Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[Bigun]

[Kamaji]

What they’ll do is just continue printing more money to keep those checks coming. Those checks will be worthless, of course.

Fair enough.

[Hoodat]

Let's examine that "government promise" for a moment.  Consider a person who started working in 1970.  His promise from government was that he would have to pay 9.6% of his wages (capped at $7,800 [1970 dollars]) into a non-existent 'fund', and at age 65 could begin collecting full benefits.  By 2010, that same person was paying 12.4% capped at $106,800 [2010], and had to work an additional year before retiring.

So here's the math (in 2010 dollars) for someone earning the cap:

1970 - $ 4,208 in taxes per year
2010 - $13,243 in taxes per year, plus one additional year of working.

In other words, the person is paying over three times what the government 'promised', and in addition has to work an additional year.  So don't say you didn't see it coming.  Government lies.  Their promises are meaningless.  There is no lockbox.  They don't owe you jack shit.  They stole from you, and you knew it the whole time.

[Hoodat]

I’ve never advocated getting rid of Social Security.

I sure as hell have.  Been advocating against it my entire life.  There is nothing our government does to ensure the cycle of generational poverty more than Social Security.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated against the American people.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think they believe that is a “promise” from the government. Why anyone would trust any kind of promise from the federal government is beyond me

We're holding focus groups with Seniors on Social Security and Medicare benefits (Gen X and Millennials will be the next groupings).

They believed the lies @LMAO   They also believed it was the third rail of politics.  Many are drowning in a palpable sense of betrayal and fear.

[Kamaji]

I sure as hell have.  Been advocating against it my entire life.  There is nothing our government does to ensure the cycle of generational poverty more than Social Security.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated against the American people.

Nonsense. 

[cato potatoe]

So the problem remains --- the Social Security Administration has a 75 year actuarial imbalance of $21 trillion.  What is the conservative solution to this?  As the net drain on the budget increases, the next president will have to deal with payroll taxes or benefits in a meaningful way.  Or ... in the likely event he is a cynical old POS, he could demagogue anyone who broaches the subject, print trillions of dollars, and lie about inflation. 

Raising the payroll tax to 8.2% (both sides) would cover the gap, but it will make labor more expensive and harm everyone in their working years.  Eliminating the wage cap would make the lopsided tax system even more progressive, and result in a massive tax increase on the self employed.  The return on investment is already terrible for the high earners.  Do we want to make it even more absurd?  Gradually increasing the full retirement age is probably the fairest solution, as it avoids a tax increase while giving younger workers the information they need to prepare. 

[LMAO]

So the problem remains --- the Social Security Administration has a 75 year actuarial imbalance of $21 trillion.  What is the conservative solution to this?  As the net drain on the budget increases, the next president will have to deal with payroll taxes or benefits in a meaningful way.  Or ... in the likely event he is a cynical old POS, he could demagogue anyone who broaches the subject, print trillions of dollars, and lie about inflation. 

Raising the payroll tax to 8.2% (both sides) would cover the gap, but it will make labor more expensive and harm everyone in their working years.  Eliminating the wage cap would make the lopsided tax system even more progressive, and result in a massive tax increase on the self employed.  The return on investment is already terrible for the high earners.  Do we want to make it even more absurd?  Gradually increasing the full retirement age is probably the fairest solution, as it avoids a tax increase while giving younger workers the information they need to prepare.

Identifying the problem is the easy part. Finding a solution is gonna be a lot tougher. We can talk about the mathematics and the economics all day but the politics are also going to be a huge driving force.

I don’t envy the Congress or the president that is forced to deal with this

[Bigun]

Identifying the problem is the easy part. Finding a solution is gonna be a lot tougher. We can talk about the mathematics and the economics all day but the politics are also going to be a huge driving force.

I don’t envy the Congress or the president that is forced to deal with this

The solution is REALLY simple, pass the FairTax (HR25) into law. Getting that done, as you said, is going to be the hard part because the people who have enough $$$ to buy favorable (to them) definitions of "Income", and those who sell them, (members of congress) are going to fight it to the bitter end.

[Hoodat]

Nonsense.

Ok, let's review.  Take a person making $15,000/yr from age 20 to age 65.  Such a person would be living at the poverty line their entire working life.  But instead of paying Social Security taxes to the government (at the point of a gun to be spent immediately in the general fund), let's say this person invests that money in a mutual fund or some other 'government-approved' investment earning 6% annually.  When that person reaches retirement age, this life-long minimum wage earner would have $450k in their retirement fund to draw from.  That person could then draw double their salary from that fund each and every year up until age 105, living at twice the standard of living they had while working.  Does Social Security offer that?  Hell no!

But let's say this person doesn't live to be 105.  Let's say they get a Covid booster and end up dead from a stroke two years before retirement.  Their kids and grandkids would get an inheritance of $400k which would help boost them out of the poverty cycle.  What inheritance does Social Security offer?

Social security steals the inheritance of all Americans.  Instead of that money being invested for a family's future, it gets squandered by government the second it hits the Treasury.

[Bigun]

Ok, let's review.  Take a person making $15,000/yr from age 20 to age 65.  Such a person would be living at the poverty line their entire working life.  But instead of paying Social Security taxes to the government (at the point of a gun to be spent immediately in the general fund), let's say this person invests that money in a mutual fund or some other 'government-approved' investment earning 6% annually.  When that person reaches retirement age, this life-long minimum wage earner would have $450k in their retirement fund to draw from.  That person could then draw double their salary from that fund each and every year up until age 105, living at twice the standard of living they had while working.  Does Social Security offer that?  Hell no!

But let's say this person doesn't live to be 105.  Let's say they get a Covid booster and end up dead from a stroke two years before retirement.  Their kids and grandkids would get an inheritance of $400k which would help boost them out of the poverty cycle.  What inheritance does Social Security offer?

Social security steals the inheritance of all Americans.  Instead of that money being invested for a family's future, it gets squandered by government the second it hits the Treasury.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I think they believe that is a “promise” from the government. Why anyone would trust any kind of promise from the federal government is beyond me

When we were sold that promise, the Federal Government was a different critter. Still riding the wave of post-WWII/Korea patriotism, in the teeth of the Cold War, a lot of the Federal Government you see today did not even exist. The things being done today would have been shut down as being Communist. The "Great Society" had NOT been signed into law (and since then, trillions have been pissed down that rathole).

It wasn't perfect, but the Government was more trustworthy than it is today, and at least it worked to benefit Americans instead of enslave them.

While you are glorying in folks getting shit on/lied to by our Government, or maybe just the heady jenkem of being "right", keep in mind there was a day and age when much of our government worked far closer to what was intended than today.

I don't even think that you would deny that the America of 50 years ago was very different.

We can argue that Social Security never should have started, or that decades ago should have been privatized, but for a tremendous number of seniors today, that ship has sailed.
Weasel out of what was indeed paid for, even if under false pretenses, and there will be a regime change. I am ever amused by the notion that somehow gramma and grampa don't know how things work--we built that shit, and we can damned sure break it.

[Hoodat]

So the problem remains --- the Social Security Administration has a 75 year actuarial imbalance of $21 trillion.  What is the conservative solution to this?

• Make Social Security voluntary.  Offer partial payout options to people willing to opt out now, thus reducing future obligations.  Divert all future Social Security taxes into an 'approved' retirement account of choice.
  
  
• Stop paying out Social Security benefits to people who are below retirement age.  This alone will reduce costs by 30%.
  
  
• Force government to honor the commitments already promised by severely cutting back social welfare programs for those of working age.
  
  
• Balance the budget.  End the drag holding back economic growth.
  

[Hoodat]

Weasel out of what was indeed paid for, even if under false pretenses, and there will be a regime change.

That's just it.  Government has already weaseled out of what was paid for, and the Uniparty is still in control pissing down our backs.

[Smokin Joe]

Ok, let's review.  Take a person making $15,000/yr from age 20 to age 65.  Such a person would be living at the poverty line their entire working life.  But instead of paying Social Security taxes to the government (at the point of a gun to be spent immediately in the general fund), let's say this person invests that money in a mutual fund or some other 'government-approved' investment earning 6% annually.  When that person reaches retirement age, this life-long minimum wage earner would have $450k in their retirement fund to draw from.  That person could then draw double their salary from that fund each and every year up until age 105, living at twice the standard of living they had while working.  Does Social Security offer that?  Hell no!

But let's say this person doesn't live to be 105.  Let's say they get a Covid booster and end up dead from a stroke two years before retirement.  Their kids and grandkids would get an inheritance of $400k which would help boost them out of the poverty cycle.  What inheritance does Social Security offer?

Social security steals the inheritance of all Americans.  Instead of that money being invested for a family's future, it gets squandered by government the second it hits the Treasury.

Seriously? 15Kyr? That person would not be able to afford a doctor, heat, food, would live in rags under a bridge somewhere. I'd bet there are bums in town who make more panhandling.
As far as having a family, at 15K/year, you can't afford a puppy, much less kids. The USDA estimates that parents can expect to pay between $15,438 and $17,375 a year raising a child in 2022, which can vary based on region and household income level.
There will be NO discretionary spending, it will ALL go to trying to keep body and soul together.
So, no downline, no legacy, and likely poor health anyway and dying really young.

At the poverty line, you don't worry about putting away 6%, you worry about eating. Get real.

[Hoodat]

At the poverty line, you don't worry about putting away 6%, you worry about eating. Get real.

Yet that person is still compelled to hand over 12.4% of their wages to the government.

[Smokin Joe]

Yet that person is still compelled to hand over 12.4% of their wages to the government.

Directly, it is 7.65%, the employer does the rest. If the person is making 15K a year, that's what they get paid, before taxes. You can argue that they 'pay' the rest but it isn't taken out of the 15K.

[Bigun]

Directly, it is 7.65%, the employer does the rest. If the person is making 15K a year, that's what they get paid, before taxes. You can argue that they 'pay' the rest but it isn't taken out of the 15K.

It comes straight out of the $16,147.50 the employee would otherwise be making.

[Hoodat]

Directly, it is 7.65%, the employer does the rest. If the person is making 15K a year, that's what they get paid, before taxes. You can argue that they 'pay' the rest but it isn't taken out of the 15K.

Their wage is $16,150, but they are told they are only making $15,000.  They are paying $2,300 of that to government - $2,300 that could be going into a personal retirement account instead.

[Hoodat]

It comes straight out of the $16,147.50 the employee would otherwise be making.

Exactly.

[christian]

Remember,WE NO LONGER SUFFER FROM THE EVIL tRUMP, AND ARE LIVING UNDER THE GOD bIDEN WHO NOW MAKES E3VERYTHING BETTER, THAN ANYTHING THE EVIL tRUMP DID OR Would have done.
What we have is what happens when blind fools get their way, and they did, worshiping outrageous liars.  Many of them still do!
 

[sneakypete]

Every posts you make takes you further and further away from understanding


@LMAO

LOL!

I’ve never advocated getting rid of Social Security.

Sure seemed that way.

It’s going to need some very serious reforms and modernizing if you want that program to stay around.

No argument there.

You’re using emotional arguments against facts and math.

????

I get emotional when people refuse to see there is more than one side to an argument, and their argument is wrong and they refuse to admit their argument is wrong.

On the other hand, what argument can you make for keeping it in the hands of the same politicians that have mismanaged it?

None at all. Are you implying that is what I was doing?

[sneakypete]

Let's examine that "government promise" for a moment.  Consider a person who started working in 1970.  His promise from government was that he would have to pay 9.6% of his wages (capped at $7,800 [1970 dollars]) into a non-existent 'fund', and at age 65 could begin collecting full benefits.  By 2010, that same person was paying 12.4% capped at $106,800 [2010], and had to work an additional year before retiring.

So here's the math (in 2010 dollars) for someone earning the cap:

1970 - $ 4,208 in taxes per year
2010 - $13,243 in taxes per year, plus one additional year of working.

In other words, the person is paying over three times what the government 'promised', and in addition has to work an additional year.  So don't say you didn't see it coming.  Government lies.  Their promises are meaningless.  There is no lockbox.  They don't owe you jack shit.  They stole from you, and you knew it the whole time.

@Hoodat

Just out of curiosity,ever heard of a little thing called "inflation"?

[Smokin Joe]

It comes straight out of the $16,147.50 the employee would otherwise be making.

BS. The employee hired on for the wage they hired on for. There is no guarantee they'd make a dime more if that matching money didn't go to the government. That tidbit of altruistic theory can be laid to rest. It's fiction.

[roamer_1]

BS. The employee hired on for the wage they hired on for. There is no guarantee they'd make a dime more if that matching money didn't go to the government. That tidbit of altruistic theory can be laid to rest. It's fiction.

That's probably right. And as a long time employer, removing matching finds (and all other responsibilities foisted on employers) would only likely allow me to hire more people, and would do little to the prevailing wage or likely, what I would charge.