Started By
Message

re: Updated Thread: A Blast From the Past - SS Reform

Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:12 am to
Posted by Pu2kph0
Member since Oct 2022
1697 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:12 am to
quote:

SlowFlowPro


Meme all you want it’s not welfare. And there is no corollary there at all. You are comparing apples to oranges. If I had all the money I paid in, (i.e. my current 401k)
, I would have no need for the government to pay me anything. I had no choice but to have my money stolen for all of these years.

Posted by SuperOcean
Member since Jun 2022
4585 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:17 am to
quote:

Yep, ol' Ron has proved he really knows how to make money!


Trump was born in this base. For all the wealth promoting he's done...I think, just before the election...so '15 using that adjusted dollar figure
The inheritance was 460-480MM

So good for him by increasing that 6-7 fold but. He was born with money and connections
This post was edited on 7/16/23 at 8:19 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:18 am to
quote:

Well then you go right ahead and explain that to the 90% of people who think it is.

Is there ANY other policy where "conservatives" will flatly ignore personal responsibility and the "play stupid games. win stupid prizes" memes like SS? If this were just about ANY other policy/law, you'd make the "well you should have known" argument and shrug your shoulders. With SS?

Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:20 am to
quote:

Meme all you want it’s not welfare. A


Can current SS payments to recipients be funded without current contributions from workers? For how long?

quote:

And there is no corollary there at all.

Sure there is. You pay taxes to fund the current payments to others. Redistribution and welfare.

You just don't want to consider it welfare b/c you may receive some of it one day.

quote:

. If I had all the money I paid in, (i.e. my current 401k)
, I would have no need for the government to pay me anything

Do you consider the taxes you're forced to pay for Medicaid an investment? Section 8? Food stamps? Foreign aid?

quote:

I had no choice but to have my money stolen for all of these years.

Yeah. It's called taxes. I hate them too.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
94786 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:20 am to
quote:

I would have no need for the government to pay me anything. I had no choice but to have my money stolen for all of these years.


If I asked you to consider it an insurance policy (true - a relatively mandatory and, in hindsight, increasingly expensive one) and not an investment program, would your analysis change in any way?

(*And by "insurance" - your widow could potentially benefit, minor children, disabled adult children, etc., all outside of your potential return in old age.)
Posted by Tarps99
Lafourche Parish
Member since Apr 2017
11595 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:23 am to
quote:

I’ll likely never see a dime of the “entitlement” money I’ve paid into social security,


I have floated this idea on Tigerdroppings but no one has brought it to a Congressman or Senator. This would be a Social Security government backed IRA that would be optional to add or supplement your benefits when Social Security runs out of money.

It would involve allowing your employer to double your Social Security withholding tax, the employer would also match to your new social security withholding. The traditional amount would go towards traditional social security benefits. The extra amount would be deposited into a Social Security managed IRA using government bonds that pay a minimum of 5% interest and are insured for losses. In exchange for fewer gains, the money when collected is tax free.

The money built up in this fund is yours to start collecting at 62 and a half. Unlike Social Security, upon death before 62 and a half, funds collected in this SS IRA are withdrawn to the beneficiaries on file or immediate heirs.
Posted by Pu2kph0
Member since Oct 2022
1697 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:24 am to
quote:

If I asked you to consider it an insurance policy (true - a relatively mandatory and, in hindsight, increasingly expensive one) and not an investment program, would your analysis change in any way?


Ah, but it’s not. Most of the time (and I qualify this statement because insurance companies can be pissy), when I have a claim, I am paid.

This post was edited on 7/16/23 at 7:25 am
Posted by fjlee90
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2016
8518 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:29 am to
It’s simpler than this. Anyone under the age of 40 can opt out.

Anyone over 40 received SS as designed today.

Those 40 and under can participate, but cannot draw until 70.

Those who opt out get 10k in a private account that’s can only be invested. Money can be touched at age 60. Newborns get this benefit on day 1. They retire with over a million dollars without effort.
Posted by Freedom Stick
Surrounded
Member since Jul 2020
63 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:30 am to
Sorry, this is untouchable. Doing anything to SS but expanding, means testing or removing the income cap is a loss in the general. Period. Best to find something that can really wedge. Reparation trend looks promising.
This post was edited on 7/16/23 at 7:31 am
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
94786 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:33 am to
quote:

Ah, but it’s not.


If you meet certain conditions, you're eligible for payment. You might not like the mandatory nature of it (understandable) and the cost (at least arguable that it is expensive coverage), but:

quote:

when I have a claim, I am paid.


I think you're focused solely on the old age portion of the program and not the survivor, disability, etc.
Posted by Jjdoc
Cali
Member since Mar 2016
55382 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:38 am to
quote:

Is there ANY other policy where "conservatives" will flatly ignore personal responsibility and the "play stupid games.


You will never convince people that:

1- The Fed Gov taking their money without consent with the promoted idea that at retirement you start getting a portion of it back.

2- That raising the age of retirement isn't stealing from them.

3- that stealing from them is a conservative idea.



Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
297072 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:40 am to
quote:

2- That raising the age of retirement isn't stealing from them.


It has to happen.

Populism and reality are at odds here.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:42 am to
quote:

You will never convince people that:

1- The Fed Gov taking their money without consent with the promoted idea that at retirement you start getting a portion of it back.

2- That raising the age of retirement isn't stealing from them.

3- that stealing from them is a conservative idea.

Then you're just arguing further that Trump fans are promoting Idiocracy.

Look Trump can be a Leftist and buy votes all he wants, but it just makes him a dirty commie at the end of the day. Accept it. Own it. Celebrate it.
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31328 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:42 am to
quote:

I fully agree. Just settle up with me. Pay back all the money I paid into SS and Medicare for which I received NOTHING, and we will call it even.



That’s not how it works. Do you call your insurance company if you never had a car wreck or your house never burned down and say give me all the money I paid you back?
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
297072 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:43 am to
quote:


That’s not how it works.


Because govt screwed the system up and treated it like a piggy bank..
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31328 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:48 am to
quote:

Well then you go right ahead and explain that to the 90% of people who think it is.

Tape it please.




I can’t help it if 90% of the people treat it as one, that’s to their own detriment. They should absolutely be funding an actual retirement plan and figuring out what they feel they’ll need to live however they want to live in retirement and go from there. Social Security will be there to supplement it but that’s not the purpose, it’s there in case everything doesn’t go how they planned and they don’t have a retirement account to get them through old age. A safety net. Insurance.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:50 am to
quote:

That’s not how it works. Do you call your insurance company if you never had a car wreck or your house never burned down and say give me all the money I paid you back?

Dear government. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars for Medicaid. I never used Medicaid. Please send me my refund check. Thanks.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:51 am to
quote:

Well then you go right ahead and explain that to the 90% of people who think it is.


I will direct them to President Camacho for that explanation

Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
31328 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:51 am to
quote:

Because govt screwed the system up and treated it like a piggy bank..


I agree the government treats it like a piggy bank but that has nothing to do with it not working as he described. If he lives to a really old age and the payments surpass the amount he put into it the payments don’t just shut off and Uncle Sam says ok you’re all done good luck.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
466547 posts
Posted on 7/16/23 at 7:58 am to
I can't wait for JJ to get back from DU to repeat their talking points about SS
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram