Something has to give, and soon. My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970. SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.
Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
There are a lot of ways to 'save money', but those who paid for a benefit are mentioned first. Regardless of what anyone says, that's how it was sold to the recipients, and some of us have paid in over half a century (still not collecting benefits), chasing the moving targets of exemption and full benefits.
I'm not against the idea of means testing, nor against reforms to move those just coming into the workforce into something different, but with the war on my profession, the rampant printing of money to pay off people not even Americans here and abroad, and the inflation that has fostered, along with the rest of the policies that now, despite my best efforts guarantee I will have to continue working as long as I am able, even if I collect the SS benefits I am told are due me. Government policy and the outright attack on my industry while subsidizing "alternatives" has not only directly affected me, but devastated my portfolio.
For those of you in better shape, I am happy. I get it. You don't need it, so you are willing to toss it, even call it an "entitlement" like welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, but there are a lot of people who put their faith in a program they paid into who will be left in the cold.
If nothing else, just give me my money back, and I'll get by. Don't bother to tax it again.
And how about the nearly $60 billion in foreign aid?Yep, to people who aren't Americans who aren't even here...
Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
There are a lot of ways to 'save money', but those who paid for a benefit are mentioned first. Regardless of what anyone says, that's how it was sold to the recipients, and some of us have paid in over half a century (still not collecting benefits), chasing the moving targets of exemption and full benefits.
I'm not against the idea of means testing, nor against reforms to move those just coming into the workforce into something different, but with the war on my profession, the rampant printing of money to pay off people not even Americans here and abroad, and the inflation that has fostered, along with the rest of the policies that now, despite my best efforts guarantee I will have to continue working as long as I am able, even if I collect the SS benefits I am told are due me. Government policy and the outright attack on my industry while subsidizing "alternatives" has not only directly affected me, but devastated my portfolio.
For those of you in better shape, I am happy. I get it. You don't need it, so you are willing to toss it, even call it an "entitlement" like welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, but there are a lot of people who put their faith in a program they paid into who will be left in the cold.
If nothing else, just give me my money back, and I'll get by. Don't bother to tax it again.
Something has to give, and soon. My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970. SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.How about excluding anyone that crossed the border illegally...forever.
What benefit did you pay for? Not social security, or medicare, for that matter. You paid income taxes to the federal government - and your employer paid an excise tax on your employment - you most certainly did not pay for an annuity or any other contractual or binding benefit.Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.
It's painful when your favorite ox gets gored, ain't it.
Tell that F.I.C.A. guy to stop deducting/withholding my employee contribution to Social Security from my paycheck if I'm not paying into Social Security.
Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.
Actually, no, you're not. You're paying an income tax. The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact. Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.
Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.
Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.
Actually, no, you're not. You're paying an income tax. The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact. Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.
Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.
@Kamagi, I'm gonna take a leap here and assume you are a relatively younger person. You look at what the deduction is for SS/Medicare and know you could invest those funds in a more efficient manner.
In truth, we all could have, given the choice.
(a)Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
(c)Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
"Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts"As I quickly approach receiving SS. Congress critters...keep your #%$@ hands off of it!
C'mon, guys.
All you young, willin' Republicans.
See this rail?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/CTA_third_rail_contact_shoe.jpg)
Go ahead and grab ahold of it.
It won't hurt you.
Really...
Actually, no, you're not. You're paying an income tax. The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact. Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.You show me no respect, so I must assume you think none is due. I know what we were told. If we were lied to or the law has been changed, well that's on those who did that, may they all rot in Hell.
Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.
@berdie I'm perfectly happy to assume, simply for the sake of argument, that all of us could have invested those funds that were taxed under the so-called social security tax, but that doesn't change the fact that those funds were extracted from us under the aegis of the U.S. federal income tax, which means that we weren't buying anything at all with those taxes, we were merely paying an income tax.
Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is quite explicit about that, to wit:
"[ T]here is hereby imposed on the income of every individual" - this exactly mirrors the language used in Section 1, where the general income tax is imposed; to wit (with respect to unmarried individuals):
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual"
The same language when used in different parts of the same statute are generally given the same meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
Accordingly, the social security taxes are nothing more than just another income tax we pay, regardless of the lies that were told to sell the tax to teh American public originally.
I understand this @Kamaji . But as I already said, this the Federal Government we are talking about...not Bernie Madoff.
If the intent of the SS and Medicare is "just another" tax then the deductions should be added to the FICA...not shown as separate line items on a payroll check stub. It would reduce confusion about intent. But then, I guess, it would increase the amount of tax paid when filing at the end of the year and reduce the amount of tax owed.
In any event, the "fund" should never have been included in the general fund. It's dishonest.
So you want to continue being lied to, and you want to continue to believe the lie? Your choice. But subjective choice cannot change what the plain language of the statutes says, and that is that the so-called social security tax is simply another income tax larded up on top of the regular income tax. It most definitely is not the payment of some sort of purchase price for a retirement annuity.You are having fun, aren't you? We need a middle finger emoji.
You are having fun, aren't you? We need a middle finger emoji.
You are having fun, aren't you? We need a middle finger emoji.Not an emoji, but satisfying when used properly.
Make everyone on Social Security Disability re-apply for benefits.Sure because you never know when my body will regrow disks, nerves and nerve pathways. I get your drift though, there are a great many scammers who got some doc or psychologist to sign off on disability. I am constantly hearing from my wife about people who want one of her psychologists to put in a disability diagnosis for them just because they don't want to work anymore. Yeah I go in for a re-evaluation every five or ten years if it meant getting the grifters out of the system. But as others have said, get the illegals off of welfare, free medical and unearned social security and do it before hammering Americans.
Sure because you never know when my body will regrow disks, nerves and nerve pathways. I get your drift though, there are a great many scammers who got some doc or psychologist to sign off on disability. I am constantly hearing from my wife about people who want one of her psychologists to put in a disability diagnosis for them just because they don't want to work anymore. Yeah I go in for a re-evaluation every five or ten years if it meant getting the grifters out of the system. But as others have said, get the illegals off of welfare, free medical and unearned social security and do it before hammering Americans.
You are having fun, aren't you? We need a middle finger emoji.
So you want to continue being lied to, and you want to continue to believe the lie? Your choice. But subjective choice cannot change what the plain language of the statutes says, and that is that the so-called social security tax is simply another income tax larded up on top of the regular income tax. It most definitely is not the payment of some sort of purchase price for a retirement annuity.
Moi? Misunderstand what someone wrote? Aren't you jumping to the conclusion that I actually read what you wrote? :silly: :silly:
I don't think you read my post...or understood what I said. :shrug: Could be my fault as I am not good at conveying my thoughts, lol.
But no matter, I'm not going to repeat what I've already said. :laugh:
Moi? Misunderstand what someone wrote? Aren't you jumping to the conclusion that I actually read what you wrote? :silly: :silly:
Moi? Misunderstand what someone wrote? Aren't you jumping to the conclusion that I actually read what you wrote? :silly: :silly:
I think her remarks were directed @Kamaji @GtHawk
Well I have no problem saying I screwed up and misunderstood, too many distractions and a short attention span(ADD not being an excuse in the forum) makes for errors. Good evening to all.
You are correct @Bigun. :laugh:
And I agree with your post #28 re: abuse and fraud of the system.
Well I have no problem saying I screwed up and misunderstood, too many distractions and a short attention span(ADD not being an excuse in the forum) makes for errors. Good evening to all.
Increasing the ages at which SS can be taken for people far from retirement is the only politically reasonable way to fix this. It should be remembered that when SS was started with the age required to take benefits set at 65, the average life-expectancy (at birth) for Americans was 64. Had the age to take benefits been tracking life-expectancy all along the program would not have turned into the fiscal black hole it has become.That would be about right...raising the age as I arrive at the age to receive it. Hold that carrot out in front of us just a little further now...
Increasing the ages at which SS can be taken for people far from retirement is the only politically reasonable way to fix this. It should be remembered that when SS was started with the age required to take benefits set at 65, the average life-expectancy (at birth) for Americans was 64. Had the age to take benefits been tracking life-expectancy all along the program would not have turned into the fiscal black hole it has become.
I look forward to being dead well before I reach the eligibility age for Social Security.
Something has to give, and soon. My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970. SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.
And for us in who will have to pay tax again on 75% on the benefit which was withheld as a tax, and accrued no interest on our behalf? The double taxation is a bitch on this ponzi operation is bad enough.
Again, because you didn't pay for anything in the first place - the two events - social security taxation and receipt of a welfare benefit - are two logically distinct events. In the first, you simply paid an additional income tax liability. In the second, you received a welfare benefit - an accession to wealth, clearly realized (i.e., income in the Glenshaw Glass sense) - which, for various policy purposes, Congress has chosen to tax.
Agreed. And it should be means-tested, so that the benefit is reserved to those who really need a security net.
Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
I look forward to being dead well before I reach the eligibility age for Social Security.
The continual efforts to impose guilt on folks for following the law is tiresome. Congress does what congress does and trying hold folks responsible for congressional corruption and deceit is beyond reasonable.We all made a deal to pay the tax and we all allowed the government to piss it away.
@DefiantMassRINOYeah, If I'd have known I was going to last this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
Didn't work that way for me,and besides spending 7 years in SF,I did stuff like run my Harley into the wall of a liquor store out in Denver one Satuday night during a blinding snow storm that had the Colorado HP shuttind down highways.
I ran out of whiskey close to midnight,and all the liquor stores closed at midnight.
That was the deed that caused me to cut the wires from my battery to the electric starter.
Lots of stuff I just sorta vaguely remember,and more stuff I do remember but am NOT going to discuss with anyone at anytime.
@EdinVA@sneakypete :thumbsup:
And THERE,it is!
@Kamaji
Yes,and no. You can NOT have a government take a percentage of you income out of your pay every week/year,and then 40+ years down the road tell them "Sorry,Bubba. We have decided to not give you any of your money back."?
Maybe set up accounts as trust funds and then make pay-outs accounding to "pay-ins" if the payee in question was lucky enough to live to 65-70 and have been healthy and lucky enough to have some savings,and then keeping the rest of what that individual is owed by today's system in some sort of trust fund that that it is available to him/her if they develop health issues as they age.
Allow the Gooberment a small fee in percentages of each account they handle.
So you mean the government can't impose an income tax on people? Unless it gives all of that money back later on?
Really????
Means-testing should also apply.
No.
@Kamaji
Since WHEN has SS ever been an income tax?
Since it was enacted. Since the statute specifically says so. As I have several times already pointed out on this thread.
@Kamaji
The statute specifically says that SS is a stand-alone income tax?
Read Internal Revenue Code 3101. It starts as follows: “(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax ….”
Is that not clear enough? What is an income tax other than a tax on income?
@Kamaji
Ok,so it is classified as a tax. So what?
It astounds me how many people here seem to think this one particular welfare benefit - social security - isn’t just another welfare benefit, but is some sort of right they purchased, as if they’d purchased a retirement annuity from a private company on the installment plan.
Hence why on the 1040 is not listed as a line item on an annuity. Outside the legal entanglements, it DOES at the layman level function as annutiy in a quirky, unfair, Ponzi, kind of way.
No, it is an income tax. What it is not, is a contractual payment against a guaranteed annuity. In other words, when you, or anyone else, paid social security tax, you did not get anything in return for it.
@Kamaji
BullBush! i PERSONALLY know several people that are drawing SS disability payments who are not 62-65 years old. In a couple of cases,they are (or were) minor children drawing from their parents "accounts".
In FACT,I am drawing SS payments myself.
Granted,there are some people (I am completely clueless as to the number/percentage) who pay into the SS system for years,and then die before they are old enough to draw from their accounts. Big freaking deal. Life is a gamble,and there ARE fees to be paid in cash,blood,and struggle to make it though life. NONE of us are born with a guarantee that things are going to work out for us as individuals,not even the children of the mega-wealthy.
Things like cancer and other diseases,house fires,auto accidents,etc,etc,etc can strike down any of us at any time.
BUT,,,,,,I tell ya what. Get ONE dead person to come to me and whine about not getting their money back because they died early,and I will give them my monthly checks.
Life is a gamble we all take. Quit yer whining. It's childish.
Whatever. It’s welfare, pure and simple, and the so-called social security tax is just an additional income tax imposed on wage-earners, which makes it regressive as well as just another income tax.
If you’re drawing social security, then you’re just on welfare. Deal with it.
@Kamaji
LOL!
At least I am not a petty and selfish person that would rather see the disabled starve in the streets.
And "Yes,I am ON SS. I paid into it all my life,and am NOT ashamed to admit I am drawing payments from it. I see nothing wrong with this.
BTW,what is YOUR plan for the people too old,too crippled up,or just too worn-out in general to continue working,putting them down like rabid dogs?
Surely YOU have a plan worked out?
Or you so all about what is good for "Me,me,ME,DAMMIT" that you just don't care?
Do you think I’m against social security? Well, news flash, as I posted much earlier in this thread, I am not.I get a statement every year stating what my SS benefit will be at a certain age. So will I be depending on SS when I retire (which will likely never happen), probably not, but most people will and how dare the government send out statements to people then decide on a whim to decrease the amount promised.
Do you think I’m against social security? Well, news flash, as I posted much earlier in this thread, I am not.
Nor am IWhen I start receiving SS just tax the crap out of the liberal younger generation, as they seem to deserve it, or at least my 2 liberal nieces do....lol.
But what’s forgotten by some is that we simply cannot afford it without serious reforms. And you can’t defeat math.
I get that things happen to people in life beyond their control and I’m not advocating we throw them out in the street
Some here don’t understand terms such as “unfunded liabilities.” We can’t just keep printing the money we need
@
Or you so all about what is good for "Me,me,ME,DAMMIT" that you just don't care?
Sorry, but no. Show me where it says that you are assured of receiving a penny? We were lied to plain and simple.
You don’t think that more applies to you? “ I’m getting mine, so I don’t care about what it does to our debt, currency, or the economic opportunity of people who are not even old enough to vote yet.”Put the squeeze on the real welfare recipients who aren't contributing, and haven't.
After all, it’s all about “me, me ME, DAMMIT!!”
Put the squeeze on the real welfare recipients who aren't contributing, and haven't.
But the way to do this is by making the transition from welfare to work more attractive.
At present, someone getting welfare payments, subsidized housing, utility assistance, Medicaid, free phones, etc. will lose those benefits with very small increments in income that just won't replace the benefits or even come close. The recipients aren't stupid, and know they can't afford what goodies they have if they go to work (Hell, I can't afford all the benefits they get.)
So they don't.
I've paid in over 50 years, most of them not at all.
They are able-bodied; me, less so with every year.
I will work as long as I can, but with my industry is complete disruption these last few years, it's getting harder to make a decent paycheck, not easier.
I get a statement every year stating what my SS benefit will be at a certain age. So will I be depending on SS when I retire (which will likely never happen), probably not, but most people will and how dare the government send out statements to people then decide on a whim to decrease the amount promised.
You don’t think that more applies to you? “ I’m getting mine, so I don’t care about what it does to our debt, currency, or the economic opportunity of people who are not even old enough to vote yet.”
After all, it’s all about “me, me ME, DAMMIT!!”
@LMAO
With all DUE respect,ESAD.
Your response is exactly what I expected. But I don’t think you understand Social Security, how it works, what it truly is, etc
It’s not your fault. You’ve just been lied to that it’s “yours,yours, yours DAMMIT!!”
@LMAO
No,I do understand it. Mabye not perfectly enough to debate it with an expert,but I do know why it was created and the purpose.
There is NOTHING wrong with our SS system other than the FACT that our politicians are using it illegally as a tool to buy illegal alien votes so they can stay in office and continue to profit by either stealing from the system or by graft. They use the public money put in place by WE,THE PEOPLE" by virtually stealing it to give to illegal aliens and others who have never paid a single freaking dime into the system.
This is NOT the fault of the SS program. They are a branch of our government that is virtually being raped on a daily basis by our elected representatives.
This MUST be stopped,but you will NEVER stop it by blaming the victim (SSA) for the theft.
What benefit did you pay for? Not social security, or medicare, for that matter. You paid income taxes to the federal government - and your employer paid an excise tax on your employment - you most certainly did not pay for an annuity or any other contractual or binding benefit.888mouth I guess I'm too nice of a guy to say what I really feel.
It's painful when your favorite ox gets gored, ain't it.
It astounds me how many people here seem to think this one particular welfare benefit - social security - isn’t just another welfare benefit, but is some sort of right they purchased, as if they’d purchased a retirement annuity from a private company on the installment plan.
888mouth I guess I'm too nice of a guy to say what I really feel.
I don’t look down upon anybody who is receiving Social Security or Medicare. That’s not the purpose of any of my posts.
But it’s mind boggling when even conservatives don’t have any grasp of what the programs are, or what unfunded liabilities are. We cannot afford any of these programs in their present form. That’s just facts
This post demonstrates that you still don’t understand Social Security and why it’s facing the problems it is
For starters, it is a tax. It’s not a gift. It’s not money put away for people for when they retire. It is a tax as someone tried to explain to you.
Another myth, and many so called conservatives also believe it, that if it wasn’t for the illegal immigrants Social Security would be solvent. The big issue is simple demographics. Too many people receiving it, and not enough paying into it. Supporting a certain government program does not negate mathematics.
Again, politicians lied to you
I don’t look down upon anybody who is receiving Social Security or Medicare. That’s not the purpose of any of my posts.
But it’s mind boggling when even conservatives don’t have any grasp of what the programs are, or what unfunded liabilities are. We cannot afford any of these programs in their present form. That’s just facts
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
I get a statement every year stating what my SS benefit will be at a certain age. So will I be depending on SS when I retire (which will likely never happen), probably not, but most people will and how dare the government send out statements to people then decide on a whim to decrease the amount promised.
If you can show me an instance where government ever kept a promise, I am all ears.
If you can show me an instance where government ever kept a promise, I am all ears.
This post demonstrates that you still don’t understand Social Security and why it’s facing the problems it is
For starters, it is a tax. It’s not a gift. It’s not money put away for people for when they retire. It is a tax as someone tried to explain to you.
@LMAO
Blah,blah,mindless brainfart. SO FREAKING WHAT? Grow the hell UP!
Another myth, and many so called conservatives also believe it, that if it wasn’t for the illegal immigrants Social Security would be solvent.
Maybe,but I don't personally know anyone that thinks that. It has been used as a political slush fund,practically from Day One. They just weren't as obvious about it in the early days.
The big issue is simple demographics. Too many people receiving it, and not enough paying into it. Supporting a certain government program does not negate mathematics.
That is NOT the fault of the program,it is the fault of the crooked politicians that steal money from it to buy votes.
Again, politicians lied to you
Ahm shocked they would do that.
SHOCKED,AH TELLS YA!
So,what is your solution,shoot YOUR dog because your neighbors dog bit you?
I don’t look down upon anybody who is receiving Social Security or Medicare. That’s not the purpose of any of my posts.
But it’s mind boggling when even conservatives don’t have any grasp of what the programs are, or what unfunded liabilities are. We cannot afford any of these programs in their present form. That’s just facts
"I'll have those n*&&(%$ voting Democrat for the next two hundred years!"
Close as I can come!
@LMAO
BullBush! We can NOT afford to close those programs.
We also can NOT continue to allow the graft and outright stealing for political purposes that is going on.
Your "solution" is to shoot the baby because of the dirty bathwater.
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
@LMAO
BullBush! We can NOT afford to close those programs.
We also can NOT continue to allow the graft and outright stealing for political purposes that is going on.
Your "solution" is to shoot the baby because of the dirty bathwater.
They will shut down if nothing is done. And if that happens, it won't be a graceful failure, where the programs are modified to save them, you will simply wake up one day and realize that you're no longer getting that SS check, and you never will again.
What they’ll do is just continue printing more money to keep those checks coming. Those checks will be worthless, of course.
I’ve never advocated getting rid of Social Security.
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
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.
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
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.
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 meWhen 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).
So the problem remains --- the Social Security Administration has a 75 year actuarial imbalance of $21 trillion. What is the conservative solution to this?
Weasel out of what was indeed paid for, even if under false pretenses, and there will be a regime change.
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!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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The arguments you are making are not based on facts and economics, but emotions
@Hoodat
Just out of curiosity,ever heard of a little thing called "inflation"?
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.Luckily since I'm self employed I get to pay double that...ugh! All I can say about all of this is that if it weren't for SS my 92 yr old mom would be basically on the street. Soooo...I'm grateful for SS.
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.
Luckily since I'm self employed I get to pay double that...ugh!
All I can say about all of this is that if it weren't for SS my 92 yr old mom would be basically on the street. Soooo...I'm grateful for SS.
The arguments you are making are not based on facts and economics, but emotions
If I was your competitor, I would steal all your workers by offering them 7% more than you are paying.
Here is a good article I found
https://www.heritage.org/social-security/commentary/social-securitys-unfunded-obligations-getting-worse
I doubt it... But I would then have to counter. Like I said, I doubt it would effect prevailing wage at all.
You would counter with your own additional 7%. At the end of the day, you would be paying the exact same amount as before, but your employee would be better off.
The employer paid out what the job is worth. Which in this case is $16,147.50.Take a deep breath and pull your head out.
Just as there is no guarantee that they wouldn't make a dime less than $16,147.50.
No, it is set by the market. If the employer thinks he can get away with it, he will pocket the money. But there are other employers that will be content with breaking even (i.e. giving the employee the full amount) because they value the profit that the employee provides.
Here's another example. Let's say the government puts an indirect tax of $1/pack on cigarettes which drives the retail price up to $3/pack. This high price causes some smokers to quit, while other smokers become accustomed to paying the $3 price. Then one day, the government decides to drop it's $1 tax. By your reasoning, every retailer will choose to keep the prices at $3 and pocket the difference. But that premise is false. There will be a retailer who will choose to drop his price back down to $2, keeping the same profit per pack, but hoping to increase sales. So where will the consumers go? Will they keep paying $3 per pack even though they know a retailer selling cigarettes at $2? Of course not. Likewise, the minimum wage worker won't keep the $15K job because he will find an employer willing to give him the $16k+ he has been willing to pay the entire time.
The invisible hand always wins out. People will do what is in their best interest. And for the employer, that means maintaining the status quo by continuing to pay out $16k+.
Once again, Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
Social Security is not going away.
And any political party that tries to make it go away (or is even perceived as trying to do so) is not going to be in power for very long.
In time, the payroll tax will have to go up, by a small percentage.
Benefits may have to be reduced across-the-board, by a small percentage.
Perhaps "the earnings cap" (above which is exempt from the payroll tax) will have to be raised.
I don't foresee the retirement age being raised any higher than it is now. Trying to do so will immediately doom any chance for strengthening the system.
A personal observation.
I stopped paying Social Security in 1979, almost 44 years ago.
I paid into RR Retirement instead. About 67k over the course of 32 years.
Been retired for 11 years this month. And since retirement day, I've been paid back about 7.4 times my 32-year "investment".
All in all, I'd consider that to be a fairly good return. Probably far better than I could have made on my own. You'll get no complaints from me.
Like I said, I doubt it.
Everybody is employee poor - Always needing more than they can afford. with the weight of uncle nanny coming off, it would be the difference between 9 or 10 workers (roughly speaking)... I would suppose the businesses would opt to hire. I surely would.
The employer paid out what the job is worth. Which in this case is $16,147.50.
Just as there is no guarantee that they wouldn't make a dime less than $16,147.50.
No, it is set by the market. If the employer thinks he can get away with it, he will pocket the money. But there are other employers that will be content with breaking even (i.e. giving the employee the full amount) because they value the profit that the employee provides.
Here's another example. Let's say the government puts an indirect tax of $1/pack on cigarettes which drives the retail price up to $3/pack. This high price causes some smokers to quit, while other smokers become accustomed to paying the $3 price. Then one day, the government decides to drop it's $1 tax. By your reasoning, every retailer will choose to keep the prices at $3 and pocket the difference. But that premise is false. There will be a retailer who will choose to drop his price back down to $2, keeping the same profit per pack, but hoping to increase sales. So where will the consumers go? Will they keep paying $3 per pack even though they know a retailer selling cigarettes at $2? Of course not. Likewise, the minimum wage worker won't keep the $15K job because he will find an employer willing to give him the $16k+ he has been willing to pay the entire time.
The invisible hand always wins out. People will do what is in their best interest. And for the employer, that means maintaining the status quo by continuing to pay out $16k+.
Take a deep breath and pull your head out.
The prosepctive employee says "what does it pay"? They are told "X" dollars an hour. That is what the paycheck they see is based on.
They don't give a damn about the employer cost of matching Social Security.
They don't give a rat's ass about worker's comp as long as it is there if they need it.
They didn't consider payments into unemployment funds.
They didn't ask how much insurance cost the employer, just if they had it, and what their share was, if any.
They didn't ask what PPE would cost the employer, nor safety training, nor fleet vehicle insurance.
it just comes with the job.
See where this is going?
Those are EMPLOYER COSTS of hiring someone.
Any reduction in EMPLOYER COSTS might be shared with the workforce, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE that is going to happen.
But in all my years in the workforce (going on 53, now) I hired on for the wage, the day rate, and whatever was added in (per diem, expenses, insurance, etc.), but never considered the Employer's costs in that, because the employer had those factored in when they made the offer.
One also has to look at the relative elasticities of supply and demand - and in that respect, employers are typically more elastic than employees when it comes to changing wages, which generally means that when a new quantum of economic value enters the equation, on average the employee gets a smaller share of it than either the employer, or the employer's customers, depending, of course, on the relevant local market, the type of goods/services being provided, and the relative elasticity of the employer's customers.
Again, it comes down to what the employer is willing to pay to have a job filled. Some of that cost is hidden. Some is not. Doesn't really matter whether an employee sees it or not.
:yowsa: And those costs are not limited to just payouts to the government and employees. ALL the costs of compliance are in there as well.
Are you seriously suggesting that an employer cutting wages will result in more people applying for work there?
I've purposely have stayed out of the fray, but here is another perspective that angers me to my core......
My contribution to SS 1975- 2012- $161,131. This doesn't even include employer contribution
My personal average investment rate of return 1975-2022- 12.2%
Taking midpoints and at said rate of return, you know what I would be able to invest right now additonally if that same money would have been left to me? And this doesn't even include my wife's.
$1,603,358 additonal investable money...... That at my investable (even a decently safe amount of return) safe side of portfolio would be an addtional $96K a year.
Yeah, anyone else thinking the government isn't screwing us?
I've purposely have stayed out of the fray, but here is another perspective that angers me to my core......Who's your broker? I think my rate of return last year was at least MINUS 12% and likely higher. The only money making a return this year is my savings account making 4.5%.
My contribution to SS 1975- 2012- $161,131. This doesn't even include employer contribution
My personal average investment rate of return 1975-2022- 12.2%
Taking midpoints and at said rate of return, you know what I would be able to invest right now additonally if that same money would have been left to me? And this doesn't even include my wife's.
$1,603,358 additonal investable money...... That at my investable (even a decently safe amount of return) safe side of portfolio would be an addtional $96K a year income
Yeah, anyone else thinking the government isn't screwing us?
Who's your broker? I think my rate of return last year was at least MINUS 12% and likely higher. The only money making a return this year is my savings account making 4.5%.
Social security was never intended to be a government-enforced private retirement program.
The intent of Social Security was to make people dependent upon government in order to survive.
Social security was never intended to be a government-enforced private retirement program.
Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.
That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations? Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.
I literally hate our government worse than anything.
Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.
That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations? Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.
I literally hate our government worse than anything.
The GOP will be able to kill Social Security and Medicare when the Boomers die off and Gen-X'ers start retiring.
Far fewer Gen-X'ers than Boomers. Not as many old voters to complain.
Gen-X'ers will have shorter lifespan than boomers.
Millennials and Gen-Z'ers will be happy to stick it to Gen-X'ers.
I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.
Again:
Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?
I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.
Again:
Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?
I'm with you 100%.
However, let me give you another sad perspective. I own and manage apartment buildings. Over the years I've had several tenants who lived well into their 80's who only had social security to live on. It's shocking how many people live pay check to pay check and don't prepare for the day when they will have to retire. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it is reality.
I wonder if social security could survive if responsible people could opt out? I know I sure would have.
This same principle applies with wages. The shift in the curve results in a new equilibrium affecting both parties.
Nor in the eyes of its origniators was meant to be a considered a -91.3% in effective investment return. That based on my life expectancy and investment performance.
That is what it is in dollars and cents to me, and I resent it to hell. Even calling it a retirement program in the era of 128% debt to GDP, and considering future obligations? Several pages ago, I called this process "criminal". I still do, and now that I have put the numbers to it, I have to take another blood pressure pill.
I literally hate our government worse than anything.
I've asked this question to the Social Security supporters here already, and I still have yet to receive a response.
Again:
Why do you oppose someone like me having the free choice to opt out of Social Security even if you are still able to collect your social security checks every month?
Why should you be given the option to opt out of a generally applicable income tax?
In fact, you have that option: expatriate. See ya later; don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you don't leave, then that was nothing more than empty posturing.
However, let me give you another sad perspective. I own and manage apartment buildings. Over the years I've had several tenants who lived well into their 80's who only had social security to live on. It's shocking how many people live pay check to pay check and don't prepare for the day when they will have to retire. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it is reality.
That was never taken into account. It was intended to be an income tax - a legal compulsory extraction of wealth pursuant to the granted taxing power - and nothing more. Read the statute. More broadly, it was intended to provide a financial security net for the aged and infirm.
Wow. Just wow.
Why should you be given the option to opt out of a generally applicable income tax?
In fact, you have that option: expatriate. See ya later; don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you don't leave, then that was nothing more than empty posturing.
Then honestly just call it for what it is.... American institutionalization of Socialism.
Why? Is it so earth-shattering to expect you to pay the same generally applicable income taxes we're all subject to? What's next, the option to opt out of paying bits and pieces of the regular income tax because you disagree with one or more policies being funded with general tax revenues?
Why? Is it so earth-shattering to expect you to pay the same generally applicable income taxes we're all subject to?
Why is it so earth-shattering to expect you to understand the tradeoff of forgoing future social security payments?
I do understand it, but it's irrelevant to the question of social security for the simple reason that social security was never intended to be, and was never enacted as, a private retirement annuity or savings account for you personally.
It was, and is, an income tax on wages. Nothing more, nothing less.
I understand that clearly. Which is why I wish to do away with it. As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else. It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.
I understand that clearly. Which is why I wish to do away with it. As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else. It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.
Again, you're conflating the general income tax with the welfare program that goes under a similar name.
An elderly person relying on SS only after an average salary is destined to be improverished.
Greatest evil indeed.
Uh, no.
The central question remains; "what kind of government do we really want?" Personally, I don't need a nanny!
Really? So, no police force? Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from local bullies, right? No army, either. Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from foreign bullies, either? And no civil courts, either. Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from those who would breach their contractual obligations to one? And who needs medical licensing boards, right? We can all tell a charlatan snake-oil salesman from a real doctor, right, especially when it comes to things like open heart surgery.
maybe so, but their receipt of social security won't be the cause of their impoverishment.
I think the founders did a damned good job of sorting out what the fedgov was responsible for doing. We should have stuck to that.
Hate to sound cavalier but the poor gullible folks who were led to believe that the Social Security they were getting the wasn't the "Security" aspects they were expecting excuses the government of that culpability?
Those same folks who would have been given a choice, or even at worse had gotten a pseudo-annuity payment based on government being fiscally ran sound? Our discussion right now would be quite different.
Our government raped our most vulnerable.... the financially underprivileged and financially undereducated.
So, you do want a nanny, as long as that nanny has been pre-approved by a certain group of people. Ok. As my crim-law professor used to say: "now that we've established that you're a prostitute, let's re-discuss your price."
Our government raped our most vulnerable.... the financially underprivileged and financially undereducated.
And why are those people financially undereducated? Could it be that it's because we foolishly allowed the gooberment to "educate" them?
Let's say you have five different drug kingpins selling cocaine in Santa Fe. They pay their suppliers $30k per kilo and then sell 8-balls at $250. Now let's say one kingpin finds a new supplier who is selling keys for $20k, a 33% savings. Do you really think that kingpin will continue selling 8-balls for $250, or do you think maybe, just maybe he might drop the price to $200 in order to bring in more business?Reality?
This same principle applies with wages. The shift in the curve results in a new equilibrium affecting both parties.
If a child is raised in a Christian school, he learns to love Christianity.
If a child is raised in a Jewish school, he learns to love Judaism.
If a child is raised in an Islamic school, he learns to love Islam.
If a child is raised in a government school, he learns to love government.
The weight of uncle nanny coming off would result in an upward shift in the supply curve, thus driving up price.
I think the founders did a damned good job of sorting out what the fedgov was responsible for doing. We should have stuck to that.
And BTW; voluntarily consenting to certain alliances does not mean I need a nanny.
I understand that clearly. Which is why I wish to do away with it. As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else. It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.
So what would be your solutions? I have many people in my sphere that have worked hard all their lives at low wages..because that it is all they could do. But provided valuable service. They couldn't build up a retirement fund. They were trying to get by. Not everyone can invest in a 401K/IRA.
And speaking of 401/IRA or investments...I can't help but wonder if the Feds won't come after those as well. What will you say then?
To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.
And taking the responsibility away from the children may be a convenience to them, but as in all things, inevitably erodes their liberty.
Bounty is not what's on the table, but what's around the table. There is nowhere an elder would be more welcome and more loved than at the head of that table.
To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.
And taking the responsibility away from the children may be a convenience to them, but as in all things, inevitably erodes their liberty.
Bounty is not what's on the table, but what's around the table. There is nowhere an elder would be more welcome and more loved than at the head of that table.
We seldom disagree, but I must on this.
Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.
Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.
As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.
We seldom disagree, but I must on this.
Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.
Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.
As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.
So here's an option. Keep the 12.4% mandate. Lift the cap. But instead of the 12.4% going to the government, it would instead go to an approved* private investment account belonging to that worker. Let's say there are a dozen corporately held fiduciary investment options that are approved for this purpose, similar to a 401(k). The employee choses which option to take, and can then track his/her investment over time. The worker can be given the option of increasing his/her contribution, again similar to a 401(k). And employees as an incentive could add to it. This would enable people at the lower scale to participate in the same options that are available to those higher up. And it makes them vested in their own retirements instead of relying on government to maintain poverty level living for them in their later years. And most of all, it creates an inheritance for surviving family members.
But do you worry about them, really? Billions of people are impoverished due to unwise personal and collective decisions. With rare exception, they will not thank you for sacrificing your happiness, and nor will they learn anything from it.
We seldom disagree, but I must on this.
Most of the family that should step up to the plate, are in worse shape financially than the elder that needs to be taken care of. In many, many cases the elder has to take care of them.
Churches can just do so much. They can't feed, cloth, house the number of elders they have.
As far as the county...maybe where you live there are more benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to go back to a "Waltons" mentality. But I don't see it for most people.
The last two tenants that died in my apartments were in their 80's and had no family. They lived on social security exclusively. IOW, for whatever reason some people end up in a tough situation in retirement. The best solution is for the social security taxes to be put into an account managed by an approved financial institution and disbursements only being made to the account holder, or their heirs. There is no way we are going to let people just end up out on the street.
The last two tenants that died in my apartments were in their 80's and had no family. They lived on social security exclusively. IOW, for whatever reason some people end up in a tough situation in retirement. The best solution is for the social security taxes to be put into an account managed by an approved financial institution and disbursements only being made to the account holder, or their heirs. There is no way we are going to let people just end up out on the street.
Even if I were to accept that as true (which I ain't afar off), It should in no way belong to the Feds. If you want it that way, the states are the vehicle, as it is within their authority, and the state is more directly controlled by the citizens.
And you are right - some do not have family in the end. But that should be means tested instead of taking away the inheritance across generations in order to allow for the few... And that without including the Church, which is where charity should rightly reside.
I would FAR prefer tax breaks for those taking care of their elders, even as there are tax breaks for those raising children. Take some weight off for them, and allow them to care for their own...
Because as I said upthread, taking the responsibility away also takes away liberty - the two are intrinsically entwined.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.
It doesn’t not belong to the federal government, either. Hence the power to spend for the general welfare. The ultimate question comes down to efficiency and effectiveness.
@roamer_1 @Bigun
GOOD PLAN!
Even if I were to accept that as true (which I ain't afar off), It should in no way belong to the Feds. If you want it that way, the states are the vehicle, as it is within their authority, and the state is more directly controlled by the citizens.
And you are right - some do not have family in the end. But that should be means tested instead of taking away the inheritance across generations in order to allow for the few... And that without including the Church, which is where charity should rightly reside.
I would FAR prefer tax breaks for those taking care of their elders, even as there are tax breaks for those raising children. Take some weight off for them, and allow them to care for their own...
Because as I said upthread, taking the responsibility away also takes away liberty - the two are intrinsically entwined.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
@roamer_1 @Bigun
GOOD PLAN!
I remember well how after my father (not really,but he raised me),the man who had to quit school in the 3rd grade to go to work in a shipyard to support his 6 brothers and sisters,AND managed to put them all through school,died,and I called his oldest brother,who OWNED a locally prominent mega-church with teebee services on Sunday,died,and told him that my father's only request was that his brother,the preacher,preach his funeral services at the family cemetery.
He told me,"You know,I am not as young as I used to be,and I don't think I feel good enough to do that."
My subtle reply to that was "I don't give a rabid rats ass HOW bad you feel because you are going to feel a hell of a lot worse after I cripple your useless ass for life in you don't show up and preach that bleeping funeral"!
I see to have a bad rep amongst the Bible Trash in the family,because he told me "Well,after thinking about it for a minute,I do believe I can make it after all."
He did make it,and he did preach his brother's funeral,and the SOB had the gall to walk up to me and ask me what his "Brother Bill" left him.
I told him he was left the right to stay the bleep OFF of MY GD property.
To be fair,I had one other uncle that was also a fundie preacher,and he was always a very respectable and upright man who was living a middle-class lifestyle when he died,and I can't remember a single person ever having anything negative to say about him.
Also the first one mentioned above served time in prison for printing counterfeit money. He "got religion" while serving his sentence,and even opened a prison ministry. IIRC,when he left Oregon to come back east,he owned at least 3 tv and radio stations. He,or course still charged us rent for the house he owned that we were living in at the time.
Lived within a few miles of us for at least 20 years,and never visited us once,or even sent a get well card when either my mother or father were in the hospital. Didn't even bother to come to my mother's funeral.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God gives thee.
A very interesting Commandment, because it identifies the reward for obedience. None of the others do that.
We agree!
I have one acquaintance whose mother-in-law is subsidized by all her children. They each send her a check every month. She is provided for by her family. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows someone who is doing this. It should always be family, the church and then as last resort govt.
@sneakypeteUnfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
Your anecdotal stories aside, the reality is that MOST families do have strong ties and functional inter-operations. And I have seldom seen a man or woman so empowered in their elder years as they are in the midst of their own - Serving a vital function there by the way - As they transmit their gathered wisdom from a podium of authority as the patriarch and matriarch, down through two or three generations, directly from the horse's mouth.
Rather than building the whole thing around the dysfunctional, It would be nice for a change to lift up and assist the functional.
You get more of what you vote *FOR*.
You want MORE of what works. And what works is what has always worked, down through the aeons, and that is foremost, family. Whatever comes after that is lesser by nature.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God gives thee.
Unfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
In some demographics, fully 7 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The whole 'baby daddy/baby mama' bit has done some severe damage.
And a lot of grandparents aren't retiring as plush as they might have if they hadn't ended up raising grandkids.
Unfortunately, the war on family has been in full swing for nearly 50 years.
In some demographics, fully 7 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The whole 'baby daddy/baby mama' bit has done some severe damage.
One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.
@Hoodat
HEY!
Not ALL single mothers are single mothers by choice,and being a single mother is NOT an easy thing. Especially if there are multiple children.
NO! They definitely are not! Most are forced into that by government rules which make their checks bigger if there is no man in the household.
One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.
One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.
HEY!
Not ALL single mothers are single mothers by choice,and being a single mother is NOT an easy thing. Especially if there are multiple children.
@sneakypete
I was raised by a single mother who did a good job raising me when she was sober. My comment wasn't a slam at single mothers, but a slam at how society views them. The Democrats put them on a pedestal, glorifying them as a justification for every Big Government program they can think of. But the reality is that single-parent households lead to the vast majority of societal ills. And sadly, our government encourages it.
One of the worst villains in society today is the single mother.
@sneakypete
I was raised by a single mother who did a good job raising me when she was sober. My comment wasn't a slam at single mothers, but a slam at how society views them. The Democrats put them on a pedestal, glorifying them as a justification for every Big Government program they can think of. But the reality is that single-parent households lead to the vast majority of societal ills. And sadly, our government encourages it.
To everybody:
Ya know, the Original Story here is bullshit from The Shill, designed to provoke the discussion that has gone through multiple pages worth of arguments that aren't changing any minds at all. Nobody in Gummint wants to touch SS in any way, that's why they call it "The Third Rail."
It was meant to start this fight, I noted it on Page One, and I got zero replies. Sure, we need the discussion but not in this media-created context. Stop caving to the Effing Shill!
Somebody give me ONE reason to NOT lock this sucker right now. I'll be back in an hour with a padlock.
To everybody:
Ya know, the Original Story here is bullshit from The Shill, designed to provoke the discussion that has gone through multiple pages worth of arguments that aren't changing any minds at all. Nobody in Gummint wants to touch SS in any way, that's why they call it "The Third Rail."
It was meant to start this fight, I noted it on Page One, and I got zero replies. Sure, we need the discussion but not in this media-created context. Stop caving to the Effing Shill!
Somebody give me ONE reason to NOT lock this sucker right now. I'll be back in an hour with a padlock.
I agree with you both that the breakdown of the family unit is a problem. A big problem.
[...]
For that reason, as much as I believe that family should be the first line of defense, I don't see it returning. Our churches are crumbling. Second line of defense gone. The return to state assistance is a great idea. But still tax supported (maybe better controlled, idk).
I guess the point of this long and boring post is...the way SS has been presented is as a retirement plan. I get it. It isn't and is unconstitutional. I get that as well. But the majority of people believe it is "their" money.
I actually don't think our current crop of pols have the fortitude to change it. Since it was "sold" as a retirement plan, I don't think they should. There are lots of other places to cut. jmho