MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

---

At some point choices will have to be made, that much is clear. And it's probably a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases. We can have that debate in a thoughtful and respectful way.

But you can take your virtue signaling and condescending attempt to shame people into giving up their benefits... take it somewhere else... because it will not open the door to the outcome you seek. It will slam it shut.

Another poster mentioned a very creative idea about trading their SS benefit for some other kind of tax benefit that was important to them but didn't seem like it would necessarily be as impactful to government funding. That's the kind of constructive discussion we need to have instead of the silly nonsense you are selling.

---

Nah man you don't get to show your ass and mock and gloat about younger people paying it up to you in your pyramid scheme and say that sincerely calling for virtue, as written by the founding fathers, is condescending virtue signaling.

You either believe in civic virtue and morality or you don't. Me telling you I do isn't me saying I'm better than you. It has nothing to do with you at all. It just -feels- like an indictment to you because it hits close to the mark.

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

Logos Stick said:

---

AGC said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Do. The. Math.

---

Keep. Sending. The. Check.

---

It's easier to vote for AOC than sympathize with you. Enjoy it while it lasts, it won't be there for long.

---

AOC would vote to send SS recipients twice as much money.

---

O
And would steal mine to pay for illegals.

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

---

At some point choices will have to be made, that much is clear. And it's probably a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases. We can have that debate in a thoughtful and respectful way.

But you can take your virtue signaling and condescending attempt to shame people into giving up their benefits... take it somewhere else... because it will not open the door to the outcome you seek. It will slam it shut.

Another poster mentioned a very creative idea about trading their SS benefit for some other kind of tax benefit that was important to them but didn't seem like it would necessarily be as impactful to government funding. That's the kind of constructive discussion we need to have instead of the silly nonsense you are selling.

---

Nah man you don't get to show your ass and mock and gloat about younger people paying it up to you in your pyramid scheme and say that sincerely calling for virtue, as written by the founding fathers, is condescending virtue signaling.

You either believe in civic virtue and morality or you don't. Me telling you I do isn't me saying I'm better than you. It has nothing to do with you at all. It just -feels- like an indictment to you because it hits close to the mark.

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

Solution? Cut out 1.5 Trillion of fraud and waste.

There is your solution.

But libs want to take from those "that can afford it".

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Like a pension? There are legal avenues to recoup some of that money, no?

We're talking about the federal govt here. Apples to oranges.

---

Maybe but you didn't answer the question. If the same thing happened to your pension that you want to happen to SS how would react?

---

It doesn't apply to me because I don't view SS as "retirement". It should never be viewed that way and never was intended to be viewed that way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND IT IS GOING TO BANKRUPT EVERYONE.

---

Why is it you folks can't answer direct question? Yall make the Governor in the movie Best Little Whooer House in Texas look like a rank amateur when it comes to "dancing a little side step"

EclipseAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

Thanks for the engagement. Don't shred your check, send it back.

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

Second, yes, vote for politicians willing to wind down SS and engage with budget issues. Beyond that, there are other things you can do (return to multigenerational housing, for instance), and it won't take much creativity to figure it out.

---

So the solution to fixing Social Security is to have some old people voluntarily send back their checks and then move in with their kids while voting for non-existent politicians who are running on dismantling the program?

---

Hell no my parents aren't moving in with me!!! They barely took care of me growing up, so no way am I taking care of them when they're crotchety old farts who wear diapers.

Ok, perfect. I agree completely. Let's assume that's done.

Wed still be running a $300b annual deficit, and that will increase by something like another $1T over the next ten years, 90% of that coming from SS and Medicare.

Now what?

Zobel said:

---

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

I refuse to accept your premise that people in/near retirement should give up their SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years or more just because you come along and say "wait a minute, I know the game is over but the rules have changed. No soup for you!" Nah... that dog won't hunt.

The larger question is why do you think you're so special that you shouldn't pay 6.2% of your wage income into SS like everybody else has done for 90 years?

AJ02 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

Thanks for the engagement. Don't shred your check, send it back.

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

Second, yes, vote for politicians willing to wind down SS and engage with budget issues. Beyond that, there are other things you can do (return to multigenerational housing, for instance), and it won't take much creativity to figure it out.

---

So the solution to fixing Social Security is to have some old people voluntarily send back their checks and then move in with their kids while voting for non-existent politicians who are running on dismantling the program?

---

Hell no my parents aren't moving in with me!!! They barely took care of me growing up, so no way am I taking care of them when they're crotchety old farts who wear diapers.

---

You are on your high horse about how you are willing to forego SS for the sake of the country, and lecturing us that we should send the checks back, but you won't take care of your parents in old age out of revenge.

Amazing.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The larger question is why do you think you're so special that you shouldn't pay 6.2% of your wage income into SS like everybody else has done for 90 years?

---

Maybe because he realized that it is a broken system.

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

---

At some point choices will have to be made, that much is clear. And it's probably a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases. We can have that debate in a thoughtful and respectful way.

But you can take your virtue signaling and condescending attempt to shame people into giving up their benefits... take it somewhere else... because it will not open the door to the outcome you seek. It will slam it shut.

Another poster mentioned a very creative idea about trading their SS benefit for some other kind of tax benefit that was important to them but didn't seem like it would necessarily be as impactful to government funding. That's the kind of constructive discussion we need to have instead of the silly nonsense you are selling.

---

Nah man you don't get to show your ass and mock and gloat about younger people paying it up to you in your pyramid scheme and say that sincerely calling for virtue, as written by the founding fathers, is condescending virtue signaling.

You either believe in civic virtue and morality or you don't. Me telling you I do isn't me saying I'm better than you. It has nothing to do with you at all. It just -feels- like an indictment to you because it hits close to the mark.

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

You remind me of the Bette Midler character in the movie Beaches......"enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?"

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

I refuse to accept your premise that people in/near retirement should give up their SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years or more just because you come along and say "wait a minute, I know the game is over but the rules have changed. No soup for you!" Nah... that dog won't hunt.

The larger question is why do you think you're so special that you shouldn't pay 6.2% of your wage income into SS like everybody else has done for 90 years?

---

As has been stated, I'm perfectly willing to continue to pay my FICA taxes and never get any benefits as part of a sunset program.

The reality is people in and near retirement will almost certainly have their benefits cut one way or another. Far better to do it in a controlled way than in a crisis. Thats the actual choice you (we) have.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

I refuse to accept your premise that people in/near retirement should give up their SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years or more just because you come along and say "wait a minute, I know the game is over but the rules have changed. No soup for you!" Nah... that dog won't hunt.

The larger question is why do you think you're so special that you shouldn't pay 6.2% of your wage income into SS like everybody else has done for 90 years?

---

Where can I sign up to only pay 6.2%? I would gladly do that. But alas I own my business so I pay double and then 1/3 of that on each of our seven employees.

Zobel said:

---

I know most of the people on here on this side of the issue are not zoomers. Median age of this forum is probably 45 if I had to guess.

In my experience with people my age the more wealth a person has and the harder right wing they are, the more likely they are to hold my opinions. Which is completely opposite from the expectations here. I'm not sure how to explain the gap.

---

I think it's a spiritual issue - pride and greed.

One of my parents told the other he earned his wealth all on his own, and intended to spend it on himself. Other family said they were going to spend it all, but just do it on experiences with us instead of leaving inheritance, so they can be remembered. My bankrupt family has yet to apologize for misspending money we gave, or even think about reimbursing us for legal costs incurred during bankruptcy.

I'm slightly more agreeable to reducing the total payout percentage based on your current age. Those just about to retire can get the full 100%, and then slowly lower the percentage the further you are from retirement age. I'm 45, so still 20+ years from retirement and I've been paying into it for 20+ years. I'm at the halfway mark. So give me 50% when I retire.

I've already always looked at anything I MIGHT get from SS as just a "bonus". But my 401k will do the real heavy lifting.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I feel really good about collecting my SS benefits after paying into it for 45 years. Even better now that I've read all this whining from those unwilling to do what those before them did... pay their share into the SS system.

You've virtue signaled all over this thread about how you are willing to forego your benefit to save mankind. Well go ahead... gather up your buddies, get a mass movement across this country of selfless, civic-minded, heroes like you that we can all worship who are so committed to goodness that they will sacrifice their SS benefits.

We can get Congress to pass legislation incorporating your magnificent gesture. In fact, we can call it the Zobel Act in honor of its leader.

---

You can mock all you want, that's fine. I'll consider the source.

What's more likely to happen is we'll have a fiscal crisis and the radicals will just cut it altogether, and it'll be a hard landing instead of a controlled one. You might look at what happened to pensioners in Argentina over the past decade for a real world example.

I'll be fine - I don't need SS to retire at all, and at least statistically speaking I probably make more money than most of yall. Except for some of our mega high rollers here.

---

At some point choices will have to be made, that much is clear. And it's probably a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases. We can have that debate in a thoughtful and respectful way.

But you can take your virtue signaling and condescending attempt to shame people into giving up their benefits... take it somewhere else... because it will not open the door to the outcome you seek. It will slam it shut.

Another poster mentioned a very creative idea about trading their SS benefit for some other kind of tax benefit that was important to them but didn't seem like it would necessarily be as impactful to government funding. That's the kind of constructive discussion we need to have instead of the silly nonsense you are selling.

---

Nah man you don't get to show your ass and mock and gloat about younger people paying it up to you in your pyramid scheme and say that sincerely calling for virtue, as written by the founding fathers, is condescending virtue signaling.

You either believe in civic virtue and morality or you don't. Me telling you I do isn't me saying I'm better than you. It has nothing to do with you at all. It just -feels- like an indictment to you because it hits close to the mark.

I'm happy to talk about solutions, but the first step is to admit they're needed. The second is for people to agree that their own financial position may suffer as a part of it. So far you're incapable of doing either.

---

You remind me of the Bette Midler character in the movie Beaches......"enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?"

---

This is the problem with ad hominem arguments. By making it about me, you've distracted from the argument.

I didn't make it about me though. So, let's focus on the matter at hand.

Social security is going bankrupt. It is a mathematical certainty without a significant change. What do you think we should do?

cef88 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The larger question is why do you think you're so special that you shouldn't pay 6.2% of your wage income into SS like everybody else has done for 90 years?

---

Maybe because he realized that it is a broken system.

---

It is not broken yet. Total taxes collected since it began still exceed total payments to beneficiaries. Read that again... it's important to absorb.

That is supposed to change somewhere around 2030 at which point benefit payments will exceed total taxes collected.

There's a real conversation to be had on how to reform it, but the virtue-signaling and "selfish" comments are total BS.

And again... everybody else has paid their 6.2% SS tax. He's not anymore special than anybody else, although he clearly thinks he is.

I paid closer to 13% when I was with the RR, but didn't stay long enough that I'll get it back. Surely there are others like me who just pay in to regular SS but then never work long enough to get it back, and their funds go into the pot anyway. I'd imagine it's a fairly small amount, but still.

Am I remembering correctly that teachers pay into something different than SS? I know there was something odd about how their retirement works but I don't recall the specifics.

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Like a pension? There are legal avenues to recoup some of that money, no?

We're talking about the federal govt here. Apples to oranges.

---

Maybe but you didn't answer the question. If the same thing happened to your pension that you want to happen to SS how would react?

---

It doesn't apply to me because I don't view SS as "retirement". It should never be viewed that way and never was intended to be viewed that way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND IT IS GOING TO BANKRUPT EVERYONE.

---

Why is it you folks can't answer direct question? Yall make the Governor in the movie Best Little Whooer House in Texas look like a rank amateur when it comes to "dancing a little side step"

---

It's a completely stupid question, that's why.

But I'll play along. If my employer did that, I would sue his ass and reap everything I can. Then I would find another job. Thankfully, I chose a company that separates my retirement from the company's performance.

Now it's your turn. Why do you insist on equating a federal tax system to a retirement benefit, knowing that the crooks in DC have already spent it? We are already at the point in which your make-believe company left you high and dry. To add, that same company is forcing you and your kids to pay into their shltty plan so that they can keep the charade going to show their pension plan is solvent. Meanwhile, your kids cannot afford to purchase a home, and if they do, they have to wait until they're in their mid 30's. Raise a family?

The boomer's response (with respect) to the plight of young adults is always the same - suck it up and work harder. It's a completely ignorant position and does appear selfish. My intension is not to come across as "holier than thou" or to "virtue signal".

Read Zobel's posts a few times to better understand the long-term (perhaps near) danger this country faces. If boomers truly hate communism, then they need to wake up to the realities on the ground.

What would you call a person willing to knowingly force someone else to pay their way into a bankrupt system? Do you really think "selfish" is a bad description?

We can take some of the value out of it and say acting in pure self interest. Does that make it more palatable for you?

The problem is "civic virtue" is the capacity to act against your self interest in the exercise of public office (like voting). And you need a population with civic virtue for a republic to work. What do we do now?

Bird Poo said:

---

The boomer's response (with respect) to the plight of young adults is always the same - suck it up and work harder. It's a completely ignorant position and does appear selfish. My intension is not to come across as "holier than thou" or to "virtue signal".

Read Zobel's posts a few times to better understand the long-term (perhaps near) danger this country faces. If boomers truly hate communism, then they need to wake up to the realities on the ground.

---

I appreciate your effort to discuss this in a way that isn't virtue-signaling and condescending to others.

You guys are poking at a fair issue, but the solution suggested here for seniors to give up their SS benefit out of some moral duty is just beyond laughable... it is incredulous and ridiculous. I'm surprised he continues to make that case because it will only backfire on him.

You will not get a majority of Congress to reduce SS benefits for people in/near retirement. It's just not gonna happen. But you can steer the conversation to changes that need to be made going forward. That is fertile ground and should be plowed.

There were some earlier suggestions in this thread but they got glossed over with the continued virtue-signaling and "selfish" BS.

Zobel said:

---

What would you call a person willing to knowingly force someone else to pay their way into a bankrupt system? Do you really think "selfish" is a bad description?

We can take some of the value out of it and say acting in pure self interest. Does that make it more palatable for you?

The problem is "civic virtue" is the capacity to act against your self interest in the exercise of public office (like voting). And you need a population with civic virtue for a republic to work. What do we do now?

---

I'm done interacting with you. The virtue-signaling and condescension are too much. I don't believe you're trying to discuss this in good faith. Later.

I will happily engage with others that don't resort to the same behavior.

Selfishness. I do not think it means what you think it means.

https://aynrand.org/novels/the-virtue-of-selfishness/

Quote:

---

the solution suggested here for seniors to give up their SS benefit out of some moral duty is just beyond laughable... it is incredulous and ridiculous

---

Why is that more ridiculous than asking for zoomers and those after them to pay into a system that is assuredly bankrupt and will never be able to pay them back?

Why is asking other people to self sacrifice totally reasonable but people asking you for the same absurd?

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Entitlement gets confused with the adjective being entitled.

It's a technical term about federal spending - mandatory federal outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, instead of and without congressional appropriations. This means to change it, Congress has to pass a law. Not capped by the budget process.

As a result almost 90 percent of this increase in projected spending over the next decade comes from SS, Medicare, and interest.

---

"It's a technical term about tax funded governmental spending - mandatory tax fund outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle certain people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, ........."

Dadgum change a couple of your words and you just described our public school system........lets change that to a pay as you go system by the parents based on their number of children attending.......... instead of penalizing those folks with no children or grown children.

---

Public schools aren't federal, and they're not entitlement spending. They're funded locally, and the federal education items are almost all budgeted or funded by appropriations, not mandatory spending. The exception is Pell grants, but those aren't public school systems.

---

Same dog, different location and the federal government pays the public school systems here in Texas to the tune of about $2700/ student /year. I'm still paying for them at 75 plus with local school property tax paid, state sales tax paid and federal income tax on a portion of my SS. An old person with no skin in the game for the last 30 plus years. I guess it's my public virtue duty......if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and sounds like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck

MemphisAg1 said:

---

But you can steer the conversation to changes that need to be made going forward. That is fertile ground and should be plowed.

---

Thank you! I think that was the OP's intention all along. I may have missed where he suggested that people send back their checks.

That's really a shame amigo. I think we were actually getting to something important. I'm not sure what part of this is bad faith - they are honest questions. I personally am interested in your justification for your position, mainly because I think if you really examine it (in good faith) you'll find flaws.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Entitlement gets confused with the adjective being entitled.

It's a technical term about federal spending - mandatory federal outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, instead of and without congressional appropriations. This means to change it, Congress has to pass a law. Not capped by the budget process.

As a result almost 90 percent of this increase in projected spending over the next decade comes from SS, Medicare, and interest.

---

"It's a technical term about tax funded governmental spending - mandatory tax fund outlays for programs where eligibility set by law automatically entitle certain people to benefits, and spending is driven by the number of eligible people and benefit formulas, ........."

Dadgum change a couple of your words and you just described our public school system........lets change that to a pay as you go system by the parents based on their number of children attending.......... instead of penalizing those folks with no children or grown children.

---

Public schools aren't federal, and they're not entitlement spending. They're funded locally, and the federal education items are almost all budgeted or funded by appropriations, not mandatory spending. The exception is Pell grants, but those aren't public school systems.

---

Same dog, different location and the federal government pays the public school systems here in Texas to the tune of about $2700/ student /year. I'm still paying for them at 75 plus with local school property tax paid, state sales tax paid and federal income tax on a portion of my SS. An old person with no skin in the game for the last 30 plus years. I guess it's my public virtue duty......if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and sounds like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck

---

Yeah but this isn't a duck because that's an appropriation, which means it isn't an entitlement.

Zobel said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

What we need is a "human virtue" tax of say 50 % on anyone making more than $100K per year. Anyone fortunate enough to be make beaux coup bucks needs to pay a tax to help those less fortunate ........and if they wanted to be top dog "human virtuist" they could voluntarily pay more. I'd gladly pay it.......if I was making $100K per year or more.....

One more thing... I've noticed is that more than a few of the younger folk today aren't old enough yet to know what they don't know yet........

---

This is where the evil of entitlements creates a U shaped argument.

Somehow arguing for personal responsibility, civic virtue, against entitlement and federal spending, and mandated wealth transfer I'm a liberal or a leftist. And my suggesting that having virtue is important - which is UNANIMOUSLY spoken of as a requirement for a free populace and a republic - gets lampooned into the abject stupidity of your suggestion.

So far what is happening in this thread is confirming that at least the vocals boomers are sorely ignorant of the financial situation, how the budgeting and funding works, and are selfish and proudly against acting in any kind of decent civic way… while screaming that everyone else is a leftist and collectivist. It's embarrassing. You should feel bad.

---

I don't. I guess your civic virtue doesn't apply to us old farts huh?

At no point have I advocated for reducing my tax burden or increasing any benefit to me. I'm advocating that WE - you, me, us - should all be willing to take a haircut in social security, to not pass the buck… KNOWING that it will be against our individual self interest. That is all that civic virtue means. Same thing that makes a guy sign up for the military knowing he might die (against his own interest).

Zobel said:

---

This is the problem with ad hominem arguments. By making it about me, you've distracted from the argument.

I didn't make it about me though. So, let's focus on the matter at hand.

Social security is going bankrupt. It is a mathematical certainty without a significant change. What do you think we should do?

---

Keep paying, jr. I've been paying for 40 years so that those older than me could enjoy the benefits in old age. I expect the same. Ffs, the gov't runs massive deficits to pay for all manner of silly things. It will divert funds away from those things or God forbid, we cut military spending to pay for the younger generations' retirement.

Bird Poo said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

But you can steer the conversation to changes that need to be made going forward. That is fertile ground and should be plowed.

---

Thank you! I think that was the OP's intention all along. I may have missed where he suggested that people send back their checks.

---

Zobel didn't, I did, but the context was in response to the, 'what should I do, just shred my check?' question. If they plan to just set it on fire, why not send it back? I thought their, 'give me serious suggestions since I agree there's a problem' response was in good faith, but a quick follow up suggested there was no willingness to undertake private virtue.

Now we have comments like this from the poor, poor boomers (not literally of course, since they're the wealthiest generation, and as they pass it's billed as the largest wealth transfer in history).

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

There is already less money coming in - FICA - than going out for SS. We are simply cashing bonds to pay for the excess now. The money for those bonds comes from general tax revenue. It's nothing but ledger entries.

---

That is my basis for arguing that SS is essentially welfare. Same thing with Medicare.
But there is no cost borne by the recipient; the working class and the taxpayer carry the costs. The recipient no longer has skin in the game.

Thus, maybe we should consider that recipients of these benefits lose their privilege to vote in federal elections.

---

There was a cost borne by this recipient and his employers for 40 plus years.
Let's say you contributed to a company retirement plan for 40 years and the company matched it. All of a sudden your employer ditches the plan, keeps the money and says sorry pal you're just SOL. What's your response going to be?

---

Like a pension? There are legal avenues to recoup some of that money, no?

We're talking about the federal govt here. Apples to oranges.

---

Maybe but you didn't answer the question. If the same thing happened to your pension that you want to happen to SS how would react?

---

It doesn't apply to me because I don't view SS as "retirement". It should never be viewed that way and never was intended to be viewed that way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND IT IS GOING TO BANKRUPT EVERYONE.

---

Why is it you folks can't answer direct question? Yall make the Governor in the movie Best Little Whooer House in Texas look like a rank amateur when it comes to "dancing a little side step"

---

It's a completely stupid question, that's why.

But I'll play along. If my employer did that, I would sue his ass and reap everything I can. Then I would find another job. Thankfully, I chose a company that separates my retirement from the company's performance.

Now it's your turn. Why do you insist on equating a federal tax system to a retirement benefit, knowing that the crooks in DC have already spent it? We are already at the point in which your make-believe company left you high and dry. To add, that same company is forcing you and your kids to pay into their shltty plan so that they can keep the charade going to show their pension plan is solvent. Meanwhile, your kids cannot afford to purchase a home, and if they do, they have to wait until they're in their mid 30's. Raise a family?

The boomer's response (with respect) to the plight of young adults is always the same - suck it up and work harder. It's a completely ignorant position and does appear selfish. My intension is not to come across as "holier than thou" or to "virtue signal".

Read Zobel's posts a few times to better understand the long-term (perhaps near) danger this country faces. If boomers truly hate communism, then they need to wake up to the realities on the ground.

---

So your reaction in that scenario would be vengeful and you'd want your money yet you want us olds to roll over and take one for the cause when it comes to SS because of "civic virtue"
BTW.....Our 4 kids ages 39 to 50 all have homes and families and are doing well....and they all did it on their own with no help from mom and dad.

Gen Xer who has:

A) A mother who heavily relies on social security checks, plus some financial assistance from me personally

B) A father who doesn't need the social checks and sends that money along with his other savings to the financial advisor to invest, investments that I will eventually inherit.

And both benefit from Medicaid.

My very simplified perspective right now on this is yes I pay into SS and that money is helping my parents. In the present It helps my mother not be an increased financial burden on me, and the benefits my dad is currently getting I will eventually 'get back' somewhat via benefitting his estate.

So Even today, while I am paying into the system, I can see immediate current benefits to me provided by that system, by helping my parents. I am not sitting around staring at my paycheck annoyed with the SS deduction.

I know entitlements are a big cost and presumably some changes would be warranted, but would not be interested in some extreme burn the place down solution where younger generations want my generation to 'take one for the team''.

Welcome to the thread. Unfortunately as has been described,

1) the money you paid in was already spent
2) there's enough to pay every current retiree around $44k one time
3) the number of workers supporting each retiree is going down, not up
4) SS and Medicare spending are still going up, and are forecasted 90% of spending increases over the next ten years

So eventually we either kill the program, cut benefits, or have a financial crisis. There isn't enough to cut outside of these programs to make a meaningful difference.

I'm not young any more, but I wish I was.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What would you call a person willing to knowingly force someone else to pay their way into a bankrupt system? Do you really think "selfish" is a bad description?

We can take some of the value out of it and say acting in pure self interest. Does that make it more palatable for you?

The problem is "civic virtue" is the capacity to act against your self interest in the exercise of public office (like voting). And you need a population with civic virtue for a republic to work. What do we do now?

---

I'm done interacting with you. The virtue-signaling and condescension are too much. I don't believe you're trying to discuss this in good faith. Later.

I will happily engage with others that don't resort to the same behavior.

---

Zobel 's been trolling throughout the whole thread he started