Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

I had a choice to vote for a government that didn't? Must have missed that.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

Did we even have old people before social security helped them to survive? Or were they just so financially illiterate that they died when they hit 60?

---

Very few people went to college back then. Kids grew up and lived and worked in their hometowns in the same factories, farms, etc their parents worked at. They took care of their parents when they aged. That culture is dead.

What keeps grandma and grandpa from flying 10 states across the country to live with their kids?

Is there a secret no fly list for 65 year olds I was unaware of?

I'm fine with an alternative to social security as long as I get my money back with interest. Also, if Congress votes to end it, they should have their pensions and premium healthcare plans eliminated as well.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

You can't tell everyone that paid in for all those years and are now collecting SS to effectively f*** off.

And I've had to pay into that BS for about 40 years and never once explicitly voted in favor of it.

Unless of course you advocate for them returning all that money to me - penny for penny what I "contributed" with at least a 3% compounded return (which I would have EASILY earned over those 40 years).

aggie93 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

Yeah, so I've been paying into SS for 37 years against my will and voted for anyone that would reform it unsuccessfully but you don't get to keep my money now that I can actually see retirement happening some day. I would gladly have put all of that money into other investments but wasn't given that choice and now you don't get to keep my money.

---

This.

When I was 25, I would have taken this deal. When I was 35 I would have hesitated more, but still taken that deal. At 45, I probably wouldn't have taken the deal but would have thought about it.

I'm 56 now. **** no I'm not willingly giving up all that money I paid into it.

Ag with kids said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

Yeah, so I've been paying into SS for 37 years against my will and voted for anyone that would reform it unsuccessfully but you don't get to keep my money now that I can actually see retirement happening some day. I would gladly have put all of that money into other investments but wasn't given that choice and now you don't get to keep my money.

---

This.

When I was 25, I would have taken this deal. When I was 35 I would have hesitated more, but still taken that deal. At 45, I probably wouldn't have taken the deal but would have thought about it.

I'm 56 now. **** no I'm not willingly giving up all that money I paid into it.

---

so kick the can down the curb?

UTExan said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

Did we even have old people before social security helped them to survive? Or were they just so financially illiterate that they died when they hit 60?

---

A lot of them were burdens on their kids; lived shorter lives, got no real medical care. Some Indians and Inuit simply put their elderly and sick out to die in the elements in some traditions.
https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/region/americas/comanche13/

---

We need to go back to this model.

Either way it's not the role of the fed govt to financially support its citizens.

Muktheduck said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

As with many things we don't like, the alternative is often worse. Imagine what it looks like without SS when people get too old to work and they become an economic drain. How can they handle medical care? How can they support themselves. You'd have potentially millions of elderly wards of the state. At least this compartmentalizes the situation. (Unless you're willing to let hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people die because they can't support themselves.)

I'd much rather keep my money than have an SS check someday, but it's kind of like broke old people insurance. The same way public education is stupid people insurance.

---

Its sad we've built a society where it's unthinkable for children to care for their elderly parents and they'd inevitably be wards of the state

---

You're assuming:

1. They can.
2. They exist.

70 year old Class of '77 here…

Medicare and SS are THE BEST !! Thanks guys !!!

Was a Ponzi Scheme back when I paid into it…. Didn't have a choice back then, you ain't got no choice now…

$240 Max Annual Medical Deductible, plus a couple thou free money in my bank account EVERY MONTH…

Again, THANKS !!

Good luck to all of you in the future !!

maroonthrunthru said:

---

70 year old Class of '77 here…

Medicare and SS are THE BEST !! Thanks guys !!!

Was a Ponzi Scheme back when I paid into it…. Didn't have a choice back then, you ain't got no choice now…

$240 Max Annual Medical Deductible, plus a couple thou free money in my bank account EVERY MONTH…

Again, THANKS !!

Good luck to all of you in the future !!

---

This selfishness right here is why nothing will be done.

They would shackle their own children and grandchildren to get "theirs."

bam02 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

Yeah, so I've been paying into SS for 37 years against my will and voted for anyone that would reform it unsuccessfully but you don't get to keep my money now that I can actually see retirement happening some day. I would gladly have put all of that money into other investments but wasn't given that choice and now you don't get to keep my money.

---

This.

When I was 25, I would have taken this deal. When I was 35 I would have hesitated more, but still taken that deal. At 45, I probably wouldn't have taken the deal but would have thought about it.

I'm 56 now. **** no I'm not willingly giving up all that money I paid into it.

---

so kick the can down the curb?

---

No. Reform it.

But, don't **** me out of ALL my money. I'll still never get back what I put into it as it is. I've paid into it for 42 years.

Maybe do something like this:

People already getting it, no change.

People close to retirement continue to get what they were going to get, but no COLAs ever.

People 15 years away get 80%, but also only have to contribute 80% of what they are currently pay (6.2%).

People 20 years away get 70% ,but also only have to contribute 70% of what they are currently pay.
.
.
.
People 40 years away get 20%, but also only have to contribute 20% of what they are currently pay.

People 50 years away get 0%, but also only have to contribute 0% of what they are currently pay

The numbers used are just an example of a spitballed solution to wind it down.

Tom Fox said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

Did we even have old people before social security helped them to survive? Or were they just so financially illiterate that they died when they hit 60?

---

A lot of them were burdens on their kids; lived shorter lives, got no real medical care. Some Indians and Inuit simply put their elderly and sick out to die in the elements in some traditions.
https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/region/americas/comanche13/

---

We need to go back to this model.

Either way it's not the role of the fed govt to financially support its citizens.

---

My plan precisely. Whenever I'm on the verge of being incapable of living a fulfilling and predominantly independent life, I'm going to find a nice secluded spot, set my butt down, take a fistful of magic mushrooms, and fade into infinity. Can't imagine spending years deteriorating into a motionless husk in a dark room.

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

Did we even have old people before social security helped them to survive? Or were they just so financially illiterate that they died when they hit 60?

---

A lot of them were burdens on their kids; lived shorter lives, got no real medical care. Some Indians and Inuit simply put their elderly and sick out to die in the elements in some traditions.
https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/region/americas/comanche13/

---

We need to go back to this model.

Either way it's not the role of the fed govt to financially support its citizens.

---

My plan precisely. Whenever I'm on the verge of being incapable of living a fulfilling and predominantly independent life, I'm going to find a nice secluded spot, set my butt down, take a fistful of magic mushrooms, and fade into infinity. Can't imagine spending years deteriorating into a motionless husk in a dark room.

---

Exactly. That's exactly why we spend our hard earned money on a beach in Puerto Vallarta or Cancun!

I would be happy to opt out and just get back what was taken from me. Forget the inflation and earnings, I consider those as good as gone

Tom Fox said:

---

maroonthrunthru said:

---

70 year old Class of '77 here…

Medicare and SS are THE BEST !! Thanks guys !!!

Was a Ponzi Scheme back when I paid into it…. Didn't have a choice back then, you ain't got no choice now…

$240 Max Annual Medical Deductible, plus a couple thou free money in my bank account EVERY MONTH…

Again, THANKS !!

Good luck to all of you in the future !!

---

This selfishness right here is why nothing will be done.

They would shackle their own children and grandchildren to get "theirs."

---

I think your sarcasm detector may be broken.

Well you seem to contradict yourself now by saying you don't expect to get ALL of what you paid in. I agree with your plan and posted a similar one way near the beginning of this thread. There has to be some kind of prorated plan based on age to phase it out, but anyone saying "I want nothing less than every penny I put in plus interest" are either just throwing a childish tantrum or are blatantly willing to kick the can down the curb and continue to bury future generations in more debt. I think it's the latter when push comes to shove.

bam02 said:

---

Well you seem to contradict yourself now by saying you don't expect to get ALL of what you paid in. I agree with your plan and posted a similar one way near the beginning of this thread. There has to be some kind of prorated plan based on age to phase it out, but anyone saying "I want nothing less than every penny I put in plus interest" are either just throwing a childish tantrum or are blatantly willing to kick the can down the curb and continue to bury future generations in more debt. I think it's the latter when push comes to shove.

---

Well...

I never was going to get that in the first place.

I meant I want to receive the deal that is currently on the table that I've paid into for 42 years. Don't change it now. Or, hell. I'll even take the no COLAs deal, I'm fine with that - at least I get SOMETHING for all that money I pissed down the government drain.

Just don't **** me completely.

Ag with kids said:

---

bam02 said:

---

Well you seem to contradict yourself now by saying you don't expect to get ALL of what you paid in. I agree with your plan and posted a similar one way near the beginning of this thread. There has to be some kind of prorated plan based on age to phase it out, but anyone saying "I want nothing less than every penny I put in plus interest" are either just throwing a childish tantrum or are blatantly willing to kick the can down the curb and continue to bury future generations in more debt. I think it's the latter when push comes to shove.

---

Well...

I never was going to get that in the first place.

I meant I want to receive the deal that is currently on the table that I've paid into for 42 years. Don't change it now. Or, hell. I'll even take the no COLAs deal, I'm fine with that - at least I get SOMETHING for all that money I pissed down the government drain.

Just don't **** me completely.

---

I'm 50 and have paid in for 34 years. Go right ahead and **** me. I do not want to screw over my kids and future grandkids.

This has to end. Let it be my generation that gets boned.

Given the returns will continue to decline as the system becomes Pay-Go, they'll have to raise the eligibility age, reduce payouts or raise taxes.

Go-ahead and take it and give me a 12% raise. We're not planning to receive anything, I'll take the money in my paycheck now.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

SS will never go away for the simple fact that people are irresponsible, especially with money.

When people have a credit card debt averaging over $6300 per person and rely on their income tax refund as a "savings" account tells me all I need to know.

APHIS AG said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

SS will never go away for the simple fact that people are irresponsible, especially with money.

When people have a credit card debt averaging over $6300 per person and rely on their income tax refund as a "savings" account tells me all I need to know.

---

Wouldn't removing the hand of the nanny state be a step in teaching people to be more responsible or perish. Either outcome is a win in my book.

While SS is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, I acknowledge the societal impacts that killing it immediately would cause. We would have millions more homeless across the country. It would drastically make life worse for everyone.

That being said, they need to raise the full retirement age to 72 or 73 at a minimum. It hasn't been raised in 40 years and life expectancy has grown by 10 years since then. People need to be willing to work longer if they can't save in other ways. There are more older people now. Deal with it.

Then there should be a slow phase out to a more privatized plan. If you want to still force savings, fine. Give every American 10 different investment allocations and let them make their bed.

And require 4 years of financial literacy courses in high school instead of reading Othello.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

While SS is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, I acknowledge the societal impacts that killing it immediately would cause. We would have millions more homeless across the country. It would drastically make life worse for everyone.

That being said, they need to raise the full retirement age to 72 or 73 at a minimum. It hasn't been raised in 40 years and life expectancy has grown by 10 years since then. People need to be willing to work longer if they can't save in other ways. There are more older people now. Deal with it.

Then there should be a slow phase out to a more privatized plan. If you want to still force savings, fine. Give every American 10 different investment allocations and let them make their bed. Allow them to access 5-7% of said savings a year in retirement.

And require 4 years of financial literacy courses in high school instead of reading Othello.

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

---

Well for one, there were a lot fewer of them as a percentage of the population.

But to actually answer your question, for most of human history adults worked/labored for food and/or wages until they physically couldn't anymore, at which point they either had children capable of caring for them or they became vagrants and starved to death.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

While SS is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, I acknowledge the societal impacts that killing it immediately would cause. We would have millions more homeless across the country. It would drastically make life worse for everyone.

That being said, they need to raise the full retirement age to 72 or 73 at a minimum. It hasn't been raised in 40 years and life expectancy has grown by 10 years since then. People need to be willing to work longer if they can't save in other ways. There are more older people now. Deal with it.

Then there should be a slow phase out to a more privatized plan. If you want to still force savings, fine. Give every American 10 different investment allocations and let them make their bed.

And require 4 years of financial literacy courses in high school instead of reading Othello.

---

Plus reciting the rule of 72. Daily.Hate to go all Ferengi here, but a major culture shift is required.

APHIS AG said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

SS will never go away for the simple fact that people are irresponsible, especially with money.

When people have a credit card debt averaging over $6300 per person and rely on their income tax refund as a "savings" account tells me all I need to know.

---

Oh, it will eventually go away for the same reason you said it will not go away. We will eventually be bankrupt.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's not within the federal government's purview to force your own retirement savings. Which they have mismanaged. It should be killed immediately. It's the largest government in expenditure.

Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money.

---

I am 74 months so I paid into SS over 40 years with 30 + years at maximum. I delayed collecting as long as possible. I am fine with SS ending but would hope that the tax situation with be changed too. I don't expect to live many more years. Our home is paid for . We just had our first and probably only grandson. Obviously if SS is eliminated I stand to lose money that I and my company contribute to the fund, but at this stage of my life , I would forgo my payout for the sake of the country.

I'm close enough now to getting mine so I'll vote against anyone trying to touch or cut it.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

While SS is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, I acknowledge the societal impacts that killing it immediately would cause. We would have millions more homeless across the country. It would drastically make life worse for everyone.

That being said, they need to raise the full retirement age to 72 or 73 at a minimum. It hasn't been raised in 40 years and life expectancy has grown by 10 years since then. People need to be willing to work longer if they can't save in other ways. There are more older people now. Deal with it.

Then there should be a slow phase out to a more privatized plan. If you want to still force savings, fine. Give every American 10 different investment allocations and let them make their bed.

And require 4 years of financial literacy courses in high school instead of reading Othello.

---

There'd be countless millions and the image of grandma and grandpa being evicted and losing their homes would get every single politicians who voted for it, voted out immediately. There'd be recall elections nationwide and their worthless pos families would be homeless too. Don't see that happening.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

---

Well for one, there were a lot fewer of them as a percentage of the population.

But to actually answer your question, for most of human history adults worked/labored for food and/or wages until they physically couldn't anymore, at which point they either had children capable of caring for them or they became vagrants and starved to death.

---

Life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women in 1930. SS when introduced was for people 65 or older.

Basically most people worked until they died. If you were the few that lived to claim SS, it kept you from starving to death.

30 year retirements on the government dime is a new concept.

Gen X may take the brunt of it since so many don't have pensions and at the same time did not jump on the 401K as early as they should

Generations after Gen X did better with the 401Ks

fullback44 said:

---

I'm ok with ending SS as long as they give me back all that I paid into it with some interest.. I'll take one big check too

---

Mmmk, it's a ponzi scheme. Your paycheck withholdings on Friday are sent to retirees on Monday. Someone will be left holding the bag, either due to policy changes or rapid insolvency.

Funnel the DOGE savings into a SS rescue fund while phasing out collection of SS. Kick the can down to welfare. At least the responsible people get all their money and can help themselves.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

UTExan said:

---

You will never get rid of social security because humans are generally too obtuse to plan for their future. And our effing school system does its best to keep them financially illiterate unless some parent or student demands financial education.

---

Remind me again what elderly people did before social security?

---

Well for one, there were a lot fewer of them as a percentage of the population.

But to actually answer your question, for most of human history adults worked/labored for food and/or wages until they physically couldn't anymore, at which point they either had children capable of caring for them or they became vagrants and starved to death.

---

Life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women in 1930. SS when introduced was for people 65 or older.

Basically most people worked until they died. If you were the few that lived to claim SS, it kept you from starving to death.

30 year retirements on the government dime is a new concept.

---

Did those numbers include those who died in infancy or childhood? What were the numbers for those who lived into adulthood?