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.

 

[bendog]

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.

I just think that even if we raise the age for full retirement, we cannot raise the age for early retirement, because as you say some workers basically age out. Obviously, benefits will be reduced. But eliminating the cap, removes much of the lack of revenue problems till we boomers die.

And I think we will have to see Medicare cover fewer procedures and focus more on the most serious ailments.

 

[bendog]

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.

 

[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.

My point is, there is no way to fund the program. You are saying that as if "we can just fund the program".

If that was true, which country in the world has been able to just fund it? There isn't one.

Socialism doesn't work. You can't fund it. Even if we all get together, and say... "Ok we've decide to fund it!".... doesn't matter. Math doesn't change because we decided it must. Atlas Shrugged. You can't dictate people be free. You can't just "decide" to make up money to fix something, that can't be fixed.

Greece, Venezuela. They decided to fund the programs. didn't work. The countries imploded from spending they simply couldn't afford.

 

[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.

I just think that even if we raise the age for full retirement, we cannot raise the age for early retirement, because as you say some workers basically age out. Obviously, benefits will be reduced. But eliminating the cap, removes much of the lack of revenue problems till we boomers die.

And I think we will have to see Medicare cover fewer procedures and focus more on the most serious ailments.

I think we need to tell the Democrats where to shove it. While we struggle with the social programs we already have, they only want to introduce more of them. Politicians know that once they institute a social program, they are impossible to get rid of, and somebody else's problem for how to fund them when the warning lights start flashing.

 

[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.

No, that's not true. When the government recorded a "surplus", they spent it. Bill Clinton famously proposed infrastructure spending.

Even if they dumped that surplus into Social Security, it wouldn't have made any difference in the long term.

The theoretical surplus was about $200 Billion. The unfunded liabilities is roughly $37 Trillion.

 

[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.

My point is, there is no way to fund the program. You are saying that as if "we can just fund the program".

If that was true, which country in the world has been able to just fund it? There isn't one.

Socialism doesn't work. You can't fund it. Even if we all get together, and say... "Ok we've decide to fund it!".... doesn't matter. Math doesn't change because we decided it must. Atlas Shrugged. You can't dictate people be free. You can't just "decide" to make up money to fix something, that can't be fixed.

Greece, Venezuela. They decided to fund the programs. didn't work. The countries imploded from spending they simply couldn't afford.

The current payroll deduction for SS is 6.2%, which your employer has to match. I don't think that raising that percentage to 10% will kill anybody. While it may not be a total solution to the problem, it will make the program last longer.

 

[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.

My point is, there is no way to fund the program. You are saying that as if "we can just fund the program".

If that was true, which country in the world has been able to just fund it? There isn't one.

Socialism doesn't work. You can't fund it. Even if we all get together, and say... "Ok we've decide to fund it!".... doesn't matter. Math doesn't change because we decided it must. Atlas Shrugged. You can't dictate people be free. You can't just "decide" to make up money to fix something, that can't be fixed.

Greece, Venezuela. They decided to fund the programs. didn't work. The countries imploded from spending they simply couldn't afford.

The current payroll deduction for SS is 6.2%, which your employer has to match. I don't think that raising that percentage to 10% will kill anybody. While it may not be a total solution to the problem, it will make the program last longer.

Yeah, it will make it last longer. It will also kill a ton of jobs. If you think losing 20% of your income, won't cause massive damage, I would suggest you are wrong on that.

That means reducing the income of every working American by 8%. That would be a huge hit to the economy for sure.

 

[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.

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

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

You've already posted this worthless propaganda chart. Without attribution it can't be believed.

OMG, google isn't that hard to use

How do US taxes compare internationally?

TOTAL TAX REVENUE US taxes are low relative to those in other high-income countries (figure 1). In 2021, taxes at all levels of US government...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

 

[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.

This is dead on right. Everything he said there, is dead on accurate.

In fact, I look at my own Social Security pamphlet years ago, and compared it to the absolute worst possible investment I could make.

Under social security (at that time) if I had retired, it said I would collect about $1,200 a month in benefits.

That exact same money invested in the worst possible investment, a mutual fund of US savings bonds, with a 2% rate of growth.

Same exact money, invested in a mutual fund of US Bonds..... I would have retired with over $600,000 in my retirement. $1,200 a month.... or $600,000 in retirement.

Again... that's the WORST possible investment I could put that money into.

Bush had a fantastic idea, and it should have been done.

 

[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.

You've already posted this worthless propaganda chart. Without attribution it can't be believed.

OMG, google isn't that hard to use

How do US taxes compare internationally?

TOTAL TAX REVENUE US taxes are low relative to those in other high-income countries (figure 1). In 2021, taxes at all levels of US government...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

That's kind of MY point.... all these other countries with pensions and government run health care.... and they are all still in need of more money. All of them are in debt. All of them are increasing taxes, because even with their much higher rates of tax.... still not enough money.

Again... socialism doesn't work. Ponzi schemes do not work. Eventually everyone runs out of other people's money to spend.

 

[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.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

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.

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

BOTH parties, you stupid azzhat.
You forgot that OBVIOUS option.
We warned you not to vote for the stupid goon.
When you put a 6-time-bankruptcy-filing, ex-reality TV host in the White House, EVERYBODY pays.

.

 

[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.

My point is, there is no way to fund the program. You are saying that as if "we can just fund the program".

If that was true, which country in the world has been able to just fund it? There isn't one.

Socialism doesn't work. You can't fund it. Even if we all get together, and say... "Ok we've decide to fund it!".... doesn't matter. Math doesn't change because we decided it must. Atlas Shrugged. You can't dictate people be free. You can't just "decide" to make up money to fix something, that can't be fixed.

Greece, Venezuela. They decided to fund the programs. didn't work. The countries imploded from spending they simply couldn't afford.

The current payroll deduction for SS is 6.2%, which your employer has to match. I don't think that raising that percentage to 10% will kill anybody. While it may not be a total solution to the problem, it will make the program last longer.

Yeah, it will make it last longer. It will also kill a ton of jobs. If you think losing 20% of your income, won't cause massive damage, I would suggest you are wrong on that.

That means reducing the income of every working American by 8%. That would be a huge hit to the economy for sure.

I don't know how you come up with 20% when I only suggested an increase of 3.8%. Yes, the employer will also have to match that 3.8%, but you never see that anyhow.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

BOTH parties, you stupid azzhat.
You forgot that OBVIOUS option.
We warned you not to vote for the stupid goon.
When you put a 6-time-bankruptcy-filing, ex-reality TV host in the White House, EVERYBODY pays.

.

That ex-reality TV show host did a better job at the presidency than the last three Presidents who were career politicians. As for his four bankruptcies, that's a pretty good track record for somebody that owned or operated over 500 businesses in his career.

Just thank God (or whatever it is you believe in) a pro-immigrant Democrat was not in office. If that happened, our problem would be tenfold today because there would have never been a travel ban until it was way too late.