- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:35 pm to moneyg
quote:\
Are you suggesting that Social Security be cut beyond its deficit in order to solve other things contributing to the deficit?
It's going to need to be
Posted on 11/7/25 at 3:39 pm to tigercross
quote:
40% of people born in 1900 would be expected to live until 65. However, many of them would die in the years between 1900-1937. Of the people born in 1900 who were still alive in 1937, a much greater percentage would be expected to live to 65+. In fact, the life expectancy of a 65 year old male in 1940 was 77 LINK.
So it stands to reason that a large majority of people in the US who were born in 1900 and lived until 1937 would be expected to live to 65+. Certainly much more than 40%.
Except that isn’t at all the metric you would use to determine the effectiveness of the age threshold for SS
So it isn’t complicated
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
$115B won't cover 1 month of SS
Why are you trying to cover all of SS instead of the deficit of SS? Did you think that what the person you responded to was trying to say?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's going to need to be
So, SS doesn't only need to be deficit neutral...you want it to help fund the other parts of the government.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:05 pm to moneyg
quote:
Why are you trying to cover all of SS instead of the deficit of SS?
It was just a comparison of scale. I can make it worse and do it as a total % of spending, if you'd prefer.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:07 pm to stout
quote:
Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security
We should end social security, everyone that put their money into it just has to take the loss on the chin
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:08 pm to moneyg
quote:
SS doesn't only need to be deficit neutral...you want it to help fund the other parts of the government.
Explain to me where we can source the funds to start working at our deficits and debt, especially with how interest is going to start compounding into a significant problem very soon.
Can't grow the economy large enough to make a significant dent.
Discretionary spending can be cut to basically 0 and I'm not sure we would even run a surplus, in a year (with interest growing).
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It was just a comparison of scale. I can make it worse and do it as a total % of spending, if you'd prefer.
I'd prefer you didn't move the goalposts.
The guy you responded to said taxing remittances 50% would go a long way to solving the SS problem. You disagreed.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:10 pm to moneyg
quote:
The guy you responded to said taxing remittances 50% would go a long way to solving the SS problem.
Not specifically, but I'm not playing this game where you try to change the argument. See my above post about total spending.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:26 pm to stout
So awesome for this fricktard to do this at my age (55).
Maybe stop throwing money into the corrupt medicaid and medicare hole, fix those entitlement programs and use if for SS considering we've been forced to put into that system all our lives?
Maybe stop throwing money into the corrupt medicaid and medicare hole, fix those entitlement programs and use if for SS considering we've been forced to put into that system all our lives?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:26 pm to moneyg
quote:
Are you suggesting that Social Security be cut beyond its deficit in order to solve other things contributing to the deficit?
Not my suggestion, but... SS has run in surplus for decades, and Congress has "borrowed" the cash to run the government with for decades.Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain to me where we can source the funds to start working at our deficits and debt, especially with how interest is going to start compounding into a significant problem very soon.
I think this topic is about "fixing" Social Security.
To understand your position, when you comment on Social Security, you are not only referring to adjusting benefits so that it is deficit neutral. Instead, you expect Social Security to actually fund the other parts of the government.
Is that what you are saying?
You sure do like the welfare state. What's next? Do we need to raise SS taxes?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 4:58 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Not my suggestion, but... SS has run in surplus for decades, and Congress has "borrowed" the cash to run the government with for decades.
I have the same question for you. Do you think the government needs create a surplus of money via payroll taxes so that it not only solve the insolvency issue within SS but cut the deficit beyond SS?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 5:03 pm to moneyg
quote:
I think this topic is about "fixing" Social Security.
Part of fixing SS is using the tax receipts to help with the debt/deficit overall. I don't think many, if any, are looking only at SS.
quote:
you are not only referring to adjusting benefits so that it is deficit neutral. Instead, you expect Social Security to actually fund the other parts of the government.
There isn't really any other way to address our debt-deficit, at this point.
Since 2016, the annual deficits and interest have gotten too big to handle via just normal spending cuts and GDP growth. The denominator is too big.
quote:
You sure do like the welfare state.
Technically that plan is decreasing the welfare state (by cutting SS spending)
I gave you the opportunity to explain how else we can address our debt-deficit.
quote:
What's next? Do we need to raise SS taxes?
Raising taxes will likely hurt GDP which we need to remain consistent/grow. That's why using a tax that our economy already has baked in works best. There is no shock to the system that will cause negative pressure on GDP.
Page 15 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News