Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

I say for the umpteenth time in this topic: 5.4 percent of the population was over 65 at the time SS was enacted.

That figure is now approaching 17 percent.

So there's your unsustainable ratio.

How you can say "more people living past retirement is immaterial" makes absolutely no sense.

We are living longer, we should be working longer. Simple common sense which seems to elude the "gimme gimme gimme" crowd.

All nice in theory but divorced from reality. Besides the FACT that there are jobs people can only work until a certain age, in the long run you'd have way more people on disability which only shifts the burden from SS to FICA. Nothing is solved.
 
Which really needs to happen. The largest problem with SS in my opinion is that it prevents the poor from generating any real generational wealth. You should be able to save a portion of your SS (or all of it tbh) and then pass that on should you have some left over when you pass away.

Not only is this a good introduction in the process of creating long term wealth for a target populace that simply does not take part but also a means to ensure there is something there that can be passed on.

But again I say that the Democrats would fight that tooth and nail just like they did when GW suggested it. They don't want people independent of the government, they want more people dependent on the government. It's how they gain and maintain power.

They hated it when GW was President because they knew once people seen the growth of their own money, they'd be demanding a higher and higher percentage of their SS contributions be used for their own investments.
 
But again I say that the Democrats would fight that tooth and nail just like they did when GW suggested it. They don't want people independent of the government, they want more people dependent on the government. It's how they gain and maintain power.

They hated it when GW was President because they knew once people seen the growth of their own money, they'd be demanding a higher and higher percentage of their SS contributions be used for their own investments.
Of course they would.

They are flatly against anything private it seems. But I am not a left winger or a right winger so I could give two shits what one or the other side will fight against. I would guess you, most likely, will not agree with the other side of that equation that I spoke of earlier as well: you want more people paying into the system then immigration is the way to make that happen.

The right shits a brick when talking about immigration, which allows you to get more people paying into the system, and the left will shit a brick when you talk about moving more of that wealth into the hands of the actual people rather than the government busybodies.
 
All nice in theory but divorced from reality. Besides the FACT that there are jobs people can only work until a certain age, in the long run you'd have way more people on disability which only shifts the burden from SS to FICA. Nothing is solved.
The average 65 year old today is in far better health than the 65 year old of 1930.

In fact, it was harder to find a 65 year old in 1930. Most people never reached that age.

So this business about infirmity is horseshit.

trump-muscular.jpg
 
Paul Ryan was a neo-con. He’s been marginalized.
Hallmarks of a cult:
  • The leader is the ultimate authority.
  • The group suppresses skepticism.
  • The group delegitimizes former members.
  • The group is paranoid about the outside world.
  • The group relies on shame cycles.
  • The leader is above the law.
  • The group uses “thought reform” methods.
 
.

Great ... Maybe the States can start doing the job.
Which is pretty much what I said in the first place.

The alignment isn't broken ... Maybe you just have a hard time finding the middle.

.
I figured an uneducated prick like you would say something like that.
 
They also get no benefits increase above $110,000. Take off the cap and you will be payig out more for their SS.
You know that is not what they want.

They want to take SS from an insurance product to a social redistribution program.

The idea is to remove the cap but give those paying more into the system nothing in return. It is a complete reimagining of the program's purpose.
 
You know that is not what they want.

They want to take SS from an insurance product to a social redistribution program.

The idea is to remove the cap but give those paying more into the system nothing in return. It is a complete reimagining of the program's purpose.
It also unconstitutional.
 
I will start drawing my Social Security next month. I turn 62 this month. No, I will not get the maximum like I would if I waited until I was 67. But I will be ahead until I reach 76 to 78 years of age. I paid into this pyramid scheme since I was 15 years old. Every administration since 1984 has "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund. And not one dime has been repaid.
You are in error sir! There is no such thing as the SS Trust Fund.
 
You're a thief.

The money you "saved" refers to money that government spent as it came in, like all the other taxes you paid. You saved NOTHING. When you retire, government is robbing your children and grandchildren. It's pure thievery
It is insurance. Do you think an insurance company sits of you premiums until they have to spend it? No! They invest that money and use the profits to run their company.
 
LOL, that's just stupid. What difference does it make how much you "paid" ...


SINCE NOTHING WAS SAVED
Why wife's SS benefits at her 66 year retirement age is less than I can take for early retirement at 62. For the first 10 years of our marriage she was a stay at home mother.
 
Some yes, no disagreement there.

But the main driving factor of "average life span" increases over the last couple of centuries has to do with improved medicine impacting on infants, young, and middle ages people not dying from things that in the past would kill them.

WW
You have a point. Several of my aunts and uncles died in childbirth or infancy. I had two sisters and a brother who died in infancy. I have liver failure, and without a transplant, I wont likely make my retirement age of 67.

My son had cancer in his 30s and survived. MY grandson had leukemia and survived.
 
The difference is that the taxes that pay for the military come in to the General Fund.

The taxes that pay for social security come into a trust fund that was setup to draw interest and pay for the benefits.

And Congress, starting in 1984, "borrowed" from the trust fund and transfered the money to the General Fund. And they have never paid one dime back.


If you cannot see the difference between income taxes and social security taxes, or that Congress stole the money from the SS Trust fund, I can't help you.

I was forced to participate in Social Security. I was promised the money when I reached a certain age. Now I will draw that money, month by month.

Thanks for doing your part to help the Federal Gov't keep its promise. Just as I have done for the last few decades.

Who pays the interest? The same government that used those funds for the general fund.
 
The average 65 year old today is in far better health than the 65 year old of 1930.

In fact, it was harder to find a 65 year old in 1930. Most people never reached that age.

So this business about infirmity is horseshit.

trump-muscular.jpg

We are the fattest country in the world. Our diets are terrible and we flat lined in life expectancy the last couple of years. We are not in great shape and this goes double for our senior citizens. Very few are gifted with the ability to abuse their bodies and still be in great shape once they get older. Living longer does not mean living better.
 

Forum List

Back
Top