User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 12:18:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryThe Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 12:31:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @UtahShotgunner So here is what I've run into around that. "They" tried that when I signed my son up for public school. I hear all the time "you HAVE to have a social security number to do X". I say "prove it, by the way, here is the case law that disagrees with you. Please read the area's that are highlighted in yellow". At that point all of the sudden he doesn't need one anymore. You will hear you need one all the time. I heard the same thing around the passport application. What the law says around this is that if you already have one it's against the law not to put it on the application. It's pretty cleverly worded but it never says you HAVE to have one. If you read it you will just assume you do. I just left it blank and the state dept. wrote me a letter and said please respond with a signed statement that he has never had one and we will process it, which I did. He received it shortly after. In your case, I quickly looked at the laws in Utah around birth certificates and saw no mention of requiring a social security number. HERE is a link to the law in Utah. I'm pretty sure you were told that by the folks in the Hospital. They tried that with me too. It would be against the law for them to require that your son be signed up for a federal program for the state to issue him a birth certificate. I don't think that would hold up to a lawsuit. I'm not sure about your insurance company. There is a medicare reporting requirement that says my son has to have one but I have ignored it so far and he is 10 years old. He is covered under United Healthcare so it's not a thing for them at least. Let me give you a tip. No one ever actually reads the rules. They just repeat what they have heard as the gospel truth. ETA... I found a better LINK. There is no legal requirement in Utah for a child to have a social security number prior to being issued a birth certificate in the state of Utah. If you can find something different I'd love to see it. This isn't a personal challenge BTW. I'm just really interested in the laws around this stuff and if you see something different that contradicts what I believe I'd appreciate you letting me know. No worries. We may have been misled by the hospital and/or the insurance company. While I would have like to have given my daughter her own choice concerning a SS# her first open heart surgery was at three days old. The argument wasn't at the forefront of my mind at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 12:51:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My 10 year old son has never had a social security number. I'm not signing him up for that burden. It's on him if he wants it, its his choice. For every person that says "he has to have one"... Go away, you're wrong. He even has a passport all the while having no SS number. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 12:55:14 PM EDT
[#4]
"Myth 3: Social Security is going broke.
Fact: No doubt, Social Security faces funding challenges, but not immediately and not bankruptcy. Benefits are paid through payroll taxes collected from current workers and their employers, and the program currently operates with a surplus of about $2.8 trillion. Yet with a rising number of retirees and a drop in the birthrate, that's changing. The latest projection has the combined Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits running out of cash reserves by 2034. But that wouldn't leave Social Security bankrupt and unable to pay any benefits. Even if Congress does nothing to shore up the system by 2034, Social Security will be able to pay out 79 percent of promised benefits until 2090. The last time Social Security nearly depleted its reserves was in the early 1980s, when Congress shored up the program by gradually increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 and started to tax benefits based on income levels." https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 1:00:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you don't claim your kid on your taxes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:14:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5. Disability caused this! No. Just no. By law, the OASI Trust Fund and Disability Insurance Trust Fund are completely separate entities. [1] When the fraud ridden disability insurance trust fund runs low, funds are transferred from Social Security to cover the shortfall. XLS file |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:17:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know it's a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. It isn't a bank account where the bank is reinvesting the money. It is spent and becomes a line item in the file cabinet of IOUs. If the bank took the money and immediately gave it away then paid creditors based on new incoming it would be a Ponzi scheme, much like Social Security. Rather than earning interest it's just a future liability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know it's a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it's just a future liability. I said right in number two that we are (and have been) paying the interest on it. The bank account thing is a simple analogy so people understand that the money being spent doesn't affect the balance of the trust fund. I'm sorry if you read into it more than that; it's just a convenient way to explain to people that blame the inadequate trust fund on spending. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:18:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#7 Revisionism at its best. If SS disappeared tomorrow it will be up to the employer on what to do with the money he currently pays out of his pocket for all employees SS. Its a cost of doing business just like business insurance. It is not money taken out of employees wages. 2 different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:20:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quick! Mexicans! Amnesty! Right now!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The ratio of workers to beneficiaries reaches 2.2 by 2035, and is expected to decline slowly after that due to longevity increases. ETA: It's 2.8 now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:30:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Myth 3: Social Security is going broke. Fact: No doubt, Social Security faces funding challenges, but not immediately and not bankruptcy. Benefits are paid through payroll taxes collected from current workers and their employers, and the program currently operates with a surplus of about $2.8 trillion. Yet with a rising number of retirees and a drop in the birthrate, that's changing. The latest projection has the combined Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits running out of cash reserves by 2034. But that wouldn't leave Social Security bankrupt and unable to pay any benefits. Even if Congress does nothing to shore up the system by 2034, Social Security will be able to pay out 79 percent of promised benefits until 2090. The last time Social Security nearly depleted its reserves was in the early 1980s, when Congress shored up the program by gradually increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 and started to tax benefits based on income levels." https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html I was going to @ you because you're in all of these threads anyway.
I did include that, it's in number 4. Technically both of our figures are incorrect. The 79% is for a theoretical combined operation. SS would get 77% of anticipated benefits. Again in the same Trustees Report we can see them comparing their estimates to what actually happened and they are consistently rose-tinted. However, look at the polls in number ten - even Republicans are generally opposed to voting for a candidate that would allow "cuts" (and it isn't really a cut if the trust fund runs out due to not having enough money and payroll taxes aren't reduced but meh). But most people don't know that. They believe the "they spent our money, that's why the trust fund is low!" myth and will gladly raise payroll taxes to "get theirs." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:38:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Myth 3: Social Security is going broke. Fact: No doubt, Social Security faces funding challenges, but not immediately and not bankruptcy. Benefits are paid through payroll taxes collected from current workers and their employers, and the program currently operates with a surplus of about $2.8 trillion. Yet with a rising number of retirees and a drop in the birthrate, that's changing. The latest projection has the combined Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits running out of cash reserves by 2034. But that wouldn't leave Social Security bankrupt and unable to pay any benefits. Even if Congress does nothing to shore up the system by 2034, Social Security will be able to pay out 79 percent of promised benefits until 2090. The last time Social Security nearly depleted its reserves was in the early 1980s, when Congress shored up the program by gradually increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 and started to tax benefits based on income levels." https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:56:28 PM EDT
[#12]
One of the fixes ,ive read, was to cut COLA by 1%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 2:58:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know it’s a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. It isn’t a bank account where the bank is reinvesting the money. It is spent and becomes a line item in the file cabinet of IOUs. If the bank took the money and immediately gave it away then paid creditors based on new incoming it would be a Ponzi scheme, much like Social Security. Rather than earning interest it’s just a future liability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know it’s a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it’s just a future liability. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:03:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It absolutely is being invested and earning interest in terms of absolute fact. As far as the SSA is concerned, the bonds they buy and put on their balance sheet are assets, not liabilities. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know it’s a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it’s just a future liability. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. And yes, the SSA has a big stack of IOUs that the government promised to pay itself. But it's no different than me saying that I've invested and I'm earning interest because I promise to pay myself 10% more in the future for my dinner I buy tonight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:04:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, my description isn't bullshit. I said right in number two that we are (and have been) paying the interest on it. The bank account thing is a simple analogy so people understand that the money being spent doesn't affect the balance of the trust fund. I'm sorry if you read into it more than that; it's just a convenient way to explain to people that blame the inadequate trust fund on spending. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know it's a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it's just a future liability. I said right in number two that we are (and have been) paying the interest on it. The bank account thing is a simple analogy so people understand that the money being spent doesn't affect the balance of the trust fund. I'm sorry if you read into it more than that; it's just a convenient way to explain to people that blame the inadequate trust fund on spending. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:05:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It used to be they taxed us to get it. The last decade they have just been printing it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: They should've saved for retirement. 
Where does the government get it’s money again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:13:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hahah  ,,,have you ever met the average American?Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Would a smart person take what they would have paid into social security and medicare and put 2/3 into a vangard fund and 1/3 (or less) into a disability insurance plan? Absolutely. ,,,have you ever met the average American?People don't plan, they don't save, and they go after whatever is right in front of them. I have two people right off the top of my head who are perpetually in financial distress to the point that they sound depressed from time to time bordering suicidal. One is a (I'm not going to lie, model grade hot) single mom who will post about not being able to afford rent in one post and then pictures from some Vegas or Island getaway a month or two later. The other is a divorced dad with two kids who lives in a rented dump, makes decent money, but is constantly battling with bills and an ex-wife yet any time his pocket fills up even a little he's out buying toys. Both really nice people who I like a lot but there is just no way that they are going to save money and get their lives together to the point that they could trade in their workboots / thotboots at 65 and live off the fruits of their labor. It's just not happening. They are fucked in the absence of social security. Our society is no longer built around children caring for their elders. Government has filled that void and changing course on that model is nearly impossible at least to the point that voters wouldn't tolerate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:16:40 PM EDT
[#18]
If I were able to keep the amount of money taken out of my check towards "Social Security" for the 30 or 40 years I will end up working, combined with what I contribute privately, my children and their children would be very very well off. And cant he having that, can we?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:19:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How are they earning interest when it's just a promise to pay themselves more in the future? And yes, the SSA has a big stack of IOUs that the government promised to pay itself. But it's no different than me saying that I've invested and I'm earning interest because I promise to pay myself 10% more in the future for my dinner I buy tonight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know it’s a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it’s just a future liability. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. And yes, the SSA has a big stack of IOUs that the government promised to pay itself. But it's no different than me saying that I've invested and I'm earning interest because I promise to pay myself 10% more in the future for my dinner I buy tonight. It helps when you understand that our government is comprised of numerous entities and is not one solid monolithic mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:21:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the fixes ,ive read, was to cut COLA by 1%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:25:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying that intragovernmental debt doesn't be like it do but as a matter of fact it absolutely is the case that SSA surplus funds are invested in government bonds which are paying interested. You can interpret the absurdity of that arrangement any way you want, but the arrangement itself is a matter of fact and not interpretation. It helps when you understand that our government is comprised of numerous entities and is not one solid monolithic mass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know it’s a good list when item number one is complete bullshit. Think of the Trust Fund as a bank account. When you deposit money into your account, it doesn't matter if the bank spends that money or not, so long as they credit your account and pay you back. Similarly, when that money is spent from the General Fund, it does not affect the balance of the Trust Fund. It does, however, lead to intragovernmental debt because that amount will have to be paid back. Which leads us to myth two: Rather than earning interest it’s just a future liability. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. And yes, the SSA has a big stack of IOUs that the government promised to pay itself. But it's no different than me saying that I've invested and I'm earning interest because I promise to pay myself 10% more in the future for my dinner I buy tonight. It helps when you understand that our government is comprised of numerous entities and is not one solid monolithic mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 3:50:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People have convinced themselves that voters will never turn against SS. Those people should remember that the biggest champions of the program won't be voting anymore, in great numbers, in another 20 years.. so 'never' may be an overestimation. Maybe not, maybe as other generations approach retirement age they'll become it's new champions...but I don't think anyone loves that program quite like the boomers. They made it a political third rail. Like I said, that won't last long... Not unless someone finds the cure for death. Also, payments will, as noted, never drop to zero unless the pay deductions are eliminated. At some point - payments will drop by a percentage and the system will pay out pretty much exactly what it takes in. What is required to stabilize SS is a reduction in the payments relative to the intake. For that to happen you need to either increase intake (increase the SS tax on workers) and/or decrease payments, either through delaying retirement/payment age (the most reasonable way, based on extended lifespans), or through hoping for the next wave of Spanish Influenza to kill off all the recipients... Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 4:19:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@tango1978 I was going to @ you because you're in all of these threads anyway.
I did include that, it's in number 4. Technically both of our figures are incorrect. The 79% is for a theoretical combined operation. SS would get 77% of anticipated benefits. Again in the same Trustees Report we can see them comparing their estimates to what actually happened and they are consistently rose-tinted. However, look at the polls in number ten - even Republicans are generally opposed to voting for a candidate that would allow "cuts" (and it isn't really a cut if the trust fund runs out due to not having enough money and payroll taxes aren't reduced but meh). But most people don't know that. They believe the "they spent our money, that's why the trust fund is low!" myth and will gladly raise payroll taxes to "get theirs." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Myth 3: Social Security is going broke. Fact: No doubt, Social Security faces funding challenges, but not immediately and not bankruptcy. Benefits are paid through payroll taxes collected from current workers and their employers, and the program currently operates with a surplus of about $2.8 trillion. Yet with a rising number of retirees and a drop in the birthrate, that's changing. The latest projection has the combined Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits running out of cash reserves by 2034. But that wouldn't leave Social Security bankrupt and unable to pay any benefits. Even if Congress does nothing to shore up the system by 2034, Social Security will be able to pay out 79 percent of promised benefits until 2090. The last time Social Security nearly depleted its reserves was in the early 1980s, when Congress shored up the program by gradually increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 and started to tax benefits based on income levels." https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html I was going to @ you because you're in all of these threads anyway.
I did include that, it's in number 4. Technically both of our figures are incorrect. The 79% is for a theoretical combined operation. SS would get 77% of anticipated benefits. Again in the same Trustees Report we can see them comparing their estimates to what actually happened and they are consistently rose-tinted. However, look at the polls in number ten - even Republicans are generally opposed to voting for a candidate that would allow "cuts" (and it isn't really a cut if the trust fund runs out due to not having enough money and payroll taxes aren't reduced but meh). But most people don't know that. They believe the "they spent our money, that's why the trust fund is low!" myth and will gladly raise payroll taxes to "get theirs."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 4:36:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Boomers won’t let their retirement plan go.
Neither will the next generations to reach retirement age. Even in this thread, “muh checks,” it’s embarrassing. Pick a hard date cutoff and those are the last people to receive benefits. Just don’t be surprised when those outside the cutoff vote for death camps and fema trains for the boomers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 4:52:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Lady at my church is 70, just retired for a second time. She lives 100% off social security. Her house is paid off, but she has no other retirement savings, and an old crappy car.
She said it was hard living every month waiting for that Gov't check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 5:02:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will begin to draw SS in approx. 18 months. All of the details provided here are nice but what's paramount is that you young guys keep working and paying into it so I can get mine.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 5:07:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the "fuck you so I can get mine" fuel that keeps the apparatchik in motion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will begin to draw SS in approx. 18 months. All of the details provided here are nice but what's paramount is that you young guys keep working and paying into it so I can get mine. I paid into the system by no choice of my own, why wouldnt i want it ? I paid for the ppl on it now and the next generation will pay for mine, its a perpetual system that you cant jus stop. Might as well embrace it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 5:43:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It absolutely is being invested and earning interest in terms of absolute fact. As far as the SSA is concerned, the bonds they buy and put on their balance sheet are assets, not liabilities. The nuance that SSA surpluses are being invested in government debt rather than private debt is not lost on me though. You may be the one paying it as a tax payer, but any way you want to slice it, those funds are earning interest. Nothing that you quoted as incorrect is actually incorrect. It is exactly how it is set up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 5:59:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much of that interest is paid with borrowed money?
That's why I said it's intragovernmental debt. They're literally just shifting balances around. That doesn't change the fact that the trust fund balance - which isn't enough to keep current payments going at current tax rates - is unaffected by the government spending that money immediately and ironically better off because we've already paid over $1T in interest on it alone. Which goes back into the Trust Fund, which earns more interest due... Rinse, repeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 8:15:36 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 8:55:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you don't claim your kid on your taxes? Cost me between 2 and 3k a year to give him the choice. Still think it's worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:01:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good for you. I have interesting question, when he gets his first job, how will that work so they dont take SS out of his check ? Im sure employers gonna be pita about it. What about military service if he chooses that route? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:02:46 PM EDT
[#33]
The biggest myth about social security is that it's the big problem when in fact it's medicare that is the true elephant in the room. Modest changes to social security entitlement like increasing the age at which you can first draw, the date at which you reach full retirement age, the amount of wage income subject to FICA, etc... easy to swallow solutions put social security back on track solvency. Medicare, on the other hand, is going to require very real and very substantive reductions in benefits in order to maintain solvency.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:03:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you, and others that are anti-SS are goin to decline and fore go the SS when eligible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will begin to draw SS in approx. 18 months. All of the details provided here are nice but what's paramount is that you young guys keep working and paying into it so I can get mine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:07:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Eitek1 No worries. We may have been misled by the hospital and/or the insurance company. While I would have like to have given my daughter her own choice concerning a SS# her first open heart surgery was at three days old. The argument wasn't at the forefront of my mind at the time. I totally get it. I had the luxury of time on my side. I hope everything has worked out for you and your family. I pray that you are blessed in all you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:08:58 PM EDT
[#36]
OP, do you somehow feel better about this now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:14:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP, do you somehow feel better about this now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:19:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably won't have to even make that decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:26:52 PM EDT
[#39]
I'm not so far from collecting Social Security, so I'll quote Henry Hill from Goodfellas here:
"Fuck you, pay me." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:31:17 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People have convinced themselves that voters will never turn against SS. Those people should remember that the biggest champions of the program won't be voting anymore, in great numbers, in another 20 years.. so 'never' may be an overestimation. Maybe not, maybe as other generations approach retirement age they'll become it's new champions...but I don't think anyone loves that program quite like the boomers. They made it a political third rail. Like I said, that won't last long... Not unless someone finds the cure for death. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:38:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good post. All good information. The biggest myth is that it matters. As a society, we will never be willing to step over starving dying old people in the street (see India for reference). That means we will always have social security, welfare or a combination of the two. Whether they take or out of your check and call it social security or take it out of your check and call it the dole is completely irrelevant. It will be taken regardless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:42:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've fallen for the myth that SS saves us from dying old people in the street. Good job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good post. All good information. The biggest myth is that it matters. As a society, we will never be willing to step over starving dying old people in the street (see India for reference). That means we will always have social security, welfare or a combination of the two. Whether they take or out of your check and call it social security or take it out of your check and call it the dole is completely irrelevant. It will be taken regardless. But it will probably pay for my beer and cigars. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 9:54:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you, and others that are anti-SS are goin to decline and fore go the SS when eligible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you, and others that are anti-SS are goin to decline and fore go the SS when eligible? Quoted:
I paid into the system by no choice of my own, why wouldnt i want it ? I paid for the ppl on it now and the next generation will pay for mine, its a perpetual system that you cant jus stop. Might as well embrace it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - nobody paid into anything. The revenues from those currently paying taxes are used to make payments to those receiving "benefits". Any surplus funds would indeed need to be set aside and entrusted for future care, as deviations in revenue versus payouts means that it can (and likely will) reverse in time (meaning that there are insufficient taxes to pay their supposed benefits). And here's the thing - they don't even try to hide it. If you look up official responses on "how is SS not a Ponzi scheme," they never deny the actual working of the system - rather, they say that it's not a Ponzi scheme because (1) participation is compulsory and (2) they aren't being deceptive in its function. As if those two factors somehow make the same system all better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 10:39:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No kidding. I've planned better than that. But it will probably pay for my beer and cigars. Beer & cigars will be verboten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 10:42:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've fallen for the myth that SS saves us from dying old people in the street. Good job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good post. All good information. The biggest myth is that it matters. As a society, we will never be willing to step over starving dying old people in the street (see India for reference). That means we will always have social security, welfare or a combination of the two. Whether they take or out of your check and call it social security or take it out of your check and call it the dole is completely irrelevant. It will be taken regardless. You’ll have to explain that one. What is this “myth”? As I mentioned, it doesn’t matter what they call it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 10:44:52 PM EDT
[#46]
I am 47 years old. Born 1972, classic GenX attitude of "I'll handle shit myself".
I have built my entire retirement on there being 'no Social Security for me and my wife'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 10:53:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People have convinced themselves that voters will never turn against SS. Those people should remember that the biggest champions of the program won't be voting anymore, in great numbers, in another 20 years.. so 'never' may be an overestimation. Maybe not, maybe as other generations approach retirement age they'll become it's new champions...but I don't think anyone loves that program quite like the boomers. They made it a political third rail. Like I said, that won't last long... Not unless someone finds the cure for death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2019 10:55:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Not a boomer problem. It was caused by the "greatest generation".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 5:37:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the fixes ,ive read, was to cut COLA by 1%. Also, it is welfare for old people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 5:48:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have long held the belief they understate the actual inflation rate by a small amount and have been doing so since at least the 80's. .3-.5 is easy enough for the numbers to look plausible, but over time it adds up. Also, it is welfare for old people. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
