Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.
How do you pay existing retirees?
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.
What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.
If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.
What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.
If you let anyone out, everyone will leave. Then you have no revenue to pay existing retirees. Are you ready to tell retirees to pound sand, or are you going to tell the people that thought that they were opting out of a foolish program sorry you only opted out of getting benefits.
There would have to be a plan to provide those currently retired. No one is saying tell them tough shit.
As for those that opt out then don't do what they're supposed to responsibly do, I have no problem telling them tough shit. Like I said before, I have no compassion for stupid people.
How do you pay existing retirees?
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
When low incomes get a better return on their money than higher incomes despite paying in at the same rate, it's not a safety net, it's redistribution of wealth. If I pay in at an income 4x higher than someone else, why shouldn't I get out at a 4x higher amount. That's equal and I thought you lefties were all about equal.
The length of time this corrupt Ponzi scheme has been in existence means nothing and is not a justification of the criminal way it has been run.Unfortunately for you Social Security has been in place for 80 years
Wishing and hoping will not make it go away. If you want to "opt out", you need to provide a transition plan that still takes care of those who have paid in to Social Security their whole lives.
That has been done already. No matter what is done, even if we do nothing, it is going to hurt people - people will lose money in the end. The plan that potentially seems the best is that a certain age is determined that identifies the people in the US who can successfully be taken out of SS and placed on their own independent retirement program, one where money is invested for them into an actual account the government CAN NOT TOUCH - PERIOD! The remainder of those left in SS, those who do not have time to begin such a program would run their course through the existing SS program.
The 2 obvious problems with that are:
1. Telling people who are suddenly transitioned from the existing SS program that all the money they have paid in so far is 'gone'
&
2. The SS Ponzi scheme depends on those people who would be otherwise be transitioned out of the program to continue to pay the benefits of those collecting today since the money of those collecting now has already been stolen and spent by the govt.
Of course there are no guarantees, and the 75% and 2090 references are from the OP.The article itself points out:
By then, if Congress does nothing, the federal government will collect enough in payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of scheduled retirement benefits until 2090.
Congress isn't going to just sit there. There are several tweaks that can and will be made:
This hysteria brought on by static analysis is silly. Here:
- Slowly increasing eligibility age
- Increasing or eliminating the cap on Soc Sec taxes
- Increasing payroll taxes in general
- Means testing
If Payroll Taxes Increased by This Much, There Would Be No Social Security or Medicare Shortfall -- The Motley Fool
.
The hysteria is more about understanding what the numbers mean and less about static analysis. Yes, there is a component of the latter, but let's not forget the former. The problem is that you are getting your information from Motley Fool, and not the SSA. You are talking about a different shortfall, one that is designed to be smaller. SSA says that the I&P tax increase to mean that there is no shortfall would be over 4%. CBO says that SSA is wrong. They project that it would require a 4.4% I&P. The Social Security Administration Advisory Board says it is roughly 3.5%.
Your link doesn't say anything about 75 percent or 2090. CBO says that by 2040, the system will payout about 60 percent.
There are no guarantees.
Regardless, screaming about something if we do nothing is not helpful to the conversation. There are fixes, if we just stay calm and communicate.
That was and is my point.
.
The length of time this corrupt Ponzi scheme has been in existence means nothing and is not a justification of the criminal way it has been run.Unfortunately for you Social Security has been in place for 80 years
Wishing and hoping will not make it go away. If you want to "opt out", you need to provide a transition plan that still takes care of those who have paid in to Social Security their whole lives.
That has been done already. No matter what is done, even if we do nothing, it is going to hurt people - people will lose money in the end. The plan that potentially seems the best is that a certain age is determined that identifies the people in the US who can successfully be taken out of SS and placed on their own independent retirement program, one where money is invested for them into an actual account the government CAN NOT TOUCH - PERIOD! The remainder of those left in SS, those who do not have time to begin such a program would run their course through the existing SS program.
The 2 obvious problems with that are:
1. Telling people who are suddenly transitioned from the existing SS program that all the money they have paid in so far is 'gone'
&
2. The SS Ponzi scheme depends on those people who would be otherwise be transitioned out of the program to continue to pay the benefits of those collecting today since the money of those collecting now has already been stolen and spent by the govt.
Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and never has been. It has been working for 80 years. You do not have a Social Security account with your name on it and all the contributions you have paid in. Your contributions pay for those who are currently drawing benefits
You still haven't explained how you would allow people to opt out of Social Security and still pay retirees
How do you pay existing retirees?
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
When low incomes get a better return on their money than higher incomes despite paying in at the same rate, it's not a safety net, it's redistribution of wealth. If I pay in at an income 4x higher than someone else, why shouldn't I get out at a 4x higher amount. That's equal and I thought you lefties were all about equal.
Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and never has been.
Social Security is a retirement safety net. Your benefits are calculated based on what you contributed during your working career. Poor people do receive more to provide a basic standard of living, but they do not receive the same as those who contributed the maximum every year
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
When low incomes get a better return on their money than higher incomes despite paying in at the same rate, it's not a safety net, it's redistribution of wealth. If I pay in at an income 4x higher than someone else, why shouldn't I get out at a 4x higher amount. That's equal and I thought you lefties were all about equal.
That is why it is not a safety-net.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
safety-net? How is paying Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K a year a safety-net? For most people they saw their kids as a 401k, and treated them accordingly.
Typically a worker loses money on Social Security. How is throwing money away a 'safety-net'. It would seem to cause the need.
They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.
What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.
If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.
What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.
If you let anyone out, everyone will leave. Then you have no revenue to pay existing retirees. Are you ready to tell retirees to pound sand, or are you going to tell the people that thought that they were opting out of a foolish program sorry you only opted out of getting benefits.
There would have to be a plan to provide those currently retired. No one is saying tell them tough shit.
As for those that opt out then don't do what they're supposed to responsibly do, I have no problem telling them tough shit. Like I said before, I have no compassion for stupid people.
So let's be honest. You are saying you can opt-out of getting benefits, but you still have to pay. This isn't really opt-out. You are asking younger workers to simply throw money away.
And I wouldn't be so sure that no one is going to tell them tough shit. It is a low probability now, but the longer we ignore the problem the risk grows. Mind you this is the HP, not a conservative outlet.
Social Security and Generation Warfare
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
When low incomes get a better return on their money than higher incomes despite paying in at the same rate, it's not a safety net, it's redistribution of wealth. If I pay in at an income 4x higher than someone else, why shouldn't I get out at a 4x higher amount. That's equal and I thought you lefties were all about equal.
That is why it is not a safety-net.
With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.
Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?
I explained how. You don't listen.
You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.
Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age
When low incomes get a better return on their money than higher incomes despite paying in at the same rate, it's not a safety net, it's redistribution of wealth. If I pay in at an income 4x higher than someone else, why shouldn't I get out at a 4x higher amount. That's equal and I thought you lefties were all about equal.
Social Security is a retirement safety net. Your benefits are calculated based on what you contributed during your working career. Poor people do receive more to provide a basic standard of living, but they do not receive the same as those who contributed the maximum every year
That wasn't hard to do until President Reagan not only slammed that exit door shut, he had it bricked up.What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.
SS is an insurance program. The larger the pool of insured, the stronger the system.Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
That wasn't hard to do until President Reagan not only slammed that exit door shut, he had it bricked up.What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.
SS is an insurance program. The larger the pool of insured, the stronger the system.Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.
You can still raise the age of full retirement to 70 and allow workers to take early retirement at a younger age at reduced benefit
F* a 'reduced benefit'. I want MY money I put into Social Security!
I'm a big boy, and I no longer need the government to hold MY money for MY retirement, especially when they have proven they can't be trusted due to their mismanagement of funds and programs.
I don't WANT them to continue STEALING MY money from MY paycheck - I am perfectly capable of investing and saving for my own retirement. The trouble is you can't 'FIRE' this 'mandatory govt retirement investment' entity because they are basically holding us all a 'gun point'. We do not get a say in if we get to keep our money.
We are being ROBBED by the government every month, and we are told we just have to stand there and take it.
The REASON we have to continue to pay in is because those who are before us, those who are already receiving benefits have no money of their own - it has been SPENT, and WE have to keep paying into the program so OTHERS will get what id due them.
GREAT F*ing System....one whose own creator insisted this was NEVER meant to be a permanent program due to the potential for it to become what it is now....a criminal Washington Ponzi Scheme.
