own the politicians.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I earn beyond the cap so the cap allows me to keep some small bit more of my money every year; I've never calculated how much, though. My first reaction to your post was that I probably wouldn't terribly miss the difference if they were to remove the cap; I'm financially stable and live within my means; I'll be fine.

But then I realize that surrendering to more taxes is not the answer to bad government. So, no, unless they're going to increase what I get in return I do not want them to increase what they take.

Of course you are entitled to that opinion.
MAGA

 

[WorldWatcher]

I tell you again, 5.4 percent were over 65 in the 1930s.

Today, we are close to 17 percent. So a much larger proportion of us are living longer than ever.

The greatest medical advances have been in life extension. Transplants, cancer cures, triple bypasses, hip replacements, etc.

Deciding about treatments that prolong life: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Sometimes after injury or a long illness, the main organs of the body no longer work properly without support. Your health care provider may tell you that these organs will not repair themselves.

medlineplus.gov

Correct and I tell you again. People are living longer true. But is more people NOT dying young which is the major driving factor in causing the shift in "average life span".

So I don't disagree that the percent in the 1930's over 65 was 5.4 percent and now we are close to 17 percent at all.

What I posit is that it is not that we are living longer as a species, but reduced deaths at a younger ages are allowing more of the population to age into the "over 65" population.

I know its a subtle difference in view that is difficult to wrap our heads around. So yes better prenatal care, improved medicines, improved medical understanding, improved surgical procedures - all contribute to allowing a person to live longer. No disagreement, the point is though that those very things have a greater impact getting people to the "over 65" bracket then it does in shifting the upper age limit.

WW

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Corporate taxes are a tax on production, not consumption.

Right, so businesses pay that tax and don't pass the cost to the consumer ? I got some cheap bridges for sale, are you interested ?

 

[Nostra]

Because most people do not live to 100
But they do live well past 67

SS retirement age was originally above the life expectancy.

So we should be in the low 80s before you can collect today.

 

[DBA]

That's exactly right.

Thank goodness they have little footsoldiers like you as human shields.

Damn we are a stupid country.

I am considered "rich" thanks to the stupid, naive people like you. I am not a footsoldier.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How do you propose to save t?

Eliminate seat belt laws and taxes on cigarettes

Think. Think about it.

I know math do you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

SS retirement age was originally above the life expectancy.

So we should be in the low 80s before you can collect today.

Exactly SS was only made for a few who hit 65. Not millions

 

[Wyatt earp]

God knew what she was doing when she realized a mistake was made letting people live hundreds of years

 

[DBA]

Exactly SS was only made for a few who hit 65. Not millions

It was meant to fund one's own retirement, not everybody else's. I should be able to collect it the day I decide to retire, whenever that may be. It is my money. They can stop paying me when I run out of my money. How is that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was meant to fund one's own retirement, not everybody else's. I should be able to collect it the day I decide to retire, whenever that may be. It is my money. They can stop paying me when I run out of my money. How is that?

That's not how it was set up, for example the first people to retire didn't put in anything..


A total ponzi scam

 

[DBA]

That's not how it was set up, for example the first people to retire didn't put in anything..


I total ponzi scam

Well yeah, they had to start somewhere, but the idea was that it was forcing people to save for retirement. It has turned into some people paying for other people's retirement.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well yeah, they had to start somewhere, but the idea was that it was forcing people to save for retirement. It has turned into some people paying for other people's retirement.

That was never the idea. That is how it was sold to the public I believe but the actual reasoning was never to help people save.

It is an insurance product. It has ALWAYS been a program where some people pay for others to retire. That is why the age was set to when you were expected to die. Most people were never supposed to actually draw social security.

It SHOULD be a program that represents saving. That will never happen though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Correct and I tell you again. People are living longer true. But is more people NOT dying young which is the major driving factor in causing the shift in "average life span".

So I don't disagree that the percent in the 1930's over 65 was 5.4 percent and now we are close to 17 percent at all.

What I posit is that it is not that we are living longer as a species, but reduced deaths at a younger ages are allowing more of the population to age into the "over 65" population.

I know its a subtle difference in view that is difficult to wrap our heads around. So yes better prenatal care, improved medicines, improved medical understanding, improved surgical procedures - all contribute to allowing a person to live longer. No disagreement, the point is though that those very things have a greater impact getting people to the "over 65" bracket then it does in shifting the upper age limit.

WW

And?

this is immaterial to SS. It matters not why we have more that can pull from the program but just that such is the case.

Sure, lifespan has mostly increased because we have stopped death from coming early but that is a topic for the health forum.