Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 51 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 505

Thread: Get rid of social security?

  1. Default Get rid of social security?

    sorry but I'm an ignorant, I'm getting on this forum to learn more. Anyways I was wondering if getting rid of social security is good? or at least privatize it since it is taking so much out of our budget.

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    sorry but I'm an ignorant, I'm getting on this forum to learn more. Anyways I was wondering if getting rid of social security is good? or at least privatize it since it is taking so much out of our budget.
    Ignorant, if you come around again, odds are you won't, I'd be happy to offer a longer opinion. I am one that feels SS and ALL Health care belongs in the private sector or at least the choice which to trust. Briefly, SS was originally a choice, think three Texas Counties chose the private sector and are doing quite well, receiving considerably more in monthly benefits, while maintaining a decent surplus for future retirees.

    As for getting rid of either, it's the obligation that needs to be considered and unlikely any politician would advocate simply abolishing either program, while Congress could privatize the programs, much as they did with Fannie (without controls).

    There is still a little time left to do something, since many feel SS has years to go (I disagree), but HC is already in trouble, draining the Federal coffers.

  4. Default

    what do you mean odds are I won't come again? and it's not nice calling some one ignorant. I want your full response. I now truly believe that we need to somehow privatize it because we cannot keep up with the cost of paying for it. Sooner or later we're going to run out of fund to pay for it

  5. Default

    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).

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by protectionist View Post
    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).
    The SSI and Medicare trust funds were traded for T-Bills, to be paid by future income tax reveneu.

    As more of us baby boomers leave employment for retirement, payroll and income tax reveneu drops, while the demand for it increases.

    When the government can't borrow more money, your sea of grey will demand even more tax money. Then, the young will vote, giving politicians the support they need to delay. (*)(*)(*)(*) the young off enough, and they will vote to discontinue something they will never receive.


    SSI initially covered those over 65, when the average lifespan was 62, and when 62 was really old.

    Lifespan is now 75 (and lifespan for a 60 year old is 81), and 62 isn't old at all. I have no interest in retiring in 4 years, and no need to.

    SSI should return to the safety net it was intended to be, not a retirement plan. Delay the onset to 75 over the next 18 years. Every 2 years, delay onset by 1 year. Afterwords, adjust the onset date to the lifespan age.

    Currently SSI gets 45 years of contributions (20 - 65) and pays out for 16 years (65 - 81) - not even a 3:1 ratio. Delayed to 75, contributions increase to 55 years, and payout drops to 6 years - 9:1 ratio.

  7. Default

    Ignorant; I'm also new on this forum, but in 8 years of posting on forums, MAYBE one in ten of new posters I've replied to, have responded, there was nothing personal intended.

    I now truly believe that we need to somehow privatize it because we cannot keep up with the cost of paying for it. Sooner or later we're going to run out of fund to pay for it.
    Mathematically speaking, in a few years two people working will be supporting every person on SS, along with the cost of administrating the program. As said, I am also one that feels SS should be privatized, but not necessarily the other programs involved, IMO already too far gone (abused) to cover, namely "disability"... It's also my opinion that this could easily be worked out with private institutions, simply by granting US Bonds (which is where Government Money has been placed) to these institutions, all SS Receipts going to them via State Governments. Your idea?

    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).
    protectionist; Young man, it's been our generation that made the mess, for the most part KNOWING the Federal Government had not been investing our money, we allowed the mess to evolve, kicking the mess/problem down the road for our kids/grand kids is simply not going to work. Additionally, years older than you I contributed to SS from 1950 to 2002, all early years the maximum, as in many later years and as a self employed person most those years, BOTH the employee and employer parts. By 2009, I had received everything I put into the system, including interest, which was never earned by Government, yet they keep on sending me about $1300.00+ every month, that I never sent them. I accept it as welfare and like those on welfare, it's difficult to just say no.

    Well I VOTE TOO, and have never intentionally voted for an advocate for Social Justice or that the individual was not responsible for there own actions/problems. IMO it's those that have voted in this manner, that got us to this point and should be at least considering the solutions. Yes, there are millions of you "Baby Boomers" entering the SS/Medicare programs and might well vote to maintain the "Status Quo", even add NEW PROGRAMS or loosen qualifications, as in Obama, but they will be voting to end the way of life, you and I have or should have enjoyed.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Amused View Post
    The SSI and Medicare trust funds were traded for T-Bills, to be paid by future income tax reveneu.

    As more of us baby boomers leave employment for retirement, payroll and income tax reveneu drops, while the demand for it increases.

    When the government can't borrow more money, your sea of grey will demand even more tax money. Then, the young will vote, giving politicians the support they need to delay. (*)(*)(*)(*) the young off enough, and they will vote to discontinue something they will never receive.


    SSI initially covered those over 65, when the average lifespan was 62, and when 62 was really old.

    Lifespan is now 75 (and lifespan for a 60 year old is 81), and 62 isn't old at all. I have no interest in retiring in 4 years, and no need to.

    SSI should return to the safety net it was intended to be, not a retirement plan. Delay the onset to 75 over the next 18 years. Every 2 years, delay onset by 1 year. Afterwords, adjust the onset date to the lifespan age.

    Currently SSI gets 45 years of contributions (20 - 65) and pays out for 16 years (65 - 81) - not even a 3:1 ratio. Delayed to 75, contributions increase to 55 years, and payout drops to 6 years - 9:1 ratio.
    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.
    Last edited by protectionist; Sep 12 2011 at 10:50 AM.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    Ignorant; I'm also new on this forum, but in 8 years of posting on forums, MAYBE one in ten of new posters I've replied to, have responded, there was nothing personal intended.



    Mathematically speaking, in a few years two people working will be supporting every person on SS, along with the cost of administrating the program. As said, I am also one that feels SS should be privatized, but not necessarily the other programs involved, IMO already too far gone (abused) to cover, namely "disability"... It's also my opinion that this could easily be worked out with private institutions, simply by granting US Bonds (which is where Government Money has been placed) to these institutions, all SS Receipts going to them via State Governments. Your idea?



    protectionist; Young man, it's been our generation that made the mess, for the most part KNOWING the Federal Government had not been investing our money, we allowed the mess to evolve, kicking the mess/problem down the road for our kids/grand kids is simply not going to work. Additionally, years older than you I contributed to SS from 1950 to 2002, all early years the maximum, as in many later years and as a self employed person most those years, BOTH the employee and employer parts. By 2009, I had received everything I put into the system, including interest, which was never earned by Government, yet they keep on sending me about $1300.00+ every month, that I never sent them. I accept it as welfare and like those on welfare, it's difficult to just say no.

    Well I VOTE TOO, and have never intentionally voted for an advocate for Social Justice or that the individual was not responsible for there own actions/problems. IMO it's those that have voted in this manner, that got us to this point and should be at least considering the solutions. Yes, there are millions of you "Baby Boomers" entering the SS/Medicare programs and might well vote to maintain the "Status Quo", even add NEW PROGRAMS or loosen qualifications, as in Obama, but they will be voting to end the way of life, you and I have or should have enjoyed.
    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.

    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.

    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.

  10. #9

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by fmw; Sep 12 2011 at 11:41 AM.

  11. Default

    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.
     
     
     
    If every politician who participated in stealing the funds were held accountable prosecuted, and as all organized criminals had their assets including their retirement confiscated (since it was obtained under false criminal unethical pretence) there would be plenty of money to not only cover the costs but it would keep it going for another 500 years or so. F(*)(*)(*)ing criminals in Washington should pay for their theft, and misappropriation of funds to send a message and stop this criminal behavior from happening again.
    There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

    Not necessarily in that order.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 51 1234511 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks