Well, yeah. They didn't let me opt out 20 years ago. I've paid in another 20 years' worth. Give me my effin' money!!Urban Ag said:
Gen X in 2005: Just let me opt out of SS and you can keep it
Gen X in 2025: Give me my f***ing money
not me, its not about the money, I have my own retirement, but they made me pay it and its supposed to come back to me, stop giving money to foreign governments for pecker removal jobs and transgender operations, gay pride events, condoms for Palestinians, etc. etc etc. and give me the money back, I may even donate it but I paid it in and it should be mine.Heineken-Ashi said:They can keep what I've paid if I never have to pay another dime. The money you paid was spent already. The money being paid out is your grandchildrens contributions whether they are alive yet or not. There is nothing to pay back. You either end it, and thats it, or you dont. Do whats best for the future of the country, or become your parents and get whats yours. I choose the former, but Im still fairly young.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
"Those who have paid into (myself included) it's our own fault for voting government that steals our money"txaggie_08 said:
Ok, well, your post wasn't clear in what you were talking about, as the OP didn't mention anything about voting for any type of candidate.
No. Just kill the program all together.BonfireNerd04 said:
Abolish the defined-benefit structure and replace it with shares of current revenue. Then the program can never run a deficit. If there's a decline in employment or in taxable income, then old people will just have to struggle along with the workers.
The government doesn't want this though. They want you dependent on whatever scraps they deem you worthy of.Trajan88 said:
Every year I would get a postcard sized letter that indicated how much I "contributed" to SS.
Those cards stopped coming 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe longer.
Anyway... first started a real, hourly job circa '80.
Would be enlightening to know what those dollars would have compounded to if it was invested in S&P 500 for 44+ years.
Huge? Yep.
I'm with you man. I'm poking fun at myself more so than anything. 20 years ago I was the first to state they could take everything I'd already paid in if I could opt out moving forward. Probably on this board to boot. Whelp..............that didn't happen, I'm 50 now, and I want my f***ing money someday.Dad-O-Lot said:Well, yeah. They didn't let me opt out 20 years ago. I've paid in another 20 years' worth. Give me my effin' money!!Urban Ag said:
Gen X in 2005: Just let me opt out of SS and you can keep it
Gen X in 2025: Give me my f***ing money
1. It's the humane thing to doHeineken-Ashi said:We bail these people out anyway.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't. Even on TA, I am sure 90%+ are under debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is under debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments. If not, finito.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Either end SS, or end the FED and ban government bailouts for eternity.
1. Too late. If we wanted to be humane, we wouldn't have robbed people for their entire life after already robbing them with income taxes, inflation, property taxes, and everything else they will never see a dime back from. My kids immediately paying other people through SS taxes, despite there being NO CHANCE they will ever see a dime, is not humane. And even if it was, there is nothing humane about forcing someone at gun point to pay to benefit someone else. The private market handles charity at a ridiculously more productive and more humane level than the government could ever hope to.Hullabaloonatic said:1. It's the humane thing to doHeineken-Ashi said:We bail these people out anyway.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't. Even on TA, I am sure 90%+ are under debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is under debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments. If not, finito.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Either end SS, or end the FED and ban government bailouts for eternity.
2. Society would be much much worse without it. According to data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the median retirement savings for individuals aged 65-74 (including those around age 70) is approximately $200,000. Removing SS wouldn't just hurt the 'lazy dumb libs' you're imaginging. It would hurt EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE.
3. Ending Social Security would NOT free up money for the budget. The FICA tax that funds Soc Sec exists only for that reason. End the program, and you end the tax. Social Security does not impact the budget, the deficit, or the debt.
It was passed by an act of congress and signed into law by FDR. It is completely legal. I will admit the payout is skewed toward lower income participants, but that is the "social" part of it. It is designed to keep up with inflation whereas most defined pensions are not. I also understand the payments will be cut by about 15% around 2032 if congress does nothing to correct the shortfall into the system.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.
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.
Not.My.Problem.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't.
Even on TexAgs, I am sure 90%+ posters are in debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is in debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary anymore. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments to get wealthy, no longer just your job. If not, then you are out of luck.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Wow. 11xmalibucharles said:It was passed by an act of congress and signed into law by FDR. It is completely legal. I will admit the payout is skewed toward lower income participants, but that is the "social" part of it. It is designed to keep up with inflation whereas most defined pensions are not. I also understand the payments will be cut by about 15% around 2032 if congress does nothing to correct the shortfall into the system.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.
As of the end of 2024, my wife and I have received back in SS payments 11.9 times what I contributed during my working years. That is a pretty good return.
AnScAggie said:
I am early 50's and still never even think about SS when planning for retirement. If it is there at current rates great, but if it gets reduced by 50% or even 100%, I have an alternate plan. I think that is one thing that was instilled in kids born in the 70's, don't plan on SS.
schmellba99 said:Not.My.Problem.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't.
Even on TexAgs, I am sure 90%+ posters are in debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is in debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary anymore. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments to get wealthy, no longer just your job. If not, then you are out of luck.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Read that again. Now read it again. A few more times just for good measure.
It is not the responsibility of ANY government to ensure you save for your retirement. That is on YOU. You and only you. Not me, not her, not him, not those guys over there, not the criminals in Washington or Austin or any other place.
SS was never meant to be a retirement program in the first place. It was billed as a supplement to retirement - a knee jerk reaction (really it was well calculated by FDR as a mechanism to expand the size and scope of the feds like he did with every other unconstitutional agency he created) to the stock market crash. The idea was that in the event of another crash, at least you would have some means of retirement income.
But it was NEVER meant to be your retirement. You were always meant to plan for retirement yourself - save, invest, do whatever.
At some point one has to factor personal responsibility into the equation. And factor out the POS feds.
I like what you're think but that's guaranteed to piss every young person off. How about:Snake Jazz said:
How to "fix" social security:
Everybody must pay into social security until you are 40. This helps the system stay afloat for everybody has already paid into the system.
At 40, you can opt out. You will never see the money you paid into the system. It's gone. However, for the remaining 20 plus years you work, you no longer have to pay into the system.
Easy.
I hear you. It sucks what our government did to its people. It has to stop somewhere. I'm personally willing to get NOTHING back. Easier for me than older folks, completely get that. But at some point, for the future of this country, my kids, your kids, your grandkids, their kids.. we will all have to make sacrifices. Because if we dont, it's going to blow up on its own. And the people that will have to pay for it will be my kids, your kids, your grandkids, and their kids.Somerset said:
Ok youngster. I agree in principle, but the government took my money and kept me from investing that same money for 52 WORKING years!! Now I want a small piece of what they took back. I started collecting at the end of last year. It is a small piece because if I had been able to keep that money, invest that money, I will never collect what it would be worth if they hadn't taken it in the first place.
It's not an investment, and it never has been. It's a transfer payment.Ags4DaWin said:
What they should do-
1) for everyone that has paid in for 35 years: keep your benefit through retirement.
2) if you have paid in 5-35 years you get the option for reduced benefits after retirement or a single pay out at a percentage of what you paid in. If i paid in 30 years, i can get 85% of what i paid in. If i paid in 25 years i can get 75 percent of what i paid in...and step it down like that to reflect how much time someone has to put any payout into the market. Cutting payouts like this will help keep SS afloat because the government will get to keep a percentage of what you put in. Your payout is tax free money that can be put into a Roth or traditional IRA that ignores the usual maximum limits for contributions.
3) if you paid in 5 or less you get a single check that is not taxed.
4) and noone has to pay in ever again.
Dismantle it.
I would take 50 cents on the dollar for the ability to take it out and manage it.
The worst investment in ****ing ever.
Ummm...CDs appear to have been around since the 1800s...whatthehey78 said:There were no 401k's or even CD's when I started having SS withdrawn from my checks...so screw the idea of eliminating SS. Eliminate all, and I mean ALL of the waste and stupidity from the budget first and forever!!!DamnGood86 said: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
Imagine how much money you would have in a 401k if 13% of all the wages you had ever earned had gone into it.
You can see what you paid by logging into your SSA account. I just checked mine - $389,000 paid to date, and it keeps increasing by about $22,000 per year (of course this includes by employer and employee payments, but I consider it all employee payments).Trajan88 said:
Every year I would get a postcard sized letter that indicated how much I "contributed" to SS.
Those cards stopped coming 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe longer.
Anyway... first started a real, hourly job circa '80.
Would be enlightening to know what those dollars would have compounded to if it was invested in S&P 500 for 44+ years.
Huge? Yep.
absofrigginlutelyfullback44 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
Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:infinity ag said:schmellba99 said:Not.My.Problem.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't.
Even on TexAgs, I am sure 90%+ posters are in debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is in debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary anymore. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments to get wealthy, no longer just your job. If not, then you are out of luck.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Read that again. Now read it again. A few more times just for good measure.
It is not the responsibility of ANY government to ensure you save for your retirement. That is on YOU. You and only you. Not me, not her, not him, not those guys over there, not the criminals in Washington or Austin or any other place.
SS was never meant to be a retirement program in the first place. It was billed as a supplement to retirement - a knee jerk reaction (really it was well calculated by FDR as a mechanism to expand the size and scope of the feds like he did with every other unconstitutional agency he created) to the stock market crash. The idea was that in the event of another crash, at least you would have some means of retirement income.
But it was NEVER meant to be your retirement. You were always meant to plan for retirement yourself - save, invest, do whatever.
At some point one has to factor personal responsibility into the equation. And factor out the POS feds.
You THINK it is not your problem. You take away SS, it will be your problem pretty quick.
I am afraid you are being too idealistic. The real world does not work that way. While I am against SS in an ideal world where everyone does what they should do, that is not how the world actually works.
Please look around you and tell me how much of what you say above actually happens. Maybe 5%.
ttu_85 said:I didn't either. My Tech eco 3311 prof hammered into us we would likely not get our SS benefits and recommended some sort of retirement plan starting as college students with part time jobs. The dude hated almost every aspect of Keynesian economicsTRIDENT said:
I'm not counting on SS for survival, but I do plan to collect what is owed to me.
So I did. I put back plenty but none of that changes the fact that nobody for no reason can steal what I and millions of others have put in.
schmellba99 said:Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:infinity ag said:schmellba99 said:Not.My.Problem.infinity ag said:
I am against removing SS.
Here's why.
In the US, we have a lot of stupid and incompetent people who cannot manage their money. They spend whatever they make without thinking about the future. No saving. Now this is no one else's problem except that they soon go on welfare or get into crime when they are desperate.
SS is for when you are old and cannot earn. You should not be on the streets at this time. So the Govt or some agency has to take away money when you are able and give it back when you are not able.
If Americans were responsible then this would not be needed but they aren't.
Even on TexAgs, I am sure 90%+ posters are in debt. Irresponsible financial habits. Our own country is in debt.
It is a new reality that one cannot face retirement with just what you made from your salary anymore. Even if you were careful and saved. You need investments to get wealthy, no longer just your job. If not, then you are out of luck.
So In an ideal situation, yes. Realistically, no.
Read that again. Now read it again. A few more times just for good measure.
It is not the responsibility of ANY government to ensure you save for your retirement. That is on YOU. You and only you. Not me, not her, not him, not those guys over there, not the criminals in Washington or Austin or any other place.
SS was never meant to be a retirement program in the first place. It was billed as a supplement to retirement - a knee jerk reaction (really it was well calculated by FDR as a mechanism to expand the size and scope of the feds like he did with every other unconstitutional agency he created) to the stock market crash. The idea was that in the event of another crash, at least you would have some means of retirement income.
But it was NEVER meant to be your retirement. You were always meant to plan for retirement yourself - save, invest, do whatever.
At some point one has to factor personal responsibility into the equation. And factor out the POS feds.
You THINK it is not your problem. You take away SS, it will be your problem pretty quick.
I am afraid you are being too idealistic. The real world does not work that way. While I am against SS in an ideal world where everyone does what they should do, that is not how the world actually works.
Please look around you and tell me how much of what you say above actually happens. Maybe 5%.
Not.My.Problem.
The real world works in whatever way the real world works. It works in the US with SS because we are forced into it. Take SS away and guess what - the real world keeps on going, just not in exactly the same manner.
Sorry, I'm friggin taxed out and have zero desire to give another red cent against my will. F that and anybody that thinks I should. Society made it long before SS was ever an idea, it will make it again without it just fine. Except I'll have actual control over my money and retirement.
Which is exactly what scares the ever living crap out of politicians. The idea that we aren't somehow under their thumb is terrifying and exactly why they fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
