Social Security

[nbmishoid 984]

20 hours ago, BeardIP said:

Elderly grandparents dying in the streets when Texas summer starts to average 120+ degrees for 75 days in a row in the next decade. We are speeding towards an inverse of Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

More like Blood Meridian, with R’s as the gang.   Don’t know who the R Judge would be

[nbmishoid 984]

15 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-braces-for-roughly-1-5-trillion-in-further-borrowing-needs-by-treasury-c54401f9

We are borrowing almost 50% of every dollar spend and we are at peak economic growth. Social Security is eating itself and public support will evaporate once people realize they have been defrauded once again. Your scenario is not far off.

In a word, bullshit.  What planet are you on?  Sure, this will get real support 

[David Dennison 19,441]

 

15 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-braces-for-roughly-1-5-trillion-in-further-borrowing-needs-by-treasury-c54401f9

We are borrowing almost 50% of every dollar spend and we are at peak economic growth. Social Security is eating itself and public support will evaporate once people realize they have been defrauded once again. Your scenario is not far off.

I was told the Trump tax cuts would pay for themselves.

Edited December 20, 2023 by David Dennison

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

I was told the Trump tax cuts would pay for themselves.

No, mexico is paying for the tax cuts. Or something like that.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

50 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

In a word, bullshit.  What planet are you on?  Sure, this will get real support 

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[BamaATL 16,593]

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

Well gee whiz, you've solved it.  It's almost like average American's are just great with money, Warren Buffett's in the making if not for that pesky social security payroll deduction, which is why so many of them wind up dependent on social security.  Never mind the other atrocious consequences of this "plan".  The average American retires now with less than 150k in total assets, but sure let's have them without a safety net.  

[nbmishoid 984]

Hammer 

It has been explained above.   Your framing purposefully omits the many catastrophic societal outcomes.  
Thus your argument is bullshit, and you have the morals of a snake, biblically speaking 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

12 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well gee whiz, you've solved it.  It's almost like average American's are just great with money, Warren Buffett's in the making if not for that pesky social security payroll deduction, which is why so many of them wind up dependent on social security.  Never mind the other atrocious consequences of this "plan".  The average American retires now with less than 150k in total assets, but sure let's have them without a safety net.  

The average american has paid 12% of his salary, lifetime, into a retirement fund that holds no assets. Take that money and invest it, you have 3 to 4 times the amount you otherwise get from Uncle Sugar. A sucker is born every minute I guess.

[BamaATL 16,593]

4 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The average american has paid 12% of his salary, lifetime, into a retirement fund that holds no assets. Take that money and invest it, you have 3 to 4 times the amount you otherwise get from Uncle Sugar. A sucker is born every minute I guess.

True if that is what people did, but they don't.  

[nbmishoid 984]

Sure, the average citizen is not financially clever.   That is why the system is here. 
 

Sorry you don’t have the means to afford the deduction.  Oh, you can?  And you still complain.

Finally, again you omit the catastrophic societal outcomes, which would overwhelm your simple minded logic.

Most of us considered and rejected your logic upon reaching adulthood 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

2 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

True if that is what people did, but they don't.  

Well, you make that part mandatory. Freedom isn't free.

I loathe the stories that talk about how minorities and other poors can't develop generational wealth. I would much rather see people who work, but die young, have something to give their kids. It would be enough for a house down payment, for example.

[Texas Jeff 1,998]

35 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

Social Security is insurance, not an investment.  It is insurance against becoming old and poor at the same time.  It is a minimal safety net.

If people invested it on their own, we would have winners and losers based on the year of the person's birth and how the market did during their working window.  And, if you gave people choice in their investments, some would choose investments that would not do well ... and when they were old and poor at the same time we would either have to support those people or put them on a raft and float them out to sea.

If you want to blame someone, blame the boomers.  They got the benefit of lower taxes over their lifetime because we were paying more into the system than the greatest generation was taking out.  The social security taxes they paid went to build bombs and bridges, providing jobs and amenities that would not have been there without the surplus.  They benefited from that spending and now they are going to benefit again through FICA taxes charged on younger Americans.

[David Dennison 19,441]

25 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The average american has paid 12% of his salary, lifetime, into a retirement fund that holds no assets. Take that money and invest it, you have 3 to 4 times the amount you otherwise get from Uncle Sugar. A sucker is born every minute I guess.

Because no one loses money in the market.

[BamaATL 16,593]

10 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Well, you make that part mandatory. Freedom isn't free.

I loathe the stories that talk about how minorities and other poors can't develop generational wealth. I would much rather see people who work, but die young, have something to give their kids. It would be enough for a house down payment, for example.

That presumes people wouldn't find a way around the mandatory part, which doesn't really prove out in practice.  Take a look around you, most people don't have savings because they just have to have a new car stereo, or some other bullshit.  Privatize this, with no safety net, and you will get the same result you get with something like privatized non regulated energy, a disaster.   The company's running might do well, but the people would get left in the dust.  

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

3 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Social Security is insurance, not an investment.  It is insurance against becoming old and poor at the same time.  It is a minimal safety net.

If people invested it on their own, we would have winners and losers based on the year of the person's birth and how the market did during their working window.  And, if you gave people choice in their investments, some would choose investments that would not do well ... and when they were old and poor at the same time we would either have to support those people or put them on a raft and float them out to sea.

If you want to blame someone, blame the boomers.  They got the benefit of lower taxes over their lifetime because we were paying more into the system than the greatest generation was taking out.  The social security taxes they paid went to build bombs and bridges, providing jobs and amenities that would not have been there without the surplus.  They benefited from that spending and now they are going to benefit again through FICA taxes charged on younger Americans.

I mean, in theory it replaces investment.  

But a solid chunk of the population can't invest.  They don't have the ability to postpone gratification to hold money back to invest or to invest it wisely.  So there would not only be winners and losers among those who did invest the 12% of their income, but complete losers who didn't invest at all.

And, like you said, then what?  What's that going to cost when you address it on the back-end?

And this whole survival-of-the-fittest thing is kind of fun in some sci-fi novel kind of way, but it's not workable in real life unless you are a sociopath.

I was reading that Gen X seems to be particularly bad off as the first generation that didn't have defined-benefit pensions that at least rolled over into a 401k.  That is, we are the first 401k only generation and it's not looking good.  

[elfenix 34,658]

17 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Well, you make that part mandatory. Freedom isn't free.

I loathe the stories that talk about how minorities and other poors can't develop generational wealth. I would much rather see people who work, but die young, have something to give their kids. It would be enough for a house down payment, for example.

i too loathe minorities having been held in chains, systemically exterminated and driven into camps, being firebombed, murdered, unjustly imprisoned, redlined, and to the very recent past if not to this day been denied loans that otherwise identical white people were given.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,880]

My mom recently passed away and so I am working on getting the finances in order.  Both parents were both Texas teachers but there was also military and civilian work there so they get a combined five different retirements/ss payments.  (And yes, the SS payments are small - you could eliminate them and the savings/wealth overall wouldn't be much different.)

Even so, they did a great job of socking away additional money in IRAs/Thrift Savings Plan and even have a couple of small annuities.  No extra real estate, I don't think they ever used a financial planner. 

But the biggest thing is, they simply never wasted  money.  The took trips (Europe, etc. but never five star hotel) but they were happy with with  black coffee with milk, cooked at home, etc. 

Ultimately, they followed the Micawber principal from David Copperfield: 

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result happiness.  Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

But with a twist.  The basically bought what they needed for themselves.  (They gave generously -- maybe too much -- to us kids.)

I need to knock on wood, because even though they saved well, my dad may have some significant expenses going forward, but they did a great job of saving for being teachers (dad was an enlisted AF man for 20 years).  

Ultimately, it's a bit sad -- I wish they had maybe splurged on themselves more, but I don't think spending money made them happy.

Worrying about parents is a big burden that we never think about, but the fact that my parents made it such that we kids don't have to worry about the finances -- that's a big deal I hope that I can pass on to my kids.  It's a challenge, made more so because I often buy what I want, and not what I need.  

"Happiness is what you have divided by what you want." - Arthur Brooks.

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

Let me guess, libertarian?

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

No. this is 100% exactly what SS is not supposed to be. It's not simple, and you (and Mike Lee) are proposing to end SS.

Your idea is akin to me opting out of paying local property tax and sales tax. Instead I will pay private companies to take my trash, repair the potholes on my commute, and I will subscribe to a private police force. Win for all, right?

SS is there to effectively give all seniors a livable wage to some extent. It's universal income before that became a term. If someone like you, feels very opposed to SS, then opt out of the benefit payments. No one will force you to take them.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

15 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

No. this is 100% exactly what SS is not supposed to be. It's not simple, and you (and Mike Lee) are proposing to end SS.

Your idea is akin to me opting out of paying local property tax and sales tax. Instead I will pay private companies to take my trash, repair the potholes on my commute, and I will subscribe to a private police force. Win for all, right?

SS is there to effectively give all seniors a livable wage to some extent. It's universal income before that became a term. If someone like you, feels very opposed to SS, then opt out of the benefit payments. No one will force you to take them.

Then why are you opposed to letting individuals have private accounts and earn 3x what the government will give you? Why do you wish to discriminate against blacks and enrich asians?

[tx 3 putt 78,470]

 

[pantone159 727]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Let me guess, libertarian?

 

No, moron.

[Captainant 28,387]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Let me guess, libertarian?

 

1 hour ago, pantone159 said:

No, moron.

[nbmishoid 984]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Then why are you opposed to letting individuals have private accounts and earn 3x what the government will give you? Why do you wish to discriminate against blacks and enrich asians?

Open all the private accounts you wish.  No one is stopping you.

That is no reason to gut every one else’ insurance 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

3 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Open all the private accounts you wish.  No one is stopping you.

That is no reason to gut every one else’ insurance 

If you like your Social Security, you can keep you Social Security.

When you make no contributions, the government incurs no obligation. Social Security is paid to people who contribute, not people who don't.

[nbmishoid 984]

Again, not how it works.  Everyone is in.  Anyone can add other savings accounts.   Anyone can forego payments.  You seem to think the last two statements invalidate the first.   Only in your one track brain cell.

[hayden_horn 11,401]

what i think most public policy boils down to these days is this: are you okay with a whole class of desperate and destitute and hungry people dying in the streets? 

if your answer is anything other than a simple no, then you're probably a republican.

[atomheartbevo 90,547]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

what i think most public policy boils down to these days is this: are you okay with a whole class of desperate and destitute and hungry people dying in the streets? 

if your answer is anything other than a simple no, then you're probably a republican.

And if you are okay with that, you better not bitch when the government has to ramp up spending on police patrols, homeless shelters, maybe even prisons, increased medical costs from homeless/poor people using hospital ERs as their doctor's office because they have no healthcare, etc.

[TeeDubya 3,362]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

what i think most public policy boils down to these days is this: are you okay with a whole class of desperate and destitute and hungry people dying in the streets? 

if your answer is anything other than a simple no, then you're probably a republican.

This.  Sadly.

 

[nbmishoid 984]

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And if you are okay with that, you better not bitch when the government has to ramp up spending on police patrols, homeless shelters, maybe even prisons, increased medical costs from homeless/poor people using hospital ERs as their doctor's office because they have no healthcare, etc.

That poster is clearly supportive of actions required.  Not necessarily your fear mongering list.  The right bitches, being bitchs

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Social Security is for the common good.

We all pay now so we don't have to pay later.

[Foosters 18,225]

Are you a Black man struggling to build generational wealth? Do you wish there was an easier way? Are you tired of the system keeping you down?

TRY THIS ONE SIMPLE TRICK* AT HOME THAT IS SHOCKING FINANCIAL EXPERTS!!!!

 

 

 

 

*eliminate social security

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

On 12/19/2023 at 5:18 AM, Thetexashammer said:

We are borrowing almost 50% of every dollar spend and we are at peak economic growth. Social Security is eating itself and public support will evaporate once people realize they have been defrauded once again. Your scenario is not far off.

It’s not that I disagree about the situation, it’s that as a Trump voter and supporter of the debt-financed 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax stimulus schemes, you’ve got no room to talk about “people” realizing they’ve been defrauded. 
 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Social Security should be "free" up to $1mm in income.

$1mm- $1trillion earners should be taxed and fund the social security pool.

That means no "limits", like right now for the month of December I get a nice $600 pay raise ($290ish, bimonthly) because I paid in my limit from Jan-Nov. Abolish the limits and millionaires and billionaires fund the thing while poor and middle class keep their money AND get the social security benefit at the appropriate age.

^^ That is a bi-partisan, winning policy position that unites the 99%

Laughing about when @washparkhorn called the notion of taking the cap off FICA/SECA taxes “class warfare” back in 2010 when he was a Republican kayfabe libertarian.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

5 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

It is class warfare. We need to finally push the billionaire class into funding something for us little people, lest one day the French Revolution looks like kindergarten recess time, my dude.

Do you mean “job creators?” He was pretty emphatic that this was “punishing success,” and that job creators wouldn’t be incentivized to work hard and innovation and whatnot. Around that same time, some lawyers and doctors chimed in that they would just lay staff off to make it up if that happened, because they are obviously very good business managers.

[Captainant 28,387]

Did Chrispy get laid off and learn about workers rights or something? Not that I'm complaining, but it's quite a surprising face turn

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

13 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

They have no fear right now. No respect and no fear of us little people. 

The little people: cheering for their oppressors since 49BCE.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[hayden_horn 11,401]

40 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Laughing about when @washparkhorn called the notion of taking the cap off FICA/SECA taxes “class warfare” back in 2010 when he was a Republican kayfabe libertarian.

 

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Did Chrispy get laid off and learn about workers rights or something? Not that I'm complaining, but it's quite a surprising face turn

kayfabe? face turn?

WORLDS ARE COLLIDING

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

10 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Maybe it's because I've recently watched the movie Napoleon, but I do wonder what that limit looks like for us here.

Of course. Emperor and First Consul of France for Life, Napoleon the First, man of the people.

[Gatorubet 30,631]

23 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

More like Blood Meridian, with R’s as the gang.   Don’t know who the R Judge would be

Devoid of morals and a dainty dancer?  

That would be Senator Ladybugs. 

[nbmishoid 984]

Ok, but he’s not the overarching badass as was that character 

[Gatorubet 30,631]

5 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Ok, but he’s not the overarching badass as was that character 

The problem is, that applies to all of the Rs.   Ted. Rubio. Josh. Nutter Speaker. Mitch. Gym.  Matt.  

It’s a herd of Betas sniffing the wind for the scent of Trump’s spay tan - so they know which way to run. 

[Bullneck 19,454]

22 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is a simple proposition. Call it Retirement Choice. You can give your money to a bankrupt government, or take the same money and put it in your own account and invest it. What do you think most people would do? Now consider most people, once the budget is balanced, will be getting back far less in nominal dollars than they paid (especially minorities).

Social Security only continues because it is mandatory. The supposed "public support" disappears if there is any element of freedom to choose.

You remember when George Bush tried this, right?

Quote

The Perils of Privatization

Bush’s lethal plan for Social Security

by Edith Rasell and Christian E. Weller

In his proposal for Social Security, presidential candidate George Bush would allow a portion of each worker’s payroll taxes to be placed in a personal account and invested in stocks and bonds. Creating voluntary personal accounts within Social Security would change the fundamental character of the program and potentially carve a path toward its eventual demise. Social Security would no longer be a social insurance program providing a guarantee of inflation-proof, lifelong retirement income. Instead, workers’ core retirement income would be put at risk in an investment program where benefits are determined by the luck and wisdom of their investment choices and the ups and downs of financial markets.

Increased risk — In a privatized system, workers’ retirement income would depend upon many factors: the performance of the stock market, luck, investment savvy, the timing of retirement (i.e., whether the stock market was up or down), and other factors outside a worker’s control. Social Security’s income guarantee would be lost, and it would no longer serve as a source of ensured income for the elderly, especially lower-income workers, women, and minorities.

Winners and losers — Currently, no one gets rich on their Social Security benefits, but most everyone gets by. In 1998, the average benefit a retired worker received was about $725 per month. Under the Bush proposal, some people would do very well but others would fare poorly. People with more experience with investments, those who are willing to devote significant time and effort to monitor the performance of their portfolio, and those able to hire financial advisors will probably make better investment decisions than others. People with less time, talent, money or inclination to manage their personal accounts will likely fare worse. And even in this stock market that is, on average, rising, some investors are still losing money.

 

 

[Macanudo 13,254]

9 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The problem is, that applies to all of the Rs.   Ted. Rubio. Josh. Nutter Speaker. Mitch. Gym.  Matt.  

It’s a herd of Betas sniffing the wind for the scent of Trump’s spay tan - so they know which way to run. 

This role calls for one man and one man only...

George Santos.

[tx 3 putt 78,470]

A one time tax on people earning / with drawing over $180k+, no cap (including stock options. No loop holes) Great way to start the ss growth fund. 

all earnings under $60k, no ss tax. Earners $61k to $122k is bracket 1. $123k to $200k is bracket 2. $201k to $300k bracket 3. $301k to $999k bracket 4. One time tax on earners over $1mil

once ss is stabilized, anyone under 30 can opt into a portion of their ss taxes going into the growth fund

[Texas Jeff 1,998]

If you want to play with Social Security reform ideas, you can do so here:

https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

To balance social security, you have to get the trust fund projections above zero by choosing policy reforms.

[Brisketexan 106,621]

14 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

If you want to play with Social Security reform ideas, you can do so here:

https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

To balance social security, you have to get the trust fund projections above zero by choosing policy reforms.

Or....and work with me here....we could just start killing a shitload of old people.  Sure, it's a blunt-instrument solution, but I'm not a clever thinker.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or....and work with me here....we could just start killing a shitload of old people.  Sure, it's a blunt-instrument solution, but I'm not a clever thinker.

Carousel

[BamaATL 16,593]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or....and work with me here....we could just start killing a shitload of old people.  Sure, it's a blunt-instrument solution, but I'm not a clever thinker.

Maybe we could put them in cages and separate them from their families.  Seems to appease the crowd making the most noise about it on other things.  

[Brisketexan 106,621]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Maybe we could put them in cages and separate them from their families.  Seems to appease the crowd making the most noise about it on other things.