Thread: Get rid of social security?

I don't see how voting to maintain the status quo equals ending the way of life you and I have or should have enjoyed. Sounds like a contradiction there, but I'll let you slide, since you called me "young man", which was pretty cool.

protectionist; As SS/Medicare/Prescription drugs/Welfare increase in cost they are and will continue to take more revenues to cover, at some point taking more and more from the countries wealth as taxes by necessity, increase. While whatever standard of living you enjoyed, that same inflation adjusted income will not provide an equal one in the future.

My Dad, while living in a retirement community, always called folks younger than him, youngsters, since your somewhat younger than myself, "young man" seems appropriate.

If you are one of those people lucky enough to have savings, and don't need the $1300/month you're getting (my SS is only $781), well then, lucky you ! Maybe you're not astute enough to perceive that having savings in your older years isn't all a matter of money skills, and that luck does play a part, as does keeping moneymaking within the borders of good morality. I'm not suggesting you haven't, but lots of people haven't, and generally, it's easy to make a lot of money if one doesn't care how he obtains it.

I'm not sure how SS payments are figured, but it has something to do with contributions and quarters (3 month periods) worked, then reduced by divorce obligations (10 years of marriage) or other obligations, having a spouse or dependent children that can qualify for survivors benefits. I didn't miss many quarters, none after age 17 and have no future obligations to consider, 2 X wives that had passed on and all my 7 kids have long SS records of their own. By traditional standards, my savings are little more than the average home investment today, but I have a very low threshold for living comfortably, as a recluse loner.

In any case, lots of people get older and they DO NEED that Social Security, and it's not their fault that they do, so lay off.

Don't you think letting people know, what is or going to be available might not be there when they retire or become disabled, or doing something, is more advisable than doing nothing "the status quo"?

I read pretty good quote the other day that sums it up for me. Social Security isn't an entitlement. It is a paid service that was stolen from us by Congress.

fmw; Then wouldn't privatizing it, which has a back up system, be better than Government.

Pay back what was stolen and or give everybody their money back and then by all means stop it, but it was paid into with the promise it would be there. It was retirement insurance that was illegally looted.

　
Buck; To be fare they say, the money was replaced with Federal Bonds, apparently no interest, 50 year bonds, but that's what some suggest. Whatever the figure for future obligations or the years covered, with real bonds issued to a corporate structure, future obligations could be covered without many problems, IMO...

Originally Posted by protectionist

I don't get SSI, so I don't think too much about it, but those who need it should get it, and not be shorted in any way. In fact, their benefit amounts should be increased, as should the standard Social Security like I get, which is too little.

Nobody is doing anything wrong to the young people today. When we were young, we paid into Social Security and our older generation received it. Today's young people aren't doing anything we didn't do. There's plenty of money in America for the young to get their share of Social Security when they get older. Last I heard, it is solvent to 2038, and could be longer and at higher rates, if we simply restored the top bracket taxation we've had over the past 94 years, before the last 30 years of UNDERtaxation. For most of that 94 years, top bracket taxes were never less than 70%, and were as high as 94%. There's no reason for the abnormally low rtes we have today, and all the reason in the world for restoration to the normal rates.

As for the age the younger people get the benefit, keep it where it is.

SSI pays out more than it collects, per person, that is why the trust fund is shrinking.

There is no cash in a lock box. The SSI collected today doesn't pay today's obligations. To get that, they tap the trust fund, which is in T-Bill's, the principle and interest paid in tax dollars (actually with borrowed money).

Contributions have to be increased significantly for the baby boomers, money the youth will not get.

As far as higher tax rates on the rich and all that claptrap - that ship has sailed, you got what you got. Even the Democrats aren't increasing taxes, Pelosi, and many Democrat, voted in support continuing the Bush tax cut on the rich. They know who gives them contributions.

Tax rates low, SSI & Medicare high, 40% of every dollar borrowed - something has to give. With less than 1/3 of the voters over 65, I doubt it will be tax rates.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

SSI pays out more than it collects, per person, that is why the trust fund is shrinking.

There is no cash in a lock box. .

There is no trust fund. No lock box. All that tax money has been spent by congress. That is why SS is in trouble.

All that tax money has been spent by congress.

Stolen, misappropriated, embezzled for other projects it was not intended for.


The difference between this and any other organized criminal scam is no one will be held accountable or forced to pay it back or for the damaged sustained by way of restitution.

Originally Posted by jackson33

fmw; Then wouldn't privatizing it, which has a back up system, be better than Government.

...

Absolutely. Privatizing almost everything the government does would be an improvement. I was just expressing some indingation at the Congress for messing up what could have been a good program.

Originally Posted by protectionist

I've been paying into Social Security for 49 years. Now at 65 years of age I am receiving it, and especially with the bad economy it is a necessity for me (and lots of other seniors).
Anybody who would eliminate it or privatize it (risk of elimination), fair warning to you. You will be tarred and feathered and set out to sea on a small raft. When the hot sun starts to burn the tar all over you, you'll jump in the water only to be consumed by sharks.
Don't even think about it.

PS - young people don't vote much (too busy with sex & drugs). Old people vote in droves. Last time I voted, among about 40 people in the voting hall, I think I was the youngest one there (I'm 65).

AARP is one of the largest advocates for Social Security and they have spread fear amoung their members. No one to my knowledge has proposed "ending" Social Security for anyone that is receiving it or is going to receive it in the next couple of decades.

What has been acknowledge by virtually everyone is that Social Security is financially unsound and cannot sustain the current benefits. What is basically a government welfare program that averages poverty level benefits has already seen benefits reduced for future recipients. Full retirement ages have been raised and COLA increases have either been stopped or reduced for the future.

What is being proposed by some is the adoption of a plan similar to the Galveston Plan for new entrants into the workforce. The Galveston Plan, which was initiated in the early 1980's when States were allowed to create their own Social Security plans and it typically provides 50% or more in retirement benefits than conventional Social Security.

Basically this would be an option for "new enrollees" in Social Security and would not affect current enrollees. We really should question why anyone would be opposed to the future generations having a "Social Security" plan that pays 150% or more than the current Social Security plan that only averages about $13K/yr for retirees.

Why would anyone oppose this option?

Originally Posted by Not Amused

The SSI and Medicare trust funds were traded for T-Bills, to be paid by future income tax reveneu..

Traded? You mean invested. Do you really expect that the SS fund should hold $3T in cash or pork bellies.

Now, what's the safest investment on the planet? T-bills.

It's bizarre how conservatives find investing the fund in the safest investment on the planet a bad thing.

Originally Posted by fmw

There is no trust fund. No lock box. All that tax money has been spent by congress. That is why SS is in trouble.

Nonsense. The SS trust fund is the owner of $3T or so T-bills. It's the most solvent, safest fund on the planet. What is this weird Tea Party meme? It's pure weirdness.

Originally Posted by fmw

I think Social Security is pretty good program. The problem is that the taxes collected for it aren't put in a trust fund and never have been. They are simply spent by Congress. We can't afford SS because the money has been spent on other things. It isn't that the program is bad or unaffordable. The problem is that it has been managed incompetently by the Congress. If it had been done right in the first place, and if members of congress would not have developed their lust for spending, it would never have become a problem

I read pretty good quote the other day that sums it up for me. Social Security isn't an entitlement. It is a paid service that was stolen from us by Congress.

Jesus man. SS, like any fund, has to invest its cash. Do you really want SS to hold $3T in cash, without obtaining interest.

Soooooo, where should the trust fund invest this huge amount of cash? Pork bellies? Iridium futures? That would be stupid. By law SS can invest only in T-bills, which it does? What is wrong with that? They are the safest investment on the planet.

The Anti-SS meme is truly bizarre.

Originally Posted by Landru Guide Us

Nonsense. The SS trust fund is the owner of $3T or so T-bills. It's the most solvent, safest fund on the planet. What is this weird Tea Party meme? It's pure weirdness.

then why was President Obama threatening not send out SS checks ? He either told a bold face lie when he said that or a bold face lie was told when he said SS was solvent??