- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In just a few years, the average retiree will be receiving 37% more in SS than he paid in
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:38 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:38 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
The fed gov took it with the idea of giving it back at retirement.
That "idea" was a sales pitch that never existed.
It was a tax.
For the good of our country, people need to make sacrifices for the future generations, so they don't get stuck in the same shitty situation.
1
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Now let’s get the CBO to see him much money could be saved just by doing away with programs like EBT.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yup. It has always been 100% up to the whims of Congress. And there has never been any sort of guaranteed payout. It sucks. But that's what it is.
That "idea" was a sales pitch that never existed.
It was a tax.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 10:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Receive more than they paid in -- some of us were paying in when we were earning the massive minimum wage of $0.75 per hour. A 50 hour week provided you a $41.25 paycheck with overtime and prior to deductions. Those payments into the Social Security fund didn't accumulate very fast but they still stung when it came to feeding the family.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 4:36 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Fact: SS is in surplus!
Fact: ss and Medicare are financial ticking time bombs.
Fact: The GENERAL BUDGET is a ticking time bomb.
Fact: If we don't fix the General Budget, SS won't matter.
Fact: In 2024 budgetary discussions, SS is nothing but a shiny object distraction.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:34 am to joshnorris14
quote:That is such a knobgobbler perspective. Just pathetic. "Boomer naivety and sense of entitlement"...
Boomer naivety and sense of entitlement will mean that we face disaster instead of dealing with the problem.
...you're like a fish to the lure. Did it ever occur to you that the generational BS is antithetical to your interests? Seriously.
If you want to fix SS, you'd better understand what you're actually fixing. Your comment makes it evident you have no clue. E.g., You think SS running a 20% deficit would be a "disaster"?
SS is currently in surplus.
It comprises 21% of our budget.
For nearly the next decade, SS will make no contribution to the deficit. Not 1¢.
The worst doom-and-gloom predictions out there hold that SS deficits might be as high as 25% in the distant future if nothing is done to fix the program. Most predict SS in its current form would run steady deficits in the 22% range over the next 75yrs beginning in 2033.
Accounting for the fact SS at $1.28T in annual outlay remains in surplus, the remaining 79% of the budget runs at a 48% deficit!!
A 48% deficit dwarfs any SS "disaster" scenario that is also nearly a decade away.
Wake up! This isn't about your intergenerational crap.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
This is a 100 irrelevant. You are speaking purely in hypotheticals. The “market returns” you speak of were not earned; not by you and not by the govt, because the money was never invested. How can you be owed something that you never had?
Give me the 12.4% the I pay and my employer pays on my behalf and let me invest over a 40 year career and I will get way more the $2/month.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 6:49 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Give me the 12.4% the I pay and my employer pays on my behalf and let me invest over a 40 year career and I will get way more the $2/month.
Likely, but that's irrelevant when discussing a government program.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's quite relevant when you miscategorize said program as "welfare"
that's irrelevant when discussing a government program.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:33 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
Good post and accurate, but you are wasting your time.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:40 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It's quite relevant when you miscategorize said program as "welfare"
Actually that has no relevancy to the irrelevancy of the non-efficiency of SS.
Whether you categorize it as welfare, retirement insurance, a personal retirement program, or your conspiracy theory, efficiency still has no place in the discussion (especially with your version).
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:43 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I’m only 12 years away baby ! Gonna buy closets full of Depends and drawers full of cialis is and live it up in one of those prefab homes in Boca Boca with all the Jennifers and Stephanies . Imma get my first STD at age 73 and Y'all jelly.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well ... let's see.
Actually that has no relevancy
Government forces me to buy into a "retirement program." Then it may eventually pay that money back at a significant ROI loss.
When it does, it heavily taxes that money, and taxes it as income rather than Cap Gains Why on earth would you miscategorize such a program as "welfare"?
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Government forces me to buy into a "retirement program." Then it may eventually pay that money back at a significant ROI loss.
When it does, it heavily taxes that money, and taxes it as income rather than Cap Gains Why on earth would you miscategorize such a program as "welfare"?
What does this have to do with the efficiency basis of the program?
And to answer your question, your payments fund current distributions. That's how welfare programs work. If your program hasn't been self-funded and relies on new distributions funded via taxation of a different population, that's a redistribution program. When a redistribution program is aimed as social benefits, we typically call that program welfare.
The current trust fund only has about 2 years of payments, so the fact the is some reserves isn't relevant because the program is not meant to only go for 2 more yeras.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:55 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
In just a few years, the average retiree will be receiving 37% more in SS than he paid in
Hot damn!!!!!!!
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is false of course. You don't understand the program.
And to answer your question, your payments fund current distributions.
Regarding your "efficiency" deflection, SS is the most efficient borrowing program in the Federal arsenal.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is false of course. You don't understand the program.
I do understand the program and I do know every time a social security threat comes in you're going to discuss the same irrelevant talking points. Regardless even accepting your version as some horrible conspiracy theory, my comment is still correct, because the debt instruments you love to reference are funded by contributions from people who are not receiving the benefits. There is still an input of contributions via forced taxation and an output of distributions to a different population, which creates the redistribution no matter how many steps are in between when the sausage is being made. This redistribution model is a welfare program. So even accepting the talking points that you try to force in, it's still a redistribution program because the inputs come from a different population than the one receiving the outputs.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
I'm curious. Is there anything you aren't an expert in?
I happily ended that sentence in a preposition
I happily ended that sentence in a preposition
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:49 am to roadGator
quote:
I'm curious. Is there anything you aren't an expert in?
Plenty. do you see me posting on the Gaming board or Home/Garden board much authoritatively? Hell, or the recruiting board, music board, outdoor board, etc.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:As you erroneously refer to facts as "conspiracy" it brings to mind the Orwell quote, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Apparently that is the case here.
as some horrible conspiracy theory
quote:Again, you are simply confused.
the debt instruments you love to reference are funded by contributions from people who are not receiving the benefits.
quote:You don't understand the program. Sorry. The input and output you reference is never the same money.
There is still an input of contributions via forced taxation and an output of distributions to a different population ... it's still a redistribution program because the inputs come from a different population than the one receiving the outputs
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News