- 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: Social Security has 6 years left, cut benefits or raise taxes?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:42 pm to AwgustaDawg
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:42 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:Orphans, widows, and the disabled account for 1/5th of SS payouts (which coincidently is the SS deficit). Addressing just that group though, would mean payroll taxes could drop from 12.4% to 2.5%. Investing the rest in an S&P fund would be a slamdunk.
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
The problem is the government's SSTF loan would disappear. DC ain't having none of that!
2
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:47 pm to NC_Tigah
Business would get on board with that.
We better well put a hard cap on that, or in a few years that 2.5 will be 4-5.
And then Scruffy's grandkids'll be in here rasing hell.
We better well put a hard cap on that, or in a few years that 2.5 will be 4-5.
And then Scruffy's grandkids'll be in here rasing hell.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
widows
Let's say both work and paid in quite a bit.
The husband dies at 65.
The widow gets whichever benefit would have been higher, hers or his. Usually it is just a few hundred dollars.
It is pretty good win for SSI. But do send you a one-timr death benefit of $250.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:00 pm to N2cars
quote:
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.
About 58 million Americans over the age of 62 receive social security benefits, 22 million, roughly, have ss as their only source of income.
3.7 million kids under the age of 18 who have lost one or both parents receive benefits.
3.7 million widows do as well.
8.2 million disabled people do as well.
Which of these groups would the TD naysayers want to see cut from the rolls? Which is NOT going to become a worse burden on us societally when they are cut from the rolls? That's what many here want to do....many because they haven't thought about the ramifications but far too many would like to do it because they are sick, twisted fricks who are miserable and want others to join them in their misery.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:07 pm to AwgustaDawg
There likely isn't going to be any change to current recipients. The political firestorm would be too great.
SSI was never meant to be a guaranteed retirement income, just like minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage.
We can only hope for reform for future generations.
And shocker, pensions may become a thing again.
SSI was never meant to be a guaranteed retirement income, just like minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage.
We can only hope for reform for future generations.
And shocker, pensions may become a thing again.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:17 pm to N2cars
quote:Wall Street was surprisingly reluctant to openly support the effort when the proposal was made in 2004 to restructure Social Security. I would guess the same would be true now.
Business would get on board with that.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:19 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
because they haven't thought about the ramifications but far too many would like to do it because they are sick, twisted fricks who are miserable and want others to join them in their misery.
Im quite happy. Id be happier if I didnt have to pay social security tax.
Take a chill pill gramps. None of the government cheese is going anywhere. The only thing thats going to actually happen is my tax going up and / or my "benefit" going down.
How many of those claims are fraudulent? Certainly more than 0%
quote:
22 million, roughly, have ss as their only source of income.
Who's fault is that? Certainly not my kids.
quote:
3.7 million kids under the age of 18 who have lost one or both parents receive benefits.
3.7 million widows do as well.
8.2 million disabled people do as well.
OK. Get rid of all the fraudulent claims, figure out how much money is needed to cover the legitimate ones. Tax us enough to gover that. Im fine with paying for the childless parents and widows.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:20 pm to N2cars
quote:As I've said, because Social Security is structured as a debt obligation by the United States, major alterations for current recipients or even near retirees is almost certainly not a constitutional option.
There likely isn't going to be any change to current recipients. The political firestorm would be too great.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:22 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
government cheese
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:24 pm to NC_Tigah
About the only thing they've done is kick the full eligibility age up, IIRC.
Yes, I saw that, but I assumed he hadn't.
Yes, I saw that, but I assumed he hadn't.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 2:26 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Widows, very likely, have paid in.
They screw you in death more than they do in life.
They screw you in death more than they do in life.
Posted on 3/25/26 at 7:32 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Im quite happy. Id be happier if I didnt have to pay social security tax.
Take a chill pill gramps. None of the government cheese is going anywhere. The only thing thats going to actually happen is my tax going up and / or my "benefit" going down.
How many of those claims are fraudulent? Certainly more than 0%
I would bet that somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 1 in 3 is, if not fraudulent, at least suspect. It is a problem and it is also a diversion of money from truly needy people to those who would steal the pennies from a dead mans eyes. For me that is the most egregious thing about ALL social spending...I don't mind funding it, I do mind scum bags stealing from the funds and keeping those who truly need it from getting what they need. I suspect almost all Americans feel this way....if you look at the money we donate annually to causes and charities we think are important we are a very giving group....no one wants someone abusing that...and it should be a priority to stop it....and the professionals involved (doctors and lawyers) should be criminally prosecuted for facilitating fraud when it is evident.
quote:
quote:
22 million, roughly, have ss as their only source of income.
Who's fault is that? Certainly not my kids.
It is absolutely not your kids fault. Sometimes it is no one's fault....life is shitty for a lot of people. A lot of times it is the person who only has SS in retirement's fault...life style choices are usually to blame. No matter the cause these people exist and are going to survive, unless we kill them, and they will do whatever is necessary to survive. Those of us who do pay for all or most of our existence are, at the end of the day, going to foot the bill for those who do not, one way or the other. They aren't simply going to go away. They will either earn their living, live on the dole or be a criminal...or a combination of all three. The first choice is the best for everyone involved but the dole is better than crime because crime impacts individuals far more than paying taxes and leads to more taxation because prison is more expensive than the dole. It is a matter of financial survival for all of us, those who pay their way and the miscreants who do not. They ain't going to vanish.
quote:
OK. Get rid of all the fraudulent claims, figure out how much money is needed to cover the legitimate ones. Tax us enough to gover that. Im fine with paying for the childless parents and widows.
Almost everyone I know personally would call themselves a conservative, politically. I know them....and they are not horrible people who would not feed a hungry child if they could. What has lead them to conclude that taxes are a bunch of BS is the waste and fraud that exists. One political party denies it exists and one wants to eliminate fraud by eliminating spending altogether...and we have to pick a side and human nature dictates that we defend our decision no matter what. Most of us would gladly pay more if we thought it was improving the lives of others or ourselves....but we see the fraud, the waste and the outright crime and in knee jerk reaction born of continued frustration conclude that it is simply not fixable...and that empowers leaders to make the situation worse instead of improving it because we disconnect, become cynical and don't pay attention. It is a helluva mess. I do not have the answers but I know that things like SS make life better for more people than it does not....many of whom are not in a position to save for a myriad of reasons.
Page 26 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News