Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

The subject concerned a change.

An insurance model for SS would suggest that Bill Gates is unlikely to have an event that requires an insurance payout.

Your concern for him getting an SS check is cute, though.

 

If left up to me, there would be no government Ponzi scheme, period. SS only passed congressional and SCOTUS approval based on its current aspects. The reason it has a cap on taxing income is because it has a cap on benefits.

What you are advocating is that it be converted to just another forced redistribution welfare program. Currently, unless you pay in for 10 years, you don't and should not qualify for its benefits. Gates paid in, he deserves his share.

I personally, and I expect Gates would do so as well, would gladly give up my benefits if it were privatized. At this point, when I do collect, every penny is going to my grandchildren. I refuse to take part in the generational financial molestation of my grandchildren.

 

No, now you are cheating.

Your plan needs to supply the same level of support.

We see this same cheat in radical changes to tax plans, too. We see people claim their tax plan will work when in actuality it depends on slicing the federal budget, for example.

 

So you have no problem using thuggery to further your interests. Got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Taxes are not an investment. You don't "deserve" a return.

 

Your concern about bettering the lot of the uneducated and unskilled is indeed admirable.

That is not the problem of insufficient spending in the economy because the middle class has been excluded from the nation's economic gains since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

Wow, you sure wrapped a lot into that!

I didn't say anything about the contribution side.

If it were privatized you would not have anything to "give up" - so your magnanimity is somewhat underwhelming.

The real problems with privatization were noted earlier, and have not been answered. You don't like the savings that come from moving toward an insurance model, but as yet you have no solution.

 

No, I do actually have a problem using thuggery to further my interests. I don't do it or advocate it.

We apparently have different definitions of thuggery.

When I referred to thuggery, I meant the use of violence to expropriate the property of other or to violate their body.

So please clarify for the audience: Are you seriously contending that opposing theft is thuggery?

 

I hadn't noticed this.

Here, you state that moving toward an insurance model would be acceptable.

Then later you bash me for being a wealth redistributing socialist for such outrage as to suggest the same!

You should give this some more thought.

 

You are objecting to the basic idea of taxes.

But, taxes are a requirement of civilization.

 

Why so? I don't recall creditors getting their full compensation out of a bankruptcy. I don't recall Bernie's Madoffs victims getting full compensation. At best, we can only spread the pain out over a few generations.

Privatization eliminates government misuse, increases the wealth of Americans and stops generational debt obligations.

 

Of course not. Are you serious contending that using lawful force to uphold the law is "thuggery"?

 

I think you need to think through this some...

 

You can try to divert the conversation with subjective junk but it's better to answer questions like this one; "What percentage of younger people today who have attained higher education, who possess skills, who can apply themselves to complex jobs, who place themselves in high employment areas, are having a problem with this economy?"

If you would ever admit to the difference in economic success when comparing those with or without higher education and skills you would know that for those who truly want more out of life...they must invest more in life! Whatever it takes to go from the 'pity-party jobs and income' to middle class and above is what needs to be done by each individual. It can't be any more simple than this! Like it or not we are rewarded in life when we accomplish something. If we choose to do little to nothing, yet demand everything that others with success have, it is the 'we' who has the problem to solve...not everyone else.

How do you define 'middle class'? The middle 60% of workers? Exclude 20% of the lowest and 20% of the highest earners? Maybe it's household income between $45K and $100K or $55K to $125K? Whatever middle-class workers earn within these ranges, they simply need to live within their means and take steps to increase their value in the workplace as they desire and they are doing just fine today. Most of these workers have options to start a business, have upward mobility, and will see wage increases based on inflation. If you wish to grow this segment you don't do it by forcing wage laws on industry but instead help industry become more globally competitive...

 

You can try to divert the conversation with subjective junk but it's better to answer questions like this one:

Why has the share of the nation's income for the bottom 90% of Americans dropped from 65% before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution to only 50% today?

And while I appreciate your earnest efforts to blame the the 90%, they didn't stop getting educations, applying themselves, possessing skills, investing in life, and living within their means in 1981.



No, something else happened that year.

And your pathetic attempts to blame middle class hard working Americans to protect to the policies and laws that keep them down and the richest getting more and more of the pie should be obvious to anyone who has read a couple of your posts.

 

Our government is not going into default.

 

Are you on drugs? Since when was SS an investment? Maybe you would be ok with your company confiscating your 401k and redistributing it.

 

Where am I wrong?

 

Our government is spending much more than it is taking in. It is 18 trillion in debt and growing. It has future obligations it cannot pay. It is surviving on debt, low interest rate and a weakening faith in the dollar.

You are a sheeple with both eyes closed hoping the S does not HTF. It will eventually. It is likely my grandchildren will be left holding the bag. You need to wake up.

 

You are advocating that the rich pay more and get nothing. The insurance model is not based on ones financial status, but ones age. You might as well expect my personal term death benefit go to the poor instead of my family.

 

No, I'm not on drugs. Are you? Since when did I say SS was an investment? Who said anything about 401ks? Where did I say I'm ok with my company confiscating my 401k?

- - - Updated - - -

Good points.

Write your GOP reps and tell them to compromise on a tax hike to get the debt down.

 

Taxes are not an investment. You pay them based on your income, not your benefit. SS is social insurance, not personal insurance. The rich get the advantage of an economic system that allows them to get fabulously rich. The quid pro quo is that they share some of that to fund the government, including its social insurance programs.

 

No, you are redefining the SS act. It was passed as an individually earned benefit, not a needs based benefit.

 

Education gets a good return. We are not going to succeed through cuts in education.

We are also not going to succeed through Kansas tax cut heaven. Trickle down has failed by all measure and every time.

 

By what metric does education get a good return?

Who said anything about tax cuts?

Are you so confused that you are spouting old liberal talking points?

We're talking about SS. How it is running deficits. How it is costing each generation more. How it has become most Americans primary income in old age, because most Americans have far less money for personal investing.

 

That isn't quite true. You don't know who is going to wind up so wealthy that SS is irre!evant. And, those who pay more into SS are eligible for larger payout, which is not unlike other insurance.

But, you are suggesting that insurees shouid get their insurance payments back regardless of whether they can claim a need. That certainly is not like car indurance.

And, you aren't looking at term life insurance correctly. That's really your family insuring you - they will either get you or the dollar amount of the policy. If you don't die in the period of the term, you do not get your money back. Also, the amount of the policy is usually based on your financial situation. You may have a high priced policy in order for your wife or kids to have time to figure out how to adapt your estate to life without you. It is somewhat like car insurance in that your wife gets her car or the value of her car - but not both. If her car policy expires, she does not get her money back. If her policy on you expires, she doesn't get her money back.