- 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: I think it's time for America to cut social security altogether (serious)
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:12 am to John Madden SuperFan
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:12 am to John Madden SuperFan
The problem with that is how do you compensate folks who have paid in.
How do you not want to pay social security, yet give students, who refuse to work, or are in a curriculum in which there is no need, debt forgiveness?
How do you not want to pay social security, yet give students, who refuse to work, or are in a curriculum in which there is no need, debt forgiveness?
0
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:12 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
there wouldn't be an issue with the solvency of Social Security if our federal government wasn't so fricked up.
People gave their money to the government and trusted the government to give it back with interest.
Our founding fathers would shoot those people for their idiocy. They never intended the federal government to be responsible for people's retirement or health care or housing or food stamps or anything else we spend all of our money on.
They didn't even think the country needed a standing military, but they did put "provide for the common defense" in the constitution for a reason.
This is all of our fault as Americans. We voted for this stuff and eventually we will suffer for it. Blaming on the government is just shifting the blame from the people who gave the government that power to begin with. We were dumb enough to fall for the government buying our votes with benefits and we will ultimately pay for our ignorance.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 10:13 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:19 am to Longdriver98
quote:
I'm sure others have said this, but I am fine with ending Social Security as long as they give me ALL of the money that I have paid into it and without taxes being withheld.
I understand this in theory but all the money you put into it went right out the back door the minute you put it in. There is no stash to pull from. Every single paycheck your money was taken from you was given to someone else who was older than you. Can you imagine what that liability would be if the government had to cash out in one fell swoop?
"Let's keep the first one simple: A single person who made the average wage (about $66,100 in 2023 dollars) and retired in 2020 would have paid about $367,000 into Social Security."
Consider this hypothetical: 167,730,000 US workers paying into SS times $367,000.00 average per worker benefit owed = $61,556,910,000,000.00 in single lump sum total payout.
Is my arithmetic correct? That's a very large number. I have a difficult time understanding that!
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It clearly needs to be more. The math doesn't work.
It did in 1983 when SS was reformed but yes the math doesn't work any longer.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:29 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Let's keep the first one simple: A single person who made the average wage (about $66,100 in 2023 dollars) and retired in 2020 would have paid about $367,000 into Social Security."
No they wouldn't have. Your math is way off. If a worker averaged 66.1K for 30 years they would have contributed $122,946.00.
In before, I could have invested that and had millions. Let's be honest, the large majority of you would not have invested a dime.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:33 am to La Place Mike
quote:
but yes the math doesn't work any longer.
Because we have a declining working population paying for an expanding recipient population who is living longer.
When the program was enacted in no way did they anticipate the majority of recipients would get it for a decade let alone multiple decades
If I recall the age of your allowed to receive it was planned to be the average life expectancy. Had we maintain that policy as life expectancies increased then people wouldn't be receiving Social Security until their mid-70s
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If I recall the age of your allowed to receive it was planned to be the average life expectancy. Had we maintain that policy as life expectancies increased then people wouldn't be receiving Social Security until their mid-70s
The original retirement age in SS was 65
The life expectancy at that time was 59.9 for men and 63.9 women.
It was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 10:38 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because we have a declining working population paying for an expanding recipient population who is living longer.
When the program was enacted in no way did they anticipate the majority of recipients would get it for a decade let alone multiple decades
If I recall the age of your allowed to receive it was planned to be the average life expectancy. Had we maintain that policy as life expectancies increased then people wouldn't be receiving Social Security until their mid-70s
That is correct. You have done your homework.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:46 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
Of the Top Ten nations in military spending the US is #1 and spends nearly $1 trillion annually on national defense, more than the next 9 nations below the US combined, this has been going on for decades.
What we got for that spending
Posted on 8/13/24 at 10:47 am to John Madden SuperFan
quote:
Why are we procrastinating about a problem that's been plaguing us since 1989
The fraud in social security is what is killing it
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:00 am to SabineRat
most people forget about the SS tax that employers pay into the system, money that could go to salaries, wages, 401k. dividends, healthcare plans, etc.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:12 am to bizeagle
quote:
most people forget about the SS tax that employers pay into the system, money that could go to salaries, wages, 401k. dividends, healthcare plans, etc.
Preferably additional match to 401k for those who have it, or establishing IRAs for workers that don't so people can fund their own retirements.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not really a "meme" is it?
memes, like "Get rid of it once you pay me back everything I've paid in".
As has been discussed, cutting off SS for retirees or those approaching retirement is probably not even a Constitutional option. Depending on arguments, I'm fairly certain that "paying back everything paid in" in exchange for involuntary cessation of promissories wouldn't even pass Constitutional muster for retirees or near-retirees.
Social Security's debt OBLIGATION structure simply doesn't allow it.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 11:39 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:37 am to La Place Mike
quote:
Wrong. It's the other way around, but that still doesn't negate the fact that it's an annuity.
No, that makes it wealth redistribution.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:At the same time, at Social Security's inception, paycheck withholding was 1% with a 1% employer match. It's over 6x that now.
When the program was enacted in no way did they anticipate the majority of recipients would get it for a decade let alone multiple decades
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:43 am to Longdriver98
quote:
I'm sure others have said this, but I am fine with ending Social Security as long as they give me ALL of the money that I have paid into it and without taxes being withheld.
SS was never a bank account. That money stopped being your money the day the government took possession of it. Trusting congress with "your money" is like handing a bag of money to a crackhead and expecting to get it back.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:46 am to YouKnowImRight
quote:
No, that makes it wealth redistribution.
Go read a book or two about Social Security and cure your ignorance instead of making shirt up to fit your narrative.
You can start here by reading all of this woman's articles.
A good Primer on Social Security
The link is to Mary Beth Franklin's site. She is one of the foremost experts on Social Security. Click on the articles tab
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:48 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
SS was never a bank account. That money stopped being your money the day the government took possession of it.
We keep trying to convey this. I don't know why it is so difficult to get. For all those generation whatevers, they just need to look at their kids in their high chairs to determine where their money will come from.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not really a "meme" is it?
Did you miss the compilation I posted earlier just from this thread?
The meme has been posted a couple times since my post, too
quote:
As has been discussed, cutting off SS for retirees or those approaching retirement is probably not even a Constitutional option. Depending on arguments, I'm fairly certain that "paying back everything paid in" in exchange for involuntary cessation of promissories wouldn't even pass Constitutional muster for retirees or near-retirees.
Which part would be unconstitutional? The property right? Some esoteric due process argument?
How will we ever reduce spending/welfare anywhere else if it's not Constitutional?
Posted on 8/13/24 at 11:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Au contraire. SS is not a normal "benefit." Every 1¢ of SS contribution the government receives is immediately converted into a US debt obligation. The validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.
SS was never a bank account. That money stopped being your money the day the government took possession of it.
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News