infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

No, it's a bad idea because the media will hang it around the necks of Republicans and because the people in this country are too stupid to understand that it's actually the best path forward for our future.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

No, it's a bad idea because the media will hang it around the necks of Republicans and because the people in this country are too stupid to understand that it's actually the best path forward for our future.

---

What is a bad idea? To keep SS or to get rid of it?

I would love to stop social security. Give back the money that was paid in and let people use 401k accounts.

infinity ag said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

No, it's a bad idea because the media will hang it around the necks of Republicans and because the people in this country are too stupid to understand that it's actually the best path forward for our future.

---

What is a bad idea? To keep SS or to get rid of it?

---

I personally don't think it's a bad idea to get rid of it. It's a terrible idea politically and is political suicide.

How many agencies have "borrowed" SS funds?
Kill the deficit, reset department budgets as part of a balanced budget, then make them start paying back their debt at 15% annually.

SS is a legalized (though unconstitutional IMHO) Ponzi scheme. It is the biggest ponzi scheme in human history.

It should NOT be political suicide to end SS if done in a smart, intelligent and informative manner, though you are fighting against a very stupid electorate overall I am certain they can be made to understand.

The U.S. fed. government would have to honor every $$ that has been put into it with some adjustments of course, but it just needs to be ended with a hard stop.

After 12/31/25 there will no longer be any SS deductions from paychecks, the government will no longer take your $$ to give to other people in their retirement and we won't take $$ from other people in the future to pay for yours either. Everyone must plan for themselves using their $$ they have earned.

The whole narrative of SS needs to change, people are afraid they are LOSING something if it goes away, they aren't. it is NOT a benefit, the government is TAKING your $$ and giving it back to you later when they take from someone else. The cure is for the government to stop taking your $$, your retirement $$, now, not giving it back later.

I think you can get people on board with it if you give clear-cut examples based on actual paychecks of the $$ being taken out of gross pay for SS.

It's can't be a outright shut-down with no benefits paid going forward, if you have paid in you must be paid back every penny and then some. But there is a way to kill SS, and it should be killed ASAP.

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. You have no choice. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

Nope, I've thought about it plenty long and hard. This isn't the first time it has been discussed kiddo.

Rip the band aid off, because there is no other way it would actually get done. Any "reform" or weaning off of the program would result in some new cancer developing that manages to take more of MY money that I work plenty hard for.

McNasty said:

---

AARP and boomers will let our government and currency implode before giving an inch on SS payouts. You see enough "give me my money" comments on here, and this forum is a rosy picture compared to the country on the whole. Even if DOGE squeezes all inefficiencies out, and we are still running a deficit, they won't care. At some point can we just have all grandkids forced to hand over their piggy banks to grandparents so they can better understand where their money has to come from?

---

It amazes me when old folks deride Millennials for being selfish, self centered, lazy, and/or receiving participation trophies. As if they aren't a product of their raising and a mirror pointing right back at the Boomer "I'll get what's mine" mentality.

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

---

This is the answer. Pay it all back, penny for penny, and wash the slate clean.

Hell, even if I get 80% back I'd be happy.

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.

I'd trade them all my 35 years of SS for never having to pay Federal Income Taxes again.

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.

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.

---

A moral and healthy society takes care of its own. But if taking care of our own requires me to be a slave to a corrupt system, then it's no longer a moral and healthy society.

But, I'd be ok leaving the SS scam in place. One condition. Zero, zada. zilch welfare. You get welfare when you retire and live off my productivity that's taxed from me for SS. Until then, there are plenty of charities. The federal government is not a chairty. And even if it was, it's the LAST in line as far as efficiency and cost savings, by a very wide margin.

Quote:

---

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.)

---

It'll be way more than millions. Ten of millions at a minimum.

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.

---

Yep.

The median net worth of those 65-69 - prime retirement age - not including a house is $106,000. Including a house is $285,000.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Krazykat said:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/

---

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.

---

It should be state mandated curriculum to have money lessons in junior high.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Why stop at SS?

Stop Medicaid and Medicare too. 3 largest entitlement programs.

We will have a surplus budget immediately with 90% of hospitals out of business.

---

It is funny how much the older chunk of this board hates the student loan forgiveness but the above three programs dwarf that and you don't hear a peep.

Personal responsibility for thee but not for me

The older chunk paid into SS for a minimum of 20-30 years, so there is that.
Students lived on the sweat of those same people who paid into SS.

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

UTExan said:

---

The older chunk paid into SS for a minimum of 20-30 years, so there is that.
Students lived on the sweat of those same people who paid into SS.

---

Only if you're naive enough to think the government has a big piggy bank somewhere with all those SS payments.

I've been paying in for 15 years now and have no illusions about it. It's a welfare program that moves money from the young to the old. So I have no qualms with one that operates the opposite direction, especially since I view the education of a young generation as explicitly the responsibility of their parent generation

Give me my last 25 years of SS "contributions" plus 4.5% annualized interest and I'll gladly walk away and use it to more good for myself than the US government will over the next 25.

Yup. That money is imaginary at this point. There's nothing actually there to give back unless they just print more of it as per usual.

Apples and oranges…. and I'm one of the ones arguing just to end SS without expecting your money back because that money has already been spent to keep this Ponzi scheme going.

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. You have no choice. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

Nope, I've thought about it plenty long and hard. This isn't the first time it has been discussed kiddo.

Rip the band aid off, because there is no other way it would actually get done. Any "reform" or weaning off of the program would result in some new cancer developing that manages to take more of MY money that I work plenty hard for.

---

"kiddo". Ha. Coming from a 25 year old.

It's a good thing that your brash ways aren't going to be implemented. Good luck to you in your personal finances though.

Muktheduck said:

---

UTExan said:

---

The older chunk paid into SS for a minimum of 20-30 years, so there is that.
Students lived on the sweat of those same people who paid into SS.

---

Only if you're naive enough to think the government has a big piggy bank somewhere with all those SS payments.

I've been paying in for 15 years now and have no illusions about it. It's a welfare program that moves money from the young to the old. So I have no qualms with one that operates the opposite direction, especially since I view the education of a young generation as explicitly the responsibility of their parent generation

---

That's what you are told it is. In reality, it's an open ended general slush fund for grifters to steal from for generations.

Heineken-Ashi 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.

---

A moral and healthy society takes care of its own. But if taking care of our own requires me to be a slave to a corrupt system, then it's no longer a moral and healthy society.

But, I'd be ok leaving the SS scam in place. One condition. Zero, zada. zilch welfare. You get welfare when you retire and live off my productivity that's taxed from me for SS. Until then, there are plenty of charities. The federal government is not a chairty. And even if it was, it's the LAST in line as far as efficiency and cost savings, by a very wide margin.

---

This seems like a good compromise.

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. You have no choice. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

Nope, I've thought about it plenty long and hard. This isn't the first time it has been discussed kiddo.

Rip the band aid off, because there is no other way it would actually get done. Any "reform" or weaning off of the program would result in some new cancer developing that manages to take more of MY money that I work plenty hard for.

---

"kiddo". Ha. Coming from a 25 year old.

It's a good thing that your brash ways aren't going to be implemented. Good luck to you in your personal finances though.

---

You think people put their birth year in their handles? Welcome to the Texas A&M board.

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 are right.
I personally don't want to be a burden on my kids. I don't think they owe me or my wife anything. I paid for all their education up to the undergrad level. Once that is done, they are on their own. If my kids get into a top school in their field (I have a list), I will pay for that as a reward.
However, I am accumulating enough funds for us so that we aren't a burden on our kids who at that time will have their own burdens to deal with.

bam02 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Not.My.Problem.

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%.

---

Hmmmm.....let me think on it some. Yep:

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.

---

You didn't think hard and long enough.

It will be everyone's problem if SS is taken away today. You have no choice. The only way it can go is to wean away people from it gradually. It is like a drug, people are addicted you cannot just go cold turkey without some major problems.

You being taxed out of not has nothing to do with it. These decisions are not done based on your personal problems. If I were cold and unsympathetic, I would say "if you are taxed, then work harder and make more money so you can pay those taxes". That is what our business leaders and politicians say anyway.

Even Trump knows we are not able to get rid of SS now. And it is a bad idea in general because most of our population is stupid and irresponsible.

---

Nope, I've thought about it plenty long and hard. This isn't the first time it has been discussed kiddo.

Rip the band aid off, because there is no other way it would actually get done. Any "reform" or weaning off of the program would result in some new cancer developing that manages to take more of MY money that I work plenty hard for.

---

"kiddo". Ha. Coming from a 25 year old.

It's a good thing that your brash ways aren't going to be implemented. Good luck to you in your personal finances though.

---

You think people put their birth year in their handles? Welcome to the Texas A&M board.

---

heh interesting, I didn't even notice the 99 until you mentioned it. I went back and looked.
I actually just pulled 25 out of thin air. I wanted to say 23 to make it more insulting.


To answer your Q, no. More likely to put their year of graduation.

No need for a welcome. I've been here since 1999.

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?

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?

---

I think they worked a more active lifestyle in the farms so were healthy much longer. And they probably also lived with their kids around them who took care of them as they aged.

Today we are physically more lazy and more unhealthy as we gorge on junk food and our kids don't care about us anymore since we mistreated them when they were children.

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/

Part or all of that may be true.

The point is that society finds a solution- whether it be charity or more multi generational living situations or whatnot.

Social security took the place of local communities and families taking care of their elderly and moved the burden onto the state..

We often talk about how fragmented society is and that happened because we allowed the state to take over some of the primary functions of our communities

at the barrel of a gun they force us to give to each other according to the morals and wishes of some nameless beaurocrat instead of giving to each other from the kindness of our hearts and a sense of community and faith in God

P.S. the former is what socialists want.