LOL, I vote against government any chance I get, which is few. If ending SS today were on the ballot, I'd vote for it. If phasing it out were on the ballot I'd vote for it. But you're asking me to send money back to the government. I think that's silly.

Note that you also have no idea what I (or anyone else) donates or contributes to society, so dial back the judgement.

I didn't ask anyone to send money back, and I didn't judge you or anyone else.

Every time anyone says "hey this is a problem" each of you turn this into a righteous indignation about your voting habits and how successful your kids are. That's great dude, I'm not talking about you, you are not boomer incarnate.

You're part of a group, and that group is on the whole less reasonable than you personally are about this - which is why it is a political sacred cow.

It would be really awesome if reasonable people like you would actually make this a political issue. The majority are not only unwilling to do that but actively opposed. It would also be great if reasonable people like you would agree with that, and agree that it is a problem for society as a whole.

You've restated the progressive/woke/liberal vs conservative/libertarian schism in this country. It applies to all generations. The millennials and xers I know are more woke/progressive than the average boomer I know.

Support for social security is not a left/right issue.

For example, from 2024

Poll results like that are highly dependent upon the wording of the question, but I'll agree that many people don't really think about issues, they just react to them.

Now do generations. because that poll would indicate that your cohort disagrees with you.

Yeah, man - people who think this is bad are a minority. This is not news to anyone.

People who say "I want what I paid" are on the other side of the issue from people who say "this is unsustainable and it should not continue at the expense of the younger generation".

You can self select into either of those groups.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Insurance should be insurance, not "healthcare." Get rid of a system where insurance companies negotiate rates with doctors and pharma companies that are completely decouple from market rates. There's a reason that cash pay is often cheaper than your insured rate, but you are forced to go through insurance to have it go toward your deductible. Make HSAs universally available and let people save their money for their actual healthcare instead of paying into a terrible public option that gets you the worst care at the highest price and limits your access to high quality providers.

---

Agree completely. I detest the term "healthcare" an economic good/service. It should be "medical care" which is a small subset of "healthcare". The third party payer paradigm decouples the buyer of an economic good/service from the seller. The result is what we have now.

---

Yep. Somehow what we've created is the worst of both worlds in regard to public vs private.

"and I didn't judge you or anyone else."

You have been both condescending and judgmental. You have too much pride in your 'moral' authority to see that you are pushing people away from a workable solution rather than building a coalition of support. But you be you…the great divider. I'm sure that'll work out.

bring receipts pls

None of this is new. 30+ years ago my dad retired. I was in my mid 20s and felt it was such an injustice that I was paying into SS while struggling to save. My parents had a net worth of nearly a million dollars and were effectively collecting what I was paying in. Everyone was saying SS wasn't sustainable and people my age should expect nothing from it.

And here we are in 2026 with the same arguments (though I think the sustainability argument holds more weight at this point than it did then).

ETA: I also remember Dad complaining about it when I was a kid.

Over the years most people regarded SS as a retirement fund. And given that payout is based (partially) on how much you put in, and that you receive an annual statement showing your "contributions" and eventual pay out based upon your pay in - it's rational to think that it's your money that you're getting paid.

It's shocking how many people didn't (don't) understand that it has been pay as you go for 60+ years, and probably never was a retirement fund. Again, most people never really think. (period)

Have to also consider survivors benefits if your'e married tho to get the most comprehensive analysis .

infinity ag said:

---

Interesting that there is confusion about what SS is. I used to have a friend who worked at SS in Grand Prairie for some 40 years.
Anyway, 40T is too much. Any spare change we get, we need to use it to pay it down. That is how I paid off ALL my debts (house + cars). I have not taken any loans since for kids college or for another car. Trust me it took a LOT of sacrifice. If I can do it, why can't the country do it?

That by itself is not enough. Each citizen needs to help pay down the debt. I propose that each citizen above a certain threshold pay 5% of their Adjusted Gross Income back to the government to pay down the debt. Adjust that as needed. Yes, more taxes. Nothing is free.

---

No.

Hell no.

Hell f'n no.

How about this - the feds are limited to only what the feds are allowed to do via the constitution and absolutely not a single thing above and beyond that. No foreign aid. No gain of function funding. No CIA toppling regimes in other countries. No federal welfare, healthcare, food stamps, spending billions on bridges to nowhere, no fat in bills - none of that. Absolutely none.

Start there, and let's just see how much money is suddenly available with the tax system we currently have. Then we lower that tax structure to meet the new needs.

Any idea or plan that involves forcefully requiring me to give up more of MY money is immediately off the table and a non starter. You want to pay more? Good for you. Write the f'n check and pony up and thump your chest or whatever. It's your money, you can do whatever you want with it.

One (of the many) problems with social security is that the funds were raided and the money diverted to other very important projects when it was running a surplus. Don't know if that is still true about diversion because it is paying out to so many more now, but government never set anything aside for future payouts, and here we are. I was hearing that when I was a kid in the previous century...

Al Gore and his "lock box" allowed that

Zobel said:

---

The only person arguing for collectivism between us is quite literally you.

Having shared civic responsibilities doesn't remotely imply having other people fund your retirement.

---

Wait a second. If you are saying the money we paid in is not ours to be paid back to us then with that logic the money you are paying in isn't yours either. What are you funding? It's not your money.

Zobel said:

---

Every time anyone says "hey this is a problem" each of you turn this into a righteous indignation about your voting habits and how successful your kids are. That's great dude, I'm not talking about you, you are not boomer incarnate.

---

Have you not argued with a boomer before? This is THE move. Without exception. They will NOT accept that as a whole, the group has received the benefit of other generations, done some things, voted, and received the benefit (this includes borrowing and printing money from future generations), to have their asset classes continue to rise.

They will immediately go to their own personal experience, and not pull back and see the trend at large. They cannot and will not do it. Even when the stone cold facts are slapping them in the face.

(Id even be less irritated if they just said "yeah, we got lucky on a few things, and eff you" rather than holding themselves as out as being an exception and trying to tell other generations its merely a question of "hardwork" which has always been a requirement throughout history...its the reward for such hardwork that is in flux ).

Yep exactly, that's the point.

Social Security is a defined benefit insurance program, not a defined contribution account. Your payroll taxes were not deposits into a personal account, and your benefits are not withdrawals from one (because it doesn't exist). Current workers pay for current retirees. Its a collectivized system of intergenerational wealth transfers.

The answer to "what am I funding?" is "current retirees". The anwswer to "what were you funding" was "current retirees".

Note that this is exactly the same way other entitlement programs work - like welfare. Government takes money from one group and gives to another, in other words, collectivism.

Quote:

---

Your payroll taxes were not deposits into a personal account,

---

They were, however, accounted as such. Hence the annual statement showing how much you've put in and calculating the amount you'll get out (and the conditions) base upon that confiscated amount. So while your statement is true in part, the SS program was (is) absolutely sold and publicized as "this is your money that you will be getting back".

How it was sold to you or how you understood it doesn't change what it is.

The government records your earnings to calculate your benefits, not to keep track of money it owes you back.

Key point here - expectation of receiving a benefit is not the same as ownership of funds used to finance the benefit.

Quote:

---

The government records your earnings to calculate your benefits, not to keep track of money it owes you back.

---

Now you're just silly parsing. "benefits" vs "money it owes you back". Wow, hanging an argument on that. The SSA uses "money you are owed" verbiage. "Owed" vs "owed back" isn't a salient distinction.

Yes how it was sold absolutely is germane to the discussion. Not everyone is as smart as you are to perceive the one description of reality that is apt. Yes, the government lied. That matters.

Quote:

---

Key point here - expectation of receiving a benefit is not the same as ownership of funds used to finance the benefit.

---

No one has asserted that. If I expect a customer to pay their bill, of course that doesn't imply that I own the funds they will use to pay that bill until they actually pay it. It's not an important point.

Zobel said:

---

Yep exactly, that's the point.

Social Security is a defined benefit insurance program, not a defined contribution account. Your payroll taxes were not deposits into a personal account, and your benefits are not withdrawals from one (because it doesn't exist). Current workers pay for current retirees. Its a collectivized system of intergenerational wealth transfers.

The answer to "what am I funding?" is "current retirees". The anwswer to "what were you funding" was "current retirees".

Note that this is exactly the same way other entitlement programs work - like welfare. Government takes money from one group and gives to another, in other words, collectivism.

---

Well, yeah. I did my civic duty and now you need to do yours, but you want out of the duty by wanting me to die! Lolz!

infinity ag said:

---

Interesting that there is confusion about what SS is. I used to have a friend who worked at SS in Grand Prairie for some 40 years.
Anyway, 40T is too much. Any spare change we get, we need to use it to pay it down. That is how I paid off ALL my debts (house + cars). I have not taken any loans since for kids college or for another car. Trust me it took a LOT of sacrifice. If I can do it, why can't the country do it?

That by itself is not enough. Each citizen needs to help pay down the debt. I propose that each citizen above a certain threshold pay 5% of their Adjusted Gross Income back to the government to pay down the debt. Adjust that as needed. Yes, more taxes. Nothing is free.

---

Google just told me the combined income (all income received by persons from wages and salaries, proprietor income, rental income, dividends, interest, and government social benefits) of all people working in the US is about $26 trillion/yr. 5% of that is $1.3 trillion. That doesn't even cover the annual deficit.

It's not parsing. The benefit is defined by law, they could change it tomorrow to some completely different calculation that has nothing to do with what you've paid in.

The money you are owed is "owed as benefit because of the law" not "owed because you paid".

It is not your property, you have no contractual right to receive what you paid into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

Yes, this is the best form of the argument. I completely agree - we should all think about this in terms of the civic responsibilities we have toward each other.

But, contrary to what you're saying here - I don't want out, and I certainly don't want you to die. I want to pay, and then get nothing, because I think that's what needs to happen to avoid a great deal of pain and suffering, and I don't want this to continue onto my children. The debt problem affects all of us, but especially our kids and grandkids.

Quote:

---

The money you are owed is "owed as benefit because of the law" not "owed because you paid".

---

Those are not exclusionary statements. Without paying in I'm not owed anything. So more aptly it is "owed as benefit because of the law because you paid".

I can google, too.

Quote:

---

The case has been criticized on many grounds. In dissent, Justice Black argued that the Court's holding was motivated by anti-communist bias. Charles A. Reich likened the Flemming majority's construction to feudal tenure and posed whether constitutional rights could be secure if the government might deny a person's livelihood by asserting a public interest.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor#cite_note-2][2][/url] Reich's critique informed the Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, which held that the government must provide due process.

---

Highly possible that the current court would find differently.

You seem to deny that expectations of the citizenry have any meaning. You seem to want government lies to have no consequence.

And FWIW 30 years ago I wanted the same as you, I'll keep paying for 15-20 years and then let me keep everything (including the employer contribution) for 10 years and I'll be on my own.

And between both halves of FICA WH, both halves of MCare WH, and my Medicare premium, my SS check is less than what I pay in.

I'm actually not super interested in how the average low information voter understood this program, so in that sense yeah I don't really think that experience has meaning. I'm not sure why you think that about consequences for lies. In my mind, for this type of thing (understanding, lies) it doesn't matter - choice is what to do about it going forward.

If you really want to punish the government, keeping the status quo is the worst way to go about it. "Government" is not punished or bothered at all by the current situation, it gives them red meat and zero worries. The only people who suffer are the young people paying a much wealthier cohort, AND suffering the effects of low growth and high inflation because of it, AND dealing with the nth order effects like housing shortages and asset price inflation.

You don't want the same as me because, again - broken record I know - I'd be willing to keep paying every red cent at the same stupid rate now from now until retirement and get NOTHING, provided this yoke doesn't end up around my kid's and grandkid's neck. The difference is you 30 years ago wanted something rationally acceptable for you. At no point in this conversation does it seem you looked at it from the perspective of what is best for everyone.

The current situation is *really advantageous* for the elderly, and extremely bad for everyone else.

You can't expect SS to cover medicare premium(!??). That's a whole other completely different (and MUCH LARGER) problem!

Re MCare premium. SS does cover it, the premium is deducted from each SS check. In my case i continue to pay more in than I receive each year when everything is added.

And 30 years ago my willingness to give up any social security benefit and continue to pay in for 20 more years was for the benefit of society as well as myself just as your current desire for the same thing is also good for society and better for you. I really think you think you understand more about this stuff than you actually do. I don't know if you've run your own businesses for decades and paid these taxes and managed employees and truly understand how the system works.

Zobel said:

---

Yes, this is the best form of the argument. I completely agree - we should all think about this in terms of the civic responsibilities we have toward each other.

But, contrary to what you're saying here - I don't want out, and I certainly don't want you to die. I want to pay, and then get nothing, because I think that's what needs to happen to avoid a great deal of pain and suffering, and I don't want this to continue onto my children. The debt problem affects all of us, but especially our kids and grandkids.

---

I'm glad you want to pay and get nothing and somehow think that you are a much better person than the rest of us as a result.

Me? I want my fuggin money back that was stolen from me against my will under the threat of law and is one of the primary reasons I will spend an additional decade or more of my life working instead of enjoying the benefits of retirement with MY money.

IDGAF how you parse it - it's MY money. It was stolen from me. It is OWED to me.

Oh, and I'm not a boomer

LOL, so I guess you don't even care that the thief that stole your money has changed the rules for how you should think about getting it back? Or that the thief now says well no, that's not your money.

Me saying I would like to be able to do this doesn't make me a better person than you. Forget me, I'm irrelevant and an *******, point remains.

Status quo is bad for the country, has uneven distribution of outcomes, hurts some people and benefits others, and is financially unsustainable.

Your approach is probably the worst one. This doesn't make you a bad person, it just means that if everyone thinks like you the problem doesn't get solved, and only gets worse for the nation and your kids and grandkids.

And, if everyone voted and acted like you in general, we can't have a republic, because of insufficient public virtue. This also doesn't make you a bad person, it just means that if everyone is like you, the form of government doesn't match the type of citizen we've got.

Edit to add:
I also love this whole exchange.

Guy A "You want to steal from me and for me to die!"
Response "No, I don't want you to die, I think it would be great if you are made whole but the program winds down at my expense"
Guy B "get a load of this guy thinks he's better than everyone"

So because the thief took money from you, you're going to...encourage the same thief steal from others to give to you?

Quote:

---

I really think you think you understand more about this stuff than you actually do. I don't know if you've run your own businesses for decades and paid these taxes and managed employees and truly understand how the system works.

---

By all means, explain how this thing you describe as theft and lies is better for society.

I get your anger and share it. But your money is gone and the country's ability to borrow forever to fund all its promises is already starting to buckle (look at long-term rates, which the fed can't as easily control). Meanwhile, the CBO is forecasting that the deficit will climb to over 3 trillion in the next decade thanks to more boomers aging into retirement and drawing SS and Medicaid + higher interest payments due to the deteriorating rate environment. This creates a snowball - we need to borrow more while rates are rising, which makes our position even less secure which pushes rates even higher, which makes us pay more to borrow and refinance, etc. At some point this flywheel of financial destruction breaks.

Begin making peace with the idea that you're going to get screwed because the odds are very high that all of us will. hopefully we spread the pain so no one group gets annihilated, but this bill is finally coming due and it is going to hurt us all.