True of course I'm going to be in that bracket probably come July.
Printable View
True of course I'm going to be in that bracket probably come July.
Right. Because the people out there that will actually need Social Security (as a result of their poorly planned and fiscally negligent lives) actually have the financial prowess to invest wisely during their more than likely low wage earning years.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
Some people just don't get it.
Social Security isn't so much a welfare program as it is a program to protect the current system that we have. That might sound alike a cop-out, and it would be if it was coming from the liberal left... which isn't me.
Social Security is in place to keep the lower class complacent in their retirement years. It is there to keep people who didn't do any life planning continually living in at least a somewhat livable state in their retirement years. Seniors in a 'comfortable state' won't call on their progeny (who are more than likely similar in their life outlook and financial planning) to DO something for them. And when I say 'do something', it could be voting for a socialist or physically robbing their immediate neighbor. Social Security is a penance that keeps some of our weakest from being raised as champions for a change in how wealth is distributed in this country.
The last thing any of us want is for Social Security to go away tomorrow. You might believe that it is a wellfare program, and it very well might be. But the country you live in would become the country you definitely do not want to live in if it was abolished tomorrow.
I don't make a fortune, but I could give 2 flying shits about the amount I pay into social security. I invest far more on my own. Social Security will be gravy for me. If you're in a position that the amount Social Security deducts from your wages is making or breaking you, you just might be doing something wrong. And you will probably need Social Security when your retirement age comes. And despite how much any of us may hate it now, there isn't one among us who won't cash that check.
I agree that it sounds better on paper to allow people to do what they want with their own wages. And if everyone was like me or you, I would be on board for it. But there is a vast amount of our country's population that will spend every penny they earn during their 'working' years and demand to be taken care of in their later years when they can no longer work and they have absolutely nothing.
I am alright with Social Security. The amount of financial harm it does to me is negligible when compared to the harm the impoverished masses could do to me physically or in the ballot box.
There are far greater 'evils' to focus the conservative eye on than Social Security.
I don't do a Roth because I don't trust the government to NOT tax them later., especially as Obama's $40T overspend comes due and the Dems want to keep giving stuff to the FSA. I'll take my tax deductions NOW thank you very much. Mark my words ... the Dems are going to propose taxing Roths in the next 5-10 years because it's unfair for you to collect "all that money" without taxes (nevermind the fact you already paid tax on it, so did the corporations that pay out dividends to their shareholders) when there are hungry children and transgenders needing operations and Georgetown Law School students who have to buy their own prophylactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazin
That's more than a liberal left cop-out, that is the definition of socialism: Individuals can't handle freedom, so the state must take care of them by mandating their investments, healthcare, etc., even if it is against their will. Yes, it provides some practical pleasantries, (just like having a college-educated society, right?) but the fact that it isn't voluntary makes it nothing short of tyranny.
Fun fact: Members of the Old Order Amish church do not pay into, nor collect, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Apparently Section 310 of the medicare code states that an individual may apply for exemption from social security if he/she is a part of a religious body that conscientiously objects and makes "reasonable provisions" to care for their own elderly. Best argument I've ever seen for becoming Amish. ;)
[LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I'm even more pessimistic.
Not the right thread for this but...
https://ir.citi.com/A9PruMxsx32cucD9...op5NYU6Q%3D%3D (PDF)
$78T in pension shortfalls (20 OECD countries)
$26T in estimated private retirement accounts (US only)
There are few other options (see page 37 for Citi's non-solutions) that don't involve taking some/all of those private accounts/funds.
As the consumers continue to outnumber the producers, the political consequences of taking retirement money to create an equal outcome will be more positive.
Oh, I agree with you completely. But it is here. Making it go away just isn't realistic and getting rid of it now would, in my opinion, result in a nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
I didn't know that about the Amish. I'm not sure the wife would go for those dresses, but I think I could pull off the hat and suspenders gig just fine.
As with the rest of socialism: Programs so good, they are mandatory and society without them would "result in a nightmare". I hate that this mess is our reality to live in, but I think we all agree that we should continue to fight the cancer's "progression" with all available means, the first of which, I argue, must be intellectual. Kind of a "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" sort of thing. Yes, socialists are just like overgrown toddlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jhood001
Believe what you want, but ending Social Security tomorrow would be a nightmare. Possibly not for you, because I don't know your exact life situation, but it would be for a large number of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
Now, if you're talking about a gradual end to the program, your talk of ending it might not result in some sort of financial and/or social apocalypse. But saying we should simply 'scrap it' (which in my understanding translates to 'turn it off now') will result in a nightmare and I don't believe that you could realistically argue against that for a second. However, I don't know what your beliefs are when it comes to ending Social Security.
Do you suggest that all payments in are immediately ended and those retirees who are fully 'vested' continue to receive benefits under their known agreement with the state? And those who are partially vested still receive a partial payment at retirement based on how much they have already paid?
I guess those are some of the finer bits that I ponder when I hear anyone talk about ending an act that is close to 100 years old. Killing something that is un-constitutional and contrary to our beliefs sure sounds good until you actually go to do it.
There would have to be a bunch of other reforms that occurred at the exact same time to make it even remotely feasible. And getting those other items accomplished at the same time that you move to abolish one of the most popular programs in our government (all at the same time) is a fucking pipe-dream.
When Madoff was caught with his Ponzi Scheme, what's the first thing that happened to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
He was shut down. There is no other moral/practical way to handle the dismantling of a Ponzi.
The best thing that can be done is let people keep their own paychecks/property in hopes they can take care of themselves/others. Admit the theft. Maybe allow folks to have a write-off? Enhance the deductions for taking care of elderly parent?
Allowing it to continue is a nightmare. Read the following I posted on the previous page...Quote:
Originally Posted by jhood001
https://ir.citi.com/A9PruMxsx32cucD9...op5NYU6Q%3D%3D (PDF)
If you look at their recommendations (page 37) you will see all the harm you believe would happen anyway. One of their ideas is to raise the retirement age to 73. I am expected to live until 78.
Setting aside the morality of asking me to work from age 18-73 for five years of retirement "benefit" which will be less than the inflation adjusted value of contributions, is it really practical to think I can be productive and employed making enough to support myself to age 73? Will my mind and my body really hold out that long?
If I take a lesser paying job as a greeter at Walmart will I be able to support myself? If not, is there some other burden (program) that would have to make up the difference?
No thanks. Just let me keep the 12.6% (or whatever the full "contribution" is) and let's end it now.
P.S. My 78 years is based on the status quo of healthcare. Rationing will lower that number considerably as older Americans are seen as a risk to the system. "Letting them die" will not only save healthcare dollars but also SS dollars.
There's no such thing as just the tip.