- 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
re: Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:51 am to Hangover Haven
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:51 am to Hangover Haven
And what you will draw out will be 10-20 times what you put in
3
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:54 am to TurtleSS208
quote:If you live to be 100. I don't think it's anywhere near that on average. I'll ask GROK.
And what you will draw out will be 10-20 times what you put in
Grok says about 24%. But imagine had the government invested those contributions the entire time the worker was paying into Social Security what the amount would be. (Hint: if managed properly, there would be no national debt, or not much of one). But it was a program started by a socialist and you get socialist results with scads of Senators and Representatives since 1933 that can not read a P and L statement.
This post was edited on 11/1/25 at 9:02 am
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:55 am to stout
There is something I can agree with Randy Paul on.
However, apply it only to people who would be paying into Social Security starting after the bill is passed.
It better not apply to people who have already been paying in.
In fact, the whole program should be eliminated, but everyone who paid in should get their money back with interest.
If you think you see trouble now because the leeches aren’t getting our blood, then try to take away peoples money they actually worked for.
You will see real trouble then. And it won’t be threats.
However, apply it only to people who would be paying into Social Security starting after the bill is passed.
It better not apply to people who have already been paying in.
In fact, the whole program should be eliminated, but everyone who paid in should get their money back with interest.
If you think you see trouble now because the leeches aren’t getting our blood, then try to take away peoples money they actually worked for.
You will see real trouble then. And it won’t be threats.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Based on the original policy of SS, it should be about 80
It was never meant to fund people’s lives for 20-30 years
It was meant to provide income to people in their final years who may otherwise have not been able to afford proper shelter and medical care. If you want to retire in your 60s and live life then set yourself for that don’t rely on SS to do it for you
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:58 am to TurtleSS208
quote:
And what you will draw out will be 10-20 times what you put in
With interest it actually could be and that’s how it should be.
Tell me, what happens to the money that people paid in all their lives and then die right before they retire.?
That happened to my wife. It’s gutwrenching to think of who is getting the fruits of her labor because it’s not me or any of our family members.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 8:58 am to Hangover Haven
MAGA!! Work until you die.
A lot of working class people drop dead around 70 or earlier.
A lot of working class people drop dead around 70 or earlier.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:02 am to Hangover Haven
quote:
Welfare recipients get other people's money.
That’s exactly how SS works. Your money has been spent and when you collect SS, you’ll be living off the backs of those still in the workforce, just like the welfare queens complaining about no EBT this month.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:09 am to stout
If congress hadn’t repeatedly raided social security, and we didn’t have a bunch of BUM fakers sucking on it for dual-disability - MAYBE we wouldn’t be here.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:12 am to Hangover Haven
They'd have to devalue the money you already have to give you back your money that doesnt exist anymore.
The sentiment of the post is impossible bc math
The sentiment of the post is impossible bc math
This post was edited on 11/1/25 at 9:14 am
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Not a big fan of SS but it's not going anywhere and will be around well into the future but if bitching about makes you feel better than go for it.
What Rand Paul is saying is the definition of Full Retirement age should be 70 instead of 67. Its semantics. You already get "full retiment" benefits at 70 now. You will still be able to take SS at earlier ages at a reduced amount.
On top of that, most people grossly over estimate how much THEY have contributed to SS and more that likely wouldn't have invested that money anyway.
What Rand Paul is saying is the definition of Full Retirement age should be 70 instead of 67. Its semantics. You already get "full retiment" benefits at 70 now. You will still be able to take SS at earlier ages at a reduced amount.
On top of that, most people grossly over estimate how much THEY have contributed to SS and more that likely wouldn't have invested that money anyway.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:16 am to Hangover Haven
You should get yours. I’m 53. If they let me out now, they can keep what I put in(since 16). Just leave me alone.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's not how welfare programs work
SS isn't welfare for those who actually pay into it
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:22 am to stout
quote:
Yes it's always been a scam
Time to phase it out
Absolutely
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:24 am to stout
I agree with him but this is nothing but an empty gesture. Work to get 20 co-sponsors before making the announcement.
Cut benefits in order by how much the beneficiary has paid, so after you cut all the 100% handouts come back and talk about SS. Until then, frick off.
Cut benefits in order by how much the beneficiary has paid, so after you cut all the 100% handouts come back and talk about SS. Until then, frick off.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:26 am to stout
So we spend massive money on foreign "aid", foreign wars, propping up mental illness and drug addiction but the people who have paid taxes and worked their entire lives can merrily go frick themselves.
frick Rand Paul's globalist arse. This nation's priorities are so fricked up, trying to lay the blame on social security is pure comedy.
frick Rand Paul's globalist arse. This nation's priorities are so fricked up, trying to lay the blame on social security is pure comedy.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's not how welfare programs work
Correct, good thing this isn't.
How many times do you need to lose this argument?
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
In fairness, the designers of SS never intended it to be a "retirement plan". It was designed to provide for the old that could no longer work to support themselves. At that time most jobs were physically demanding. Most people couldn't mine coal or work in a steel factory after 60ish. Somewhere along the way it came to be viewed as retirement plan.
Flame away, but I agree with Paul.
Flame away, but I agree with Paul.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:32 am to wallowinit
quote:
Tell me, what happens to the money that people paid in all their lives and then die right before they retire.?
That happened to my wife. It’s gutwrenching to think of who is getting the fruits of her labor because it’s not me or any of our family members.
Well, actually can get some of it back. There is a spousal benefit for survivors. You can get about 50% of what the deceased would have gotten at FRA. I tuyn 60 next year and will draw my wife's benefit until I reach FRA.
Posted on 11/1/25 at 9:34 am to stout
Well Rand, if Congress didn't steal funds from it, and if Congress didn't fund illegals we probably wouldn't have this problem now, would we.
Page 4 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News