re: Social Security has 6 years left, cut benefits or raise taxes?

quote:

---

Arguments among boomers, zoomers, millennials, silents, or alphas as to who's getting the "best deal" are made out of abject ignorance about SS design. No one gets a "best deal." The vast vast majority of contributors get totally screwed.
---

Cut bennies to the boomers. Stop letting them finance their lifestyle and retirement off their kids and grandchildren.

Fund their own bullshite for a change.

---

Yikes!
Case in point.

quote:

---

We know ...

---

Unfortunately that is a terrible assumption. This thread is packed with examples to the contrary. W actually tried to convert SS into a retiree beneficial system. Congress killed the effort, and to do so it played on exactly the kind of "we know" visible throughout this thread.

Wow, what a surprise...

Breakdown of Congress after Nov 2008 Elections:
House of Representatives (111th Congress): ~59% Democratic (
Democrats vs.
Republicans).
Senate (111th Congress): 59% Democratic (
Democrats + 2 Independents vs.




Anyone that's posting in here that's a Democrat, shouldn't be posting, unless he's pro-SSI.

quote:

---

“We know that SS is basically a scam and that it is fricking thievery, and we know that in order for it to continue paying us it would require the continued theft from and scamming of our own children and grandchildren, but frick them, I want mine as I am approaching the end of my life.”

That is a fricked up viewpoint.

---

So as a Millennial who has likely paid in for a decade, you’re willing to forego that money you put in? Because that’s what you are saying Boomers should have done.

quote:

---

willing to pay for the next 50 years with no complaint and zero expected return if you could promise me that the future generations of our country would never have to pay in at all.

---

Same.

quote:

---

So a 22-year-old in his first job has 12.4% docked from his paycheck. That money will generate an average ROI of 3% of the next 45 years. Which means for every dollar put in the "beneficiary" will receive about $3.60 back. Hence, proponents of Social Security, especially those in Congress, say "See ... Social Security pays more back than you put into it!"

But here's the problem:
If that 22 year-old put the same money into an S&P account, reinvesting dividends over the same 45 year period, every dollar he put in would be worth more than $100 at retirement. So the Social Security "benefit" actually costs that fellow $96.40 for every dollar originally invested.

---

There is nothing about social security which prevents this 22 year old from doing exactly this if they are so inclined. Not a thing. What would not happen if the 22 year old did do this and this alone and did not pay into SS is orphans, widows, the elderly and the disabled would not have a guaranteed modest income when they became orphaned, widowed disabled or elderly. Most orphans do not have an opportunity to invest any amount in anything because they are children, yet SS will pay them a benefit when they are orphaned. I know that gripes the frick out of many of you who FEEL (cause you sure as frick ain't thinking" that them damned orphans can go to hell and should simply die or rely on charity or anything other than have the audacity to become orphaned and without someone providing for their living expenses. The same goes for the widowed, the disabled and the elderly....frick 'em, right?

SS is not, was not and never will be the only "retirement" account available to anyone in the US because it was never intended to be a retirement account for any single individual. It was ALWAYS meant to provide a modest income to the elderly, the widowed, the orphaned and the disabled so they did not become a burden on society in more nefarious ways, like knocking folks in the head and committing crimes, and to provide them with some dignity. Unfortunately for the troglodytes among us 90% of Americans think Social Security is important and beneficial to US society. The 10% among us who hate everything about the United States and everyone in the United States, including themselves, who despise social security and have fevered fantasies about it going away and 10s of millions of people dying as a result are destined to be as disappointed in this as they are in every other aspect of their sordid existence. Eliminate the earnings cap, maintain benefit caps AND make it far more difficult to get disability AND prosecute the stupendous number of lawyers and medical professionals who propagate the majority of bogus disability scams and the system is healthy and able to do what it was always intended to do and has always been supported by the vast majority of Americans....provide a modest income to the elderly, the widowed, the orphaned and the disabled with some dignity and preventing them becoming an unbearable burden on society.

Then I guess you guys will be voting straight Republican tickets?


Because that is literally the only way that what was said would have even a chance at happening...


And honestly, by then, interest payments on the debt will be a far worse crisis than SSI.

That's the real shite show, and on that, Democrats and Republicans are both to blame.

quote:

---

guess you guys will be voting straight Republican tickets?

---

If any politician starts talking about having a conversation about a potential death sentance for SS they'll have my vote.

It aint gonna happen, and I know it wont, and it pisses me off. Its just a piggy bank for the government filled up outta my wallet.

No one thinks it is going away totally.

Of the approximately 70M SSI recipients in the US, only about 10% of the recipients receive SSI disability, and it isn't much.

As a practical matter, opting out and paying minimal tax to cover those individuals would be great.

Something like, OK, I'll contribute 5% of the total amount I was contributing, with the agreement that I wouldn't receive SSI unless disabled.

You're right.

Hell, I'd vote for anyone that would just reform it, with opt out.


My vote ain't for sale, but it for rent.