Zobel said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The answer is for the government to quit spending money. Period. Full Stop. There is no other solution and any suggestion otherwise is flat out saying that you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to steal MY money from me or that you think it is perfectly acceptable to change the rules of an agreemen unilaterally just before the other party is to receive whatever fruits of said agreement are. And if you think either one of those is OK, you are a gigantic POS that has no business being in any position to make any decision, ever and honestly deserve to be put in a position where you get your ass kicked (in reality - physically get beat) every single day of your life until you die.

---

The problem is the only way to "quit spending money" as you say is the one you're not allowing. Entitlement spending is 65% of federal expenditures and 85% of revenues.

We have a huge deficit and someone is going to pay it. You're just saying YOURE not going to pay it, your kids are. The money is already "stolen" as you put it. You're just saying to keep digging and leave the next guy holding the bag. Someone has to put an end to the Ponzi scheme.

---

Nope, not what i am saying at all. We could literally cut 2/3 of all federal spending and the feds would still be spending too much.

I agree the ponzi scheme needs to die, but you dont do that by telling everybody to pound sand and just accept that money stolen from them for their entire lives is just gone.

But keep on blaiming boomers and what not, easy scapegoat i suppose in your world.

I hope Russ Greene stays healthy and continues working to support the boomers that he wants to screw. We appreciate his contribution to our retirement.

Quote:

---

I agree the ponzi scheme needs to die, but you dont do that by telling everybody to pound sand and just accept that money stolen from them for their entire lives is just gone.

---

But the money that was stolen from them their entire lives is just gone. That's the thing.

Do you think it's better to lie?

Classic prisoners dilemma. In game theory the usual winning strategy for that is once someone defects, you go tit for tat.

So, for him when you say that the most rational response is - I'm cutting you off entirely.

The best approach here is cooperation, though.

Also note there's no substantive response to the law. Politicians lied, the law owes you nothing, contrary to claims made here. See Flemming vs Nestor.

In 30 years Zobel will be defending his SS payments from his grandkids.

lol that you think social security will be around in thirty years. bless your heart.

cef88 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Zobel said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Change Detection said:

---

The system should stop now. Pay the $44K out to all retirees, and nobody pays income tax until all they put in is made zero in the ledger.

---

Dont hate that idea.

---

Note this also categorically will not make current retirees whole; they're largely zero income tax payers.

---

Well, yeah, NOW...

But for 50+ years they weren't.

There needs to be a phase out of the program over a period of time, so that people can adjust to it.

That way everyone gets ****ed somewhat...the olds lose some of their benefits, us Gen Xers lose more, but we paid in for fewer years, then the Gen Y/Z/Alpha folks also keep paying but at lower rates and also get lower benefits. ****ery for everyone.

What you apparently want is to **** the people that paid a **** ton into the system and then planned on it for retirement so that you younger people don't get ****ed nearly as much...

Sounds exactly like a Gen Y/Z/Alpha kinda plan...

---

I can agree with most of your first several paragraphs. Most of it, but not all. Everybody should be screwed in order to fix this dumb situation my grandfathers generation started.

In regards to the last paragraph, I am playing the worlds smallest fiddle for a generation that has experienced an appreciation of home values that this country will simply never see again, meanwhile, the subsequent generations ability to buy any meaningful land or any mineral rights have already been sold by the generation begging for their SS payments to keep flowing, while also asking for the most insane prices for said land/homes/mineral rights… etc. I'm not even mentioning the rise of the stock Market over the last 40+years that you have enjoyed (or is that considered mentioning it?)

You guys sold most of the other traditional avenues our generation could offset retirement income to the very corporations you created/worked for. A Majority of the younger generations have a low chance to receive said alternative avenues of retirement because these markets are priced so high now that the capital to acquire said assets, are exponentially higher, especially when you consider the relatively lower income increases over that timeframe.

Your generation pillaged our future then imported a massive amount of immigrants (of both legalities) to ensure GDP and tax inflows would cover your future SS incomes.

So yeah, I don't mind losing my future payments that I KNOW will never come close to what I have and will pay in, for the betterment of my country and kids future.

I don't want to continue to kick the can down the road.

---

I'm not a boomer...

BTW, don't even blame the boomers.

It was FDR and LBJ and then subsequent groups of Democrats that did ALL of that.

FDR/LBJ created SS/MC which is the biggest pile of ****ery in the government right now. Democrats let in all those illegals.

I apologize if I missed it, but I have yet to see a true plan presented besides "we must end date SS at a future date". What is the OP's plan to collectively end SS?

Does the SS tax go away? What happens to people who currently receive SS once the tax goes away (or are you simply wanting to changewhat the SS tax funds)? What is plan for those who are 1 month, 1 year, 5 years from collection of SS benefits?

benefits reductions, means testing, age increases. Of course you could increase taxes too.

Or we go through a true financial crisis, or the radicals end up burning everything down, and it just ends.

If we do nothing payments automatically will be reduced by about 23% in 2033.

Zobel said:

---

benefits reductions, means testing, age increases. Of course you could increase taxes too.

Or we go through a true financial crisis, or the radicals end up burning everything down, and it just ends.

---

When would this start? What levels would you propose? Im just curious as it is certainly an albatross within the US budget and these types of discussions will have to occur to propose changes.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

I apologize if I missed it, but I have yet to see a true plan presented besides "we must end date SS at a future date". What is the OP's plan to collectively end SS?

Does the SS tax go away? What happens to people who currently receive SS once the tax goes away (or are you simply wanting to changewhat the SS tax funds)? What is plan for those who are 1 month, 1 year, 5 years from collection of SS benefits?

---

I literally posted the plan a few posts up. You phase it out over time based on age cohorts.

You can't phase out payments - that compounds the problem. It's a cash flow issue, benefits already exceed deposits, and we're on the rising side of the unbalance.

If you do all of the above you spread the suck around.

Flat cut of benefits like 5-10% across the board.

Means test for people earning over 100k/200k joint and phase it in over the next few years.

For those under 55, raise the retirement age a little bit per year until it's 70 b sometime next decade. ;

For the youngest workers (under 40) cap their benefits long term. Or preferably end the program entirely.

Quote:

---

Nope, not what i am saying at all. We could literally cut 2/3 of all federal spending and the feds would still be spending too much.

I agree the ponzi scheme needs to die, but you dont do that by telling everybody to pound sand and just accept that money stolen from them for their entire lives is just gone.

But keep on blaiming boomers and what not, easy scapegoat i suppose in your world.

---

We don't need to do that. Just gradually wind down benefits. In 2026, retirees get 98% of originally-planned benefits. In 2027, they get 96%. In 2028, they get 94%, In 2029, 92%. Etc. Once the program is no longer operating at a loss, start winding down taxes to match. In 50 years, the Ponzi scheme ends, but retirees at that time will have their entire careers to plan for it.

We don't even need to end the program entirely. Just reduce it to not be the single most expensive item in the US Federal budget. Or until it just doesn't operate at a loss.

How is that telling anyone to pound sand?

Zobel said:

---

You can't phase out payments - that compounds the problem. It's a cash flow issue, benefits already exceed deposits, and we're on the rising side of the unbalance.

---

You continue to distort the facts and spread false information. Cumulative deposits still exceed cumulative payments. Payments since 2010 have exceeded deposits, but the large surplus from the first 75 years of the program still has SS in the black. The overall balance begins to go negative starting around 2030. Even at that -- with no changes -- beneficiaries will receive 75% to 85% of benefits for many years.

There is plenty of time, and very reasonable options, to shore up the program.

Your approach to troll, fear monger, spread false information, and create animosity between generations isn't conducive to solving the challenge.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

Nope, not what i am saying at all. We could literally cut 2/3 of all federal spending and the feds would still be spending too much.

I agree the ponzi scheme needs to die, but you dont do that by telling everybody to pound sand and just accept that money stolen from them for their entire lives is just gone.

But keep on blaiming boomers and what not, easy scapegoat i suppose in your world.

---

We don't need to do that. Just gradually wind down benefits. In 2026, retirees get 98% of originally-planned benefits. In 2027, they get 96%. In 2028, they get 94%, In 2029, 92%. Etc. Once the program is no longer operating at a loss, start winding down taxes to match.

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

Quote:

---

I'm not a boomer...

BTW, don't even blame the boomers.

It was FDR and LBJ and then subsequent groups of Democrats that did ALL of that.

FDR/LBJ created SS/MC which is the biggest pile of ****ery in the government right now. Democrats let in all those illegals.

---

If there's a generation to pin Social Security envy on, it's the first people to collect Social Security. "The Missionary Generation" born during and after the Civil War.

The first woman to ever receive a Social Security check was a woman named Ida May Fuller (1874-1975). She paid a total of $24.75 in tax for a few years working as a secretary, and ended up collecting $22,888.92. That's 925 times what she paid in. Something nobody alive today can claim.

Calm down sparky. current benefits exceed current deposits, ie the funds are being actively depleted. Yes, the zero date is 2033, yes then you continue pay go at a 23% reduction.

But what I said is correct - the problem is we have a known amount of benefits paying out that already exceed the amount coming in. If you try to balance it by sunsetting the program on the input side you exacerbate the imbalance, which is a short term problem.

Now do Medicare.

Zobel said:

---

lol that you think social security will be around in thirty years. bless your heart.

---

I said the same thing in 1978 dude about the time they were telling us white American man uses unfair amount of the oil and it will all be gone by 2000.

Lol

LMAO

BWAHAHAHa…cough..cough.,cough…

Then you're not very good at math

Zobel is a time traveler

Let's say you're right.

What would that make me? A hypocrite right? Ok, I'm a hypocrite.

What does that make you?

The younger person telling me it was wrong would be correct. This isn't an argument based on me. No matter how many time yall make it an ad hom it doesn't change it.

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Willingly? No. But that is going to happen to someone eventually, either through collapse, reform, or inflationary value destruction.

I don't expect you to do it willingly, because if the people on this thread are any example boomers think civic virtue is tantamount to being a sucker.

I would do it willingly.

---

Then say " I am not going to take my SS benefit when I become eligible"

---

this remains as stupid of a litmus test as it was last time.

Exactly the same as me saying "I am willing to serve in the military and die for my country to protect it" and you replying "then will you kill yourself?"

A far more revealing question is to ask you - would you take a pay cut to help avoid the fiscal crisis that is coming?

---

A useless and futile gesture. It wouldn't make a difference. They would still spend it. Feel free to do it yourself. But don't guilt others.

Individually, yes. That's the point. Collectively no - that's what needs to be done.

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

For 32 years I've paid the maximum you can pay into SS. Every. Single. Year.
On top of that, I've paid roughly $7,000,000 in Federal taxes during that time. But sure, I'm the selfish one because I want my SS check when I retire. As promised.

I've heard how entitled youngsters are but this takes the cake.

---

Dude. You paid in yearly on average slightly less than me currently. You made that much for over 3 decades. That means you are an ultra high net worth individual if you even just saved on average about 20% of that annually.

You are going to cry over your entitlement of social security? If this is true, the only way to combat this is to disenfranchise those taking a government check from SS/Medicare or any of the other needs based entitlements. Take them out of the voting pool.

Apparently not even a multi millionaire can be convinced to give up $3.5k monthly check.

At this point it is laughable.

---

That is not the point. He played by the rules exactly as they were prescribed.

If you want to change the rules going forward, fine. Then round up the votes to change the rules and we'll all have to live with it.

But to change the rules after the game has been played is BS. So is trying to guilt-trip people into forfeiting the SS check they are due to receive. Total BS.

The attempt to shame people in line to collect their SS check will fail.

---

I'm 34 years into paying in myself and obviously pay the max on both sides since I am self employed. We can no longer afford to give away money. We are bankrupt.

Time to return to just paying for the original constitutional functions of the federal government and eliminated the FDR and LBJ welfare state.

---

Then change the rules going forward. They can be whatever you convince a majority of elected representatives that they should be. But stop trying to shame those who played by the rules after the game has been played. It will just alienate your efforts to reform the system going forward.

---

The absurdity of his post just demonstrates that there will never be reform without suffrage limitation. Collapse is the only thing that will end this idiocy.

I hope he enjoys a few new Richard Milles and maybe a John Mayer Daytona courtesy of SS while the country enters a death spiral economically.

---

So you take their money and freedom. Sounds pretty communist to me.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

Zobel said:

---

Let's say you're right.

What would that make me? A hypocrite right? Ok, I'm a hypocrite.

What does that make you?

The younger person telling me it was wrong would be correct. This isn't an argument based on me. No matter how many time yall make it an ad hom it doesn't change it.

---

Full benefits SS is 67 yrs old if born after 1960.

average life span in USA is 78.4 yrs old for males.

Expect about 11 years on SS for this group if you make it to 67.





By the time Zobel gets to full SS retirement age, it will be 72 year old retirement age but the average life span will still be under 80 yrs old.

Expect 8 years on SS if u make it to 72. Win -win for all of us.








AI

The average life expectancy in the U.S. for 2023 was 78.4 years.


Psalms 90:10 verifies the government's life span's calculation.

I genuinely hope that by the time I make it to retirement age, the program won't exist for me at all.

Zobel said:

---

I genuinely hope that by the time I make it to retirement age, the program won't exist for me at all.

---

What the federal budget really needs are super virulent strains of the wuhan flu and sickle cell.

Zobel said:

---

I genuinely hope that by the time I make it to retirement age, the program won't exist for me at all.

---

Be careful what you hope for. I know a whole lot of people who never made it to retirement age or died shortly after retiring. In the scheme of things, the present condition of SS and Medicare rank pretty low in the vicissitudes of life. Likewise, I think the notion of a retirement age is an artificial construct anyway. Grow old and you may someday agree with me. And by the way, I have no idea where you have the idea that SS beneficiaries do not pay income tax. You may have proof of that but anecdotally I do not know anyone on SS who does not pay income, sales or property taxes.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

Wow