At the end of the day, this is a problem no one can solve. Repeal it, political death. Raise taxes, political death. Instead we will just see the country go bankrupt. Good times!

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

This argument is so stupid, and this coming from someone who loathes SS. But the reality is our parents were forced to pay into it with the promise a portion of that money would be there when they retire. And now there are younger people wanting to tell these older people who were forced to pay into a system they didn't want in the first place to get bent, just so they don't have to pay into it?

With all due respect, those people can **** right off. My parents both paid a **** ton into SS and will never see anywhere close to what they paid into it come back to them.

And spare me the "your generation voted for the politicians who caused this". No, alot of them didn't vote for those politicians. And even if they did, do we all really want to be held liable for everything a politician we voted for did once they got into office that we didn't agree with? Be careful what you wish for, my friend.

Give me back what I was forced to pay into it and I'll call it even.

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

---

Agree with most of that. Some additional color I've learned from an AI search since debating this with you is there clearly is redistribution here, but it's primarily from high income to low income people within the same generation, not from young to old. That statement is in reference to any retiree who worked a full career and paid into it for 40 to 50 years. They have the receipts, where their taxes paid the benefits of old farts when they were young, and now younger workers are providing the cash for their benefits.

But don't confuse the funding mechanism with redistribution. If I loan the government money for old people when I'm young and then get paid back when I'm old from young people, that's more of a "loan". It is not redistribution when viewed over an entire lifespan. The redistribution occurs within a generation where the high income people only get about 70% back of what they paid in, while the low income folks get about 135%.

infinity ag said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

We're printing billions and sending them to foreign countries, and wasting billions on a frivolous war. But we need people taxed at stupid rates to pay for Social Security?

---

War aside, why are we still sending money abroad to "help people"?
Let's help ourselves first.

---

This I absolutely agree with. But in the end, I honestly think alot of the foreign aid is like the slush fund mentioned previously, where it is redirected several times back to the original sponsor.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

---

Agree with most of that. Some additional color I've learned from an AI search since debating this with you is there clearly is redistribution here, but it's primarily from high income to low income people within the same generation, not from young to old. That statement is in reference to any retiree who worked a full career and paid into it for 40 to 50 years. They have the receipts, where their taxes paid the benefits of old farts when they were young, and now younger workers are providing the cash for their benefits.

But don't confuse the funding mechanism with redistribution. If I loan the government money for old people when I'm young and then get paid back when I'm old from young people, that's more of a "loan". It is not redistribution when viewed over an entire lifespan. The redistribution occurs within a generation where the high income people only get about 70% back of what they paid in, while the low income folks get about 135%.

---

Well, benefits are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis so its mostly a transfer from current workers to current retirees. And with spousal benefits, plenty of people receive benefits who didn't pay in for 40 to 50 years.

torrid said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

84AGEC said:

---

About 20 years ago, there was talk about one could walk away from their SS. Never get anything back but not have to pay in again. That was 25 to 30 years of paying in
Just contribute more to Ira.


Would have done that.

---

Yup. 71 now took SS at FRA of 67.

I don't know many people that planned to live off of SS. Most people don't realize (or think about) the fact that their employer pays the other half of their SS deduction (not realizing it's a hidden part of their paycheck).

SS is a bad idea and should be phased out.

---

I would be far ahead if I had been able put my SS into an IRA index fund, just on my contributions alone and foregoing the employer contributions.

---

Which goes back to my post a few pages back - make it like the federal employee Thrift Savings Plan - a sort of 401k. It's yours. It can't be taken away*. It's not "means tested". You choose to be safe in T Bills, risk a little in the markets, or a combination. It would have to be phased in, but it takes it out of the government's crappy return cycle and puts it up to the individual As I recall, the SS contributions of people would grow better even with T Bills than the SS rate of return.

*a bit will still be "stolen" for disability situations, but that needs to tighten up

I refuse to accept anything less than the Ida Mae Fuller deal. $29 in and $25k out. When I apply that multiple to what I've paid in, there's about $100m coming my way.

You youngsters better get to work.

SS is my money, and it's been poorly invested. And for years conservatives have been trying to cut spending and taxes, yet the left and their friends would not go along. If I blame conservatives for anything it is trying to play nice with the left and naive moderates. Tax laziness and stupidity...

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

SS disability and the ease at which people can get on it is the problem. Tells me a lot about you if you think its bad that the people who paid in all of their lives are drawing some of that out in retirement.

Boomers should have voted to end SS. They didn't. Everyone including boomers want entitlements. No one is interested in actually cutting spending. They just want to cut other peoples entitlements but keep their own.

SS is a scam that shouldn't exist. The government has no business mandating and running people's "retirements funds".

This all comes back to central banking. SS was the concession for gold confiscation.

It's IMO the US actually lost the war of 1812 and has but ruled by central banking via London central bank ever since.

Buddy, we've been spending like drunken sailors under Trump too. All we do is spend money, independent of party.

Time for the Boomers to make some sacrifices for the country and for future generations.

cevans_40 said:

---

SS disability and the ease at which people can get on it is the problem. Tells me a lot about you if you think it's bad that the people who paid in all of their lives are drawing some of that out in retirement.

---

Do you get a benefit for every tax you "pay into" all your life? If you make a bad investment, are you entitled to a benefit?

Are you ok with the solution that you get back exactly what you paid in and not a penny more? Do you admit that SS is not a viable long term program? Are you ok with tying benefit age to life expectancy like it was at the outset so the retirement age becomes 75 - 80?

Saying that you're entitled because you pay in does nothing but ignore the actual systemic issues. You're not entitled to a return on a bad investment. Even if it's an investment that you were "forced into" by the self government that you elected.

It doesn't help to overstate the case. It's not a Ponzi scheme, nor it is stealing. It is a tax against one set of citizens to fund a benefit paid to another set of citizens. The fact that it was poorly constructed by a liberal president is beside the point - it was voted into law and that's what we have. Fundamentally it's no different from taxing my income to pay someone else's food stamps.

The issue for me is that I keep reading studies saying that people receive more than they put in, even when comparing it to what they could have otherwise earned. I'm not sure I believe that, but if that's the case then the first action is to reduce the benefit to something reasonable.

The rest of it is an actuarial question - how to address the situations where there are fewer workers around to pay the benefits for the largest cohort in history. From a high level the solution is simple, reduce benefits, increase taxes, or a combination of both. Another is to completely change the system which we know from the GW Bush years is politically impossible, no matter how much we scream and cry and claim that it's theft.

For a list of reasonable ideas of how we might be able to fix the system, try the recent Planet Money podcast. Here's a transcript

Who's gonna pay for your Social Security?

But we all know what's going to happen - nothing, until it becomes a catastrophe, and then the incompetent buffoons in Congress will finally do something about it.

We all are…. Let me ask God what age I should plan around…

I never mentioned Trump. I am talking about what we've been doing for generations. Also, Congress enacts laws and approves spending. Good Lord, some people and their TDS.

Quote:

---

The issue for me is that I keep reading studies saying that people receive more than they put in, even when comparing it to what they could have otherwise earned. I'm not sure I believe that, but if that's the case then the first action is to reduce the benefit to something reasonable.

---

People receive more than they put in because benefits are marked up for inflation, which you absolutely have to do. There is a slight benefit to you paying in the max tax each year, but they gets diluted pretty quickly by the progressive nature of the AIME calculation.

Quote:

---

But we all know what's going to happen - nothing, until it becomes a catastrophe, and then the incompetent buffoons in Congress will finally do something about it.

---

Nailed it.

I know, I mentioned it for you. I'm also a three time DJT voter so I'm unsure of what this TDS is. We collectively spend like it's going out of style. Not sure why that's so difficult to acknowledge.

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

---

Agree with most of that. Some additional color I've learned from an AI search since debating this with you is there clearly is redistribution here, but it's primarily from high income to low income people within the same generation, not from young to old. That statement is in reference to any retiree who worked a full career and paid into it for 40 to 50 years. They have the receipts, where their taxes paid the benefits of old farts when they were young, and now younger workers are providing the cash for their benefits.

But don't confuse the funding mechanism with redistribution. If I loan the government money for old people when I'm young and then get paid back when I'm old from young people, that's more of a "loan". It is not redistribution when viewed over an entire lifespan. The redistribution occurs within a generation where the high income people only get about 70% back of what they paid in, while the low income folks get about 135%.

---

Well, benefits are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis so its mostly a transfer from current workers to current retirees. And with spousal benefits, plenty of people receive benefits who didn't pay in for 40 to 50 years.

---

You're letting the cash flow mechanism distort the total picture. All those retirees involuntarily put their cash into their system. The government is simply returning it many decades later. That by itself is objectively not redistribution. It is repayment.

To the degree that someone gets more than they involuntarily contributed on an inflation-adjusted basis, then I agree that is redistribution. And over the span of a lifetime, that is happening from high-income people to low-income people within the same generation. They all contributed during their working years and all collect in their retirement years, yet the low income folks get about 135% of their initial contribution and the high-income folks get 70%. That is clearly redistribution.

And as far as the cash flow mechanism, it is not only young folks. People from 15 to 67 are paying in thru SS taxes on their wages. That spans young, middle-age, and older people (I consider 55+ "old"... no longer middle age). In fact, most of the cash will come from people 40 to 55 years old who are in their peak earning years, not the 20 to 35 year olds, although they'll eventually get their turn just like everybody does.

sam callahan said:

---

By the way, I've been expecting my Social Security benefits to disappear since I got my first official paycheck at 16 and haven't counted on it being there.

It's bound to happen to those of us 'who don't need it".

But what a huge f you to people who act responsibly and even more fuel to the acting irrespponsibly crisis.

---

Same. I don't factor in Social Security at all in my retirement plans. (Great if it happens, I've certainly paid for it).

And your last sentence is always what just kills me. Its always the f you to the people that have acted responsibly. And when the government starts eyeing 401k accounts (set up specifically because company pensions went the way of the dodo and Social Security wasn't really enough), burns me up even more. It is further f-ing the responsible ones.

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

---

So many absolute statements that are objectively wrong. There's no sense trying to discuss it with someone who is clinging to talking points that are emotionally based and not grounded in facts. The solution will be found between reasonable people who are willing to set aside emotions and generational talking points and look at things objectively.

infinity ag said:

---

Time for the Boomers to make some sacrifices for the country and for future generations.

---

EFFING HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA.

Tell me another one.

The definition of ponzi scheme is "an investment fraud where early investors are paid with money from later investors, not from real profits. The fraud usually collapses when new money stops coming in."

What you described - a tax against one set of citizens to fund a benefit paid to another set, where the beneficiaries receive more than they pay in - matches this definition exactly. The fact that the government set it up by flexing its tax authority doesn't change this. In order to function as currently set up, it requires contributions from an ever growing tax base to fund the mismatch. When these assumptions fail, it collapses. All estimates say we're on the precipice of this.

It's a ponzi scheme.

Soft default on the national debt is the only viable path. Money printer go brrrrr. . .

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

---

Just to illustrate how ridiculous your statements are:

- one generation voted for this? there are 5 generations since SS was passed that came of voting age, and only one voted to sustain SS? and you're saying that everybody in that generation voted exactly the same? come on, man.

- my fault? really? I've paid into it for almost 40 years and haven't collected anything yet. How is anything my fault? come on, man

- and how do you know how I voted? I've voted for candidates who would reform this. What else am I supposed to do... vote for those who want to expand it? come on, man

- I dug this hole? Again, I've been helping fund all other retirees since I was 15. come on, man

You are way off the mark. But go ahead and stick with that approach if you want. It won't get any traction with the people who know better.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

---

Agree with most of that. Some additional color I've learned from an AI search since debating this with you is there clearly is redistribution here, but it's primarily from high income to low income people within the same generation, not from young to old. That statement is in reference to any retiree who worked a full career and paid into it for 40 to 50 years. They have the receipts, where their taxes paid the benefits of old farts when they were young, and now younger workers are providing the cash for their benefits.

But don't confuse the funding mechanism with redistribution. If I loan the government money for old people when I'm young and then get paid back when I'm old from young people, that's more of a "loan". It is not redistribution when viewed over an entire lifespan. The redistribution occurs within a generation where the high income people only get about 70% back of what they paid in, while the low income folks get about 135%.

---

Well, benefits are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis so its mostly a transfer from current workers to current retirees. And with spousal benefits, plenty of people receive benefits who didn't pay in for 40 to 50 years.

---

You're letting the cash flow mechanism distort the total picture. All those retirees involuntarily put their cash into their system. The government is simply returning it many decades later. That by itself is objectively not redistribution. It is repayment.

To the degree that someone gets more than they involuntarily contributed on an inflation-adjusted basis, then I agree that is redistribution. And over the span of a lifetime, that is happening from high-income people to low-income people within the same generation. They all contributed during their working years and all collect in their retirement years, yet the low income folks get about 135% of their initial contribution and the high-income folks get 70%. That is clearly redistribution.

And as far as the cash flow mechanism, it is not only young folks. People from 15 to 67 are paying in thru SS taxes on their wages. That spans young, middle-age, and older people (I consider 55+ "old"... no longer middle age). In fact, most of the cash will come from people 40 to 55 years old who are in their peak earning years, not the 20 to 35 year olds, although they'll eventually get their turn just like everybody does.

---

I also involuntarily put my earnings into the pockets of current retirees.

The fact that I will eventually receive some SS benefit doesn't mean my current payroll taxes are being saved for me; they largely finance someone else's benefit today, while my future benefit will largely be financed by someone else's payroll taxes.

Let's be honest, shall we: Just because a worker eventually gets a turn receiving benefits doesn't mean every generation gets the same economic deal

Also, where are you getting your 135% versus 70% initial contribution figures from?

I've said this before and I'll say it again (BTW, I'm 69 1/2 years old and I've been collecting SS for 3 years).

Go ahead and stop paying me my monthly SS. Keep my Medicare, but by all means, stop my SS. However, because I've said no more SS, give me a tax credit (not deduction), for what I've paid over the last 45 years or so. Then...like an Inherited IRA, give me ten years to exhaust those credits against my RMD's.

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tysker said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

People were promised Marxism, they voted for more Marxism, and they should get everything they asked for, good and hard.

People want Total Boomer Luxury Communism just like they want Obamacare and that's what will lead to the failure of this country, imo.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

The welfare state is supposed to redistribute funds from times of plenty to times of need, as well as from rich to poor. That is why the nation's most generous publicly financed benefits are reserved for seniors, who have less capacity to earn money and who face higher health-care costs, while taxes are concentrated on working-age households.

But working-age Americans, despite typically earning more income than seniors, also bear substantial child-rearing costs, have rarely paid off their mortgages, and must spend more to live near good jobs and schools. As a result, this group now has lower material standards of living than retirees: they have less living space, are more likely to go without meals or health care, are less able to pay utility bills, are more likely to live in pest-infested houses, and are more likely to live where they feel threatened by crime. This also means that families have less money to invest in their children.

The U.S.'s increasingly costly entitlements for middle-class retirees result in substantial redistribution away from young workers. If this system is not reformed soon, major tax increases on workers at all income levels will be required, which will only exacerbate redistribution away from age groups who are worst off.

---

---

The fallacy with describing SS as welfare is that is stretching the word to the point of abuse. The term "welfare" is historically used for pure handouts from the rich to the poor, in which the poor put nothing in, but they get something from those with more. Medicaid (health care for the poor) and food stamps absolutely fit that description.

SS is substantially different, in that recipients have to qualify for benefits based on wage taxes that they involuntarily paid into the program. The benefit schedule is very progressive, in that low income workers get a much larger share of their average lifetime income than high income workers. If you don't work long enough to qualify for SS, you don't get it (there are spousal exceptions). And your benefit is correlated to how much you paid in, although it's not linear.

That is objectively not pure welfare like Medicaid or food stamps. Yes, it's abundantly clear that future wages won't be enough to support promised benefits, so we either accept lower benefit payments in the future that align with incoming receipts, or we adjust the program with gradual tweaks over time that spread the impact across all stakeholders in a fair way.

I could live with either of those outcomes as long as we're all being treated essentially equal where everybody takes a cut of the pain on an equal basis. What I don't support is one group of people calling for another group of people to absorb all/most of the pain. That is incredibly selfish and not realistic. It will also not get political traction either, so it's DOA, although some people will continue calling for it regardless.

---

I'm calling it welfare. Neither is the article, but it is redistribution from young to old and from healthy to sick.
That being said, Medicare more closely aligns with the intention of welfare than Social Security

Regardless, SS and Medicare are unstable and underfunded to meet their stated obligations. Both ultimately will receive bailouts paid for with higher taxes, higher inflation (possibly stagflation), and fewer growth opportunities for future generations.

---

You can call it what you want, but when you don't distinguish between SS and pure welfare it loses its meaning.

The redistribution claim is a bit disingenuous as well. The original recipients of SS absolutely benefitted from redistribution as they put nothing into it. For everybody else who spent 40 to 50 years paying into it, it's more of a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin they involuntarily took from you.

My larger point here is simply trying to encourage people to be completely honest about it and not just picking a slice of the issue and representing it as the only view. It's more nuanced and complex than that.

That's not a shot at you or anybody else, just a frustration that this topic continually gets framed very narrowly by various interests instead of looking at the total picture.

---

Indeed, it is complex. And your framing that SS is "a temporary loan setup, where you eventually get paid back some of the coin" isn't universally accurate and is emblematic of the fact that the unintended consequences should be discussed more openly and honestly, especially by the people reaping the benefits.

We've had decades to unwind these pending failures and in general we know what needs to be done, but there's not political will to make the necessary adjustments. Instead, politicians and voters kick the can and push the costs to future generations.

---

Agree with most of that. Some additional color I've learned from an AI search since debating this with you is there clearly is redistribution here, but it's primarily from high income to low income people within the same generation, not from young to old. That statement is in reference to any retiree who worked a full career and paid into it for 40 to 50 years. They have the receipts, where their taxes paid the benefits of old farts when they were young, and now younger workers are providing the cash for their benefits.

But don't confuse the funding mechanism with redistribution. If I loan the government money for old people when I'm young and then get paid back when I'm old from young people, that's more of a "loan". It is not redistribution when viewed over an entire lifespan. The redistribution occurs within a generation where the high income people only get about 70% back of what they paid in, while the low income folks get about 135%.

---

Well, benefits are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis so its mostly a transfer from current workers to current retirees. And with spousal benefits, plenty of people receive benefits who didn't pay in for 40 to 50 years.

---

You're letting the cash flow mechanism distort the total picture. All those retirees involuntarily put their cash into their system. The government is simply returning it many decades later. That by itself is objectively not redistribution. It is repayment.

To the degree that someone gets more than they involuntarily contributed on an inflation-adjusted basis, then I agree that is redistribution. And over the span of a lifetime, that is happening from high-income people to low-income people within the same generation. They all contributed during their working years and all collect in their retirement years, yet the low income folks get about 135% of their initial contribution and the high-income folks get 70%. That is clearly redistribution.

And as far as the cash flow mechanism, it is not only young folks. People from 15 to 67 are paying in thru SS taxes on their wages. That spans young, middle-age, and older people (I consider 55+ "old"... no longer middle age). In fact, most of the cash will come from people 40 to 55 years old who are in their peak earning years, not the 20 to 35 year olds, although they'll eventually get their turn just like everybody does.

---

Let's be honest, shall we: Just because a worker eventually gets a turn receiving benefits doesn't mean every generation gets the same economic deal

Also, where are you getting your 135% versus 70% initial contribution figures from?

---

Unless they change the benefit formula, everybody gets the same benefit based a variety of factors like how much you made, how long your worked, etc. To be clear, those factors diminish the benefit as you move up in income segments. You get less back as a percentage of your contribution than someone who made less money. But it's been that way forever and isn't unique to a generation.

The 135% to 70% is the result of probing an AI model on this topic, essentially asking what share of taxes paid in do various income groups receive when they draw benefits. Need to look at it thru many filters, including inflation adjusted. This topic is very complex and can't be summarized in a sound bite.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Lot of selfish people on this thread that would rather get their measly SS checks instead of actually ensure financial stability for their children and grandchildren. A sane person would look at it as what it was: your tax rate was higher than stated for the majority of your career. If you relied on a Ponzi scheme for retirement income, you deserve the same fate as every Ponzi scheme, namely losing your money.

It will fail. It's just a matter of willing you are willing to do the right thing and end it now or wait for it to be the ruin of future generations.

Guess we shouldn't count on the people who let it exist for so long to be the ones to do the right thing, though.

---

The selfish ones are those who think they should simply stop paying in, and that we should make an exception for them when everyone before them has paid in for 90 years.

Their real concern is they don't want to get caught short after they pay in for many years. Totally get that, and I support SS adjustments to ensure they don't get screwed either.

But stop with the nonsense of "people are selfish" for expecting a benefit that they supported for others over decades of life. Let's get on with the work of figuring out a realistic solution for the future.

---

I don't care if we keep the same SS tax rate in the short to medium term to wind down the program. Your assertion that the younger generation is selfish because they don't want the issue to keep growing is asinine.

One generation voted for politicians that kept an obvious Ponzi scheme in place for 90 years. It is YOUR fault, and now you're unwilling to do anything about it because instead of looking at it for what it was, you think you're entitled to a benefit. At the expense of your children and grandchildren's economic future.

It is childish. There are realistic solutions to make sure those who need it don't starve, and I think most patriotic Americans are willing to accept the burden of paying higher taxes to correct the mistakes of our elders. But the mindset that all we need to do is reform this terrible program is exactly the selfishness I'm characterizing.

You dug this hole, and now you're too obstinate to allow us to fix it because you stupidly sunk so much time into digging.

---

So many absolute statements that are objectively wrong. There's no sense trying to discuss it with someone who is clinging to talking points that are emotionally based and not grounded in facts. The solution will be found between reasonable people who are willing to set aside emotions and generational talking points and look at things objectively.

---

Going back to the article I linked above, there are reasonable solutions on the table, but I'm not seeing the political will for reform. Instead, we ignore the upcoming insolvency of both the SS and Medicare systems.

A simple 10% reduction in current benefits followed by an annual COLA-adjusted decrease of 1% every additional year could reduce SS funding long-term gap and could extend the program's viability for decades, but current retirees seem unwilling to accept the deal.

https://manhattan.institute/article/the-overextended-retirement-state

Quote:

---

It is important for the federal government to finance a safety net of cash and health-care benefits to prevent poverty among the elderly. But workers should not be made to pay for additional benefits to maintain the living standards of more affluent households in retirement; that should be a private responsibility.

To redress the impact of federal entitlement expenditures so that they do not redistribute excessively from the young to the old:

• Social Security beneficiaries should be allowed to opt for a uniform basic income in retirement, in return for a lower payroll tax for the remainder of their careers.[31]
• Medicare should no longer be expanded automatically through the addition of medical services to the standard benefit package, without attention to their cost or effectiveness.[32]
• Medicaid's long-term-care benefit should be subject to tighter asset tests, so that affluent households have an incentive to purchase private long-term-care insurance.[33]
• Income taxes should be reformed to eliminate special exemptions for affluent seniors and to expand credits for families raising children.
• Working-age households should be permitted to borrow from their recent Social Security contributions to finance living expenses during times of unemployment.[34]

These reforms would each reduce the cost and improve the effectiveness of federal entitlement programs, by reorienting their resources to working-age households that need them more than already-well-off seniors

---

Parsing words, but the bottom line is that it's not "fraud". It's the law. If the law is changed to reduce the benefits paid to Boomers, it's still not fraud. If I were collecting, I would also know exactly who is funding my payment - people paying the tax, and when I see the tax on my paycheck I know exactly where it is going - to the beneficiaries.

It's not a huge issue, but I think it's silly to scream Ponzi scheme just because it involves taking from one and giving to another. That's how every tax works. And more importantly to me, it sort of hides the issue - the only people who have the power to fix it is Congress.

Doesn't seem that complex to me. We shouldn't be providing welfare to affluent citizens regardless of age.

I mean we shouldn't be doing it period, but doing it for the affluent is just absurd.

I agree that we need reasonable, clear-headed people to develop a solution. It's likely a combination of many things that can be implemented gradually over time to minimize and spread the impact across people as equally as possible. I do not support sticking any group of people (young, old, rich, poor) with most of the impact. I'll support taking my share of the pain as long as we all put our shoulder behind the wheel and take an equal dose.

To your point, the problem thus far has been a lack of political will. Not necessarily from some voters, but the chicken **** legislators who promise to do something about it and then renege when they're in office.