Quote:
This will destroy all of our families and this is not hyperbole.
I mean, your statement is hyperbole. It would raise our retirement age and taxes, but it wouldn't "destroy all of our families". That's just exaggeration.
Quote:
This will destroy all of our families and this is not hyperbole.
its also right out of the democrat playbook the past 40+ years.Wrec86 Ag said:Quote:
This will destroy all of our families and this is not hyperbole.
I mean, your statement is hyperbole. It would raise our retirement age and taxes, but it wouldn't "destroy all of our families". That's just exaggeration.
yeah well that worked well for them and it is time to fight fire with fire.BMX Bandit said:its also right out of the democrat playbook the past 40+ years.Wrec86 Ag said:Quote:
This will destroy all of our families and this is not hyperbole.
I mean, your statement is hyperbole. It would raise our retirement age and taxes, but it wouldn't "destroy all of our families". That's just exaggeration.
fight who?Quote:
yeah well that worked well for them and it is time to fight fire with fire.
Who is agreeing with Democrats?BMX Bandit said:fight who?Quote:
yeah well that worked well for them and it is time to fight fire with fire.
agreeing with the democrats isn;t fighting them.
Define "do the right thing".Wrec86 Ag said:
Without SS, what would you do with the huge amount of 70+ year-olds with $0 to their name and no real way to get a job. How do they get the bare minimum to live on? We would have a disaster on our hands that will lead to politicians creating a new entitlement program in 20-30 years.
Basically, everyone will still pay all the taxes, but only the people who didn't do the right thing would get the handouts.
fixer said:Define "do the right thing".Wrec86 Ag said:
Without SS, what would you do with the huge amount of 70+ year-olds with $0 to their name and no real way to get a job. How do they get the bare minimum to live on? We would have a disaster on our hands that will lead to politicians creating a new entitlement program in 20-30 years.
Basically, everyone will still pay all the taxes, but only the people who didn't do the right thing would get the handouts.
Wrec86 Ag said:
As a libertarian and financial conservative, I would gladly see the government get rid of the program and let people save their retirement on their own. I've personally just written it off as a tax and plan to never receive it when looking at our retirement. (My wife and I are 36)
Being realistic, that's a nightmare scenario. The first generation that had to do that would fail miserably. Saving money is just not something people do well.
If you told everyone that SS was going away, and their paycheck increased by $100 every two weeks….. they would go out to dinner with that money, or maybe pay down their student loans - the last thing they would do is to invest in retirement. And then we'd have a generation of old people with zero retirement money and a disaster on our hands.
I've come to the realization that SS is a necessary program, and it needs some changes in order to be functional in the future. In order :
1. Raise the retirement age, people are living longer, so the age for SS withdrawals needs to go up.
2. To the point made above, raise the income max
3. And lastly, if necessary, raise the tax rate nominally
Rapier108 said:
Best fix for Social Security is something similar to what Bush 43 was proposing.
Over a certain age, no changes.
Under a certain age, no social security, but the deduction goes into a personal retirement account you manage, but cannot take money out except for retirement, or the other rules that govern taking money out of Social Security.
Between those ages, you can choose which option you want. Either stay in as is, or if you want out, you'd get a 1 time check from the government, based on how much you paid in, to start your private account.
This way over time, Social Security would wither away and die; and people would have control over more of their own money.
I know people rail on Bush, but he did have the right idea about what to do about Social Security (and the impending housing market crash), but the Democrats blocked fixing both things.
If it makes you feel any better the reason that Blacks have a lower life expectancy is they have a much higher rate of death among the young and people on welfare or other government benefits for their entire lives (which is disproportionately Black) also tend not to live as long because of drugs and violence. So in effect the people who are bringing the average down don't contribute to SS. Blacks that live responsible lives live just as long as any other race.DallasAg 94 said:
Here is what I've never understood about Black people.
From this article
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00876-5/fulltext
Which is referenced from our Gov's NIH...
Nationally, there was an increase in life expectancy for people from 2000 to 2019 and here is the breakdown by race:
API +2.9 yrs; 85.7 yrs
Latino +2.7 yrs; 82.2 yrs
White +1.7 yrs ; 78.9 yrs
Black +3.9 yrs; 75.3 yrs,
AIAN +0.0 yrs; 73.1 yrs
The CDC's numbers which include the impact of Covid are much more bleak:
https://www.axios.com/2022/09/02/cdc-race-life-expectancy-drop
Asian: 83.5
Hispanic: 77.7
White: 76.4
Blacks 70.8
AIAN: 65.2
All: 76.1
If they increase the retirement age to 70, if you are a Black... your life expectancy may or may not reach retirement.
Meanwhile, you'll pay 6.2%... your company will match that 6.2% for roughly 50 years, and you'll barely see anything.
Shameful. And Liberals are concerned the American people can't invest for themselves.
You'll be the first one to give up your benefits? You OK with that? Lets start with your generation. You can lead the way.C@LAg said:
or... get rid of social security.
problem solved.
Isn't that the whole idea behind the suggested reforms in the thread - to make it yours and reform what "disability" is?DallasAg 94 said:Pretty pie-in-the-sky. You apparently don't understand Social Security.B-1 83 said:
- Set it up like the Federal Thrift Savings Plan
- Let there be options from S&P 500 funds to Savings Bonds - let the individual decide, with the default being savings bonds. IT IS YOURS AND NOBODY CAN TAKE IT REGARDLESS OF YOUR INCOME LATER IN LIFE
- Understand, part of your 15% is going "bye bye" to those who need it (injured, "special needs", orphans, etc……) just like now, and like the original program intended.
- Crack down on fraudulent disability claims and the criteria that lets people do nothing for "injuries".
https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Social Security isn't a Savings Plan... it is a Ponzi scheme. The money paid into the system in 2023 will be distributed to the recipients. There is no Lock Box or asset today.
See above. Also, it is NOT YOURS. The Government will never let you have it.
Your current money going into the system is paying for people who "qualify" for disability. That is... people who are not working but getting paid by the Government as a form of Welfare. See image below:
Fraudulent disability is encouraged as a means to keep the economy going. Former Speaker Pelosi once saidThat mentality extends to any form of Government payment to the people for not working.Quote:
"This extension is important to America's working families and to our economy. Economists tell us that extending unemployment benefits is the most effective way to quickly grow the economy and create jobs. It is a fast, fair and fiscally responsible investment. For every dollar the federal government invests in unemployment benefits, the return is $1.73 in economic growth. In contrast, for every dollar the federal government provides to cut taxes on dividends, the return is only nine cents.
Oh, we are going to bring the Constitution into this? Well considering that SS is completely Unconstitutional and always has been that would be a novel concept. The gymnastics they have used to justify SS from a legal perspective are beyond a joke, it violates multiple Articles of the Bill of Rights.C@LAg said:
also... would need to make the changes part of a constitutional amendment or something.
otherwise both parties will play with it for political points and change via legislation when politically expedient for them.