- 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: What's wrong with Social Security
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:30 pm to Centinel
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:30 pm to Centinel
quote:
Discrimination.
Go on...
I didn't think financial means is a protected class.
Disability is, but you would not be discriminating on the basis of their disability, you would be discriminating on the basis of their finances.
1
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:33 pm to LSUFanHouston
As long as we're talking changes to the program, here's my offer:
Stop taking SS contributions from me now, and I'll never ask for a dime from SS. I've put in 30+ years, so that's a sweet deal. Unfortunately, Marxists can't allow anybody an out, or the whole thing falls apart.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:35 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I didn't think financial means is a protected class.
Disability is,
There is your answer.
ETA: Again, people would appeal and tie the process up in such a way as to make the government just drop the attempt to remove them.
It happens all the time now, why would any modifications based on means testing be any different?
This post was edited on 3/7/19 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:39 pm to anc
quote:
but there's a ton of people approaching retirement age that do not have retirement savings.
And? Whose problem is that? Not mine. I have properly prepared for retirement and haven't even started drawing SS yet though I am eligible.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:40 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
And? Whose problem is that?
It’s their problem.
quote:
I have properly prepared for retirement and haven't even started drawing SS yet though I am eligible.
Buying all those Rolexs is a real fine retirement strategy grandpa.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:53 pm to LSUFanHouston
When Social Security was first implemented, the life expectancy of the average American was MAYBE 60.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:56 pm to AUjim
quote:
I really dont feel like people truly grasp the ‘disability’ problem....
Yeah there are some legitimately disable people who about to get screwed. In four years SSDI, won't be able to cover full benefits, and there will be an 11% cut in payments. Those cuts will continue, as the fund has been paying out more than it takes in since 2007. Although pay cuts will be at a slower rate as baby boomers transition from SSDI to regular social security.
quote:
In 1960, just 0.5 percent of the working-age population (ages 16 to 64) received SSDI benefits.
the percentage of the working-age population who receive SSDI benefits has skyrocketed, rising to 5.1 percent in 2014
quote:
The SSDI program has increasingly become an early-retirement and long-term-unemployment program serving not only the disabled who truly cannot work, but also the marginally disabled who could hold down certain jobs or work part time. Furthermore, the program is impaired by outright fraud and abuse. Such misuses and abuses undermine the integrity and financial stability of disability insurance. It is the SSDI program’s unintended growth, and not a lack of tax revenues, that has caused the program’s shortfalls.
When the SSDI program first began, the SSDI payroll tax rate was just 0.5 percent. This rate was estimated to be sufficient to provide SSDI benefits to the working population. Despite a significant improvement in health and a shift to more sedentary jobs, the cost of the SSDI program has more than quadrupled. Today, the SSDI tax rate is 2.37 percent
Posted on 3/7/19 at 12:59 pm to LSUFanHouston
the ONLY thing wrong with social security is they let congress merge its funds with the general budget and spend it all.
i famously remember tom dashel saying there is so much of a surplus of funds in SS that they could never spend it all so SS would never be in danger.
it only took then 3-4 years to wipe out that "so called" surplus which is now the balance of money needed to pay millions of retires that are now trying to collect.
force congress to overturn the law letting then use SS funds for other things and then fully refund the trillions of dollars stolen from it and spent on shrimp on treadmills and studies on if women change their behavior during periods an equally stupid BS
i famously remember tom dashel saying there is so much of a surplus of funds in SS that they could never spend it all so SS would never be in danger.
it only took then 3-4 years to wipe out that "so called" surplus which is now the balance of money needed to pay millions of retires that are now trying to collect.
force congress to overturn the law letting then use SS funds for other things and then fully refund the trillions of dollars stolen from it and spent on shrimp on treadmills and studies on if women change their behavior during periods an equally stupid BS
Posted on 3/7/19 at 1:29 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I don't think a lot of religious people agree with you, sadly.
That is because a lot of religious people are fake. They are more worried about their earthly possessions than Heavenly.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 1:37 pm to LSUFanHouston
A lot of down vote for a pretty sober analysis.
We can keep SS with a few benefit changes (higher age limit, massive changes to disability) but with MUCH higher contribution rates. That just not politically viable.
We could move to an investment plan and/or opt out system, but remember SS relies on current workers to fund the benefits of the retired. So how do make up the difference? Massive increases in contributions/taxes? Also not politically feasible.
At the end of the day we either need to cut benefits or increase contributions (or some combo of both). Neither are viable politically.
We can keep SS with a few benefit changes (higher age limit, massive changes to disability) but with MUCH higher contribution rates. That just not politically viable.
We could move to an investment plan and/or opt out system, but remember SS relies on current workers to fund the benefits of the retired. So how do make up the difference? Massive increases in contributions/taxes? Also not politically feasible.
At the end of the day we either need to cut benefits or increase contributions (or some combo of both). Neither are viable politically.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 1:55 pm to LSUFanHouston
When social security was developed, the "retirement age" in order to be eligible to receive it was equal to the average life expectancy. That means, that if you lived long enough to get social security, you were essentially on borrowed time. That meant far less people receiving benefits relative to those paying into the system.
As time went on, the life expectancy of people increased dramatically, but the ss retirement age remained the same. This has thrown off the ratio of payers to takers completely to the point that there simply aren't enough people paying into the system to support those who will be receiving benefits long term. It is unsustainable in its current form even without factoring the fact that as regulation of the healthcare industry has increased, costs associated with healthcare have skyrocketed at rates greatly outpacing inflation and wages.
As time went on, the life expectancy of people increased dramatically, but the ss retirement age remained the same. This has thrown off the ratio of payers to takers completely to the point that there simply aren't enough people paying into the system to support those who will be receiving benefits long term. It is unsustainable in its current form even without factoring the fact that as regulation of the healthcare industry has increased, costs associated with healthcare have skyrocketed at rates greatly outpacing inflation and wages.
This post was edited on 3/7/19 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 3/7/19 at 2:21 pm to Zach
quote:
If you weigh 600 pounds you need a lot of food to maintain the weight that qualifies you as disabled.
Are you sure this is a disability?
quote:
So, your benefits can be thousands just to feed your face.
Title II disability benefit is a ratio based on your earnings record. Title XVI (SSI) benefits are $771 per month for 2019.
Now, I don't deny there are tons of overlapping benefit programs at the local, state and federal levels and an "enterprising" and "motivated" individual (however paradoxical those terms are in this context) could potentially game the system for scads and scads of benefits (and many certainly do).
As some portion of entitlement reform, I think there should be mandatory coordination between all these taxpayer funded benefit programs and a "maximum" individual and family benefit imposed (all sources of unearned benefits). Unfortunately, I think it would require an expansion of at least 1 government agency to do so. And that has its own perils.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 2:33 pm to kingbob
quote:
When social security was developed, the "retirement age" in order to be eligible to receive it was equal to the average life expectancy. That means, that if you lived long enough to get social security, you were essentially on borrowed time. That meant far less people receiving benefits relative to those paying into the system.
Exactly. But look how many people are on this supposedly conservative board, demanding they get theirs at age 66?
Both the program itself - and the expectation of the people - have changed since it started.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 2:40 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:I'm not disputing that BUT... SSI is not paid from the (ever shrinking) Social Security Trust Fund. SSI was created during the Nixon administration. SSI used to be various state welfare programs. The Social Security Administration administers SSI but, again, SSI payments are not made from what working folks (and employers) paid in FICA taxes.
There's a shite load of "disabled" people collecting SSI that are fully capable of working.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 3:31 pm to LSUFanHouston
easy solution. Raise the estate tax limit to 50 million. use the taxes collected above that to fund the gap.
Posted on 3/7/19 at 3:45 pm to Centinel
At 50 next month I do think I will get some ss but I will treat it as extra. My parents are mid 70's and they make more in retirement than they did when my dad was working. They make him take out of 401k now so much a year which he does not need. My mother never worked in her life stay at home mom. I laughed so hard the other day. I went to casino with them and they lost a good bit 5 digits. I was like that is just insane should have just rode around 285 and thrown the money out the window. My mom says well it will build back up before you know those ss checks come every month. lol. I know harrahs likes social security for sure.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News