Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

Kudos to those 1.5 million families who contributed a whopping 24% of the GDP. Talk about shouldering the load...

 

So, if not driven by helping out old folks, give us the real reason. If you are a right winger, you might respond with it was done to keep the dems in power. Or to turn america into a communist state. Something along those lines. So pitch it! ha ha

 

To address destitution among the elderly was exactly the reason SS was created. At the time, the elderly as a group had the highest poverty rate. As more and more people were living into old age, society was faced with the problem of larger and large number of destitute old folks.

In addressing that point, SS was fabulously successful. The elderly now have the lowest poverty rate. Possibly too successful, it could be argued.

 

Since they're getting about 22% of the income, its a wonderful deal for them.

 

22? I thought your graphic said 24. But nevertheless, that's a massive contribution to GDP for such a small number of families.

 

You're confused. That is the % of gross national income they get. Not what they "contribute."

 

sure, I'll refigure using pv of future benefits . it will not make a huge impact once I calculate pv of future contributions. additionally, the payment is 12.4% not 6.2%. actual million dollar coverage of life insurance is about 250 per month. disability is a different program altogether.

 

nope, I think it was done to maintain a clear divide between rich and poor.

 

Gross national income is the sum of all incomes. Each of our incomes contributes to the sum. 22% if a huge contribution.

 

The employee pays 6.2%. The employer pays 6.2%. You're statement is making an assumption that if SS were eliminated, employers would pay all (or any) of that extra money to employees, as opposed to putting it into their pockets. Dubious proposition, to say the least.

Life insurance cost depends on your health and age.

Disability benefits are included in your SS benefits.

 

Can't buy into that. That sounds like a conspiracy theory. ha ha

 

You're confusing income, i.e. what you get, with what you contribute.

The Walmart family heirs get billions of dollars each year (well maybe not how, haven't checked recently) but contribute very little.

 

How dare they accept the money that people voluntarily give them!? And it's amazing how much people voluntarily give them.

 

the hell you're talkin' 'bout?

 

Uh ... Ok.

 

No that is just liabilty to cover other people if I do something stupid. And only if I license the auto so I can take it on a public street. Or I can post a bond and self insure. So as I do with my auto insurance and my house insurance I self insure and have big deductibles, that way I can use my money on other things like investing it and keeping my emergency fund fully funded to take care of those minor matters. I would like to do the same with my SS insurance. Let me contribute less to the "trust fund" and get a smaller benefit but take that money and put it index funds and managed funds. I have been in a fund for about 15 years that as I get older it takes care of divesting from aggressive to moderate funds to more conservative funds and out of the markets altogether. You don't even have to do it yourself.

 

So you don't like the fact that people voluntarily give the Walton's more money than you think they ought to. How are you going to convince them to stop doing so?

 

Prove it. And in your proof show the calculations for investment to provide the same benefit SS gives you for a guaranteed lifetime pension, disability insurance, and life insurance.

It's like any other insurance. You pay money in to provide benefits you get if certain conditions occur.

 

Yes look how bad it was TWO YEARS after the Democrats took back power. They totally screwed it up staring in 2007 a YEAR BEFORE the recession even began and by 2009 look at the results.

Thanks for posting it. Now defend their failures.

 

I didn't say one thing or the other. It just has little to do with the fact that you've confused what people get with what they contribute.

 

Too bad it was because of the housing bubble the grew to absurd levels and started crashing during the time Republicans controlled the Congress and administration.



The Democrats didn't screw up anything in 2007. The bubble was already starting to implode.

 

The Democrats didn't screw up anything in 2007. The bubble was already starting to implode.

 

So which is it? Do you think that people voluntarily gave the Waltons A) too much money, B) not enough money, or 3) the right amount of money?

 

I didn't say anything about it. What is the relevance to the issue?

I just demonstrated that what they got was not same as what they contributed.

The 22 or 24% of gross income going to just 1% of the population is what they got, not what they contributed.

 

I am self employed and pay the maximum. The math is easy from there. If a private company ran things like SS, they would be in prison.

I hope you don't really believe that hordes of homeless old people and SS are the only two options we can come up with . We can do so much better for all.