social security

[wskin44]

Sean, I'm paying for my parents' social security, you will pay for my social security and your children will pay for yours. You need to get busy and have some kids.

[outbaksean]

Sean, I'm paying for my parents' social security, you will pay for my social security and your children will pay for yours.

I understand what your saying, and that's how it's supposed to work, but ... did you read the links.

You need to get busy and have some kids.

I'm 8 months pregnant:D

[GibbsFactor]

Sean, I'm paying for my parents' social security, you will pay for my social security and your children will pay for yours. You need to get busy and have some kids.

That's what it all boils down to.

Should gay people get SSI?

[pjfootballer]

I don't worry about retirement of Social Security, I'm proabably going to die before I turn 60 anyway.

[helptheSKINS]

You need to get busy and have some kids.

I get jokes, even if they aren't implied :laugh:

[Predicto]

I wish I could share you're optimism, but this is my future we're talking about. Show me some proof please.

If one simply raises the SS retirement age by about three years, the problem is basically solved. More workers paying in, less retirees taking out. Alternately, one could raise the contribution cap, so that people paid on on a higher percentage of income or add a means test so that the wealthy did not collect. However, both of those solutions tend to violate the social compact on which SS was founded, especially the second one.

Or you could do a little bit of all three of them, which I think is probably what is actually going to happen.

Are you going to give it back if you don't need it?

I won't need it, but no, I won't be giving it back. I paid in, a heck of a lot more than most people do. Why do you ask?

I guess I agree. It would be better to cut it all together.

Needless to say, I disagree.

really, it's important for people to know they won't starve when they get old? You're right. I'm scared I might starve when I get old because you'll have used up all my social security.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you need to learn a little about why a social safety net benefits the rich as well as the poor. There's a reason that this country has never had a powerful revolutionary extremist movement like those that overtook Russia and China and Germany and Spain and Italy and so many other countries. It's not because we have the Flag and Apple Pie. It is because we never let the poor and working class get so desperate that they would find such nonsense appealing.

[Predicto]

Well i already started my Roth IRA and plan on adding alot each year that i dont spend at all and use my 401K to the max when i get employed

Good for you. That is exactly what you should be doing. Social Security will just be a bonus for you. But it is still important for the nation as a whole.

[wskin44]

I'm 8 months pregnant:D

Excellent! My parents had four. It's just a numbers game. Keep up the good work.

:dance:

[TMK9973]

FYI - You can't make it voluntary or get rid of it. Prior to SS poverty rate for the elderly was HUGE. Before you start thinking that is the answer - Learn history. There was a reason Social security started, and it wasn't because we thought we had too much money.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-8-99socsec.htm

2nd - I think Deficit spending is bad. We should be working towards a balanced budget. There needs to be REAL solutions discussed. None of this "More services with no new taxes" but also not the "Same services with reduction of Taxes". Americans need to discuss what our priorities are. Remember -EVERY $ spend by the government was because someone requested it. A good chunk of it was because it was deemed needed. Just blindly cutting things will have impact. Lets be real about what that impact is.

My point is, Social security is a entitlement. It will continue and last above many other things.

[GibbsFactor]

Good for you. That is exactly what you should be doing. Social Security would have been a bonus for you if my generation didn't :finger:. But it is still important for the nation as a whole.

Fixed that for ya.

[Larry]

1) SS is not doomed, it will be fixed. It's not even that complicated. The only questions are which way to fix it and when to start, but they are not insurmountable problems.

2) No one should be relying on SS for their retirement. It was never meant to create a comfortable retirement for anyone. It is a safety net. Nothing more.

3) Making it voluntary would defeat the whole purpose of SS and ensure that it failed. The young (who bascially think that they are immortal) and the well off would not participate. The only ones who would participate would be the poor and the old, and it could never pay for itself.

4) People have no idea how important SS is for the stability of this country. Knowing that you WILL NOT starve when you are too old to work is the most important thing that keeps the poor from getting radicalized and embracing extremist solutions like Communism. That is how SS benefits me, a relatively well-off American, the most.

W never made any attempt to actually fix Social Security. All he did was try to get stockbrokers in on the action. The real problem with SS is purely demographic, and W never even floated a trial balloon to try to address that problem.

Sorry about the three posts in a row - but one more point.

The elephant in the room is not Social Security. That is easy to fix.

Medicare is the real problem. Huge huge HUGE problem.

Counting the two follow-up posts, the man's 6 for 6.

[GibbsFactor]

I love how the few that are actually going to get the income defend it.

:laugh:

What's wrong grandpappies. Scared we might go :finger:

[Larry]

If one simply raises the SS retirement age by about three years, the problem is basically solved. More workers paying in, less retirees taking out. Alternately, one could raise the contribution cap, so that people paid on on a higher percentage of income or add a means test so that the wealthy did not collect. However, both of those solutions tend to violate the social compact on which SS was founded, especially the second one.

I haven't seen any really hard numbers on what raising the retirement age (my preferred solution) would have.

But when W was pushing his "let's borrow money, give the money to Wall Street, and then take the money away from retirees, later" plan, it was pointed out that, using the same accounting rules used to discuss SS now, then if you eliminate the cap on earnings, then SS still goes bankrupt, but it happens somewhere around year 2090.

[outbaksean]

If one simply raises the SS retirement age by about three years, the problem is basically solved. More workers paying in, less retirees taking out. Alternately, one could raise the contribution cap, so that people paid on on a higher percentage of income or add a means test so that the wealthy did not collect. However, both of those solutions tend to violate the social compact on which SS was founded, especially the second one.

Or you could do a little bit of all three of them, which I think is probably what is actually going to happen.

A short term patch it seems to me.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you need to learn a little about why a social safety net benefits the rich as well as the poor. There's a reason that this country has never had a powerful revolutionary extremist movement like those that overtook Russia and China and Germany and Spain and Italy and so many other countries. It's not because we have the Flag and Apple Pie. It is because we never let the poor and working class get so desperate that they would find such nonsense appealing.

Do you really think cutting off social security would start a revolution? Cause I don't. I don't think it was Russia's lack of a social safety net that caused the communist revolution. It was more of a mixture of an unstable government with no leadership, and the fact that they were losing a world war at the time.

[Larry]

I love how the few that are actually going to get the income defend it.

:laugh:

What's wrong grandpappies. Scared we might go :finger:

You are "one of the few that are going to get income". Even if absolutely nothing is changed.

If absolutely nothing is changed, then all that will happen to SSI is that roughly 50 years from now, benefits will have to be cut by 27%.

Facts can be a beautiful thing.

[Larry]

A short term patch it seems to me.

If your definition of "short term solution" is "works for the next 80 years".

Do you really think cutting off social security would start a revolution? Cause I don't. I don't think it was Russia's lack of a social safety net that caused the communist revolution. It was more of a mixture of an unstable government with no leadership, and the fact that they were losing a world war at the time.

Then you think the Marshal Plan was a waste of money, too?

Historical fact: Starving people who think they're powerless will rally around any charismatic leader who claims that if he's made King, then he'll make things better.

(Want to know why Muslims in Europe are blowing up train stations, but they aren't in the US? Check out the unemployment rates for young European Muslims. Better yet, wonder why race riots went out of style in the US after the 60's?)

[GibbsFactor]

You are "one of the few that are going to get income". Even if absolutely nothing is changed.

If absolutely nothing is changed, then all that will happen to SSI is that roughly 50 years from now, benefits will have to be cut by 27%.

Facts can be a beautiful thing.

Foresight can be orgasmic.

So how old will I be in 2042? :idea: 65!!

The odds that the SSI benefit is available to anyone under 75 years of age at that time is minimal at best.

SSI isn't a big deal to me. I've been stuffing away 12% of a decent income for 9 years now on top of other investments. I don't even mind paying into it. All we youngin's need to do is start having babies and things should be okay. Right? As long as the money isn't used for something else.

Who knows what the future holds. I do know that our entitlement debt is out of control and we may never be able to pay it off sans chapter 7.

[Larry]

Foresight can be orgasmic.

So how old will I be in 2042? :idea: 65!!

And in 2042, SSI will be 12 years away from "bankruptcy". (Which is the scare word for "will have to cut benefits by 27%".)

The odds that the SSI benefit is available to anyone under 75 years of age at that time is minimal at best.

You make that claim based on?

(Now, me? I wouldn't mind raising the retirement age to 70, right now. (Well, I think, to be fair, it should be raised slowly, over several years. But it it gets raised to 70 before I get there, that's perfectly fine by me.))

But even if your prediction is true, what do you figure life expectancy will be, when you get to 75? Even if everything you predict comes true, you'll still be expected to be getting money.

[GibbsFactor]

And in 2042, SSI will be 12 years away from "bankruptcy". (Which is the scare word for "will have to cut benefits by 27%".)

You make that claim based on?

(Now, me? I wouldn't mind raising the retirement age to 70, right now. (Well, I think, to be fair, it should be raised slowly, over several years. But it it gets raised to 70 before I get there, that's perfectly fine by me.))

But even if your prediction is true, what do you figure life expectancy will be, when you get to 75? Even if everything you predict comes true, you'll still be expected to be getting money.

What's it now for American men, 78 or 76? I'd say off the top of my head that by 2050 the life expectancy will be closer to 85.

[outbaksean]

If your definition of "short term solution" is "works for the next 80 years".

you're damn right it is. I'm gonna have kids and grandkids to worry about. Also to get a number like 80 years you would either have to cut a lot of benefits or bush the age pretty far back, or both, and that would sort of defeat the purpose. less for longer isn't always the way to go, we need a true long term solution and what we're doing now is the opposite.

Then you think the Marshal Plan was a waste of money, too?

Historical fact: Starving people who think they're powerless will rally around any charismatic leader who claims that if he's made King, then he'll make things better.

(Want to know why Muslims in Europe are blowing up train stations, but they aren't in the US? Check out the unemployment rates for young European Muslims. Better yet, wonder why race riots went out of style in the US after the 60's?)

The Marshall plan worked, but again your analagy doesn't seem right. If we cut off social security immediately then would we, The United States of America, the only superpower left in the world, immediately revert to 1945 France? I just don't see it. Also, how could cutting social security possibly raise unemployment rates of YOUNG muslims. The whole idea is that we would no longer be taking their money, i.e. letting them have more money than before. How does that lead to terrorism?

[Larry]

you're damn right it is. I'm gonna have kids and grandkids to worry about. Also to get a number like 80 years you would either have to cut a lot of benefits or bush the age pretty far back, or both, and that would sort of defeat the purpose. less for longer isn't always the way to go, we need a true long term solution and what we're doing now is the opposite.

I propose that you should hereby oppose all government programs that aren't guaranteed to solve whatever problem they address permanently.

To start with, I think the Defense Department should discontinue all expenditures that do not guarantee the permanent end to all war. I'm tired of buying aircraft carriers that only last for 30 years.

[Predicto]

A short term patch it seems to me.

.

Not at all. The problem with Social Security comes from the fact that we are living longer and longer. When Social Security was created, 65 was really, really old. Now it isn't that old at all. Most people can remain employed just fine at that age.

So now, people are still paying in the same number of working years as they always did, but they are collecting SS for 30 years instead of 10 or 15. If you move up the retirement age a few years, you fix that imbalance. And if science advances and we start living to 120 and staying reasonably healthy until we are 90, you might have to move up the retirement age again. But there is nothing wrong with that.

[Predicto]

Also, how could cutting social security possibly raise unemployment rates of YOUNG muslims. The whole idea is that we would no longer be taking their money, i.e. letting them have more money than before. How does that lead to terrorism?

It was an analogy. The point he was making is that young Muslims in the US don't riot because they have jobs and prospects, unlike their European counterparts.

Just like the old and poor in the US don't support Communism or Fascism because they have a social safety net, and don't have to fear starvation when they get old.

[outbaksean]

I propose that you should hereby oppose all government programs that aren't guaranteed to solve whatever problem they address permanently.

To start with, I think the Defense Department should discontinue all expenditures that do not guarantee the permanent end to all war. I'm tired of buying aircraft carriers that only last for 30 years.

I never said permanently, I said long term. Many estimates don't have this lasting into my old age, but even if I believe when you say it could go another 80 years longer than I expect that doesn't make it the right option for this country. All I am saying is there will eventually be a time in the not to distant future where social security becomes obsolete. Then we will have to think of something else, or go without. My suggestion is that whatever we do we do it know. At least that way noone gets stuck with the short end of the stick. If the only option is to eventially live as a society without social security, than it would be much better IMO if we cut it now on our own terms instead of playing it out. If there is some alternative to social security, we should be finding/testing/impementing it today, not when my generation retires and the government "realizes" that social security needs fixing. It's called thinking ahead.

[GibbsFactor]

I propose that you should hereby oppose all government programs that aren't guaranteed to solve whatever problem they address permanently.

To start with, I think the Defense Department should discontinue all expenditures that do not guarantee the permanent end to all war. I'm tired of buying aircraft carriers that only last for 30 years.

See, that's a bad analogy because they actually could achieve that goal.

Funny, how they are a member of the very small government programs authorized to even exist and it works well. All the other crap... Makes you think doesn't it.