Which party will actually pay for the new Debt, or will Social Security & Medicare go Bankrupt?

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Not true. SS was never a separate account. That's how Presidents for many years were able to borrow the money anytime they wanted.

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons for decades, maybe they should only gain around the percentage that the rest of us do?

Yes, there are more than income taxes, but income taxes pays for all our government goodies. Your payroll taxes fund the things you use today like highways, street lights, police, fire.......

If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will not only get back everything you paid into the various programs, but more.

As I stated, your city, state, perhaps county taxes go for the things you use today. You will get all your SS back, you will get all your Medicare back, so it's not even really a tax at all. It's more like a savings account kept by the government.

Income taxes pay for our military, welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, and nearly half of our country doesn't pay anything towards the hundreds of programs we spend that money. So payroll and income taxes are entirely different.

If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will not only get back everything you paid into the various programs, but more.
You will get all your SS back, you will get all your Medicare back, so it's not even really a tax at all. It's more like a savings account kept by the government.

I disagree with all of that.

Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get in benefits

Many Americans retiring now will have paid more in Social Security taxes than they'll get in benefits. But that's not true of Medicare.

money.cnn.com

The amount of money you pay into Social Security, you are not likely to get back. The benefits today, are exceeded by the cost of Social Security. Most people pay in, more than they get back.

Medicare, you also pay in more than you get back generally speaking.

Medicare and Medicaid, pay out less than the cost of care. In order for hospitals to survive, they charge higher prices to private patients.

So every single insurance premium you pay throughout your life, is a higher premium to cover the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

Throughout your whole life, you have been paying the Medicare tax, and you have been paying higher premiums on your insurance, in order to cover government-patients.

If you were to add in the cost of all those higher premiums throughout your whole life.... you don't get back what you paid into Medicare.

 

[berg80]

I'll let you know if you ever post anything that's actually true.

Coming from you that's hilarious.

 

[kyzr]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons, maybe they should only gain the percentage what the rest of us do?

That's not going to happen. They might hide their wealth, or move their wealth out of the country, so that you can't see it..... ok that might happen, and then you would have the illusion that they are only gaining the same percentage as the rest of us.

I could see that.

But you'll never make the wealthy only gain as much as the rest of us. That is absurd.

That suggests that you don't know how wealth creation works. People who save and invest, end up with wealth. Those that don't, don't.

If I keep investing, and you never do.... no amount of taxes is going to change the fact that I'll keep growing in wealth, and you won't.

Agreed, they didn't get wealthy by being stupid. Remember "Only little people pay taxes"?
I was only trying to justify slightly higher tax rates.
Don't start the "income inequality" discussion.
I'll give you one example: High frequency traders. Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.
One more: Bane Capital, moving US factories to China and getting tax breaks
Think about it. There are people that deserve a raise, and people that should be docked.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons for decades, maybe they should only gain around the percentage that the rest of us do?

Yes, there are more than income taxes, but income taxes pays for all our government goodies. Your payroll taxes fund the things you use today like highways, street lights, police, fire.......

If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will not only get back everything you paid into the various programs, but more.

As I stated, your city, state, perhaps county taxes go for the things you use today. You will get all your SS back, you will get all your Medicare back, so it's not even really a tax at all. It's more like a savings account kept by the government.

Income taxes pay for our military, welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, and nearly half of our country doesn't pay anything towards the hundreds of programs we spend that money. So payroll and income taxes are entirely different.

You are misusing the term "payroll tax".

 

[berg80]

Here's what Congress may do to fix Social Security this fall

The House of Representatives may vote on a measure to extend Social Security's solvency in the next few months. That, coupled with new proposals to change a rule that affects public workers' benefits, could amount to the most substantial reforms to the insurance program since 1983.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Again.......... All those things you listed, have been done by other countries, and their pensions systems are not fixed.

AGAIN.... if was possible to fix public pensions, then why hasn't it been done?

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.

Define a ponzi scheme, and explain to me how Social Security operates differently. They operate exactly the same. By definition they operate the same. A ponzi scheme is when you take new investors, to pay off old investors. Then you need newer investors, to pay off those investors. And on and on. Eventually you run out of new investors to pay off the older ones, and the ponzi scheme implodes.

Social Security operates exactly that way, with the new "investors" paying off old "investors", and then you need newer "investors" to pay off those. And just like any other ponzi scheme, the entire problem of Social Security is that we can't find enough money from newer investors to pay off the olders ones.

It is a ponzi scheme. By definition it is.

1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.

No, it will delay the problem. It doesn't get rid of anything. Do you know the history of Social Security? In 1935 the retirement age was 61. Now it's up to 67.

We've been increasing the retirement age since Social Security was created. Why didn't that "get X% of the problem"? We have been reducing benefits, since the first year that Social Security was created, and we still have the problem.

So raising the retirement age to 68 will delay the problem for sure. But it won't fix it. You'll kick the can down the road for another 10 or 20 years, but we'll be back here, debating how to fix social security again.

Again, other countries have raised their retirement age too, and they still have problems. This is not a magic "fix".

2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.

No, it will delay the problem. But it won't fix the problem. Again, Social Security history. In 1935, Social Security was a 1% tax. We're now at a 12.4% tax.

By the way, you know that you pay the other 6.2% tax the employer pays, right? You do know that your wages are reduced, to pay that 6.2% the employer pays into SS on your behalf? So you are paying 12.4% in taxes right now. Your wages are at least 6.2% lower than they would be, if Social Security didn't exist. So you are paying the cost.

If raising taxes by 1% fixed Social Security, then why didn't raising taxes from 1% to 12.4% fix Social Security?

Again, why hasn't Germany with an 18% tax, fixed their pension system? Why are saying they'll need to raise pension taxes in the future?

No, it will kick the can down the road another dozen years, but it won't fix anything.

3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

Your fix ignores that fact that all those people will demand higher payouts. Why should I pay in more money into Social Security, if I'm not going to get anything back out comparable to what I paid in?

Let me ask you something. If you purchased a one Million dollar life insurance policy, for $140 a month (that's a real quote).... and the insurance company 10 years after buying the policy said "You'll have to pay $500 a month from here on, but your pay out is still one Million"..... would you accept that?

Would you? You think rich people are just going to accept that? No. Won't work.

Again, if that would work, then why has not a single country in the world today, ever done it?

Your arguments are not based in math, they are more like whining.
3. The law sets the payouts, no one can fucking "demand" anything. That SS will be there for the future is guaranteed. Right now the young folks are worried SS won't be there when they retire.

Americans fear Social Security will go broke, poll shows

No wonder they're concerned: This retirement income is essential for most of the country's retirees

www.cbsnews.com

We aren't discussing insurance, we're discussing SS.
Besides, all SS changes would be phased in, no one will be whining like you are.

Of course they can demand. Everyone can vote. They can vote out people who propose paying into a system, for benefits you are denied.

Look stupid... you haven't made an actual math argument either. You have claimed that some one else, suggested that such and such a tax would produce enough revenue to fix the problem. Have you done any math at all on this? No. Have you shown your tax tables? no. Have you done anything at all, but mindlessly repeat the words of other people, and taken it for granted that they did math, since you are clearly incapable of it? No you have not done anything other than that.

Really? You haven't show a single mathematical calculation yet, and then are some blindly incompetent as to suggest I'm on based on math? Are you really this stupid, or are you channeling forest gump right now?

If anyone is whining, it's you "You are.... wah.... not using.... wah.... math... wah... when I'm not either.... wah".

I on the other hand, have presented facts about Germany, and other EU nations, and what they have done, what the results of those things are, with documentation. You have provided nothing, but your ignorance based opinion of parroting other people like a robot.

Grow up. You want to make a fool of yourself? Keep talking child.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Your information is incorrect. Clinton had nothing to do with it. Public law says that the two SS trust funds are off budget. It was passed in 1990.

 

[Andylusion]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

History of Social Security in detail. It was never separate, never in private accounts. There was no lock box. That was a myth Al Gore made up to get elected.

Social Security hasn't changed in how it functions, since 1935 when it was created. Money from your income tax, and your Social Security tax, are taken out of your check together... given to the Federal Government together, and spent together.

It's never been separate. The dollar taken from your check, does to the same place the dollar in sales tax on gasoline goes to. The Federal Government. The government spends that money, just like any other money. Your SS dollar can go to welfare, to the military, to a green energy grant, to a public housing program, to an existing retiree, or to anything else.

There is nothing separate about Social Security or Medicare, and never was.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Not true. SS was never a separate account. That's how Presidents for many years were able to borrow the money anytime they wanted.

You are dead wrong. Only excesses may be used for budget purposes and are added to the budget as US treasuries.

 

[kyzr]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Not true. SS was never a separate account. That's how Presidents for many years were able to borrow the money anytime they wanted.

Read down to and "On Budget"

Social Security History

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons, maybe they should only gain the percentage what the rest of us do?

That's not going to happen. They might hide their wealth, or move their wealth out of the country, so that you can't see it..... ok that might happen, and then you would have the illusion that they are only gaining the same percentage as the rest of us.

I could see that.

But you'll never make the wealthy only gain as much as the rest of us. That is absurd.

That suggests that you don't know how wealth creation works. People who save and invest, end up with wealth. Those that don't, don't.

If I keep investing, and you never do.... no amount of taxes is going to change the fact that I'll keep growing in wealth, and you won't.

Agreed, they didn't get wealthy by being stupid. Remember "Only little people pay taxes"?
I was only trying to justify slightly higher tax rates.
Don't start the "income inequality" discussion.
I'll give you one example: High frequency traders. Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.
One more: Bane Capital, moving US factories to China and getting tax breaks
Think about it. There are people that deserve a raise, and people that should be docked.

They are not stealing.

Bane Capital moving US factories to china and getting tax breaks.

So let me see if I understand.... you think that if you increase taxes on Bane Capital.... they'll be... less likely to move factories to China? 0.o

By what logic do you increase taxes, and think that's going to have people keep their investments here?

This is the weird aspect of this discussion. You complain about people move factories out of the US, and then think that beating on companies with higher taxes is going to keep them here?

It's like you have a "The beatings will continue until morale improves" ideology.

I'm not even aware of much involving Bane Capital moving factories, but whatever.

Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.

First they are not stealing.

Second..... a transaction tax will simply make them move out of the US... which ironically is what you were complaining about before.

You do realize that you can simply delist your stocks, and move your stock trades to Japan, or Hong Kong, or any number of other markets, and then.... poof.... there goes your tax revenue.

What's ironic about that, is then the people harmed the most will be 401K and pensions here in the US. Union pension funds, are heavily invested in stocks.

You just wrecked them with your proposal. Brilliant.

 

[kyzr]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Again.......... All those things you listed, have been done by other countries, and their pensions systems are not fixed.

AGAIN.... if was possible to fix public pensions, then why hasn't it been done?

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.

Define a ponzi scheme, and explain to me how Social Security operates differently. They operate exactly the same. By definition they operate the same. A ponzi scheme is when you take new investors, to pay off old investors. Then you need newer investors, to pay off those investors. And on and on. Eventually you run out of new investors to pay off the older ones, and the ponzi scheme implodes.

Social Security operates exactly that way, with the new "investors" paying off old "investors", and then you need newer "investors" to pay off those. And just like any other ponzi scheme, the entire problem of Social Security is that we can't find enough money from newer investors to pay off the olders ones.

It is a ponzi scheme. By definition it is.

1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.

No, it will delay the problem. It doesn't get rid of anything. Do you know the history of Social Security? In 1935 the retirement age was 61. Now it's up to 67.

We've been increasing the retirement age since Social Security was created. Why didn't that "get X% of the problem"? We have been reducing benefits, since the first year that Social Security was created, and we still have the problem.

So raising the retirement age to 68 will delay the problem for sure. But it won't fix it. You'll kick the can down the road for another 10 or 20 years, but we'll be back here, debating how to fix social security again.

Again, other countries have raised their retirement age too, and they still have problems. This is not a magic "fix".

2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.

No, it will delay the problem. But it won't fix the problem. Again, Social Security history. In 1935, Social Security was a 1% tax. We're now at a 12.4% tax.

By the way, you know that you pay the other 6.2% tax the employer pays, right? You do know that your wages are reduced, to pay that 6.2% the employer pays into SS on your behalf? So you are paying 12.4% in taxes right now. Your wages are at least 6.2% lower than they would be, if Social Security didn't exist. So you are paying the cost.

If raising taxes by 1% fixed Social Security, then why didn't raising taxes from 1% to 12.4% fix Social Security?

Again, why hasn't Germany with an 18% tax, fixed their pension system? Why are saying they'll need to raise pension taxes in the future?

No, it will kick the can down the road another dozen years, but it won't fix anything.

3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

Your fix ignores that fact that all those people will demand higher payouts. Why should I pay in more money into Social Security, if I'm not going to get anything back out comparable to what I paid in?

Let me ask you something. If you purchased a one Million dollar life insurance policy, for $140 a month (that's a real quote).... and the insurance company 10 years after buying the policy said "You'll have to pay $500 a month from here on, but your pay out is still one Million"..... would you accept that?

Would you? You think rich people are just going to accept that? No. Won't work.

Again, if that would work, then why has not a single country in the world today, ever done it?

Your arguments are not based in math, they are more like whining.
3. The law sets the payouts, no one can fucking "demand" anything. That SS will be there for the future is guaranteed. Right now the young folks are worried SS won't be there when they retire.

Americans fear Social Security will go broke, poll shows

No wonder they're concerned: This retirement income is essential for most of the country's retirees

www.cbsnews.com

We aren't discussing insurance, we're discussing SS.
Besides, all SS changes would be phased in, no one will be whining like you are.

Of course they can demand. Everyone can vote. They can vote out people who propose paying into a system, for benefits you are denied.

Look stupid... you haven't made an actual math argument either. You have claimed that some one else, suggested that such and such a tax would produce enough revenue to fix the problem. Have you done any math at all on this? No. Have you shown your tax tables? no. Have you done anything at all, but mindlessly repeat the words of other people, and taken it for granted that they did math, since you are clearly incapable of it? No you have not done anything other than that.

Really? You haven't show a single mathematical calculation yet, and then are some blindly incompetent as to suggest I'm on based on math? Are you really this stupid, or are you channeling forest gump right now?

If anyone is whining, it's you "You are.... wah.... not using.... wah.... math... wah... when I'm not either.... wah".

I on the other hand, have presented facts about Germany, and other EU nations, and what they have done, what the results of those things are, with documentation. You have provided nothing, but your ignorance based opinion of parroting other people like a robot.

Grow up. You want to make a fool of yourself? Keep talking child.

You lose. I provided credible links on how to fix SS.
You only whine that SS didn't work in Germany.
Here are the the credible SS "fixes" again. Please provide credible proof (documentation?) that you are right and SS can't be fixed.
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

 

[kyzr]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Your information is incorrect. Clinton had nothing to do with it. Public law says that the two SS trust funds are off budget. It was passed in 1990.

SS has a very long history and was fixed several times already. Please read down to and "On-Budget"

Social Security History

 

[Andylusion]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Not true. SS was never a separate account. That's how Presidents for many years were able to borrow the money anytime they wanted.

You are dead wrong. Only excesses may be used for budget purposes and are added to the budget as US treasuries.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Which is only in fake securities. They are non-marketable bonds. What is a bond, that you can't sell?

It's bit of paper with words on it, that says "IOU". But you can not sell them, they have no value.

If you gathered a group of people, and you robbed the Social Security trust fund, you would end up with bits of paper, that had less value than the cost of the gasoline you used to go get them.

But there is no account with money in it. All the money goes to the same place. Again, read the book. There is no "fund". There are no real securities or assets.

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Again.......... All those things you listed, have been done by other countries, and their pensions systems are not fixed.

AGAIN.... if was possible to fix public pensions, then why hasn't it been done?

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.

Define a ponzi scheme, and explain to me how Social Security operates differently. They operate exactly the same. By definition they operate the same. A ponzi scheme is when you take new investors, to pay off old investors. Then you need newer investors, to pay off those investors. And on and on. Eventually you run out of new investors to pay off the older ones, and the ponzi scheme implodes.

Social Security operates exactly that way, with the new "investors" paying off old "investors", and then you need newer "investors" to pay off those. And just like any other ponzi scheme, the entire problem of Social Security is that we can't find enough money from newer investors to pay off the olders ones.

It is a ponzi scheme. By definition it is.

1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.

No, it will delay the problem. It doesn't get rid of anything. Do you know the history of Social Security? In 1935 the retirement age was 61. Now it's up to 67.

We've been increasing the retirement age since Social Security was created. Why didn't that "get X% of the problem"? We have been reducing benefits, since the first year that Social Security was created, and we still have the problem.

So raising the retirement age to 68 will delay the problem for sure. But it won't fix it. You'll kick the can down the road for another 10 or 20 years, but we'll be back here, debating how to fix social security again.

Again, other countries have raised their retirement age too, and they still have problems. This is not a magic "fix".

2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.

No, it will delay the problem. But it won't fix the problem. Again, Social Security history. In 1935, Social Security was a 1% tax. We're now at a 12.4% tax.

By the way, you know that you pay the other 6.2% tax the employer pays, right? You do know that your wages are reduced, to pay that 6.2% the employer pays into SS on your behalf? So you are paying 12.4% in taxes right now. Your wages are at least 6.2% lower than they would be, if Social Security didn't exist. So you are paying the cost.

If raising taxes by 1% fixed Social Security, then why didn't raising taxes from 1% to 12.4% fix Social Security?

Again, why hasn't Germany with an 18% tax, fixed their pension system? Why are saying they'll need to raise pension taxes in the future?

No, it will kick the can down the road another dozen years, but it won't fix anything.

3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. Or, just exclude the top 1% or 2% of earners like Bloomberg & Trump. QED SS Fixed.

Your fix ignores that fact that all those people will demand higher payouts. Why should I pay in more money into Social Security, if I'm not going to get anything back out comparable to what I paid in?

Let me ask you something. If you purchased a one Million dollar life insurance policy, for $140 a month (that's a real quote).... and the insurance company 10 years after buying the policy said "You'll have to pay $500 a month from here on, but your pay out is still one Million"..... would you accept that?

Would you? You think rich people are just going to accept that? No. Won't work.

Again, if that would work, then why has not a single country in the world today, ever done it?

Your arguments are not based in math, they are more like whining.
3. The law sets the payouts, no one can fucking "demand" anything. That SS will be there for the future is guaranteed. Right now the young folks are worried SS won't be there when they retire.

Americans fear Social Security will go broke, poll shows

No wonder they're concerned: This retirement income is essential for most of the country's retirees

www.cbsnews.com

We aren't discussing insurance, we're discussing SS.
Besides, all SS changes would be phased in, no one will be whining like you are.

Of course they can demand. Everyone can vote. They can vote out people who propose paying into a system, for benefits you are denied.

Look stupid... you haven't made an actual math argument either. You have claimed that some one else, suggested that such and such a tax would produce enough revenue to fix the problem. Have you done any math at all on this? No. Have you shown your tax tables? no. Have you done anything at all, but mindlessly repeat the words of other people, and taken it for granted that they did math, since you are clearly incapable of it? No you have not done anything other than that.

Really? You haven't show a single mathematical calculation yet, and then are some blindly incompetent as to suggest I'm on based on math? Are you really this stupid, or are you channeling forest gump right now?

If anyone is whining, it's you "You are.... wah.... not using.... wah.... math... wah... when I'm not either.... wah".

I on the other hand, have presented facts about Germany, and other EU nations, and what they have done, what the results of those things are, with documentation. You have provided nothing, but your ignorance based opinion of parroting other people like a robot.

Grow up. You want to make a fool of yourself? Keep talking child.

You lose. I provided credible links on how to fix SS.
You only whine that SS didn't work in Germany.
Here are the the credible SS "fixes" again. Please provide credible proof (documentation?) that you are right and SS can't be fixed.
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Well that's enough of you. I proved my point multiple times, and you couldn't even attempt a counter argument, and that's why you spam links that I already debunked.

So, facts are, you lost. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

 

[Andylusion]

The point I tried to make is simply that imo most people taking benefits before full retirement age do so because they don't have a choice. They couldn't work and couldn't get disability, or disability didn't pay as much as they needed.

So while raising full retirement age might be necessary, I don't think we can really raise early retirement age

It all depends on how much you love working. I always hated working in my later years, and wanted to retire at 62. You only lose 25% of your max collection, and who knows if you'll even live that long to collect full benefits. You can still earn up to 17.5 K, so depending on your situation, it's better to take early retirement if you can get by on it.

I'm not sure many of us "love" working. Most of us want to stay active. But imo its not at all uncommon, since the great recession and it will get worse now, that workers over the age of 60 are cast aside. Employers find they are not "essential" or employers find cheaper workers.

But you make a good point. If the goal is to preserve soc sec, maybe we should raise the full retirement age, and require some showing of loss of full time employment to get early benefits.

Increase the retirement age, and a lot of people will be filing for disability. You really don't solve much that way. When we get older, most of us develop physical conditions that we could use to get out of working at that age.

Like I said, if we as a majority want to keep these programs, we simply have to pay for them. That's the real solution.

We simply can't. Again, Greece tried that. Didn't work. Venezuela tired that. Didn't work.

There is no possible way to just "pay for them". There simply isn't enough money for these programs.

Then people down the road area going to have to make a decision. Either fund the program, allow the program to collapse, or keep borrowing the money and the entire economy of the country collapses.

Well we had the opportunity in 2000 to fund the revenue gap we boomers will cause, but we chose tax cuts instead. assuming we can get through this, our kids in the millennium generation will get their chance to do what we didn't have the stones for.

This can't last forever which is why it needs to totally change. SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They tell you how much you contributed to the system since you started working each year. Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask them how much you'd be worth today if all the money you and your employer contributed all these years, were invested in a conservative growth account. You'd probably pass out.

Bush had a good idea that everybody rejected. He wanted to allow workers to be able to contribute a small percentage of their SS contribution to a private account. The reason the Democrats hated it is because once people seen their own money actually accrue interest, they would demand they allow a higher percentage. If that demand kept up, eventually SS would be a thing of the past in future generations, and problem solved.

All true, but I remember when Bill Clinton took the SS money into the Budget and called it a "unified budget".
Prior to that SS had a private separate account aka Al Gore's "lock box". SS was separate from the Budget.

Your information is incorrect. Clinton had nothing to do with it. Public law says that the two SS trust funds are off budget. It was passed in 1990.

SS has a very long history and was fixed several times already. Please read down to and "On-Budget"

Social Security History

And there you go. You just blew up your own position.

SS has a very long history and was fixed several times already.

That's our entire point. You just blew yourself off this thread. Do you not see that?

Social Security "was fixed several times already"...... THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE YOU BRAINLESS IDIOT?

Do you not see you just destroyed your own position? Why are we having this discussion right now, if it was fixed? Do you understand the word "fixed"? It means we shouldn't be discussing how to "fix it" if it was "Fixed already".

This is how I know I'm talking to a complete moron, who just mindlessly parrots what other people say, without thinking.

Obviously, none of other fixes, ever fixed anything. It only delayed the crash. Because if it was fixed, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

 

[kyzr]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons, maybe they should only gain the percentage what the rest of us do?

That's not going to happen. They might hide their wealth, or move their wealth out of the country, so that you can't see it..... ok that might happen, and then you would have the illusion that they are only gaining the same percentage as the rest of us.

I could see that.

But you'll never make the wealthy only gain as much as the rest of us. That is absurd.

That suggests that you don't know how wealth creation works. People who save and invest, end up with wealth. Those that don't, don't.

If I keep investing, and you never do.... no amount of taxes is going to change the fact that I'll keep growing in wealth, and you won't.

Agreed, they didn't get wealthy by being stupid. Remember "Only little people pay taxes"?
I was only trying to justify slightly higher tax rates.
Don't start the "income inequality" discussion.
I'll give you one example: High frequency traders. Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.
One more: Bane Capital, moving US factories to China and getting tax breaks
Think about it. There are people that deserve a raise, and people that should be docked.

They are not stealing.

Bane Capital moving US factories to china and getting tax breaks.

So let me see if I understand.... you think that if you increase taxes on Bane Capital.... they'll be... less likely to move factories to China? 0.o

By what logic do you increase taxes, and think that's going to have people keep their investments here?

This is the weird aspect of this discussion. You complain about people move factories out of the US, and then think that beating on companies with higher taxes is going to keep them here?

It's like you have a "The beatings will continue until morale improves" ideology.

I'm not even aware of much involving Bane Capital moving factories, but whatever.

Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.

First they are not stealing.

Second..... a transaction tax will simply make them move out of the US... which ironically is what you were complaining about before.

You do realize that you can simply delist your stocks, and move your stock trades to Japan, or Hong Kong, or any number of other markets, and then.... poof.... there goes your tax revenue.

What's ironic about that, is then the people harmed the most will be 401K and pensions here in the US. Union pension funds, are heavily invested in stocks.

You just wrecked them with your proposal. Brilliant.

In case you haven't been paying attention. Congress is up in arms over the fact that the US can't manufacture anything anymore, including PPE and antibiotics. We need to beg from China if we have an emergency. Not sure what will happen, probably nothing, but they are noticing.

You want to move out of the US stock market? There already is a transaction tax in the EU.

ECOFIN discusses Financial Transaction Tax and removes Dominica from the EU blacklist.

ECOFIN discusses Financial Transaction Tax and removes Dominica from the EU blacklist.

home.kpmg

They can move where they want to, good luck. p.s. it doesn't affect the stock, just the cost of the transaction.

You don't understand what you're posting about, not brilliant.

 

[Andylusion]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons, maybe they should only gain the percentage what the rest of us do?

That's not going to happen. They might hide their wealth, or move their wealth out of the country, so that you can't see it..... ok that might happen, and then you would have the illusion that they are only gaining the same percentage as the rest of us.

I could see that.

But you'll never make the wealthy only gain as much as the rest of us. That is absurd.

That suggests that you don't know how wealth creation works. People who save and invest, end up with wealth. Those that don't, don't.

If I keep investing, and you never do.... no amount of taxes is going to change the fact that I'll keep growing in wealth, and you won't.

Agreed, they didn't get wealthy by being stupid. Remember "Only little people pay taxes"?
I was only trying to justify slightly higher tax rates.
Don't start the "income inequality" discussion.
I'll give you one example: High frequency traders. Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.
One more: Bane Capital, moving US factories to China and getting tax breaks
Think about it. There are people that deserve a raise, and people that should be docked.

They are not stealing.

Bane Capital moving US factories to china and getting tax breaks.

So let me see if I understand.... you think that if you increase taxes on Bane Capital.... they'll be... less likely to move factories to China? 0.o

By what logic do you increase taxes, and think that's going to have people keep their investments here?

This is the weird aspect of this discussion. You complain about people move factories out of the US, and then think that beating on companies with higher taxes is going to keep them here?

It's like you have a "The beatings will continue until morale improves" ideology.

I'm not even aware of much involving Bane Capital moving factories, but whatever.

Tell me why a transaction tax should not bite into their stealing.

First they are not stealing.

Second..... a transaction tax will simply make them move out of the US... which ironically is what you were complaining about before.

You do realize that you can simply delist your stocks, and move your stock trades to Japan, or Hong Kong, or any number of other markets, and then.... poof.... there goes your tax revenue.

What's ironic about that, is then the people harmed the most will be 401K and pensions here in the US. Union pension funds, are heavily invested in stocks.

You just wrecked them with your proposal. Brilliant.

In case you haven't been paying attention. Congress is up in arms over the fact that the US can't manufacture anything anymore, including PPE and antibiotics. We need to beg from China if we have an emergency. Not sure what will happen, probably nothing, but they are noticing.

You want to move out of the US stock market? There already is a transaction tax in the EU.

ECOFIN discusses Financial Transaction Tax and removes Dominica from the EU blacklist.

ECOFIN discusses Financial Transaction Tax and removes Dominica from the EU blacklist.

home.kpmg

They can move where they want to, good luck. p.s. it doesn't affect the stock, just the cost of the transaction.

You don't understand what you're posting about, not brilliant.

I already have.
I moved half my investments outside the US already, in high return assets.

Of course it will affect the stock. It's ridiculous to think it wouldn't. If you increase the price of buying stock, you are less likely to buy stock. If you are less likely to buy stock over an entire market (which a tax on buying stock would affect the entire market), then what happens?

Supply and demand. Demand goes down, because taxes go up, the price drops.

Of course a tax on stock trades is going to reduce stock trades, which is going to reduce values. Pension funds, 401Ks, and Annuities will decline in value, which will harm retirees.

Your link says that the EU has considered putting in a FTT, not that it has done so already.

There are some countries have FTTs in place already, but not all.

In short, roughly 40 countries around the entire world have some form of FTT, and the total amount of tax revenue from all FTTs in all countries, was barely $38 Billion dollars collectively.

That's not going to pay for Social Security.

Moreover, that actually makes my point. France has an FTT that is rather expensive. France had the yellow vest protests, over high taxes, to pay for government programs. Why didn't that FTT pay for everything they wanted? Why didn't their FTT pay for their pensions and health care?

You made my point, yet again. If that was the solution, why didn't it work for France?

https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SIFMA-Insights-Ramifications-of-an-FTT.pdf

Case study of Sweden and FTT.

The government originally hoped to raise SEK 1.5 billion per annum with the FTT. The results were disappointing, with SEK 50 million raisedon average per annum, earning only 3% of the projected amount. It also caused a great migration of trading volumes across multiple products to London. By 1990, Sweden started walking back its FTT experiment. First, it removed the tax on fixed income securities. By the end of 1991, all FTTs were eliminated and trading volumes returned and began to grow again. However, the damage was done, and markets never fully recovered.​

When Sweden put in place their stock trade tax, they calculated it would bring in 1.5 billion SEK. Instead it brought in barely 50 million. Instead the wealthy migrated their stocks to London. Exactly what I just told you before.

By the way.....

Equity index returns fell as well: -2.2% on the announcement of the 1% FTT in 1984​

On the very day of the announcement, values dropped 2.2% across the market.

Again, just as I was just telling. If you think you can increase taxes, and it won't affect stocks, you are ridiculous. Learns some economics.

Page 24/25 of the research I listed, to see the case study of Sweden. But they detail the negative effects of FTTs in many countries.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The COVID-19 pandemic borrowing will make SS & Medicare less solvent.
Which party will raise taxes to save SS & Medicare for future generations?

The Future of America’s Entitlements: What You Need to Know About the Medicare and Social Security Trustees Reports - AAF

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees issued their annual reports detailing the financial state of America’s two largest entitlement programs.

www.americanactionforum.org

• Medicare’s Annual Cash Shortfall in 2019 was $396 billion;
• Payroll taxes would have to increase more than 15 percent to pay for Medicare Part A in 2019; and
• Over the next 75 years, Social Security will owe $16.8 trillion more than it is projected to take in.

You are implying that it is even possible to "pay for it".

With or without Covid-19, with or without the economic down turn, whether Democrats or Republicans are in office....

You can't pay for socialism. It never works. Never. Not one time in all human history, has taking from group A, to pay for group B, worked.

If Social Security and Medicare were possible to have working, then we would never have the concept of a Ponzi scheme, because both of those are ponzi schemes.

In the end, my guess is that health care in the US will end up run by the government, and thus will end up declining in quality to meet the ability of the government to pay.

Social Security will equally need to be cut to the ability of the government to pay. The way they will do this, is by cutting the retirement age, meaning raise the retirement age to 75 or something.

Now there are a few alternatives that the nation could go down, that will be absolutely devastating.

One is a drastic increase in taxes, which will cause capital flight and economic decline. That would be much like what we saw in Greece.

The other option is that government just keeps spending, until they destroy themselves. Again, much like Greece.

Given the recent rise of incompetence, like AOC who is exceedingly popular, even after saying things as utterly mindless as she's going to "spend" the money from a tax cut on schools and health care.....

I see the Greece result as more and more a real possibility.

There is no way to "pay" for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs, were never, and are not, sustainable. We have only been able to out-grow our spending thus far, but that can't continue forever.

You want 75 year-old truck drivers on the road? You want 75 year-old roofers working on your house? You want a 75 year-old nurse assisting your doctor?

You really have not thought this through, have you?

What I want, doesn't matter. What you want, doesn't matter either.

Facts don't care what either of us think. Math doesn't care what we want.

Do you want to be this guy in Greece, with no money, living in poverty, because the government simply does not have any money?

Because that's our future if we keep pushing Social Security. There is zero difference between how Social Security works, and how the Greek Pension system worked.

If you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same result.

You talk about math and don't provide any. Here are several real SS "fixes". Show me where they are wrong.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

So let's use your links for example.

Finally, gradually raising the full retirement age to 68 would take care of 16% of the funding gap.

Right, I said openly that we would have to raise the retirement age.

Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% over a 20-year period would generate 52% of the shortfall.

Again, Germany has an 18% pension tax, and they are saying they need to increase it. So if 18% now in Germany isn't enough, why do you think 7.2% would be enough?

Eliminating the taxable earnings cap over a 10-year period would fix 74% of the long-term financing gap all by itself.

No, I don't think so. All you have to do is look at the 1970s. In the 1970s, we have a 70% rate on the top marginal income tax rates.

Did we have endless amounts of money for everything we wanted? Or did we have deficits? We had deficits. So if 70% tax rates didn't fix anything the 1970s, would would this fix social security?

Again.... if any of those proposals could work.... why hasn't any country anywhere in the world today, done all those things and had it work?

All those things can help.... Sure you delay the crash with all those things. Certainly. But it does not fix anything. We know that because as I said, Germany has a much higher pension tax, and they still need to raise the tax rate. Germany has a lower pension payout, and they still need more taxes.

You can't show me a single country, that doesn't have a pension crisis, unless they don't have a pension system.

For example, Singapore does not have a pension crisis. And the reason why is very simple. Singapore has a private system. People pay into a private account, that is invested in their own assets, that they own in their private account.

It's impossible to have a crisis, because people get out of their retirement account, what they paid into their retirement account.

That's also pretty good, because the government can't take it away by arbitrarily increasing the retirement age, thus denying you the money you paid into retirement.

Now I will say that Means-testing could in theory work.

But you'll never get that passed. Guaranteed. Because the moment you pass means testing, you blow apart the entire mythology that Social Security is a retirement system you pay-in and pay-out of.

The moment you tell people "Yes you paid into Social Security your entire life, but you have too much wealth, so you don't get anything from it".... you will have massive revolt across the country. No politician of either party will survive trying to implement means testing.

Ok, so I think we agree that SS is fixable and is NOT a ponzi scheme.
1. We agree on raising the full retirement age 1-year from 67 to 68 is not a big deal and gets 16% of the problem.
2. Raising the SS tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% gets 52% of the shortfall, so that's 68% of the needed fix, no biggie.
3. Eliminate the earnings cap over 10-years gains 74%, so we're at 142% of the fix. QED SS Fixed.

The actuaries proved BY MATH that SS is fixable without much controversy or pain, so why don't the DC coxuckers fix it already!!

Only a moron would claim that increased taxes are not "pain."

Let the pigs squeal, SS needs to be fixed.

But dude... you are the pig man. This is what you people don't grasp.

You are the pig. You are the one who is going to squeal.

Again, name one country anywhere, that has the rich paying for the poor? No such country exists.

It's the poor and middle class that pay tax. You the pig. That's you buddy! When you say "Someone has to pay for this, let the pigs squeal!".... that's you! You are the one who is going to pay the tax.

Why do you think Denmark has a 200% tax on cars? Who do you think paid that tax? The lower and middle class. You. Those like you in Denmark paid that tax.
Why do you think Germany has a 19% sales tax? Who do you think is paying that? You! Those like you! The lower and middle class!

There is not one single country in this world, where the rich pay for the poor. Not one.

You want Social Security and Medicare? fine... but just realize, that's your taxes that are going to go up. You are the one who is going to squeal. You are the one who is going to pay $8/gallon of gas.... that's how much the price of a gasoline in the UK was. (likely lower now given the crash of oil prices).

Why were Brits paying $8 in gas? Taxes. To pay for health care and pensions.

You the pig. You are.

Take a look at these two graphs and tell me who is squealing. Its not the rich paying for the poor, its paying fair taxes. :
View attachment 329711

View attachment 329712

You can squeal all you want, but the tax man cometh. Bills need to be paid and the top US incomes need to pony up.

The top 10% of earners in our country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. They are not ponying up??? And if not, how much should the top 10% be paying of total collected income taxes?

70% is about right, since they own 77% of the wealth. Look at the other taxes, like payroll tax, SS, Medicare, local taxes, state taxes, school taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. There are more than just income taxes.
View attachment 329736

Wealth distribution U.S. 2023 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2023, 66.9 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

View attachment 329738
The wealthy have been gaining on the rest of us peons for decades, maybe they should only gain around the percentage that the rest of us do?

Yes, there are more than income taxes, but income taxes pays for all our government goodies. Your payroll taxes fund the things you use today like highways, street lights, police, fire.......

If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will not only get back everything you paid into the various programs, but more.

As I stated, your city, state, perhaps county taxes go for the things you use today. You will get all your SS back, you will get all your Medicare back, so it's not even really a tax at all. It's more like a savings account kept by the government.

Income taxes pay for our military, welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, and nearly half of our country doesn't pay anything towards the hundreds of programs we spend that money. So payroll and income taxes are entirely different.

If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will not only get back everything you paid into the various programs, but more.
You will get all your SS back, you will get all your Medicare back, so it's not even really a tax at all. It's more like a savings account kept by the government.

I disagree with all of that.

Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get in benefits

Many Americans retiring now will have paid more in Social Security taxes than they'll get in benefits. But that's not true of Medicare.

money.cnn.com

The amount of money you pay into Social Security, you are not likely to get back. The benefits today, are exceeded by the cost of Social Security. Most people pay in, more than they get back.

Medicare, you also pay in more than you get back generally speaking.

Medicare and Medicaid, pay out less than the cost of care. In order for hospitals to survive, they charge higher prices to private patients.

So every single insurance premium you pay throughout your life, is a higher premium to cover the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

Throughout your whole life, you have been paying the Medicare tax, and you have been paying higher premiums on your insurance, in order to cover government-patients.

If you were to add in the cost of all those higher premiums throughout your whole life.... you don't get back what you paid into Medicare.

Now you're just jumbling numbers. Insurance rates are not taxes. I said that you will get everything you put into Medicare (from payroll deductions) and much more. Given the fact most Americans still get their private coverage through their employer, it's really not a direct deduction at all; it's not even taxable.