- 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's insolvency date is now a year earlier
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:36 am to dalefla
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:36 am to dalefla
quote:
SSDI and Survivor Benefits are just another form of welfare. Baby Daddy with 3-4 kids gets gunned down in drug deal gone bad and those babies get a check until they are 18 even though "parents" were never married and BD didn't pay a dime into system.
To my knowledge those benefits are paid with tax dollars and not from the Social Security Trust Fund. But when Uncle Sam is borrowing trillions from the Social Security Trust Fund who is really counting where it is coming from.
While I normally don’t advocate for tax increases, it maybe time to consider increasing Social Security taxes to stabilize the fund before the cuts have to hit.
One idea I had is an optional tax increase that if you opt in early enough, you can forgo the 20% hair cut when that time comes or if that time doesn’t come, your benefits will be larger.
Also other changes could be changes to the quarter system to make it harder to qualify for full benefits.
The biggest expense to the government now is interest on the debt. One of the other largest chunks is probably the black hole of Medicare and medical coverage. Not sure how you can fix this. Everyone has their hand out for money from overpaid travel nurses with TikTok’s to hospital CEO’s and other management staff making 7 figures, to insurance companies that deny everything or make it difficult to pay out a claim, to pharmaceutical companies that spend to much money advertising drugs that don’t need to be advertised, and to pharmaceutical benefit managers who also run drug stores pushing copays higher than the cash price on some drugs. Everyone wants a piece of the government pie and your hard earned money.
0
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:41 am to DesScorp
quote:
There Is no “trust fund”, just a virtual box full of IOU’s.
That "trust fund" is lent to government at rates lower than the rate of inflation with very, very rare exception.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:48 am to RLDSC FAN
The thing about ponzi schemes, eventually you run out of other people's money.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:48 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Didn’t the vast majority of people spend their elderly years completely dependent on charity or family members (financially) prior to social security? Retirement, for most, is a fairly modern concept that I don’t think really existed. Physical inability to work, not choice, was why most retired in the not too distant past.
Most worked to some extent until they died. Orphans found themselves shite out of luck unless someone was willing to take them in. The disabled were in a similar situation.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:51 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
Hard to process that you elected a war-mongering, tax-and-spend liberal? Cope harder
Yet i'm sure you cried when USAID was cut, and anytime government fraud and abuse is reported.
Pretending you aren't a leftist is funny considering your post history.
Let me guess, Kamala would have been a better choice than Trump, right?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:52 am to armytiger96
quote:
Avg ROI on SS is 2.5% according to marketwatch.com.
ROI varies with inflation, but the skim is that the return is almost always lower than inflation which results in a negative rate of return in constant dollars.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 8:57 am to Dixie2023
quote:
The widowed and orphaned don’t get to collect on deceased spouse’s or parental SSI that’s already been paid into? Or do they receive extra? What about disabled? I’ve known of folks to label their bipolar or ADHD kids “disabled” and they receive a check? How do we keep that going?
Widows and orphans receive benefits from a spouse or parent who died for the most part but there are some benefits for those who never paid directly into the system in any way because those people still have a cost associated with them being alive that has to be met in some fashion.
The latter part of your post is a massive issue. It is a big part of the problems people have with social security. It is, all too often, handed to people who do not actually need it for any other reason than themselves or their parents are unwilling to work. It is not only unsustainable it is theft from the truly needy which is about as reprehensible as most people can imagine. Unfortunately it has become common to the point of collapsing the system. Many simply think the only fix is to eliminate the system altogether, to toss out the baby with the bathwater. That would indeed correct the fraud but it does not address the fact that those committing that fraud still exist and are going to be a burden to society one way or another unless of course we simply execute them which is unlikely. If they are alive they will either earn their living expenses, they will be on the dole, they will be a criminal or they will combine one or more of these. All but one costs all of us, them earning their nut is the ideal scenario. Them being on the dole is expensive as hell but its cheaper than them being criminals. Addressing the underlying issue of how they arrive at that point is something we are unwilling to do. Its a mess.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 9:04 am to AwgustaDawg
The only people who are not happy with this Milton Friedman designed system are those who didn't pay into it for whatever reason.
The Case for Chile’s Private Social Security System
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2019/04/04/the-case-for-chiles-private-social-security-system/
The Case for Chile’s Private Social Security System
quote:
Chile, however, may be an exception to that unfortunate pattern. It has enjoyed amazing levels of growth since a shift to free-market policies starting about 40 years ago. It is now the richest country in Latin America and if its “improbable success” continues, it will soon be comfortably part of what used to be called the First World.
The flagship reform in Chile was the creation of a funded retirement system based on personal accounts. Basically, universal IRAs.
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2019/04/04/the-case-for-chiles-private-social-security-system/
Posted on 6/19/25 at 9:14 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
Except, the IL state pension plan is way underfunded.
That plan is way underfunded, but Chicago's pension plan is way worse. The city will be bankrupt within 15 years, and those pensions aren't getting paid.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 9:36 am to La Place Mike
quote:
One poster claimed people were contributing $5000.00 a year for 40 years to SS. That means that person was earning over 80k a year for 40 years.
I said that and I mentioned it was an avg. to give a quick model of a ballpark estimation of what a portfolio would look like if I was allowed to put my SS contributions into a retirement portfolio. I'm not a finance guy and didn't feel like looking up the formula for FV calculations based on an annual % increase. I even mentioned in a later post that the figure was probably inflated due to the nature of compounding interest and starting with a higher number.
I may not have entered the workforce paying $5000 a year in SS but some of today's professionals are. I can also assure you that most professionals, plant baws, and roughnecks will have paid way more than $5,000 a year once they retire.
This post was edited on 6/19/25 at 9:56 am
Posted on 6/19/25 at 10:08 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
That plan is way underfunded, but Chicago's pension plan is way worse. The city will be bankrupt within 15 years, and those pensions aren't getting paid.
Yes. But if Dems have control, they will find a way to slide Fed money to them. Sad.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:31 am to armytiger96
quote:
I may not have entered the workforce paying $5000 a year in SS but some of today's professionals are.
I really didn't mean to call you out and yes some are but it's not the norm. The average American earns roughly 42K per year over their 40 year work career. Even with a Bachelors degree the average is around $70K. My point was that almost everyone over estimates how much they contribute to SS.
quote:
I said that and I mentioned it was an avg. to give a quick model of a ballpark estimation of what a portfolio would look like if I was allowed to put my SS contributions into a retirement portfolio. I
This is where the privatizing people really go astray. SS benefits are a "guaranteed safety net" so whatever investment options that will be made available by the Government will more than likely be conservative "safe investments" like Bonds, Bond Funds, TIPS, CDs, and even Annuities (SS is basically and Annuity) so you will not get returns as high as you think you will.
I am no fan SS but I stopped getting angry and sky screaming (I am not saying that's what you are doing OP) about it a long time ago. SS is not going away as long as politicians want to be re-elected and even when SS goes "bankrupt" benefits will still be paid at a reduced rate for the next 70 some odd years if nothing is done.
As too the posters blaming Boomers. The Boomers only crime is that they have longer life spans. It wasn't Boomers that added SSDI in the 50's, Medicare/Medicaid in the 70's and played little to no role in the reforms made in the early 80's. Hell, some Boomers had their full retirment age increased.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:05 pm to mule74
quote:
No. We will never fix any of our entitlements. There is zero political will.
I expect them to come to some sort of agreement on December 30, 2033.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:31 pm to AwgustaDawg
Wow. Thanks for your thought out reply. I feel we should stop SSI unless paid into the system. We cannot continue funding so many who don’t.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:43 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
The only people who are not happy with this Milton Friedman designed system are those who didn't pay into it for whatever reason.
Polls indicate about 80% of respondents like the idea of social security with about 50% saying there should be no changes (idiots) and about 78% saying benefits should be increased even if it meant THEM paying more. They'd probably change their mind if it ever happened but they like the idea. It's a pretty popular program all things considered.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 12:53 pm to Dixie2023
quote:
Wow. Thanks for your thought out reply. I feel we should stop SSI unless paid into the system. We cannot continue funding so many who don’t.
The entire way we determine who is disabled and who isn't is testament to how we as a nation truly think about disability. It is shame because we do have people who are indeed disabled and those who have a gang of doctors and lawyers who convince them they are AND walk them through the approval process for a small taste are stealing from the people who truly need help.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 2:55 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Using it I found 17 million references to Ponzi Scheme and while I admittedly did not read all of them I did read the first five found and all of the have terms in common....fraud. It seems that in order for a scheme to be a Ponzi scheme it requires fraud. More on that in a moment.
Fraud or ....wait for it ... coercion. The federal government doesn't have to defraud taxpayers because it coerces their participation behind the barrel of a gun.
quote:
All of them also use the terms investment and investor which indicates they involve investors and investment. Social security is not and never has been an investment. It is and always has been a tax. This in and of itself would indicate to a person with a modicum of ability to think abstractly that social security is not, by definition, a Ponzi Scheme.
You are arguing semantics, which is the crutch of the incompetent. Again, Social Security isn't technically an investment because it isn't optional. If the government kept everything about Social Security the same, except the ability to opt in or opt out, it would be an investment system (albeit an incredibly poor one).
The rest of your post is simply a combination of goobdly-asian, outright falsehoods, and semantics. You are arguing that Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme because, from the beginning, the government told the American taxpayer that it operates exactly like a Ponzi Scheme, except instead of lying for compliance, we will just force you to comply under the threat of prison.
quote:
There is also no mechanism in a Ponzi scheme to suggest that someone who has "invested" a penny will ever receive a benefit.
That simply isn't true. In the vast majority of Ponzi Schemes, the initial investors typically reap large benefits when newer investors are still being brought in.
At the end of the day, a Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment tool where returns are being paid to initial investors from the investments made at the bottom of the pyramid. Thus, if I can convince (or threaten with arrest) three initial investors to give me $10 a piece and then convince six investors in the next round to give me $10 a piece, I could pay the initial three heavy returns while keeping a small percentage for myself. The returns can keep coming at every level so long as I can continue to grow the bottom of the pyramid. The problem is that these investment returns are not being realized from any real economic growth; they are simply in-and-out payments. Eventually, the scheme fails because there are not enough new investors at the bottom to keep sending payments up to the top.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 3:12 pm to RLDSC FAN
They gave everyone an 8% COLA during the pandemic. That didn't help.
But that's government for you.
But that's government for you.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 3:22 pm to RLDSC FAN
These bastards have robbed me blind since 1982 and now when it’s my turn to retire it goes broke. It’s insane how money they have taken from me during my work life.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 3:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:It can, and maybe should. But it probably won't, because every time it happened in the past the party that did it lost power.
I honestly don’t understand why this is rocket science
Just raise payroll taxes to ensure the money coming in equals money going out
1950s…..we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
1960s……we raised payrolls taxes to shore up ss
1980s…….we raised payroll taxes to shore up ss
Why can’t it be done again?
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News