twa Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 we should make women take SS later since they live longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 More young, hard working legal immigrants. SS problem solved. Fix immigration on the letting people in at sufficient numbers front and we help ourselves and them. As much as SS is a ponzi scheme, which it isn't to quite extent some on the right paint it, we are stuck with it for the time being and, thankfully, it isn't the lost cause they suggest (or wish for?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, KAOSkins said: More young, hard working legal immigrants. SS problem solved. This could work to an extent. You have to be careful not to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to this stuff. The added SS tax base doesn't help in the event they end up taking more in benefits than they produce in taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Pretty nice breaksown of Trump's Russia obfuscation at yesterday's press conference. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/donald-trump-present-reasonable-doubt/532779/?utm_source=atlfb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 What if they don't wanna work? the pyramid is a classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449145/donald-trump-media-mika-brzezinski-tweet Donald Trump cares more about how he is perceived in the media than he cares about anything else in the world, including money. Trump is a true disciple of Bishop Berkeley, professing the creed of the social-media age: Esse est percipi— “To be is to be seen.” Trump is incapable of enjoying anything — money, success, sex — without being perceived enjoying it. ...... As president and president-elect, Trump spent a great deal of time tweeting about his ratings as host of The Apprentice and those of his successor, about the ratings of various news programs covering him, about the viewerships and readerships of various media outlets, generally theorizing that those critical of him must by moral necessity be in decline. On the other hand, he plainly does not know that there are tax provisions in the health-care bill Republicans are trying to drag out of Congress: He was perplexed when they came up at a White House meeting with Republican senators, saying that he was planning on taking on tax reform at a later date, oblivious to the content of the bill he purports to be negotiating. He doesn’t understand what’s going on between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but has taken to Twitter to argue — surprise — that, whatever it is, it’s all about him. What do you think he reads first in the morning: His national-security briefing or Page Six? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Never liked the idea of means testing.. too much like punishing success. I agree ithat feels wrong for zillionaires to collect but if they've paid in they should expect to earn what they deserve. I don't know the answer there, but expecting what could be a lifetime of payment to be forcibly turned into a lifetime donation because of a lifetime of success isn't my idea of fair. Now, trust fund kids who are rich from birth maybe could be exempted from paying in so they don't eventually cash out but SS does more than supplement retirement, and offers safety nets should disaster strike a family for example, and predetermining what may happen in a person's lifetime also doesn't seem fair. I'm all for raising taxes on the rich and having them pay their fair share..but excluding them from the benefits of what that brings. .again doesn't seem fair. Successful Americans are Americans too -Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bang said: Never liked the idea of means testing.. too much like punishing success. I agree ithat feels wrong for zillionaires to collect but if they've paid in they should expect to earn what they deserve. What about allowing an opt out at some X% on the dollar and removing the contributions cap? The uber rich end up paying more and get WAY WAY more out of the opt out benefit than they would from collecting social security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, Weganator said: This could work to an extent. You have to be careful not to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to this stuff. The added SS tax base doesn't help in the event they end up taking more in benefits than they produce in taxes. But they won't be taking them for 50 years. There is no one magic bullet, I agree, but that should be a part of the solution. added: SS is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Just now, KAOSkins said: But they won't be taking them for 50 years. There is no one magic bullet, I agree, but that should be a part of the solution. This considers social security in a vacuum though. Do they need Medicaid? Food stamps? Earned income tax credit? English as a 2nd language classes? Does the school have enough of those teachers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Just now, Weganator said: This considers social security in a vacuum though. Do they need Medicaid? Food stamps? Earned income tax credit? English as a 2nd language classes? Does the school have enough of those teachers? Here on the border with Mexico I don't see the hordes of immigrants that come here to take advantage of our social programs. You also have to consider the aggregate which is something folks on the right have a hard time with. One cheater means a program is a failure in too many peoples eyes. Most don't come to take advantage, they come to work. Legal immigrants won't have the stigma and corresponding difficultly that illegals have in finding legal employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 38 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449145/donald-trump-media-mika-brzezinski-tweet Donald Trump cares more about how he is perceived in the media than he cares about anything else in the world, including money. ... For all you folks like me who are repulsed by Donald Trump, do yourself a favor and read this article. You won't be disappointed. (Nice bonus... a jab at Sean Hannity, "the self-abasing monkey-butler of the Trump regime." I snorted out coffee at that one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, Bang said: Never liked the idea of means testing.. too much like punishing success. I agree ithat feels wrong for zillionaires to collect but if they've paid in they should expect to earn what they deserve. I don't know the answer there, but expecting what could be a lifetime of payment to be forcibly turned into a lifetime donation because of a lifetime of success isn't my idea of fair. Now, trust fund kids who are rich from birth maybe could be exempted from paying in so they don't eventually cash out but SS does more than supplement retirement, and offers safety nets should disaster strike a family for example, and predetermining what may happen in a person's lifetime also doesn't seem fair. I'm all for raising taxes on the rich and having them pay their fair share..but excluding them from the benefits of what that brings. .again doesn't seem fair. Successful Americans are Americans too -Bang I get what you're saying. But if you've been able to afford top-notch healthcare throughout your entire life, you should (if you're smart) be able to sustain that without the money that people who could not do so REALLY NEED. Maybe I'm getting too much into karma. But you get what you give. And charitable donations in the gazillions that they wrote off on their taxes doesn't help either. I swear, this is not jealousy or envy, more than it is "how much is enough for you?" ~ I think I'm channeling Warren Buffett, but yet not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 26 minutes ago, Dan T. said: For all you folks like me who are repulsed by Donald Trump, do yourself a favor and read this article. You won't be disappointed. (Nice bonus... a jab at Sean Hannity, "the self-abasing monkey-butler of the Trump regime." I snorted out coffee at that one.) It makes sense, Twitter from what I have seen is largely a medium used by people following events in real time, particularly journalists. Twitter allows Trump to have a one way conversation with the media, to interject his propaganda into the cable network coverage without having to answer questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Bang said: Never liked the idea of means testing.. too much like punishing success. I agree ithat feels wrong for zillionaires to collect but if they've paid in they should expect to earn what they deserve. I don't know the answer there, but expecting what could be a lifetime of payment to be forcibly turned into a lifetime donation because of a lifetime of success isn't my idea of fair. I'm all for raising taxes on the rich and having them pay their fair share..but excluding them from the benefits of what that brings. .again doesn't seem fair. Successful Americans are Americans too -Bang http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/opinion/ci_2611735 The core of the Bennett plan is a change in the index used to calculate Social Security benefits for retirees. Under current law, the system adjusts benefits upward based on an index that reflects the growth in wages in the nation. Bennett, borrowing an idea from money manager Robert C. Pozen, argues that if benefits were adjusted based on an index that measures prices, the system would save big money, because wages generally grow faster than prices by about 1 percent a year. If the plan stopped there, it would be a simple benefit reduction compared to what the system promises to retirees now. But Bennett and Pozen don't stop there. Instead, they would give retirees with lower incomes a more generous deal by using the wage index to calculate their benefits. Retirees at the top of the earnings scale would have their benefits calculated using the prices index. Workers between the extremes would receive benefits based on a blended index that falls between wages and prices, gradually becoming less generous as income increases. The effect would be to give retirees in the lowest 30 percent of the income scale the same benefits as under current law. Those at the very top would get only about 50 percent of what they would receive under current law. The federal government would save about $2 trillion over the next 75 years. The core of the Bennett plan is a change in the index used to calculate Social Security benefits for retirees. Under current law, the system adjusts benefits upward based on an index that reflects the growth in wages in the nation. Bennett, borrowing an idea from money manager Robert C. Pozen, argues that if benefits were adjusted based on an index that measures prices, the system would save big money, because wages generally grow faster than prices by about 1 percent a year. If the plan stopped there, it would be a simple benefit reduction compared to what the system promises to retirees now. But Bennett and Pozen don't stop there. Instead, they would give retirees with lower incomes a more generous deal by using the wage index to calculate their benefits. Retirees at the top of the earnings scale would have their benefits calculated using the prices index. Workers between the extremes would receive benefits based on a blended index that falls between wages and prices, gradually becoming less generous as income increases. The effect would be to give retirees in the lowest 30 percent of the income scale the same benefits as under current law. Those at the very top would get only about 50 percent of what they would receive under current law. The federal government would save about $2 trillion over the next 75 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said: What do you think he reads first in the morning: His national-security briefing or Page Six? You assume he reads. If I were a National Security advisor I would build a Faux & Friends type stage and have the briefers star in their own morning show type talk show complete with bullet points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: You assume he reads. I would never make that assumption; probably the only questionable presumption in the article though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: If I were a National Security advisor I would build a Faux & Friends type stage and have the briefers star in their own morning show type talk show complete with bullet points. Somehow that reminded me of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 re: SS funding instead of letting the congressmen take surpluses and blow them on other things, why don't we block that and take surpluses and uses them as investments that return money? loans for certain things, invest in long term safe instruments, etc. it's just an idea i'm not married to it, if you all think it sucks thats ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Their 'long term safe instrument' is the knowledge that they can always take more of my money and give me less at retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, KAOSkins said: Here on the border with Mexico I don't see the hordes of immigrants that come here to take advantage of our social programs. You also have to consider the aggregate which is something folks on the right have a hard time with. One cheater means a program is a failure in too many peoples eyes. Most don't come to take advantage, they come to work. Legal immigrants won't have the stigma and corresponding difficultly that illegals have in finding legal employment. Rather a mixed bag, it is interesting that the immigration crackdown reportedly slowed the demand for social services. In general though legal immigrants are a plus, as is immigration. we need to eliminate the illegal problem and underground economy....one way or another to the benefit of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 48 minutes ago, tshile said: re: SS funding instead of letting the congressmen take surpluses and blow them on other things, why don't we block that and take surpluses and uses them as investments that return money? We do. It's invested, by law, in US Treasury bills. Always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Regarding Social Security, I'm young enough that I don't need to consider the benefit levels, etc, but my father is a pretty good example of someone who probably doesn't need it. He didn't grow up rich, he was raised in blue collar Pennsylvania, went to college on the GI Bill, moved out of blue collar PA to the DC area, worked hard his whole life, etc. I do not know how much money he has, but it's a pretty safe bet that including real estate, his net worth easily breaks seven figures, and probably very comfortably. He probably doesn't need social security but he's been paying into it his whole life and he's earned his share. What I don't get is his insistence on working until he's 70 for full benefits, which is about 14 months away. What's the difference anyway, 1-2K a year at most? Our family has a pretty bad history of heart problems, and I've been ragging on him to retire for years so he can enjoy the rest of his life. My big fear with him is he'll keep working and not have much time left at the end when he decides to stop. And I always hear the full benefits argument out of him, but again, when you've accrued the wealth he has, are Medicare eligible, etc...how much of a difference does it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Tying into what you're saying @Forehead, I think there's a fear that a lot of money could be lost in another financial collapse. Really ticks me off that the GOP works so hard to remove this (and other) protections for people. I'm not inherently against the GOP's desire to move people toward privatized saving instead of SS, but they need to back it up with protections. Of course, I'm an economics rookie, so what do I know. Just feels like the GOP wants private businesses to have every opportunity to screw over Americans rather than have the Fed involved in people's long term financial planning/comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Your dad has already reached full benefit status. I took it early at 65, I'll be 66 this year and would have been eligible for full benefits if I had waited. Couldn't wait because I couldn't work because stroke. I'm losing out on about $150 a month. Your dad may not know what to do with himself if he retires. Many people have a lot of problems when they retire because working is all they know to do. I hope you're successful in getting your dad to retire. Maybe sit down with him to figure out a retirement strategy that he can enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.