Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 41magsnub on October 15, 2009, 10:06:56 AM
-
Please Mr President, do not borrow against my future income to give token payments to the folks you hope will vote D in the next round of elections...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091015/D9BB77S00.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091015/D9BB77S00.html)
Obama calls for $250 payments to seniors
Email this Story
Oct 14, 8:59 PM (ET)
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Google sponsored links
Retirement Advice - For Smart Retirement Advice - Visit A Commonwealth Financial Planner!
www.CommBank.com.au
Disability Benefits Help - Apply for Social Security Disability. Free case evaluation.
SocialSecurityDisabilityHelp
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
"Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," Obama said in a statement. "This additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis."
Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.
The White House put the cost at $13 billion. Obama said he would not allow the payments to come out of the Social Security trust funds, further eroding the finances of the retirement program. Social Security already is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in each of the next two years.
However, Obama did not offer any alternatives to finance the payments. A senior administration official said Obama was open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit. The official, who requested anonymity, was not authorized to speak on the record.
Obama also announced Wednesday that the IRS would soon issue tax guidance preventing reductions in contribution limits for certain retirement funds, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts. There has been concern among some in the financial industry that federal law could require the limits to be reduced because inflation will be negative this year.
The $250 payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Several key members of Congress have said they are open to providing relief to seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security payments.
"We're looking at a way to address it," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Social Security. "I'm not sure what the exact answer is yet, but we're looking at ways to address that."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the $250 payments, as did Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security in the House.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has introduced a bill calling for similar payments.
"I think that the Obama administration and many members of Congress understand that we simply can't turn our backs on senior citizens," Sanders said.
Other lawmakers said seniors shouldn't get the extra payments because the formula doesn't call for it.
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."
Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.
Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.
Advocacy groups said the payment will be welcomed by seniors hit hard by falling home values and shrinking investment portfolios.
"The likelihood of losing an average annual COLA increase of about $200 to $300 in 2010 may sound like no big deal to some, but for millions of seniors who've already seen a third of their Social Security eaten up by health care costs, this proposed COLA relief could truly make the difference" said Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said, "For nearly 35 years, millions of Americans have counted on an annual increase in their monthly Social Security checks to make ends meet."
-
I'm still voting libertarian. In the unlikely event any money shows up in my mail box, I'll spend it at my friendly local gun shop.
-
I dunno. I can go either way with this one.
I used my $250.00 Veteran's Bonus to buy gun stuff - mainly handloading components.
So thanks, Mr. President! =D
-
I'm mostly curious as to what the politicians who have stated that this is a great idea thought of the Bush "rebates".
-
You can't be serious, Gewehr98.
-
"Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession,"
There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of man...
-
As I think about this, it is a very clever political ploy. It gets the fiscal conservatives to come out against "more money to seniors and veterans" which can be used to bash them over the heads come election time. It does not really matter if these payments go through or not...
-
I'm still trying to figure out how they can say the cost of living went down ... I'm on a fixed income which includes Social Security Disability. I'm a real penny pincher, mainly because I have to be. In the past year my income has gone from being comfortable because of my extreme frugality to damned awful hard to live on and I don't foresee it getting any better ... Aside from gasoline, what else has decreased in price over the past 12 months ... certainly none of the necessities like food or electricity ... I'll be happy to get anything they send me but it sure as hell won't buy my vote ... :mad:
-
People on the talk radio station are saying they're gonna give the $250 to anti-Democrat/anti-Obama candidates for 2010.
-
People on the talk radio station are saying they're gonna give the $250 to anti-Democrat/anti-Obama candidates for 2010.
Eh?
-
Well, I'm serious in that I actually spent the $250 VA bonus earlier this year on reloading supplies.
It was direct-deposited into my account along with my monthly VA disability stipend, so that's about as serious as it gets.
I figured I could do something symbolically like send the check back to The American Taxpayers via 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or use it on something that would not endear myself to the current occupant of the Oval Office. I chose the latter.
I understand this Senior Bonus will be offered in lieu of the yearly COLA adjustment to Social Security. Whether $250/yr equates to what the COLA adjustment would've been, I don't know.
On principal, it's another big sucking sound aimed at taxpayers. On the flip side, having paid into Social Security for over 30 years, I'd like to see it remain somewhat viable when I am eligible come age 67-70. Of course, one can poop in one hand and wish in the other, and see which hand fills up first... ;) (That's why I'm working hard towards my second retirement!)
-
I will use my $250 to buy tires for my car, and when election time comes around, I will not vote for the Democrats.
-
If I may vent my spleen a little.
I hope you enjoy your new snow tires or whatever, because I will spend the next approx. 3 weeks paying for them. I'd like to buy new tires myself, but between paying for current senior's "fixed income" and saving for my own retirement (which being about 35 years from now, no one sane thinks I'll see a penny of the OASDI) I can't afford it.
I'm a little bitter at being forced by law to give $95 A WEEK to seniors, while simultaneously being told to be responsible and plan for my own retirement.
Now the same law that takes my money is inconvenient to the politicians, so we can just go around it? COLA's are tied to inflation for a reason. Don't like it? Dip in to your 401K or IRA!
That being said, I'm OK with tax dollars going to VA disability (those that didn't fake it; My office has a faker), as those folks earning potential was lowered by service to the taxpayers.
Retirement is your own problem though.
There, I feel better now.
-
I hope you enjoy your new snow tires or whatever, because I will spend the next approx. 3 weeks paying for them. I'd like to buy new tires myself, but between paying for current senior's "fixed income" and saving for my own retirement (which being about 35 years from now, no one sane thinks I'll see a penny of the OASDI) I can't afford it.
I'm not exactly sure why you're mad at him for using money that was essentially stolen from him without his consent. SS is projected to no longer be viable by the time I retire, but if it is, you can bet I'll try and reclaim as much of the stolen money as I can. If I can't do so, I'm not going to begrudge someone else that's able to get some of their stolen money back.
The entity to be mad at is the government and a large segment of the voting populace that is denying your and my right to at least choose between SS and our own retirement vehicle.
-
I'm not exactly sure why you're mad at him for using money that was essentially stolen from him without his consent. SS is projected to no longer be viable by the time I retire, but if it is, you can bet I'll try and reclaim as much of the stolen money as I can. If I can't do so, I'm not going to begrudge someone else that's able to get some of their stolen money back.
The entity to be mad at is the government and a large segment of the voting populace that is denying your and my right to at least choose between SS and our own retirement vehicle.
This. I had no problem spending my "rebate", I had no problem accepting a federal grant in college, and I'll take all the SS I can get if it exists when I retire due to the fact that it's a mere fraction of what was taken from me. If I didn't work due to disability, etc., I'd really not want to take any of that because then it is someone else's money. That doesn't reflect on whether I believe such things (rebates, grants, etc) should exist in the first place; that's not the government's place. I despise the gun-to-the-head nature of SS; I could do much better if allowed to invest my SS contributions on my own.
-
I'm not really mad at him.
I am mad at the system.
I actually do hope he enjoys the tires (or whatever else one buys on SS), one assume he needs and/or wants them.
However, I'm very frusterated that the folks I talk to on SS don't seem to understand that the .gov is taking this money from somewhere. The fact that they stole money from you and gave it to old folks when you were working is regretable, and you should be mad, but it doesn't make me feel any better about my money getting taken every week.
Heck take what you can get, It's not like the .gov's going to give it back to me or my generation if you turn it down. But as part of the generation financing it right now, I'd like to reserve the right to whine about it.
And try not to think about what rate of return I could get on that money.
In addition I'm more then a little peeved about Obama's attitude that he can just go around the law (COLA/Inflation joining in this case) when it's politically convienent for him.
But mostly I'm just whineing, because I'd really like to see SS shut down.
-
If I may vent my spleen a little.
I hope you enjoy your new snow tires or whatever, because I will spend the next approx. 3 weeks paying for them. I'd like to buy new tires myself, but between paying for current senior's "fixed income" and saving for my own retirement (which being about 35 years from now, no one sane thinks I'll see a penny of the OASDI) I can't afford it.
I'm a little bitter at being forced by law to give $95 A WEEK to seniors, while simultaneously being told to be responsible and plan for my own retirement.
Now the same law that takes my money is inconvenient to the politicians, so we can just go around it? COLA's are tied to inflation for a reason. Don't like it? Dip in to your 401K or IRA!
That being said, I'm OK with tax dollars going to VA disability (those that didn't fake it; My office has a faker), as those folks earning potential was lowered by service to the taxpayers.
Retirement is your own problem though.
There, I feel better now.
Amen, brother!
I think social security is a disgrace. It's simple theft. No amount of government institutionalization can whitewash it. Every dime paid out for SS will come out of the livelihoods of the young. "Beneficiaries" will improve their lives by diminishing their children's lives, and that's an embarrassment in a country like the United States.
Want new tires? Go buy some with your own money. Keep your hands out of my pockets. My wife needs some new tires, too, ya know, and there's no defensible reason we should have to buy your tires for you before we can buy some of our own.
Retirees have had their entire lifetimes to build up a comfortable savings. If they chose not to do so, that's their problem and nobody else's. Retirement (and new tires!) is a privilege, not a right. If you want it you have to go out and earn it.
-
I'm a little bitter at being forced by law to give $95 A WEEK to seniors, while simultaneously being told to be responsible and plan for my own retirement.
Mr. mush,
Your pithy rebuke of socialism is timeless and should be read by every politician, every voter and anyone who receives Social Security or similar government subsidies. Thank you for being the voice of a movement.
fistful
-
I'm 55 and collect Social Security Disability due to complications from multiple cancer related surgeries ... at this point I've lived one year past my life expectancy ... I was 15 when I got my first job that had social security withheld so that makes nearly 40 years of paying in ... while I feel for those who are paying now and may never see a return, it's not those of us who are finally getting a little of our input back that you have a gripe with ... It's not like you are the first generation to pay into Social Security ... Having spent many of those years self employed I paid both my half and the employers half of Social Security ... =D
On the subject of Medicare ... last fall I spent 5 weeks in intensive surgical care. The doctors did not expect me to survive the surgery I needed. Last October a team of four surgeons operated on me for six hours. Thankfully for me it was successful. Medicare offered the team $2,000 for their services and subsequently refused all payment when the amount was appealed ... They claimed there was no evidence that the surgery was necessary ... :O
My goal is too live as long as possible in hopes of spending all the $$ you young'uns are depositing for me ... I'd say thanks but y'all are too busy whining to hear me ... ;/
Oh what the Heck ... thanks y'all ... =D
-
I'm 55 and collect Social Security Disability due to complications from multiple cancer related surgeries ... at this point I've lived one year past my life expectancy ... I was 15 when I got my first job that had social security withheld so that makes nearly 40 years of paying in ... while I feel for those who are paying now and may never see a return, it's not those of us who are finally getting a little of our input back that you have a gripe with ... It's not like you are the first generation to pay into Social Security ... Having spent many of those years self employed I paid both my half and the employers half of Social Security ... =D
The problem is that you oldsters have already spent all of the money you paid into social security. It's gone. Every dime SS collected since the 1980's was immediately handed over to the treasury and spent. You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
-
The problem is that you oldsters have already spent all of the money you paid into social security. It's gone. Every dime SS collected since the 1980's was immediately handed over to the treasury and spent. You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
So I guess you kids can whine about the return you could get on your money but those of us that paid in for 40 years aren't allowed to get back more than we put in ... your complaint is both priceless and revealing ... =D
"You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in."
Don't bet on it ... I intend to eat my cake and yours too ... =D
What you chillen's don't realize is that this is just another way for policticians to turn one generation against another ... the real enemy is the .Gov not those of us who are collecting on our "investment ... :angel:"
-
So I guess you kids can whine about the return you could get on your money but those of us that paid in for 40 years aren't allowed to get back more than we put in ... your complaint is both priceless and revealing ... =D
Don't confuse a government program with an investment.
"You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in."
Don't bet on it ... I intend to eat my cake and yours too ... =D
That may not be a problem from your point of view, but it is from mine.
-
The problem is that you oldsters have already spent all of the money you paid into social security. It's gone. Every dime SS collected since the 1980's was immediately handed over to the treasury and spent. You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
This is among (one of the many reasons) SS will never be fixed. At some point, the politicians sold everyone that they were "investing" their money when they were doing no such thing. All investments were immediately spent on pork projects and social engineering.
People paid in and want their money back out -- the future money has already been stolen -- it is just a matter of time until this game of musical chairs ends and some generation will have to lose the money they put in.
If you were a politician, would you risk your position (= throw away all that money you spent to get elected) to take responsibility for fixing a system you didn't break? Or, would you just try to keep it going so blame fell on the next guy?
-
That may not be a problem from your point of view, but it is from mine.
Oh well ... I guess that's just too bad for you isn't it ... tell you what ... next time I take my massive disability check to the bank I'll say "Thanks Headless Thompson Gunner and Dogmush for your pissant contribution " ... =D
-
The problem is that you oldsters have already spent all of the money you paid into social security. It's gone. Every dime SS collected since the 1980's was immediately handed over to the treasury and spent. You've already received all the benefit you're ever going to get from the money you paid in.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I don't buy that for one minute.
It does speak of a double standard, HTG. More than just the current generation have paid into SS, with no other retirement investment choice offered for those appropriated funds, so they're definitely entitled to recoup that which was forcibly taken from them over time. Telling them they spent it already and don't deserve another dime doesn't really point at the root cause of the problem, which was poor fiscal management by the people taking said moneys.
That would be akin to me saying you should only get a few years' worth of SS, because that's all you deserve, and you should've salted away even more money on the side, shame on you for not wisely investing in anticipation of the demise of SS. SS is not a paltry deduction from one's paycheck, particularly over one's working lifetime, so I don't begrudge anybody discussing their entitlement to SS benefits. SS wasn't always insolvent, only relatively recently has its lack of long-term viability become visible to the average American. Not everybody's in a good position to build up a healthy 401K on the side, either. That's sad, but that's life. I dipped into my military pension quite heavily when I got laid off last February, and that was a real eye-opener for me. As I said before, I don't anticipate having a dime of SS sent my way at age 67, and there are days when I wonder if Uncle Sam will default on military pension payments, too. It doesn't mean I am hostile to my elders who are receiving SS benefits, because it was faulty by design when it comes to passing debt on to future generations. It's not as if they were given a choice with respect to the payroll deductions...
-
It's not as if they were given a choice with respect to the payroll deductions...
Not to mention that every type of disability and health insurance option is coordinated w/ Social Security making it harder to plan for the unexpected ... but you can't tell kids anything ... they whined when their momma shut them off as babies and they continue to whine even after they start to wear big boy pants ... =D
-
Oh well ... I guess that's just too bad for you isn't it ... tell you what ... next time I take my massive disability check to the bank I'll say "Thanks Headless Thompson Gunner and Dogmush for your pissant contribution " ... =D
Enjoy it while you can. While you're at the bank we'll be working to cut you off.
And the money you took from us kids just might be the money we would have spent on a decent retirement home and good health care for you. Ah, well...
:P
-
I don't buy that for one minute.
It does speak of a double standard, HTG. More than just the current generation have paid into SS, with no other retirement investment choice offered for those appropriated funds, so they're definitely entitled to recoup that which was forcibly taken from them over time. Telling them they spent it already and don't deserve another dime doesn't really point at the root cause of the problem, which was poor fiscal management by the people taking said moneys.
You can't dance around the fact that the money everyone paid in to SS isn't there anymore. It just isn't there. Gone. Poof. Nada. You can speak about why the money isn't there, or where it went, or who made it go there, who wasted it and how and whose fault it is. That's all well and good.
In the end, is the simple fact that the money isn't there now. Any money paid out of SS will be taken straight out of one person's pocket and placed into someone else's. It elevates one person by diminishing another, and that ain't right.
That would be akin to me saying you should only get a few years' worth of SS, because that's all you deserve, and you should've salted away even more money on the side, shame on you for not wisely investing in anticipation of the demise of SS. SS is not a paltry deduction from one's paycheck, particularly over one's working lifetime, so I don't begrudge anybody discussing their entitlement to SS benefits. SS wasn't always insolvent, only relatively recently has its lack of long-term viability become visible to the average American. Not everybody's in a good position to build up a healthy 401K on the side, either. That's sad, but that's life. I dipped into my military pension quite heavily when I got laid off last February, and that was a real eye-opener for me. As I said before, I don't anticipate having a dime of SS sent my way at age 67, and there are days when I wonder if Uncle Sam will default on military pension payments, too. It doesn't mean I am hostile to my elders who are receiving SS benefits, because it was faulty by design when it comes to passing debt on to future generations. It's not as if they were given a choice with respect to the payroll deductions...
This is precisely the point. I don't deserve any social security. Neither do you. Neither does chester. Nobody does. This ponzy scheme of ours is a national disgrace, and I can't fathom why so many people seem to like it so much.
Retirement is expensive. No doubt about that. It's expensive for you, it's expensive for me, for everyone. I'm not sure how the fact that was hard for you justifies your making it even harder still for others. And I'm not sure how the fact that someone stole from your paycheck makes it any less wrong for you to steal from other peoples' paychecks.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I hear you when you say that the amount of money taken from your paycheck wasn't a paltry amount. But consider that the amount of money your generation has wasted on government programs is no paltry amount either. The piper must be paid.
It's an ugly situation all around, with no pleasant way out. I think we can all agree on that. The question is, do we continue the ugliness, perhaps because that's the way it used to be? Or do we find a way to end it?
And if you get to claim the high ground for not being hostile to your elders, then I get to claim the high ground for not being hostile to my juniors. I do not want to be responsible for putting my children into the same mess my elders have put me in. ;)
Social Security is a shame all around.
-
Yes, it's a shame. The fact remains, though, that the feds have taken $140,000 from me. I can't forgive a debt that large, as that money is needed for my last years. Note I didn't say retirement, as I won't be able to retire; the funds aren't there. They could have been there if I'd just declared bankruptcy back in 2000 instead of decimating my retirement funds, but bankruptcy would have stiffed others--including investors in companies I owed money to.
If the feds want to give me the $140,000 now, I'll take it and shut up. Otherwise I'll simply require that I receive the money as promised each month.
In the end, all this bickering doesn't matter. When the 11th hour comes, the politicians will finally deal with it, and we'll all be screwed. Only the most destitute of the elderly will receive any payments. Those still working will have their taxes raised. Those who are retired will be means-tested to determine eligibility and will pay taxes on their retirement savings. The age of eligibility will be raised.
It will be an equal opportunity screwing.
-
Yes, it's a shame. The fact remains, though, that the feds have taken $140,000 from me. I can't forgive a debt that large, as that money is needed for my last years. Note I didn't say retirement, as I won't be able to retire; the funds aren't there. They could have been there if I'd just declared bankruptcy back in 2000 instead of decimating my retirement funds, but bankruptcy would have stiffed others--including investors in companies I owed money to.
If the feds want to give me the $140,000 now, I'll take it and shut up. Otherwise I'll simply require that I receive the money as promised each month.
Sucks, dunnit?
Would you wish the same situation on another? Or 3 to 5 others, as I believe the statistics indicate?
I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's just that this is a terribly important point that needs to be recognized and heeded by our nation, and soon. Or I fear things will get quite ugly.
-
Sucks, dunnit?
Would you wish the same situation on another? Or 3 to 5 others, as I believe the statistics indicate?
I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's just that this is a terribly important point that needs to be recognized and heeded by our nation, and soon. Or I fear things will get quite ugly.
Unless you kids were born from Testubes and the Testubes you were born from were born from other Testubes then the reality is that we paid for your grandparents and possibly your parents Social Security retirements ... but I guess that was OK since it didn't have to come from you ... man up and quit whining ... is that asking for too much ... whoever told you that life was fair lied to you and if you haven't learned that by now you've haven't been out in the world for very long ... =D
-
Unless you kids were born from Testubes and the Testubes you were born from were born from other Testubes then the reality is that we paid for your grandparents and possibly your parents Social Security retirements ... but I guess that was OK since it didn't have to come from you ... man up and quit whining ... is that asking for too much ... whoever told you that life was fair lied to you and if you haven't learned that by now you've haven't been out in the world for very long ... =D
Yeah, life isn't fair. That cuts both ways. Next time you say you're entitled to all of our money, that you deserve it, we'll tell you "life isn't fair, so you can't have it".
:P
Or maybe that's not quite right. Maybe the accurate way would be to say "life is fair, so you can't have it."
Hmm...
By the way, my grandparents didn't take social security. And their parents didn't have the option.
-
So Chester, you are mad because the younger generation who is most likely going to get shafted by inevitable benefit cuts (high crazy tax increases to fund the upcoming payouts as the baby boomers go into retirement, or a combination of the two), does not want to participate in SS anymore? The buck has to stop somewhere, why not now? If not now, when? After you get yours? It is all hypothetical of course since no elected representative is going to want to hang their name on real SS reform.
-
So Chester, you are mad because the younger generation who is most likely going to get shafted by inevitable benefit cuts (high crazy tax increases to fund the upcoming payouts as the baby boomers go into retirement, or a combination of the two), does not want to participate in SS anymore? The buck has to stop somewhere, why not now? If not now, when? It is all hypothetical of course since no elected representative is going to want to hang their name on real SS reform.
Heck no I'm not mad ... I'm thankful that because of my poor health I'm able to recoup my 'investment' ... it's the whiners who think that the recipients of Social Security are to blame for the mess that it's in ... heck all we 'oldsters' did was work hard and pay taxes, including Social Security ... now they feel that it's a crime cause they have to pay in too ... The blame lies in the policticians that have raided Social Security over the years but some people are too stupid to realize that they are being gamed into participating in generational warfare ... If not for my poor health I'd be one of the unlucky bastards that would probably never see any of the $$ I paid in returned to me ... Wanna bet how many of the whiners voted for change they can believe in ... :rolleyes:
-
I'm thirty-three and I agree with HTG. But we're NOT engaging in generational warfare. The previous generations have "made war" on all of us, by creating and perpetuating Social Security. We young folk were not there to have a say. To point out past misdeeds is not generational warfare; it's just trying to get to the root of the problem so we can recognize that the program was wrong from the very beginning.
-
I'm thirty-three and I agree with HTG. But we're NOT engaging in generational warfare. The previous generations have "made war" on all of us, by creating and perpetuating Social Security. We young folk were not there to have a say. To point out past misdeeds is not generational warfare; it's just trying to get to the root of the problem so we can recognize that the program was wrong from the very beginning.
While I don't really disagree with anything said (I'm all for doing away with social security, or at the very least the forced aspect of it), I am curious if you, HTG, 41magsnub, etc., plan on refusing your social security (with the big assumption SS hasn't all collapsed by then) payments during retirement? Or perhaps donating the entirety to charity?
-
Continuing to fund Social Security can't be accomplished simply by raising taxes on those who are working. It would require FICA and CO-FICA taxes in the 25% range which, added to the 15-35% federal income tax and average 5% state income tax, would be unbearable for young workers. A tax increase is probable, but not that large.
Those who've done a good job saving for retirement shouldn't expect to receive anything from Social Security. If anything, their 401(k)'s, IRA's and other savings will be taxed on distribution.
The most politically expedient measure will be to remove the FICA ceiling entirely, so Bill Gates and Oprah can pay 12.5% of their income in exchange for $2000 a month when they hit age 67.
The politicians can't tick off the Baby Boomers, as seniors always vote, and there's going to be more seniors than ever. Still, the politicians can't lay it all on the backs of younger people.
Every two years thousands of politicians accused their campaign opponents of wanting to take Social Security away from seniors. The result was that the same lying bunch was elected, and the problem was never solved.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter. The money for Social Security isn't there. The money for Medicare isn't there. The money for our current budgets isn't there. Nor is the money for nationalized healthcare, the bailout of every favored industry, or any of the other grandiose plans. The US is broke. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudi's, and everyone else in the world knows it. The only people who don't are the American voters.
-
While I don't really disagree with anything said (I'm all for doing away with social security, or at the very least the forced aspect of it), I am curious if you, HTG, 41magsnub, etc., plan on refusing your social security (with the big assumption SS hasn't all collapsed by then) payments during retirement? Or perhaps donating the entirety to charity?
Is I don't know a good answer? For all I know I will be dependent on SS because my various retirement accounts will be so heavily taxed to pay for everything else I have to be on the government dole because the government drains my income for other folks that are on the dole. Or more likely I won't get SS at all and I will pay out in taxes to the point that my meager fixed income post taxes from my savings is about on par with what the folks who did not plan or had bad luck get.
-
While I don't really disagree with anything said (I'm all for doing away with social security, or at the very least the forced aspect of it), I am curious if you, HTG, 41magsnub, etc., plan on refusing your social security (with the big assumption SS hasn't all collapsed by then) payments during retirement? Or perhaps donating the entirety to charity?
Is refusing SS benefits an option? I didn't say anybody should refuse SS money or give it away, and giving SS to charity isn't exactly returning the cash to its rightful owners anyway.
I have so far refused to consider any federal aid for schooling, apart from the GI Bill cash that I earned. So maybe I will refuse SS, too. I'm hoping such benefits will have been entirely eliminated by then, anyway. I don't want the money back. It's tainted now.
-
I believe one can refuse SS benefits, yes. I don't think either side's arguments in this thread are invalid. I understand refusing SS, I also understand accepting it while not agreeing with its existence. It really just depends on how you view the taking of it from you vs the taking of it from others vs. being (slightly) reimbursed what was taken from you. If I had college to do over again, I'm not 100% sure I'd apply for a federal grant again, but I might. I saw it as an investment in increasing tax revenue from me, which has definitely happened.
-
Everyone should expect themselves and others to make the choice that is most economic advantageous to them out of the available options. This is the basic foundation of capitalism, and I'm entirely unsurprised when I see it happen.
As such, I'm not surprised or angry at persons who cash a social security check from the government - even those that didn't pay anything into it.
I'm angry at the system, and the people who set up something so utterly financially unsustainable. The only reason it's not criminal is because it's being run by the government. How do you fix this system? I have no idea. Someone (likely everyone) will end up getting screwed at some point. There isn't an easy fix, which is why we still have the problem.
-
In the end, though, it doesn't matter. The money for Social Security isn't there. The money for Medicare isn't there. The money for our current budgets isn't there. Nor is the money for nationalized healthcare, the bailout of every favored industry, or any of the other grandiose plans. The US is broke. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudi's, and everyone else in the world knows it. The only people who don't are the American voters.
This is the important factor. The oldsters can whine all they want about getting their so-called "investment" back from social security. But the fact is, the money just isn't there. Our country must accept this reality and work within it. If we persist in behaving like we're all rich and we can all have whatever we want, even though we're flat broke, it's going to ruin the country.
Social security payments depend on a functioning economic system. Yet any attempts to pay out this much money to social security recipients will destroy the economic system. The more we try to pay to retirees, the less we'll be able to pay them. It's an inherently self-limiting system. And we're already at the limits right now.
In a macroeconomic sense, the only possible ways to save for the future are to either stockpile resources, or to invest current resources in things that will improve your ability to produce new resources in the future. Social security does neither. Social security wasted huge amounts of resources in the past, in the misbegotten belief that that would make it possible to waste even more resources in the future.
This is the system you oldsters have built for yourselves. This is the system you're going to depend upon going forward. Good luck to you. I'm afraid you're going to need it.
I'm simply worried that you guys are going to destroy things for everyone (yourselves included, assuming you live long enough to see the consequences).
I'm also miffed at the unbridled immorality you guys seem to favor, the notion that it's ok for you to steal because you were also stolen from, or because you feel your need justifies your theft. But that's a separate matter. As Nick points out, people will tend to do what's in their best interest. That's why we're supposed to have laws against theft, to make stealing not-in-you-best-interest. But anyway...
-
Is refusing SS benefits an option? I didn't say anybody should refuse SS money or give it away, and giving SS to charity isn't exactly returning the cash to its rightful owners anyway.
I have so far refused to consider any federal aid for schooling, apart from the GI Bill cash that I earned. So maybe I will refuse SS, too. I'm hoping such benefits will have been entirely eliminated by then, anyway. I don't want the money back. It's tainted now.
Tainted indeed. My grandparents refused SS payments, and "tainted" was exactly the way they described it. That, and they had pride, they refused to depend on Washington or their neighbors for their subsistence.
God love 'em.
-
While I tend to not be angry at any individual SS recipient, I do find myself angry at "Seniors". That ill-defined, yet powerful voting bloc that seems to have congress living in perpetual fear. Especially here in FL the group represented by AARP and the like have politics locked down, and for their own advantage. One of the reasons SS can't be reformed is there's perpetually a large well represented group proclaiming "Yes, fix it, after I get my money". This group just keeps replenishing itself like The Flood
We seem to have two choices here:
Keep going, milk everyone you can and hope you squeak by before it crashes,
or
Stop now, take your losses and move on.
Obviously I prefer number two, partly because it's the right thing to do, and partly because it's still relatively early in my personal soaking. (Nick’s observation on personal economics is correct)
I can't claim to know Monkeyleg's finances but the fact remains that he CAN forgive that debt, if forced. If the fed.gov said tomorrow that SS is insolvent, and there were going to be no more payments, he'd have to. What other choice does he have?
And eventually, someone is going to get hit with that notice. There's no more money, you lost it all, sorry. I fully understand why nobody wants to be the hot potato, but come on, we gotta stop it somewhere.
I think the best thing that could happen for everyone is a date. Give folks 10 years. If you're over 67 and drawing SS Oct16 2019, we'll finish it. If you're 66, you're screwed put you have 10 years to come up with plan B. And we'll draw down the payroll deductions as the recipients die off. Yeah it's harsh. and yeah some folks are going to lose a lot of money, but as Chester so rightly put it "Life Ain't Fair." So much for my political fantasy.
What's actually going to happen is we'll keep going until the economic collapse gets to the point that the payouts can't be supported, and one day a bunch of people will wake up and discover there's no more "free" money. It'll be fun to be a SS office clerk that day.
ETA: FWIW none of my grandparents drew SS either.
-
I'm also miffed at the unbridled immorality you guys seem to favor, the notion that it's ok for you to steal because you were also stolen from, or because you feel your need justifies your theft.
Interesting way of putting it.
I tend to be very tenacious when it comes to people owing me money. A small ad agency in another state owed me $300 recently. They were on the ropes and couldn't pay. I put in much more time than was really justified to file in small claims court. I got the money.
Believe me, I've tried to not "contribute" money to the SS fund, but the IRS is really funny about that.
Perhaps we should all demand whatever money we can get from the fund right now and settle for that. Supposedly there's $2.4 trillion left. That's about $8000 for every man, woman and child to buy a decent used car. ;)
-
Perhaps we should all demand whatever money we can get from the fund right now and settle for that. Supposedly there's $2.4 trillion left. That's about $8000 for every man, woman and child to buy a decent used car.
Cool, I'm in. Knock off the kids that haven't payed in and we might get up to 10,000 or so.
-
I don't understand this blame game.
The fed.gov took money from all generations, basically as a type of government bond, you pay in money now and they will give it back to you in XXX years. Of course, one of the many reasons it is not considered a bond is because it is forced upon us to keep purchasing these bonds to pay out the bonds that have matured (aka a Ponzi scheme).
Like it or not, seniors are still bond holders in the investment group of SS. Saying their money is gone and they have to deal with it is akin to the US telling China all the money they've invested in US securities is gone and they have to deal with it. Oh wait, that is called going into default.
So either way, all we are debating here is what to do about intergenerational debt. There is only one way to stop gaining debt and pay back our debtors; same as with a household, live BELOW your means until you pay it off then live WITHIN your means. No one wants to pay it back because they feel as if they haven't been the beneficiaries of said debt.
-
Social Security used to be known as Social Security Insurance. Individuals would pay a premium, the size of which would be determined by their age and income and be insured against dying in poverty. Of course, with the government running it it soon degenerated into what we now have and are looking forward to.
How many of you buy vehicular liability insurance? If you bought a new car and paid for liability insurance when you took possession and then drove into the side of another car you'd let the insurance company cover your butt, wouldn't you. In such a case you'd congratulate yourself on making such an astute business decision. If, on the other hand, you drove for years, never having an accident or claim against your insurance policy, you'd look at all those receipts and wish you had the money back.
That's kinda the shape SS is in. When it started people lived to be about 64-65 yerars old. Heck, when I was a kid I didn't even know anybody who was 75 years old and now I'm there and reasonably healthy! But the plan was to pay those "old" folks a stipend so they could live comfortably in their declining years. But then two things happened: People began living longer, drawing their insurance benefits longer and a country that had been on the economic ropes when the SS Act was passed became an economic powerhouse where people could invest their money and provide for their own retirement. Lots of people wanted to but there was that pesky law on the books to keep them from doing it the way they wanted. Besides that, there were bunches of politicians who loved to "borrow" from the SS fund for their own personal "bridges to nowhere."
Now we're looking forward to the system going broke. That's good and it's bad too. The sooner it goes broke the sooner we're done with the damned thing and that's good. But a lot of people are going to get hurt when it does and that's bad. If it goes broke quickly it will kinda "moosh in" with all the other big government schemes that are doomed to failure within the next generation. So while all those old folks are starving to death you younger ones are going to be shooting each other to death. That's what happens in revolutions and civil wars. Plan on it.
-
Social security is not now, and never has been, anything remotely resembling insurance. Neither has it been any sort of investment, or bond, or whatever.
They can call it whatever they want, but that does not make it true.
-
Interesting way of putting it.
I tend to be very tenacious when it comes to people owing me money. A small ad agency in another state owed me $300 recently. They were on the ropes and couldn't pay. I put in much more time than was really justified to file in small claims court. I got the money.
Believe me, I've tried to not "contribute" money to the SS fund, but the IRS is really funny about that.
Perhaps we should all demand whatever money we can get from the fund right now and settle for that. Supposedly there's $2.4 trillion left. That's about $8000 for every man, woman and child to buy a decent used car. ;)
I'd love to cash it all out and end it now. I'd even be willing to withdraw from the process right now without getting anything in return. They can keep the thousands and thousands I've already paid in if they just let me the heck out of it.
-
I'd love to cash it all out and end it now. I'd even be willing to withdraw from the process right now without getting anything in return. They can keep the thousands and thousands I've already paid in if they just let me the heck out of it.
Amen to that!
Course, it would screw over people who did pay into it for their whole lives... =| As others have said... the buck has to stop somewhere.
-
Amen to that!
Course, it would screw over people who did pay into it for their whole lives... =| As others have said... the buck has to stop somewhere.
But but but... All those people who paid in for their whole lives are just getting back their own money. That's what I'm told, anyway. They're just drawing on their savings, or their bonds, or their insurance, or whatever.
They shouldn't need people like me paying my money into the system, if all they're doing is taking back out that which is theirs.
-
Yes, it would screw over those of us who've been paying for 40+ years.
As I've said, I've paid somewhere in the vicinity of $140,000 via FICA and co-FICA into the system.
I've also paid nearly $20,000 into the state unemployment insurance fund even though, as the owner of the business, I can never collect a dime from unemployment insurance. I do have the pleasure, though, of watching my laid-off neighbors relax all summer collecting on the fund I've been paying into.
The SS situation wouldn't be as much of a hot button with me had I not had business problems in 2000. I'd been socking away $1500 or so a month for retirement for years, on top of the 15% that FICA and co-FICA were hitting me for.
When business went bad, I had to cash in my retirement savings to pay off creditors. As I said, I could have declared bankruptcy, stiffed companies whose stock might be owned by some people here, and kept my retirement funds. I thought I was doing the right thing.
Maybe I wasn't. I could have kept my retirement funds and now be able to pass judgement on those who are planning on collecting SS.
The only winners in all this are the members of congress who refused to address the problems. One of them is former Congressman Jerry Kleczka of Milwaukee. He's my age, and was elected to congress in 1984. He fought tooth and nail against any changes to Social Security, and frightened the seniors if any opponent brought up the issue.
Well, Jerry retired back in 2004, just as I knew he would (he was just marking time for exactly 20 years). He'll live on a full congressional pension for the rest of his life, which is now $150,000+ annually.
I hope I outlive that MF so I can piss on his grave.
-
But but but... All those people who paid in for their whole lives are just getting back their own money. That's what I'm told, anyway. They're just drawing on their savings, or their bonds, or their insurance, or whatever.
Y'know, HTG, maybe you're right. While it's true I've paid about $140K into the system over the years, maybe it's unfair of me to ask for that money.
I've read a lot of posts here and on THR from people who've bought nice homes, cars, and lots of guns. I know they've put a lot of money into that stuff, but shouldn't they be willing to give some of it up for the good of society? Wouldn't that be fair? Why couldn't they "contribute" some of their nice stuff to the SS system? After all, it's just their money.
-
Now we're looking forward to the system going broke.
It ain't just Social inSecurity that's going broke .... :O
-
Y'know, HTG, maybe you're right. While it's true I've paid about $140K into the system over the years, maybe it's unfair of me to ask for that money.
I've read a lot of posts here and on THR from people who've bought nice homes, cars, and lots of guns. I know they've put a lot of money into that stuff, but shouldn't they be willing to give some of it up for the good of society? Wouldn't that be fair? Why couldn't they "contribute" some of their nice stuff to the SS system? After all, it's just their money.
I'd have no problem with it if it was your $140k that you were getting back. I'd be 110% behind you getting your own money back form the government.
But since it's someone else's money that you'd receive, I can't imagine how you have any right to it.
-
HTG you just can't seem to make the connection.
The fed.gov took their money and spent in on roads, bridges, whatever they wanted, (yes including pay outs to other seniors). You can call it insurance, you can call it whatever you want, but no matter which way you cut it; the fed.gov indebted themselves to seniors much the way we are indebted to foreign nations.
You can play all the games you'd like and say "SS is bankrupt but the country is not". It would be akin to running a company and saying well payroll is bankrupt, HR is defaulting on loans but the company is still going strong! Also, either way you cut it, you can't deny the fact that the money is lost and everyone will have to pay their share -- you want seniors to pay their entire life investment but you only want to give the little you've donated so far.
Good job on being a political pawn -- just what the politicians wanted, seniors and youth voting D or R against each other instead of voting out the aholes that create these messes!
-
How about we make the pain equal for all? Let's set a target amount, say, $200,000. Everybody pays into the system until they hit $200,000. Then they're not taxed anymore.
But they don't get any money, either. It just gets thrown into general revenues like all of the other SS dollars have been for the last 30+ years.
Sound fair?
-
Seems most fair to me would be just to end the system; have the payouts due land in the national debt column and deal with all our debt at once.
That way, people who've paid into the system only lose their earnings if the country goes belly up.
-
That way, people who've paid into the system only lose their earnings if the country goes belly up.
And how would those people collect their earnings? Or do they just get a lapel ribbon?
Perhaps some here would have different opinions if they'd paid two or three years' worth of gross income into SS.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter for me either. They've now moved the insolvency date up to 2017, the year I qualify for full "benefits."
-
And how would those people collect their earnings? Or do they just get a lapel ribbon?
So, how do you propose we fix the system?
-
So, how do you propose we fix the system?
Before privatization became a dirty word, I thought that it would be possible to keep the payment arrangements in place for those on Social Security or close to receiving "benefits," but gradually phase in amounts workers could put into their own accounts. It would take decades, but eventually the workers would control all of their own money.
Right now it looks like that won't work. But saying "that's life" to people who've paid 12.5% of their income for decades is no less immoral than taking an extra 10-15% in taxes from the very successful to pay for programs benefitting the less successful and calling it "fair."
-
HTG you just can't seem to make the connection.
The fed.gov took their money and spent in on roads, bridges, whatever they wanted, (yes including pay outs to other seniors). You can call it insurance, you can call it whatever you want, but no matter which way you cut it; the fed.gov indebted themselves to seniors much the way we are indebted to foreign nations.
That's brilliant! You set aside money for your own retirement. Then you decided you'd rather spend that money early, so you borrowed it from yourselves and spent it on shiny government baubles and a reduced tax burden for yourselves. Now that it's time for the loan to be paid back, you guys split the scene. That's OK, though, those younger workers will pay it back for you, no problem.
Sorry, but this younger worker doesn't want to play that game. You'll have to force me to, if you can. I'll do whatever I can to resist, and failing that, I'll do my darndest to drag something resembling a conscience out of you while you're fleecing me.
The government is bankrupt. The government has no money! The only thing the FedGov has at this point is the power to tax the American economy in the future. But the amount of taxation necessary to support the expected SS payments would be so large that it would destroy any future economic activity. Our only options at this point are to cut benefits or inflate so heavily that the benefits have no value.
Either way, that much wealth cannot and will not be paid out to SS retirees. It's just not possible. The younger workers couldn't possibly pay out that much wealth even if they wanted to, which they definitely don't.
Think about it. If most of you boomers couldn't come up with enough wealth in your lifetimes to provide a comfortable 20 or 30 year retirement, what on earth makes you think we'll be able to save that much up for you?
You can claim you're owed something. You can get all your fellow retirees to agree that you're all owed something. You can vote in politicians who promise to give you what you think you're owed. But politicians cannot make that wealth exist in the first place to be given. All they can do is promise.
All you have at this point are empty promises. You can try to blame me for this, claim I'm obligated to pay back your debt, claim you deserve an easy retirement on the back of my labors. Well, I'm not going to cooperate. I'm sure you understand why.
Instead, if you want to try to work with me on a solution, then I'll hear you out.
-
How to fix the system? Let everyone my age, 42 and younger off the hook. The feds can keep everything we've paid in and we are no longer taxed for ssi, nor can we collect. Never happen, but it's my pipe dream and I'm gonna keep it.
Second, I am a wash with the system. I make less than 38k, single income family. Taking the standard deduction, interest on the house is almost non existent, etc. Plus earned income and child tax credit, I pay nothing in taxes and get a refund for about what I payed into SSI. I don't take any more than what's mine and I don't see socialist insecurity making it to when I retire. I've provided for my own retirement, 401K, IRAs. Obama isn't getting any money off me.
-
So, how do you propose we fix the system?
One possible "solution" would be to set SS back to the way it was when it was first started. The age of retirement back then was roughly the same age as the average life expectancy. The accounting was set up such that the burden of paying for each retiree was spread out over 30 separate workers, so that no worker had to pay for more than 1/30th of a single retirement.
Now the age of retirement is some 15 years sooner than the average life expectancy. Now, instead of being able to spread the cost over 30 workers, 2 workers are expected to come up the money for a single retirement. This situation is untenable.
Turn back the clocks. Make things work today the same way they worked back then. Set the minimum age for receiving benefits to 78, rather than 62. Work the accounting so that no worker has to fund more than 1/30th of a single retirement.
Retirees would howl, but this is fair. This is what the system was designed to handle, and it's doable. It doesn't end the system per se, so it isn't really a true solution. But it does prevent the system from exploding the economy in the coming decades.
An actual solution would be to privatize the system. Start investing social security payments in, you know, actual investments that could ensure new revenue streams in the future.
Another true solution would be to allow people to opt out of the system. Sign on the dotted line and you never have to make another SS payment again. You'd never be able to receive a dime from SS, either. The program would wither on the vine.
-
How to fix the system? Let everyone my age, 42 and younger off the hook. The feds can keep everything we've paid in and we are no longer taxed for ssi, nor can we collect. Never happen, but it's my pipe dream and I'm gonna keep it.
Second, I am a wash with the system. I make less than 38k, single income family. Taking the standard deduction, interest on the house is almost non existent, etc. Plus earned income and child tax credit, I pay nothing in taxes and get a refund for about what I payed into SSI. I don't take any more than what's mine and I don't see socialist insecurity making it to when I retire. I've provided for my own retirement, 401K, IRAs. Obama isn't getting any money off me.
I have an idea. Since we're setting arbitrary numbers, let's allow those 41 and younger off the hook. ;)
So, you're a wash with the system? You pay no taxes? I've been paying an arm and a leg in taxes for years, and you don't pay a thing? I don't see where you have the moral authority to complain about SS.
Nick11, if we set the program back to the way it was when it first started, we'd all be paying about $100 a year into the system. My father paid about ten cents a week when SS started, so I'd say $100 a year would be a decent ballpark estimate.
Another true solution would be to allow people to opt out of the system. Sign on the dotted line and you never have to make another SS payment again. You'd never be able to receive a dime from SS, either. The program would wither on the vine.
Wouldn't work. The current system needs young workers to pay for those collecting benefits.
If it were possible to keep people from scamming the system, another idea would be to give benefits to those who actually can no longer work. If you don't have sufficient money in your retirement account, you keep working until you can't any longer. (Which I'll be doing). At that point you receive SS benefits until you keel over a year or so later.
-
You pay no taxes? I've been paying an arm and a leg in taxes for years, and you don't pay a thing? I don't see where you have the moral authority to complain about SS.
You keep using the fact that you've been forced to participate in an immoral system to justify forcing everyone else to continue participating in it. You can recognize that the system is a failure yet you insist on continuing in order to get your money. Nearly everyone has the "moral authority" to complain about SS considering what a mess it is, however it's a lot more consistent to complain about it and support ending it regardless of losses rather than complain about it while saying it should continue just long enough so you can get your payout.
-
Nearly everyone has the "moral authority" to complain about SS considering what a mess it is, however it's a lot more consistent to complain about it and support ending it regardless of losses rather than complain about it while saying it should continue just long enough so you can get your payout.
Scanr may pay SS taxes, but by not paying the other taxes most of the rest of us do to support the bureaucracy, he has as much authority to complain about SS as he does about the food at a free buffet.
I've thrown out ideas--some of them admittedly ridiculous--including privatization and restricting payments to end of life coverage.
I find it telling that those who just want to scrap the system today are those who've paid the least.
You keep using the fact that you've been forced to participate in an immoral system to justify forcing everyone else to continue participating in it.
No, I'd just like to see some portion of what I've paid in. If nothing else, I think a Lewinsky from a cute congressional intern would be in order. It would sure as hell be the most expensive one I've ever had. ;)
...complain about it while saying it should continue just long enough so you can get your payout.
I believe it was Scanr who suggested that those under 42 be off the hook, with 42 very conveniently being his age. You'll notice that I remarked that the system is now projected to be insolvent in 2017, the year I would begin to collect.
-
One possible "solution" would be to set SS back to the way it was when it was first started. The age of retirement back then was roughly the same age as the average life expectancy. The accounting was set up such that the burden of paying for each retiree was spread out over 30 separate workers, so that no worker had to pay for more than 1/30th of a single retirement.
Now the age of retirement is some 15 years sooner than the average life expectancy. Now, instead of being able to spread the cost over 30 workers, 2 workers are expected to come up the money for a single retirement. This situation is untenable.
Turn back the clocks. Make things work today the same way they worked back then. Set the minimum age for receiving benefits to 78, rather than 62. Work the accounting so that no worker has to fund more than 1/30th of a single retirement.
Retirees would howl, but this is fair. This is what the system was designed to handle, and it's doable. It doesn't end the system per se, so it isn't really a true solution. But it does prevent the system from exploding the economy in the coming decades.
WTF, over?
You can receive the SS benefits you paid into for 50+ years right around the same time you're expected to die? ;/
Jeebus, this thread has truly outlived its usefulness.
I'll re-open it later - right around the time that we can all opt out of paying into SS without the IRS biting us in the posterior.