Raising Social Security Benefits

If you lower the age even lower than 62, you'll just attract that many more slackers and welfare-hunters. There are already WAY too many of them sucking off of Social Security "disability" scams as it is!

Also, consider, the 'young' are welcome to compete with old people for jobs. And, if/when the 'young' are as good at their work as the older people are, they'll get those jobs. Unfortunately, too many of the 'young' are more interested in farting around with their phones, wasting their lives on social media, hanging out at their parents' houses, getting fugged-up on drugs, and generally being as worthless as possible. Older people can be worthless, too -- but the ones that live to BE that old have usually learned to practice better habits in life.







search recall marker

 

Hmmm, it seems to me, you vote for a party that would like to end SS.
And you want to increase the ability of SS?

Is that what it means when people say, some people vote against their best interests?

 

Not at all, Dairy. I have frequently levelled heavy criticism at fellow right-wingers like "Crusader Rick" Santorum and Chris Christie for sending up 'trial-balloons' to diminish or limit Social Security payouts for those who have EARNED them! Moreover, I quit the Republican Party in 2017 because there were too many self-serving, gutless RINO's in it, and today there still are.

Too many on the Right think of Social Security and Medicare as welfare and that is simply NOT TRUE. The government makes participation in both these programs MANDATORY, and a person can be charged with crimes and go to prison for failing to comply with the terms of all. One must play by the very long-established rules -- every single one of them!

But, it's amazing -- not even a lot of left-wing Liberals realize that in order to qualify for Medicare, you must work 40 'quarters' (consisting of three months for each quarter), and that equates to ten full years, in addition to achieving the age of 65. But, most left-wing Liberals think that they should just be given everything by the government in various kinds of welfare and 'subsidies', and that's why the Democrat Party even exists.







search recall marker

 

And Social Security started almost 50 years before that. Thanks for playing. Click here

 

First off, FICA is a tax, not an investment or any kind of contract; for that tax you get whatever the SSA determines you should get. Back in FDR's day a dozen or more workers FICA funded pensions for retirees - who, on average lived 10-15years. Today ratio of workers to recipients in 3 to 1 or less, and retirees are living well into their seventies or beyond. The SSA says it's going to have to reduce benefits in the future because FICA income won't cover current benefit level. If that's not a Ponzi scheme I don't know what is.

 

I am with you on the 1st part of your post.


But then the 2nd 1/2 is just partisan talking points. A bit disappointing.

 

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Paul Simon, "The Boxer"

Social Security was always intended to be an EARNED benefit for workers who were forced by law to pay into the system all their working lives.







search recall marker

 

Yes
And was increased a lot especially thru the 50s-70s
Then hasn't increased since 1990. 32 yrs without a change


https://www.milefoot.com/math/businessmath/taxes/fica.htm

 

So, they raise the government input and increase medicare deductions. That's what happened last time.

 

I am starting a small side business.

 

And . . .? Taking more from today's workers to keep retirees happy? And when today's workers retire . . .what then?

 

Taking SS at 62 means lower benefit. Full retirement in 67; max benefit is 70

 

Quite different to other models, in that case.

 

The younger will always have access to the first pick of jobs. And many people over 65 need to work.

 

Duh, today's retirees are good.
It's those working now that are in need to have it shored up. It's today's workers to pay for having SS available when they retire.
If the economy grows, we keep getting more workers to help pay into SS.

 

I only know that it's paid into until a certain time and then it begins to pay out and that is like an annuity but it's not an annuity, nor welfare either.

 

That's definitely different.

I suspect the standard in most Western democracies is that it's general welfare. Federal, and via tax dollars.

 

Well duh yourself. WTF did you think I was talking about?

Nope. As I said above FICA is a TAX not a deposit. Today's payments go to today's retirees.

And more unfunded obligations down the line.

 

Definitely different from an annuity how?

 

All we have to do is increase the obligations slightly. Most can be taken from the mega billionaires and they'll never miss it.

Though in actual fact the whole thing is a silly fiction to satisfy the paleocons who want to turn people into dog food at 65. We should just give everyone a GAI like Andrew Yang proposes, though what he wants isn't nearly enough.

 

Tried that several times. Didn't work. Billionaires don't receive salaries on which to assess FICA, BTW.

Nonsense.

 

Taking more from today's workers to keep retirees happy.

Duh.
It's what you posted.
Taking more from today's workers is making sure they have funds still there when they retire.
As I said, today's retirees are set.

 

I think you misunderstood [/quote]

Huh?

 

What did I misunderstand about this post of yours?

 

What's nonsense are these apparent ideas conservatives have that the financial affairs of nations are like households. Bull hockey,
Should the government stop selling Savings Bonds?