- 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
0
Posted on 3/28/24 at 9:14 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Could fix all of that by making hiring an illegal a felony.
A felony for whom?
HR?
Shareholders?
Posted on 3/29/24 at 10:18 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
It's 10 years or 40 quarters but really good level headed post.
I remember that 7 year figure from a talk radio show from maybe 1980. The commentator might have been in error, or it might have gotten revised in the SS reform that happened a little later. I never fact checked it, which is the danger of posting on subjects like this. I do like to be right when I post something.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 4:09 am to GumboPot
quote:
Raising the SS benefit age is tantamount to increasing taxes and growing government.
No it isn't. That's ridiculous.
It's literally decreasing entitlements and decreasing welfare spending.
This is typical populist nonsense.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 4:15 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 4:14 am to lazlodawg
quote:
IT IS NOT A CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
It absolutely is. It's an entitlement. The SCOTUS has said so, and they are correct.
quote:
It is the government allowing you to have SOME of the money they FORCEFULY TAKE from you back. It's your goddamn money
It's not your money. Your money went to pay for someone else's benefits who was eligible for the entitlement at the time you paid your taxes. And your entitlement checks will be paid for by someone else. Just like any other welfare/entitlement program.
The "It's my money!" bullshite is just a marketing narrative that the government used to sell this program to the public in the first place. It's no more "your money" than the money you pay in other taxes that are used for SNAP or to subsidize someone's ACA health insurance premiums.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 5:18 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
quote:
IT IS NOT A CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
It absolutely is. It's an entitlement. The SCOTUS has said so, and they are correct.
We might be referring to different components of SS. I'm talking about the money I earn and gets taken from me with the forced agreement that I will get some portion back at a specified time period. Changing that after the fact is theft. I am not referring to unearned benefits that this monstrosity of a program has added and expanded to. It was intended to be an entitlement as much as obamacare is a tax so frick the sc and their political definitions.
quote:
It's not your money. Your money went to pay for someone else's benefits who was eligible for the entitlement at the time you paid your taxes. And your entitlement checks will be paid for by someone else. Just like any other welfare/entitlement program.
I understand fully how this ponzzi scheme works. Taking my money and then suggesting that not being okay with a change in this forced agreement is "welfare" is fricking stupid.
quote:
The "It's my money!" bullshite is just a marketing narrative that the government used to sell this program to the public in the first place. It's no more "your money" than the money you pay in other taxes that are used for SNAP or to subsidize someone's ACA health insurance premiums.
It is COMPLETELY different. This is a defined benefit program. Let us steal about 12% of your lifetime earnings and you will get X amount back per month at Y age. That's the deal. Changing X or Y after the fact is theft.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 6:48 am to RoosterCogburn585
Anyone born after 1973 who is depending upon SS is a god damn moron. At the very least the benefit will be greatly reduced. Plan accordingly.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 6:49 am to ronricks
Dude not everyone a certified OT baller like yourself.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 6:51 am to lazlodawg
quote:
with the forced agreement that I will get some portion back at a specified time period
This does not exist.
Your money is taxed and becomes the government's to spend on others.
When/if you receive any SS money, you'll be spending someone else's money the government has taken.
quote:
It was intended to be an entitlement
It's always been a redistributive, socialist entitlement program.
quote:
It is COMPLETELY different. This is a defined benefit program.
That's not really different.
Section 8, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. are defined benefit programs.
quote:
Let us steal about 12% of your lifetime earnings and you will get X amount back per month at Y age
You don't "get anything back". You're living off the theft of 12% of others' salary at that time.
quote:
Changing X or Y after the fact is theft.
No. This does not reflect how this redistributive welfare program works.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 7:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't "get anything back". You're living off the theft of 12% of others' salary at that time.
Amazing people can’t understand this. Gen X and Millennials are footing the bill for Boomer social security benefits. Boomers paid for The Greatest Generation and Silent Generation social security. It’s a Ponzi scheme.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 7:09 am to ronricks
quote:
Amazing people can’t understand this.
It's just a self perception thing. People who are looking forward to SS but perceive themselves as "small government conservatives" who don't like welfare, can't imagine they're licking their chops at the largest welfare program in human history.
This guy is demanding no changes at all, which don't even reflect how SS was supposed to work (tying the age of receipt to life expectancy). Keeping the age so low at 65 is counter to what the program is supposed to be.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:24 am to ronricks
quote:
Amazing people can’t understand this.
Oh, they can.
They just refuse to.
SFP is 100% correct. If a guy like that's tax money goes to pay for an anti-poverty government program for someone who doesn't work and is 40, well, that's welfare.
If his tax money goes to pay for a government program for someone who doesn't work and is 68, well, that's THEIR MONEY (always in all caps), with the THEIR referring to the person receiving the anti-poverty government benefits.
It's very obviously not their money and it's very obviously the same thing.
But in this populist age, good luck making someone like the poster above admit that.
No, in this populist age he's being STOLEN FROM.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 8:26 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:53 am to RoosterCogburn585
The millennial generation is large enough that SS should be sustainable for the near future. Gen Z and alpha not so much.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:12 am to wackatimesthree
You guys don't get my position at all. I would gladly give up any return if that meant the end of ss. You cannot and should not expect people who have paid into this their entire lives and are close to retirement age to agree to a sudden change in their terms.
A good indicator that you're on the wrong side of an argument is if you find yourself agreeing with SFP.
A good indicator that you're on the wrong side of an argument is if you find yourself agreeing with SFP.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:20 am to lazlodawg
quote:
You cannot and should not expect people who have paid into this their entire lives and are close to retirement age to agree to a sudden change in their terms.
What do you consider close to retirement age? 60? 55? 50?
Most politicians advocating changing the retirement age for SS want to do so for those aged less than 50.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 10:21 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:26 am to frogtown
quote:Why should anyone under 50 support or agree to those terms?
Most politicians advocating changing the retirement age for SS want to do so for those aged less than 50.
We make less money, have less purchasing power, and, to top it off, you want to demand that we spend more of our lives working than previous generations.
No wonder the younger generations are jaded as frick.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:28 am to Scruffy
quote:
Why should anyone under 50 support or agree to those terms?
Because the program's payouts will be reduced if the retirement age isn't changed. Or taxes will be increased.
This is a math equation.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 10:30 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:31 am to frogtown
quote:
Because the program's payouts will be reduced.
They will likely still end up reduced, but now you are demanding we work even longer to receive whatever meager amount is being shuffled back our way.
quote:Will happen anyway.
Or taxes will be increased.
Why would anyone expect different?
Just get rid of SS and be done with the entire problem.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 10:32 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:38 am to Scruffy
quote:
They will likely still end up reduced, but now you are demanding we work even longer to receive whatever meager amount is being shuffled back our way.
quote:
If people are living longer you have no choice.
Retirement age should be indexed to life expectancy but should be locked in once you pass the age of 50.
quote:
Just get rid of SS and be done with the entire problem.
I agree.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:39 am to frogtown
quote:The US life expectancy declined in 2023.
If people are living longer you have no choice.
Shouldn’t we lower the retirement age?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News