It'd be way better for everyone if you just supported your parents directly with that money, instead of sending it to DC first.

Rattler12 said:

---

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.

---

Congrats! Truly. I'm the same age as your kids. Thankfully I had the benefit of affording a home, like yours, before things went crazy.

But we're talking about my kids (or your grandchildren) that are entering the workforce. I would recommend you having a conversation about their expectations for SS.

Yes, I would be vengeful towards a company. The only way to be vengeful toward the federal govt is to educate ourselves on this time-bomb and elect people who are actually interested in avoiding a catastrophe.

For the record, I don't expect to screw you out of anything. What I hope is that conservative minded people have some principles around this subject.

Zobel said:

---

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?

---

Give us some solid examples of your own self sacrifices that you have made that have benefitted others at your expense excluding family or friends and tithing on Sunday.

What about a phase in of means testing? This would allow the program to help those who truly NEED ss vs. those who WANT ss.

Why are you so intent on making this about me? This issue isn't about me. It's about us.

I'm a selfish, unreasonable, miserable sinner in need of your prayers.

Can we talk about SS and Medicare now?

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

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?

---

Give us some solid examples of your own self sacrifices that you have made that have benefitted others at your expense excluding family or friends and tithing on Sunday.

---

He's literally said he'll give up SS, the thing you're fighting for, despite paying into it just like you guys. What more do you want? It's like you can't fathom anyone who puts others before themselves.

Really? Can we keep this on subject without asking for a pissing contest?

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

It's a benefit given to a certain segment of society that folks outside that segment are not privy to but have to pay for......like you claim SS is. A perfect example of entitlement

Zobel said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Quote:

---

Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

Stopped reading right here. Anything that starts as boomer bashing is a non-starter and says what follows has a decided slant that I'm not gonna care to engage.

---

The funny thing here is I actually wrote that as a conciliatory statement to honestly acknowledge the feeling.

You are such a snowflake you can't handle being triggered I guess.

---

Maybe find a better term than "morally entitled"

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

You forgot to mention the revolution preceding the killing, cutting and financial crisis.

MooreTrucker said:

---

Zobel said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Quote:

---

Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.

---

Stopped reading right here. Anything that starts as boomer bashing is a non-starter and says what follows has a decided slant that I'm not gonna care to engage.

---

The funny thing here is I actually wrote that as a conciliatory statement to honestly acknowledge the feeling.

You are such a snowflake you can't handle being triggered I guess.

---

Maybe find a better term than "morally entitled"

---

Seems to me most of them feel like it would be wrong to deny those benefits, so a sense of morality is involved. And they believe they have a right to it, regardless of circumstance, so entitlement sounds apt. What's your preferred term?

Bird Poo said:

---

For the record, I don't expect to screw you out of anything. What I hope is that conservative minded people have some principles around this subject.

---

Some basic principles:
-- you don't cut SS on people already drawing benefits. That is unethical to surprise people who no longer have the time to compensate for it.
-- I'm not a big fan of raising taxes either. SS was supposed to be paid by workers, for workers in old age. Raising the FICA cap just makes it more progressive where people are paying for something they aren't getting. I don't support that.
-- I don't agree with means testing either. That was never part of the deal. Stay away from the progressive BS.
-- that means you have to match the benefits with the incoming SS taxes. So benefits would reduce going forward. Here's an illustrative example below. Not meant to be precise... the accountants would have to true up the math:

Age 62+: 100% of benefit
Age 55-61: 85% of benefit
Age 45-55: 70% of benefit
Age 35-45: 55% of benefit
Age 25-35: 40% of benefit

-- something like that (once adjusted to make the math work) is a gradual stepdown of benefits that should also result in no increased tax burden on younger people more than the 6.2% everybody's been paying for 90 years.
-- someone else mentioned the option to "trade" your SS benefit to the government in exchange for favorable tax treatment elsewhere. That needs exploration also before rejecting it.
-- put more responsibility on people to plan for their retirement, just give them time to prepare. There are more savings vehicles available today (401k, IRA, HSAs, MegaRoth, etc) than existed when SS was created.

Why is that offensive? In addition to being legally entitled, they also feel morally entitled.

That wasn't even supposed to be a bad thing. I think people who are receiving SS benefits do have a moral claim to them in a way a person receiving SNAP benefits doesn't.

Sorry man I don't see the issue here. It was just a statement of fact.

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

3) If our population increased by 79 million between 1970 and 2000 making said folks ages 25 to 55 today how and why are the number of workers supporting SS going down? Are the majority of these folks not working? If so we have a much bigger problem that SS.

Zobel said:

---

It'd be way better for everyone if you just supported your parents directly with that money, instead of sending it to DC first.

---

I'm expecting some eventual changes to try to mitigate a crisis, they'll either increase age requirements, offer more incentives to delay receiving benefits, cut benefits, cut benefits if your net worth is over some X amount, etc.

It will be really difficult for any politician to try to win elections by campaigning on entitlement cuts.

Of course, over the next couple of decades, the current huge generation size imbalance (worker to retiree ratios) will somewhat start to correct itself, as the Boomers pass on. GenX for example is actually a smaller generation than the Millenials following it, for example. We are apparently sometimes referred to the 'Baby Bust' generation .

So That Boomer population spike will eventually work its way through the system and gradually disappear, changing the current demographic situation (and problem) into something else. Father Time is undefeated and nothing lasts forever.

Your proposed solution doesn't solve the problem. It's not a question of the total money paid in and out. There is a deficit already due to the pay as you go structure. Current payroll taxes don't cover current benefits already. Cutting future benefits doesn't fix it.

I think the only way anything will change is when there's a major shift in the impact of the debt / deficit. Until then, the current system allows us to keep heads buried in the sand. No amount of logic or reasoning will convince some people to change their minds, which this thread illustrates.

According to Haidt, humans decide based on their gut and then find logic that supports it. Our world wide web of mostly garbage just provides logic for whatever your belief is.

So what will that shoe drop look like? My road map only shows continued inflation well above target.

Boomers were a really big generation of people. 76m born. Gen X is really small. Millennials are larger because boomers were larger, but not as large. Declining birth rates for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is the staggering number of abortions that happened - exacerbate the generational size differences. In the 60s the birth rate was 3.7, post baby boom it's around 2.0.

On top of that the life expectancy in retirement has risen dramatically since the 40s so people are living with SS and receiving benefits longer. AND medical care for the elderly has grown, so that's on top of all of it.

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

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.

---

Congrats! Truly. I'm the same age as your kids. Thankfully I had the benefit of affording a home, like yours, before things went crazy.

But we're talking about my kids (or your grandchildren) that are entering the workforce. I would recommend you having a conversation about their expectations for SS.

Yes, I would be vengeful towards a company. The only way to be vengeful toward the federal govt is to educate ourselves on this time-bomb and elect people who are actually interested in avoiding a catastrophe.

For the record, I don't expect to screw you out of anything. What I hope is that conservative minded people have some principles around this subject.

---

You're getting closer to grasping the point but you're still not there yet ........the point is you admit you'd be po'd if the money you contributed for your well being after you settle out of the work force was takin from you and rightfully so. I paid beaux coup bucks of MY money into SS and rightfully expect to have money available to me from that program and not takin from me. I am going to be royally po'd if that comes to pass and rightfully so.....capeesh?

Haven't read all of this thread, so I apologize if this is repeated or already off target.

Why are social security and medicare being singled out here? We are tens of trillions in debt. We don't have the money for ANYTHING. No need to separate out SS & Med, and then use it for generational blame.

It all has to be fixed. Getting rid of SS doesn't fix anything. Altering it could be a part of a much larger solution to a much larger problem, but you aren't going to solve the crisis by pitting generations against each other. If you could solve our debt problem with a reasonable solution to a SS & Med phase out or reduction, then you would probably get some support from older Americans, but until you show how its going to solve the debt problem, you probably won't. And you'd have to get both parties behind it to some extent. I don't see Democrats getting behind anything that reduces Gov handouts EVER. It only goes one direction with them.

Quote:

---

It will be really difficult for any politician to try to win elections by campaigning on entitlement cuts.

---

Not when / if the situation gets bad enough. There's a bit of recency bias.

When the people paying for the entitlements outnumber the people receiving them, the math changes.

OR when there's actual civil unrest, which is something I think we'd all like to avoid.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Haven't read all of this thread, so I apologize if this is repeated or already off target.

Why are social security and medicare being singled out here? We are tens of trillions in debt. We don't have the money for ANYTHING. No need to separate out SS & Med, and then use it for generational blame.

It all has to be fixed. Getting rid of SS doesn't fix anything. Altering it could be a part of a much larger solution to a much larger problem, but you aren't going to solve the crisis by pitting generations against each other. If you could solve our debt problem with a reasonable solution to a SS & Med phase out or reduction, then you would probably get some support from older Americans, but until you show how its going to solve the debt problem, you probably won't. And you'd have to get both parties behind it to some extent. I don't see Democrats getting behind anything that reduces Gov handouts EVER. It only goes one direction with them.

---

Because SS and Medicare are a huge part of the budget - together 35% and are larger than any other item. Most of the budget is what's called entitlement or mandatory spending, meaning it happens automatically without need for congressional approval. When you look forward in time, SS and Medicare are going to be 90% of the budget growth over the next ten years. In other words we are heading for a fiscal cliff, and we are already running a huge deficit.

You could cut literally everything but SS, Medicare, defense, and interest, and we may still be in deficit territory.

The boomer generation holds alot of wealth.

They own most of the homes. They own most of the land. If any generation set themselves up to not need social security it would in theory be the boomer generation.

Basically the boomers see things be so expensive because they are getting richer and competing with other boomers. All on the back of a smaller generation because they selfishly had fewer kids and then imported immigrants to be their wage slaves.

Yeah hopefully we can avoid that?

To say nothing of the millions of seniors in nursing homes, assisted living, memory care units etc. whose capacity to receive such care rests to a great extent upon the SS and Medicare/Medicaid benefits they receive. Good luck with collapsing that industry,

If revolution comes, it won't be over social security...maybe "social justice."

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

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.

---

Congrats! Truly. I'm the same age as your kids. Thankfully I had the benefit of affording a home, like yours, before things went crazy.

But we're talking about my kids (or your grandchildren) that are entering the workforce. I would recommend you having a conversation about their expectations for SS.

Yes, I would be vengeful towards a company. The only way to be vengeful toward the federal govt is to educate ourselves on this time-bomb and elect people who are actually interested in avoiding a catastrophe.

For the record, I don't expect to screw you out of anything. What I hope is that conservative minded people have some principles around this subject.

---

You're getting closer to grasping the point but you're still not there yet ........the point is you admit you'd be po'd if the money you contributed for your well being after you settle out of the work force was takin from you and rightfully so. I paid beaux coup bucks of MY money into SS and rightfully expect to have money available to me from that program and not takin from me. I am going to be royally po'd if that comes to pass and rightfully so.....capeesh?

---

I've always understood your point dude.

The difference between you and me is that I've come to terms that the system is broken, and for the sake of my children, I'm willing to forego some allocation or dramatically reform the system to keep the entire country solvent. I'm not calling you anything or saying I'm better than you.

matureag said:

---

If revolution comes, it won't be over social security...maybe "social justice."

---

Like I said, it may say social security taxes on your pay stub but it's really the government's money to piss away on whatever hot garbage they can dream up.

Zobel said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Haven't read all of this thread, so I apologize if this is repeated or already off target.

Why are social security and medicare being singled out here? We are tens of trillions in debt. We don't have the money for ANYTHING. No need to separate out SS & Med, and then use it for generational blame.

It all has to be fixed. Getting rid of SS doesn't fix anything. Altering it could be a part of a much larger solution to a much larger problem, but you aren't going to solve the crisis by pitting generations against each other. If you could solve our debt problem with a reasonable solution to a SS & Med phase out or reduction, then you would probably get some support from older Americans, but until you show how its going to solve the debt problem, you probably won't. And you'd have to get both parties behind it to some extent. I don't see Democrats getting behind anything that reduces Gov handouts EVER. It only goes one direction with them.

---

Because SS and Medicare are a huge part of the budget - together 35% and are larger than any other item. Most of the budget is what's called entitlement or mandatory spending, meaning it happens automatically without need for congressional approval. When you look forward in time, SS and Medicare are going to be 90% of the budget growth over the next ten years. In other words we are heading for a fiscal cliff, and we are already running a huge deficit.

You could cut literally everything but SS, Medicare, defense, and interest, and we may still be in deficit territory.

---

I took a look at this earlier this year. I know it's believed that you can't solve the deficit without major cuts to SS and Medicare. After looking at this, I disagree. We CAN balance the budget in less than ten years fairly easily by simply cutting waste, reducing spending increases, and promoting growth. Altering SS, and especially Medicare, could and probably should be a part of it, but the sentiment of this thread is out of bounds in my opinion.

Zobel said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

Yup.
We borrow money from China to give money to Ukraine and these guys think politicians are going to end SS because there's no money, lol.

---

Low information voter.

ALL foreign aid is less than 1% of federal spending. The entirety of the spending we've done in Ukraine would pay for social security and Medicare for less than 3 weeks. About 17 days actually.

---

Duuuuuuu. Thu thu thu Thank yu muh muh muh mistr for tellin's me duh duh duh.

No politician is going to cut off grannies SS check while at the same time sending money all over the world. It doesn't matter what the numbers or percentages are. They don't want their opponent in the upcomin' airing video of them pushing granny in a wheel chair off a cliff.

Talk about a low information poster.

matureag said:

---

To say nothing of the millions of seniors in nursing homes, assisted living, memory care units etc. whose capacity to receive such care rests to a great extent upon the SS and Medicare/Medicaid benefits they receive. Good luck with collapsing that industry,

---

Have no illusion: those companies do all they can to extract money from the government. It's just like the PE owned hospitals billing insurance. These aren't charities.

The sacrifice younger generations will have to make is taking in aging parents, on top of foregoing SS. It's not an either or thing.

The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually you run out of road.

We have been kicking that can a long time . This thread is testimony as to why.

I want at least some of money out of the system, too, but I've known since my early 20s it wouldn't be there.

matureag said:

---

If revolution comes, it won't be over social security...maybe "social justice."

---

I would shoot people over excessive taxation and the drift towards socialism long before anything social justice related. In all likelihood I would be shooting the ones revolting over social justice, whatever the hell that even means.

You cannot have the top 1% paying for 50% of net income taxes and the bottom half paying net zero but yet still getting a vote on spending. We have a representation without income taxation problem reaching critical mass.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

I took a look at this earlier this year. I know it's believed that you can't solve the deficit without major cuts to SS and Medicare. After looking at this, I disagree. We CAN balance the budget in less than ten years fairly easily by simply cutting waste, reducing spending increases, and promoting growth. Altering SS, and especially Medicare, could and probably should be a part of it, but the sentiment of this thread is out of bounds in my opinion.

---

It's way out of bounds, but the ringleader is only interested in trolling and not a serious discussion.

For one, their facts are wrong. SS since its inception has collected more in taxes than it's paid in benefit. That will change around 2030 when total benefits paid begin to exceed total taxes collected.

Don't confuse that with the fact that annually SS is paying more benefits than taxes today. That's because Congress spent the surplus on other things from all those years when taxes exceeded benefit. But that's on Congress -- not SS -- and doesn't change the fact that SS is still solvent from inception to now.

The basic area we agree is that changes must be made to address the funding/benefits gap going forward. The OP is pushing a concept that people in or near retirement should forego some or all of their SS benefit out of a sense of civic duty. While he is welcome to do that himself, for 95% of people who've paid into SS for many years, that is a non-starter.

Your comments are spot on. There's an opportunity to thoughtfully discuss and agree on adjustments going forward that would resolve the issue. But the discussion needs to be held between serious people, not those that simply troll.

Many of us understand the math. The answer isn't to not take your benefits because they'll just be wasted by the government. Change the rules , reduce the payments , extend the age to get benefits , put a ring fence around social security … change it to make it solvent for future generations . I'm fine with that . I'm not good with just continuing to kick the can down the road but again I have no say . Alternatively, end it but you can't make a promise to people that are at or near retirement and counting on it . I'll admit I never planned on seeing a dime of it and I saved accordingly but I won't forgo the benefits because it's just an invitation for more government waste . I prefer to use it for Medicare premiums that are way more than I planned for and also give it to charities where it can go towards issues I believe are important rather than what the US Guv deems important . Supporting ignored veterans via private and more efficient orgs being one of those issues.