Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

[P@triot]

The economy sucks, but imagine how tough it was before you even had that? That's why we made Social Security in the first place.

but we also didn't have unions and pensions and 401K plans. lets move into the 21st century here. Leave SS as an option if people want it. but for those who don't, don't force them to pay into it. and if you don't pay into it, you shouldn't get it.

I'd prefer the Chilean model in which people have individual retirement accounts that they own. This prevents the government from spending the money and stuffing the accounts with IOUs on future generations. And, the accounts are assets that can be passed along to heirs.

That's my problem with Social Security. You pay into it and your family gets nothing (in many cases) when you die. If it were private, they would get 100% of it (sans the portion taken in taxes if it exceeded the limit of the death tax of course).

Social Security is just another failed socialist program and the ultimate screw-job. The federal government raided that account many years ago and they conti he to utilize it as part of the "general fund". It's the biggest and ugliest Ponzi Scheme in world history.

 

[Brain357]

Everyone pays it? Are you insane?!? 47% of America doesn't pay any federal taxes. Now to be clear - some of those people do still pay into Social Security. But don't kid yourself - most of them are not. We have 46 million people on food stamps. Do you think most of them are paying Social Security tax?

Were you aware that gainfully employed Illinois teachers do not pay into Social Security?

Why Illinois Teachers don't pay Social Security

I believe it is just income tax people don't pay.

Those teachers also don't collect SS.

Sure - but it proves you are off on your theory that "everyone" pays it. We have tens of millions of Americans not paying into Social Security.

Well we were talking about people collecting SS who didn't pay. I'm not aware that anyone does that.

 

[Brain357]

The economy sucks, but imagine how tough it was before you even had that? That's why we made Social Security in the first place.

but we also didn't have unions and pensions and 401K plans. lets move into the 21st century here. Leave SS as an option if people want it. but for those who don't, don't force them to pay into it. and if you don't pay into it, you shouldn't get it.

I'd prefer the Chilean model in which people have individual retirement accounts that they own. This prevents the government from spending the money and stuffing the accounts with IOUs on future generations. And, the accounts are assets that can be passed along to heirs.

But we can't really change what we are doing as it is a pay as you go system. So we are stuck with it.

 

[Darkwind]

Take the money. That way, when you don't agree to keep making the government rich, when your President threatens not to pay you, you can just laugh at him and continue on with your life.

 

[boedicca]

but we also didn't have unions and pensions and 401K plans. lets move into the 21st century here. Leave SS as an option if people want it. but for those who don't, don't force them to pay into it. and if you don't pay into it, you shouldn't get it.

I'd prefer the Chilean model in which people have individual retirement accounts that they own. This prevents the government from spending the money and stuffing the accounts with IOUs on future generations. And, the accounts are assets that can be passed along to heirs.

But we can't really change what we are doing as it is a pay as you go system. So we are stuck with it.

Wrong. We could phase it out for lower workers by lowering the portion that goes into SS and having the rest go into a personal account.

The Feds spend a ton of money. Cancel most of the crap and gap fill the SS funding during the wind down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS is an overwhelming deal for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

It was an overwhelming deal back when there were 40 taxpayers per recipient. We're now down below 3:1. The more the ratio craters, the worse deal it is.

For young people now, it's a certainty that they will get far less than they put in - unless payroll taxes are enormously increased.

Nonsense, and you know it.

Increase the retirement ages by three years, increase the income limit to $175K, and keep the tax money only for SS.

 

[Brain357]

I'd prefer the Chilean model in which people have individual retirement accounts that they own. This prevents the government from spending the money and stuffing the accounts with IOUs on future generations. And, the accounts are assets that can be passed along to heirs.

But we can't really change what we are doing as it is a pay as you go system. So we are stuck with it.

Wrong. We could phase it out for lower workers by lowering the portion that goes into SS and having the rest go into a personal account.

The Feds spend a ton of money. Cancel most of the crap and gap fill the SS funding during the wind down.

With everyone paying in it's projecting to be low because of all the baby boomers retiring. I don't see how it could work without hosing retirees. Old people like to vote so messing with it is political suicide.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Mormon version of the Bible you mean. And it has nothing to do with this but thanks. This has to do with paying in a buck and getting back six.

Which leaves a $5 dollar deficit for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. for every dollar each of them puts in.

And Dumbocrats wonder why their policies are failed policies? These people are incapable of doing basic math and thus celebrate a program that pays out $6 for every $1 put in

The five you get in return are paid for from the wages of others. It's a Pay as you Go system, which a fantastic return if you live long enough.

And it hasn't failed at all. It's the most successful program in the history of the government. And it doesn't add to the deficit, not yet. We can do the math.

In other words: it's a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Your an idiot, you really think most blue collar workers can work till there 70 ? Just because you sit on your ass and collect a check ,you think that is he norm ?

My uncle could...he just didn't want to. Because of smart planning, he does not need to.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

I've heard that,but the numbers dont add up in my mothers case.
She's received around two hundred thousand over the last ten years and more then likely wont be getting much more.
She payed a hell of a lot more then that in SS taxes over the years.

I've got one better than that....

My dad started working at 16 years old. Had very little money most of his life - and what little he had he was forced by government to pay into Social Security. Sadly, he died before he reached the age of retirement. Had that money been in a private account, my mom would have had 100% of it. Instead, Uncle Sam and the Dumbocrats fucked her out of all it. She ended up with 0% of his Social Security. How is that fair?!? You pay in and if you die, your family is fucked out of your money.

Vintage idiot Dumbocrat socialism....

That was the idea behind Social Security from day one. When passed, the average person DID NOT LIVE TO SEE 65!

 

[Jarlaxle]

I've heard that,but the numbers dont add up in my mothers case.
She's received around two hundred thousand over the last ten years and more then likely wont be getting much more.
She payed a hell of a lot more then that in SS taxes over the years.

I've got one better than that....

My dad started working at 16 years old. Had very little money most of his life - and what little he had he was forced by government to pay into Social Security. Sadly, he died before he reached the age of retirement. Had that money been in a private account, my mom would have had 100% of it. Instead, Uncle Sam and the Dumbocrats fucked her out of all it. She ended up with 0% of his Social Security. How is that fair?!? You pay in and if you die, your family is fucked out of your money.

Vintage idiot Dumbocrat socialism....

That's not how the system works, except for the dying young part. If you die even a day before they cut you the first check, the money goes to others, which might include your survivors. And it was never really your money in the first place. It's Pay as you Go, it's not a savings account.

In other words: a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No - it's the overwhelming best option for the parasite class. They contribute nothing and walk away with everything.

For the rest of America, it's the ultimate screw-job. You're forced into a shitty system against your will, and your family gets fucked out of ALL of your money if you die early.

Only a Dumbocrat could call that "the best option"

It's not your money. It's not a savings account. You get credit for what you pay in but the whole system, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, can be ended with the stroke of a pen. It can all just go away.

As I said, if you live long enough it pays off, fantastically in some cases. If not, thanks for your contributions, we're passing them along to others.

Rottweiler calls tax payers the "parasite class."

He literally knows only what his overlords tell him and pay him to post here.

SS is an overwhelming deal for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

You're lying AGAIN, Fakey!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The economy sucks, but imagine how tough it was before you even had that? That's why we made Social Security in the first place.

but we also didn't have unions and pensions and 401K plans. lets move into the 21st century here. Leave SS as an option if people want it. but for those who don't, don't force them to pay into it. and if you don't pay into it, you shouldn't get it.

That's not an option. It's a pay as you go system. If people not retired stopped paying then those already retired would not get their payments.

In other words: you need more money coming in to keep that Ponzi scheme going!

 

[Brain357]

but we also didn't have unions and pensions and 401K plans. lets move into the 21st century here. Leave SS as an option if people want it. but for those who don't, don't force them to pay into it. and if you don't pay into it, you shouldn't get it.

That's not an option. It's a pay as you go system. If people not retired stopped paying then those already retired would not get their payments.

In other words: you need more money coming in to keep that Ponzi scheme going!

Well of course you need money coming in. That's how it works. Otherwise retirees will not get paid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It (like all Ponzi schemes) WILL collapse. It simply is not sustainable. The ratio of payers to collectors is below 3:1 now...I recall it is expected to be at 2.5:1 by 2020. Short of basically gutting it (raising tax rates, raising retirement age, and cutting benefits), it's doomed.

The only way to "save" it would be to index it: Social Security should pay out starting when the recipient reaches the average life expectancy in the United States, plus one.

 

[Brain357]

It (like all Ponzi schemes) WILL collapse. It simply is not sustainable. The ratio of payers to collectors is below 3:1 now...I recall it is expected to be at 2.5:1 by 2020. Short of basically gutting it (raising tax rates, raising retirement age, and cutting benefits), it's doomed.

The only way to "save" it would be to index it: Social Security should pay out starting when the recipient reaches the average life expectancy in the United States, plus one.

Payments might have to go down, but I wouldn't call that a collapse. It all depends on how long people live I suppose.

 

[Brain357]

It (like all Ponzi schemes) WILL collapse. It simply is not sustainable. The ratio of payers to collectors is below 3:1 now...I recall it is expected to be at 2.5:1 by 2020. Short of basically gutting it (raising tax rates, raising retirement age, and cutting benefits), it's doomed.

The only way to "save" it would be to index it: Social Security should pay out starting when the recipient reaches the average life expectancy in the United States, plus one.

Curious where you get your stats. So your saying right now there are only 3 people working for every retired person? I wouldn't have guessed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've got one better than that....

My dad started working at 16 years old. Had very little money most of his life - and what little he had he was forced by government to pay into Social Security. Sadly, he died before he reached the age of retirement. Had that money been in a private account, my mom would have had 100% of it. Instead, Uncle Sam and the Dumbocrats fucked her out of all it. She ended up with 0% of his Social Security. How is that fair?!? You pay in and if you die, your family is fucked out of your money.

Vintage idiot Dumbocrat socialism....

That's not how the system works, except for the dying young part. If you die even a day before they cut you the first check, the money goes to others, which might include your survivors. And it was never really your money in the first place. It's Pay as you Go, it's not a savings account.

In other words: a Ponzi scheme.

Nope.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The right stands only for the super rich!!! Fuck the lower and middle class!

 

[healthmyths]

It (like all Ponzi schemes) WILL collapse. It simply is not sustainable. The ratio of payers to collectors is below 3:1 now...I recall it is expected to be at 2.5:1 by 2020. Short of basically gutting it (raising tax rates, raising retirement age, and cutting benefits), it's doomed.

The only way to "save" it would be to index it: Social Security should pay out starting when the recipient reaches the average life expectancy in the United States, plus one.

Curious where you get your stats. So your saying right now there are only 3 people working for every retired person? I wouldn't have guessed.

As of June 30, 2011, 54.8 million people or 17.6% of the U.S. population were receiving monthly Social Security benefits.
Source:2012 Social Security Trustees Report.[1] This report was published in April 2012 and uses data from 2011 as a baseline.
Social Security Basics - Just Facts

Employment peaked in November 2012 at 135,069,000 Current Employment Rate | UnemploymentData.com

So simply divide 135,069,000 that PAY INTO SS by 54,800,000 that receive SS checks.. or 2.46 people working paying into SS to pay 1 person.