Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Flopper]

It actually reveals it's a Ponzi scheme. I like GW's idea the best, you can keep SS but also use a small portion of your retirement for your own IRA.

By definition a Ponzi scheme promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. Social Security invests your funds and promise low returns to none at all.

 

[Flopper]

They are not assets at all.

They are an IOU issued by the government to a government agency

They have absolutely no value outside of the government

The Social Security Trust Fund is not a government agency.

 

[Flopper]

That was the intent when they created the program. SS was there IF you could live that long and could no longer work. As the vote buying process often goes with the left, it slowly became a retirement program and yet another government dependency.

I think you will find most of major high cost changes were under both democrat and republicans.
1935-1940 Social Security was created under Roosevelt
1956 Social Security Disablity Insurance was created under Eisenhower
1960 Social Security Disablity Insurance expanded to workers of all ages under Eisenhower
1961 Early Retirment added under Kennedy
1975 COLA was made automatic under Ford
1983 Retirement age raised under Reagan
1990 Retirement Earnings test eliminated under H.W. Bush

During the administrations of Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden there were no significant legislation that raided or lowers benefits.

Fund shortfall in S.S. is due primary to the vast number of baby boomers becoming eligible for retirement, increases in early retirements, 10 years of low treasury bill interest, and increase life span of retirees. And yet the S.S. tax has remained 6.2% for 32 years.

There has been a over a dozen congressional commissions and ordered studies to save social security over the last 15 years. Of those exactly zero proposals have been implement. This is why I believe, there will be no bailout of social security and as the12 year milestone approaches and the 25% reduction in S.S benefits looms, congress will pass a law to pay the 25% for a couple years while they search for a solution and like the debt ceiling it will reauthorized over and over.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you will find most of major high cost changes were under both democrat and republicans.
1935-1940 Social Security was created under Roosevelt
1956 Social Security Disablity Insurance was created under Eisenhower
1960 Social Security Disablity Insurance expanded to workers of all ages under Eisenhower
1961 Early Retirment added under Kennedy
1975 COLA was made automatic under Ford
1983 Retirement age raised under Reagan
1990 Retirement Earnings test eliminated under H.W. Bush

During the administrations of Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden there were no significant legislation that raided or lowers benefits.

Fund shortfall in S.S. is due primary to the vast number of baby boomers becoming eligible for retirement, increases in early retirements, 10 years of low treasury bill interest, and increase life span of retirees. And yet the S.S. tax has remained 6.2% for 32 years.

There has been a over a dozen congressional commissions and ordered studies to save social security over the last 15 years. Of those exactly zero proposals have been implement. This is why I believe, there will be no bailout of social security and as the12 year milestone approaches and the 25% reduction in S.S benefits looms, congress will pass a law to pay the 25% for a couple years while they search for a solution and like the debt ceiling it will reauthorized over and over.

Which is why any new social program introduced should be immediately rejected by the people. They will all meet the same fate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By definition a Ponzi scheme promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. Social Security invests your funds and promise low returns to none at all.

It also means in the end is where the losers of the scheme have to pay the price.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SS should also have an included rule or benefit stating that if a person were to die before drawing anything out, then their wives can draw up to 10 year's of her husband's SS without it affecting or off setting her own SS in the least. Otherwise the spouse or widow should be a beneficiary of at least 10 years of the spouses or widow's paid in percentage that was owed without penalty. For the state to be able to keep the money after a worker paid into the system for so many years is criminal if you ask me.

A guarantee based upon a percentage of one's SS in a minimal of 10 years after paid in for 35 years should be allowed to be handed down to a family member in a will. Just saying.

That may have played out well 40 years ago or so but in most American families, women have their own SS account since most women work today. The system would have ended years ago if not for the people dying before they could collect. I understand where your thinking is, but the only way that could work is to get retirement out of government and every worker be forcefully invested in the market. All deductions and matching employers deductions would go directly into your account and you wouldn't be able to touch it until you have enough to retire on comfortably.

 

[Lesh]

Raise the fucking cap and this all goes away

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raise the fucking cap and this all goes away

If we raise the cap then it's only fair those people can collect much more money than the rest of us. Yes, I know, whenever we want something we don't want to pay for, tax the rich. Free college, tax the rich, reparations, tax the rich, free healthcare, tax the rich, free daycare, tax the rich, free..........

Did it ever occur to you that when the rich get tired of paying for everything you want, they'll quit becoming rich?

 

[Lesh]

Did it ever occur to you that when the rich get tired of paying for everything you want, they'll quit becoming rich?

Not for a fucking minute.

Are you really that stupid?

 

[Flopper]

It also means in the end is where the losers of the scheme have to pay the price.

That is your definition

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is your definition

It's the definition of a Ponzi scheme. If everybody did great forever then a Ponzi scheme would be to the benefit of everybody involved. But it's not as we are seeing today and have for a number of years. Even Reagan seen the upcoming problems way down the road. And if we don't do something that all can agree on, the people in the end are going to get the royal screwing. They will have paid a lifetime into a benefit that's completely broke when they go to collect.

 

[Flopper]

It's the definition of a Ponzi scheme. If everybody did great forever then a Ponzi scheme would be to the benefit of everybody involved. But it's not as we are seeing today and have for a number of years. Even Reagan seen the upcoming problems way down the road. And if we don't do something that all can agree on, the people in the end are going to get the royal screwing. They will have paid a lifetime into a benefit that's completely broke when they go to collect.

Social Security is not

It's the definition of a Ponzi scheme. If everybody did great forever then a Ponzi scheme would be to the benefit of everybody involved. But it's not as we are seeing today and have for a number of years. Even Reagan seen the upcoming problems way down the road. And if we don't do something that all can agree on, the people in the end are going to get the royal screwing. They will have paid a lifetime into a benefit that's completely broke when they go to collect.

Social Security is not an investment scheme. In fact, it is not an investment. Investing is the act of allocating resources in hopes of making a profit. Social Security is insurance that protects you against becoming destitute in retirement. To a great extent it was patterned after 19th century pension plans where employees paid a part of their wages into a pension fund managed by the employer or an insurance company. If the employees lived long enough they could retire with a fixed pension.

The problem we are having with social security is the same problem we have with all government programs. We approve them but we fail to provide the taxes or cost reductions needed to support them. The same is true of tax cuts. Often cost of programs, typical social programs or defense programs will rise unexpectedly and there is no new revenue to support the costs.

The problem is universal. Both parties are responsible, but the real problem is our form of government. In a democratic form of government, the government will attempt to give people what they want, disregarding whether it's sensible or not. War fears will drive congress to approve costly weapons systems. In an economic slow down the public and businesses will demand economic relief. And when times are good business and the public will demand tax cuts and congress under estimates budget cuts and over estimates revenues spurred by the tax cuts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is not

Social Security is not an investment scheme. In fact, it is not an investment. Investing is the act of allocating resources in hopes of making a profit. Social Security is insurance that protects you against becoming destitute in retirement. To a great extent it was patterned after 19th century pension plans where employees paid a part of their wages into a pension fund managed by the employer or an insurance company. If the employees lived long enough they could retire with a fixed pension.

The problem we are having with social security is the same problem we have with all government programs. We approve them but we fail to provide the taxes or cost reductions needed to support them. The same is true of tax cuts. Often cost of programs, typical social programs or defense programs will rise unexpectedly and there is no new revenue to support the costs.

The problem is universal. Both parties are responsible, but the real problem is our form of government. In a democratic form of government, the government will attempt to give people what they want, disregarding whether it's sensible or not. War fears will drive congress to approve costly weapons systems. In an economic slow down the public and businesses will demand economic relief. And when times are good business and the public will demand tax cuts and congress under estimates budget cuts and over estimates revenues spurred by the tax cuts.

This is what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory:

You see a raccoon digging around in your garbage can, so you go inside the house to fetch him that meaty ham bone you were going to throw out at the end of the week anyhow. You give the raccoon the ham and he dines in delight. Now give it about a half minute and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens to you.

Politicians, particularly on the left have been aware of my theory for generations. Once you give people something (like animals) we consider it rightfully our property. Democrats love the power and Republicans can't take anything away from the people that were given to them by the Democrats without getting their hand chewed off.

Down the road when problems arise, they are somebody else's problems and not the people who created them. They had their power, made their money, retired wealthy and died already.

SS was never a financial investment, that goes without saying, but it's considered what they call a social investment which is what I meant. But now that the raccoon has that ham bone we can't take away, it's up to us to figure out how to solve the upcoming problems.

 

[Lesh]

This is what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory:

You see a raccoon digging around in your garbage can, so you go inside the house to fetch him that meaty ham bone you were going to throw out at the end of the week anyhow. You give the raccoon the ham and he dines in delight. Now give it about a half minute and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens to you.

Politicians, particularly on the left have been aware of my theory for generations. Once you give people something (like animals) we consider it rightfully our property. Democrats love the power and Republicans can't take anything away from the people that were given to them by the Democrats without getting their hand chewed off.

Down the road when problems arise, they are somebody else's problems and not the people who created them. They had their power, made their money, retired wealthy and died already.

SS was never a financial investment, that goes without saying, but it's considered what they call a social investment which is what I meant. But now that the raccoon has that ham bone we can't take away, it's up to us to figure out how to solve the upcoming problems.

Not even close to a good metaphor

 

[beagle9]

It sounds reasonable however with the S.S. trust projected to go bust in 12 years, I doubt congress would speed that along by increasing benefits.

Increasing benefits ? I'm talking about what a person should already have, otherwise that should have been secured after paying in for 35 years. Otherwise a percentage of the 35 year pay in should be owed to the recipients widow or widower if one should pass away prior to drawing.... One should end up with at least 10 year's pay without penalty to him or her (whatever the case may be), in which would end up being the recipient of the benefit that was owed the other if passed early.

Stealing workers money because they died, otherwise when they have a surviving wife or husband (meaning which ever one dies first), and they both paid in for many years is unethical and disgusting.

 

[Flopper]

This is what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory:

You see a raccoon digging around in your garbage can, so you go inside the house to fetch him that meaty ham bone you were going to throw out at the end of the week anyhow. You give the raccoon the ham and he dines in delight. Now give it about a half minute and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens to you.

Politicians, particularly on the left have been aware of my theory for generations. Once you give people something (like animals) we consider it rightfully our property. Democrats love the power and Republicans can't take anything away from the people that were given to them by the Democrats without getting their hand chewed off.

Down the road when problems arise, they are somebody else's problems and not the people who created them. They had their power, made their money, retired wealthy and died already.

SS was never a financial investment, that goes without saying, but it's considered what they call a social investment which is what I meant. But now that the raccoon has that ham bone we can't take away, it's up to us to figure out how to solve the upcoming problems.

Providing SS is a social investment because if it is not provided then the alternative is some form of social welfare which would be more costly and make recipients a burden on society. No one that has worked all their life should have to feel that they are a burden because they are old and can no longer work. In manty countries that have not provided for the aged you see them begging on the streets, living in a store room of their adult children, and scrounging for food in the city garbage dump. In American we are better than that in a country where a billionaires takes home after taxes 918 million dollars a year out of each billion earned and the super rich such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pay minimal or no income tax at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Providing SS is a social investment because if it is not provided then the alternative is some form of social welfare which would be more costly and make recipients a burden on society. No one that has worked all their life should have to feel that they are a burden because they are old and can no longer work. In manty countries that have not provided for the aged you see them begging on the streets, living in a store room of their adult children, and scrounging for food in the city garbage dump. In American we are better than that in a country where a billionaires takes home after taxes 918 million dollars a year out of each billion earned and the super rich such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pay minimal or no income tax at all.

This isn't a third-world country or one of 1920. What our social programs have done is discourage personal responsibility. I've seen it personally with my side business and first hand in my full time line of work. When you encourage irresponsibility, you simply create more irresponsible people.

It's about time we started to make people more responsible for their actions. It's about time we stop rewarding people for being irresponsible. Government can aid in this if they truly wanted more self-sufficient people, but Democrats want quite the opposite. For starters we need to make restrictions on welfare. If you need public assistance, you have to be fixed first. No more having children and sending the bill to your fellow taxpayers.

The CDC estimates that to raise a middle-class child today, it will cost you 244K from birth to the age of 18. If you want a standard family of four, you better be willing to part with a half-million dollars in the next 20 years. This discourages people from having children. With whites in the US and places in Europe, the populations are actually shrinking. In the meantime, people on the dole are welcome to have as many children as they desire. Taxpayers will feed them, provide them housing even in the suburbs, daycare if the parent is working, and free healthcare which most working families don't have.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, our society is setup in such a way where we create more people in poverty and less self-sufficient people. Then we can't figure out how to solve poverty as it it's some sort of secret. This is just one example of the harm our social programs have on our society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not even close to a good metaphor

No it's not close, it's 100% truth.

 

[beagle9]

This isn't a third-world country or one of 1920. What our social programs have done is discourage personal responsibility. I've seen it personally with my side business and first hand in my full time line of work. When you encourage irresponsibility, you simply create more irresponsible people.

It's about time we started to make people more responsible for their actions. It's about time we stop rewarding people for being irresponsible. Government can aid in this if they truly wanted more self-sufficient people, but Democrats want quite the opposite. For starters we need to make restrictions on welfare. If you need public assistance, you have to be fixed first. No more having children and sending the bill to your fellow taxpayers.

The CDC estimates that to raise a middle-class child today, it will cost you 244K from birth to the age of 18. If you want a standard family of four, you better be willing to part with a half-million dollars in the next 20 years. This discourages people from having children. With whites in the US and places in Europe, the populations are actually shrinking. In the meantime, people on the dole are welcome to have as many children as they desire. Taxpayers will feed them, provide them housing even in the suburbs, daycare if the parent is working, and free healthcare which most working families don't have.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, our society is setup in such a way where we create more people in poverty and less self-sufficient people. Then we can't figure out how to solve poverty as it it's some sort of secret. This is just one example of the harm our social programs have on our society.

True, but you can't lump our working class retiree's into the same boat as the government dependent's who abuse the system. One has earned and paid their individual dues and the other one hasn't.

If want to spur economic viability in our human resources labor market's, then we must show the youth that if they do right in life, and they work hard then they too can reep the reward's of retirement with dignity and honor once they reach retirement. Mistreatment of our elderly after they had paid their dues in life is a detrimental thing in the sight of our up and coming.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True, but you can't lump our working class retiree's into the same boat as the government dependent's who abuse the system. One has earned and paid their individual dues and the other one hasn't.

If want to spur economic viability in our human resources labor market's, then we must show the youth that if they do right in life, and they work hard then they too can reep the reward's of retirement with dignity and honor once they reach retirement. Mistreatment of our elderly after they had paid their dues in life is a detrimental thing in the sight of our up and coming.

I'm not lumping in hard working Americans which I once was, but to wean working Americans off of government run programs; not eliminate them. Just a gradual transition to the private market leaving government behind. The sooner we do it the happier off we all will be.