Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 10 Years

[Lisa558]

Cut defense spending.

Let’s cut waste in defense spending, like leaving $85 billion in military equipment to the Taliban.

 

[Lisa558]

Some people say that leads to inflation while others disagree. I think the amount of new money being printed will be so much that inflation WILL occur and could be crippling for the economy. IMHO, we're going to have to bite the bullet and come up with some kind of bipartisan agreement that resolves the problem or at least mitigates it.

Yes, that’s why it has to be a compromise:

1) Raise the age by one year.

2) Raise the wages taxed by $50,000.

 

[sealybobo]

Some people say that leads to inflation while others disagree. I think the amount of new money being printed will be so much that inflation WILL occur and could be crippling for the economy. IMHO, we're going to have to bite the bullet and come up with some kind of bipartisan agreement that resolves the problem or at least mitigates it.

That's right and the compromise will be that you and I need to take a 20-30% cut to our social security. And we will have to pay higher premiums for medicare. And we will have to work 3 years more before we can collect.

I just pray to god that they don't fuck over people as old as I am. I'm 52. In 10 years I'll be 62. Hopefully they only fuck over Americans who are 60 and under.

How about they stop giving seniors today COLA raises? Just freeze them at where they are at now. Doesn't matter how much inflation goes up. If you get $1200 a month now, you will get $1200 a month 10 years from now. I would accept that over a 20% cut. Plus if we start doing this now, perhaps the program won't run out of money in 10 years. Maybe it will be in 11 years.

All I know is as soon as I turn 62 I'm asking for mine. Fuck waiting.

P.S. Remember when Reagan passed his tax cuts to the rich and corporations I told you that it was shifting the tax burden more onto us. Maybe not right away but eventually. Then the Bush tax breaks. Then the Trump tax breaks. So now we are broke and we can't even suggest rolling back those tax breaks. So what are we going to do? "COMPROMISE". In other words, you're going to bend over and take it in the asshole.

 

[DudleySmith]

I won't always argue with you. Here is what we see here in Metro Detroit. Muslims/Arabs/Chaldeans really know how to game the system. Way too many of them are on disability and also work at their uncles party store. Free everything. Young healthy men and women. They must have arab doctors that approve them.

And a lot of rich Indian and Asian immigrants bring Ma over and Grandma over and put them on the dole.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

They will if given the chance.

What government handout? The one owed to me? Notice Trump doesn't mind gubmint handouts?

WTF does this have to do with Trump? You really humped the shark with that comment! Jesus Christ!

 

[leftwinger]

Cut defense spending.

I have been wondering why this was not brought up earlier in this topic. uh....yes....uh...but?

 

[leftwinger]

Yes, that’s why it has to be a compromise:

1) Raise the age by one year.

2) Raise the wages taxed by $50,000.

Got to be careful. If it results in higher payouts to higher income contributors...it does not work. And if you don't pay them more for putting in more....it is nothing but a TAX. It will probably come to that eventually.

 

[leftwinger]

This is where it is now:

The math works like this: 1. If your wages were less than $137,700 in 2020, multiply your earnings by 6.2% to arrive at the amount you and your employer must each pay for a total of 12.4%.

 

[sealybobo]

And a lot of rich Indian and Asian immigrants bring Ma over and Grandma over and put them on the dole.

Not to this extent. My sister in law is a pt in Dearborn, MI. She can't believe all the seemingly healthy arabs come in and are on medicaid.

My mom was in a nursing home we were paying $20,000 a month sitting next to a broke Chaldean woman who's nieces visited every day and bragged about how medicaid pays for everything. If you have no money. And Yaya has no money. So this woman, who can't even speak English, never paid a dime in taxes her whole life, was brought over as a 50 year old woman. Her husband took care of her for 12 years and now you take care of her till she turns 99. 62-99 years old. Let's make it easy 92. 30 years you pay for Yaya. Habibi only paid for 12. Good deal if you ask me.

 

[sealybobo]

WTF does this have to do with Trump? You really humped the shark with that comment! Jesus Christ!

I paid in to social security. And the deal was, I could retire between 62 and 67. I believe Reagan raised full retirement for people my age to 67. Anyways, that's my deal. I pay in, and if I die at 61, I get nothing. If I live to 92, I can collect x amount every month for 30 years if I retire at 62. You can't renig on me. They can't renig on me. They can't say now you get x amount minus 30%. If they do that, maybe give me something in return. Like I never pay a tax another day in my life. When my stocks make 10%, don't tax that 10%. It's all mine. When I draw my 401K, don't tax me at a higher income bracket BULLSHIT.

Certainly you will want something in return for being so patriotic you would give up 30% of your retirement benefit so rich people since Reagan could enjoy higher tax breaks.

Is this accurate?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, that’s why it has to be a compromise:

1) Raise the age by one year.

2) Raise the wages taxed by $50,000.

Remember you defended the Reagan tax breaks to the rich? Remember you defended the Bush tax breaks? Remember you defended the Trump tax breaks which caused inflation? And your tax break has expired?

Now you want to work on more year for those tax breaks to the rich?

You are so good to rich people and corporations Lisa.

 

[task0778]

Got to be careful. If it results in higher payouts to higher income contributors...it does not work. And if you don't pay them more for putting in more....it is nothing but a TAX. It will probably come to that eventually.

I thought it was already a tax. Politicians being politicians, they probably call it something else but it is essentially a tax. I think they'll endup raising the benefits age by a year or 2, and raise the ceiling for taxable income and also raising the tax rate a little bit. Some combination of those 3 things at least. They might even cap the maximum payout, which right now is inflation adjusted and goes up every year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I paid in to social security. And the deal was, I could retire between 62 and 67. I believe Reagan raised full retirement for people my age to 67. Anyways, that's my deal. I pay in, and if I die at 61, I get nothing. If I live to 92, I can collect x amount every month for 30 years if I retire at 62. You can't renig on me. They can't renig on me. They can't say now you get x amount minus 30%. If they do that, maybe give me something in return. Like I never pay a tax another day in my life. When my stocks make 10%, don't tax that 10%. It's all mine. When I draw my 401K, don't tax me at a higher income bracket BULLSHIT.

Certainly you will want something in return for being so patriotic you would give up 30% of your retirement benefit so rich people since Reagan could enjoy higher tax breaks.

Is this accurate?

You can't renig on me. They can't renig on me. They can't say now you get x amount minus 30%.

If they only have enough money to pay 70% of the benefits, that's exactly what they'll say.

 

[Lisa558]

Got to be careful. If it results in higher payouts to higher income contributors...it does not work. And if you don't pay them more for putting in more....it is nothing but a TAX. It will probably come to that eventually.

Then let’s focus on moving the retirement age up by one year - early SS at 63 and full SS at 68.

When SS was instituted in 1935, few people lived more than a few years past 65. The lucky ones made it to their early 70s. This was never intended to pay out for 30 years.

 

[WEATHER53]

Never listen to lib loons about social security
75% of them think it’s a gimmie like welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers and all your other free shit that the thinking and productive pay for on your behalf.
If one was a wage earner for 40+!years then they contributed well over one hundred thousand dollars to SS. Libs can’t even spell one hundred thousand dollars,
.
Since most dems are money takers rather than wage earners, they get jollies out of trying to “frighten” the productive that SS will dry up. Your freebie shit that you Never paid anything into is what needs to dry up but thats too many of the core democrat voting base

 

[sealybobo]

You can't renig on me. They can't renig on me. They can't say now you get x amount minus 30%.

If they only have enough money to pay 70% of the benefits, that's exactly what they'll say.

That's what they'll say. And that's what they'll do. But it's bullshit you know that right? And you don't mind them fucking you this way?

Consider this. They could roll back some or all of the tax breaks Bush/Reagan and Trump gave corporations and rich people. Why is that off the table? It's not. This will also be part of the solution.

And consider this. We didn't have the money for the Iraq war, did we? In fact right before the Iraq war Bush passed tax breaks for corporations and the rich. He used Clinton's surplus as justification. So 1. He shouldn't have passed that tax break and 2. How did he come up with the money to fight the iraq war after he passed those tax breaks? Do that to fill up the social security bucket. I don't care if you have to put it on the debt.

3. But the rich fought back with Reagan. Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983.

33-9 = 24% I bet that 24% would fund the program

4. How many people died of covid? No one talks about how much the program saved with all those deaths.

5. You know that person who won the billion and a half lotto? The lump sum is 750 million. Where does the other 750 million go? Schools? LOL. Start putting it in to ss.

6. We all agree on this because we all expect to be able to retire at some point. And as we see with Trump's tax breaks, if you let people invest it themselves, they won't. They'll just spend it. Inflation will just eat it up. Corporations want that money. It's why they hate these very popular socialist programs. You must be rich. One things for sure. You're patriotic to take the hit.

 

[sealybobo]

Never listen to lib loons about social security
75% of them think it’s a gimmie like welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers and all your other free shit that the thinking and productive pay for on your behalf.
If one was a wage earner for 40+!years then they contributed well over one hundred thousand dollars to SS. Libs can’t even spell one hundred thousand dollars,
.
Since most dems are money takers rather than wage earners, they get jollies out of trying to “frighten” the productive that SS will dry up. Your freebie shit that you Never paid anything into is what needs to dry up but thats too many of the core democrat voting base

If they are just takers then they don't get very much social security.

And I'd be willing to bet you rely on social security and medicare too. Two socialist programs you couldn't afford to live without. If not, you're rich, go suck your butler's dick.

 

[August West]

And a lot of rich Indian and Asian immigrants bring Ma over and Grandma over and put them on the dole.

I`m sure you have proof of this.

 

[August West]

Never listen to lib loons about social security
75% of them think it’s a gimmie like welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers and all your other free shit that the thinking and productive pay for on your behalf.
If one was a wage earner for 40+!years then they contributed well over one hundred thousand dollars to SS. Libs can’t even spell one hundred thousand dollars,
.
Since most dems are money takers rather than wage earners, they get jollies out of trying to “frighten” the productive that SS will dry up. Your freebie shit that you Never paid anything into is what needs to dry up but thats too many of the core democrat voting base

The blue states (libs) feed the red states. You knew that, right?

AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

apnews.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's what they'll say. And that's what they'll do. But it's bullshit you know that right? And you don't mind them fucking you this way?

Consider this. They could roll back some or all of the tax breaks Bush/Reagan and Trump gave corporations and rich people. Why is that off the table? It's not. This will also be part of the solution.

And consider this. We didn't have the money for the Iraq war, did we? In fact right before the Iraq war Bush passed tax breaks for corporations and the rich. He used Clinton's surplus as justification. So 1. He shouldn't have passed that tax break and 2. How did he come up with the money to fight the iraq war after he passed those tax breaks? Do that to fill up the social security bucket. I don't care if you have to put it on the debt.

3. But the rich fought back with Reagan. Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983.

33-9 = 24% I bet that 24% would fund the program

4. How many people died of covid? No one talks about how much the program saved with all those deaths.

5. You know that person who won the billion and a half lotto? The lump sum is 750 million. Where does the other 750 million go? Schools? LOL. Start putting it in to ss.

6. We all agree on this because we all expect to be able to retire at some point. And as we see with Trump's tax breaks, if you let people invest it themselves, they won't. They'll just spend it. Inflation will just eat it up. Corporations want that money. It's why they hate these very popular socialist programs. You must be rich. One things for sure. You're patriotic to take the hit.

But it's bullshit you know that right?

Why is it bullshit? The "Trust Fund" will be empty and the money coming in will only cover 70% of the benefits owed.

And you don't mind them fucking you this way?

What I mind has nothing to do with more people living longer and fewer workers per retiree.

They could roll back some or all of the tax breaks Bush/Reagan and Trump gave corporations and rich people.

Those cuts didn't reduce SS receipts. Rolling them back wouldn't increase SS receipts.
You know that, right?

We didn't have the money for the Iraq war, did we? In fact right before the Iraq war Bush passed tax breaks for corporations and the rich.

Show me his corporate tax cuts.

Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983.

What were corporate tax receipts under Carter?
What were the receipts from the rich in 1951? What are they now?

You know that person who won the billion and a half lotto? The lump sum is 750 million. Where does the other 750 million go? Schools? LOL.

Compounding. Duh

And as we see with Trump's tax breaks, if you let people invest it themselves, they won't.

If I could have invested my 12.4% in 70% S&P 500 and 30% US Treasuries, I'd get something like triple my expected monthly check and a huge lump-sum for my heirs when I die.