According to this old people really need social security

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

Not giving someone money is suddenly treating them like scum?! LoL, you are really reaching for straws now. You must be scum because you haven't given every dollar you earn to starving kids in third world countries.

Ruin themselves? I don't really know what you mean by that, but no one ruins themself unless they do so because of their own free will. How do you know how much money I have? Have you checked my bank account balance? I'm not ungrateful, I am very grateful for everything my parents have given me, I would gladly help them out with their retirement if I could. However, I am not willing to pay for some other person's parents of whom I don't know and have never met.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

Not giving someone money is suddenly treating them like scum?! LoL, you are really reaching for straws now. You must be scum because you haven't given every dollar you earn to starving kids in third world countries.

Ruin themselves? I don't really know what you mean by that, but no one ruins themself unless they do so because of their own free will. How do you know how much money I have? Have you checked my bank account balance? I'm not ungrateful, I am very grateful for everything my parents have given me, I would gladly help them out with their retirement if I could. However, I am not willing to pay for some other person's parents of whom I don't know and have never met.

My ultimate satisfaction is that you too will grow old, unless you punch out early, but I see that as no loss to society. You wish to benefit no one but yourself, so you won't be missed by many. Come back if you grow up, and when you grow old and let us know how you are doing.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

Not giving someone money is suddenly treating them like scum?! LoL, you are really reaching for straws now. You must be scum because you haven't given every dollar you earn to starving kids in third world countries.

Ruin themselves? I don't really know what you mean by that, but no one ruins themself unless they do so because of their own free will. How do you know how much money I have? Have you checked my bank account balance? I'm not ungrateful, I am very grateful for everything my parents have given me, I would gladly help them out with their retirement if I could. However, I am not willing to pay for some other person's parents of whom I don't know and have never met.

My ultimate satisfaction is that you too will grow old, unless you punch out early, but I see that as no loss to society. You wish to benefit no one but yourself, so you won't be missed by many. Come back if you grow up, and when you grow old and let us know how you are doing.

You being so "old and wise" yourself have shown that you cannot argue with someone without attacking them personally. Perhaps you should take a second look at who needs to grow up.

 

[Drphibes]

Simple solution: take the money you would have put into SS and invest or stick it in long term cd's at locked intrest rates Bam you get what you paid for and can retire whenever you feel you have enough. Whats the point of SS for me anyway the breakdown shows me working till im 75. Most people only live to be that old. OK say you beat the odds and make it to 85. SO after working my ass off for 64 years or so i have to live on 400 dollars a month? Not very helpfull a little bit of self controll and saving the money i would have put in would get me retired by 55-60 and id be living on alot more than 400-800 a month. Ill be damned if im going to get flogged by the baby boomer generation. Looks like ill be supporting 3 or 4 people on my measly check. IF you want to get somthing out of the system i propose state housing like in russia, food stamps and a special old persons store where they can choose from a few different outfits. If were paying for it were gonna get bang for our buck.

 

[NesuD]

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

-WinstonSmith

And there is exactly the differrence between us conservatives versus liberals. While you say our lives revolve around our little pile of money it is painfully obvious that your little liberal lives also revolve around OUR little piles of money as well. You guys seem to spend far more time trying to devise ways to separate us from those little piles then we do figuring out how to keep them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Abolish it? Fine, just give me back all the money that was paid into my SS acount and let me invest it.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certainly some don't need it.

Not according to the gubmint. Benefits are bestowed regardless of income or wealth.

Benefits which are paid out of money taken from each and every worker.You take money from my paycheck every week whether I like it or not,don't come giving me some bull about how it's suddenly "welfare" when it's time for you to start sending me a check.

Btw,SS check amounts are based on little things,like how many years the worker actually worked and how many $ they contributed to the system.Also,every worker is prepaying towards their health insurance via the separate medicare tax.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certainly some don't need it.

Not according to the gubmint. Benefits are bestowed regardless of income or wealth.

Benefits which are paid out of money taken from each and every worker.You take money from my paycheck every week whether I like it or not,don't come giving me some bull about how it's suddenly "welfare" when it's time for you to start sending me a check.

Btw,SS check amounts are based on little things,like how many years the worker actually worked and how many $ they contributed to the system.Also,every worker is prepaying towards their health insurance via the separate medicare tax.

Your not prepay for anything. You are paying for the goverment to operate and the old peoples accounts. Nothing gets saved. Expecting to get SS tax back is as silly as expecting to get you local sales tax money or federal income tax back.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

Not giving someone money is suddenly treating them like scum?! LoL, you are really reaching for straws now. You must be scum because you haven't given every dollar you earn to starving kids in third world countries.

Ruin themselves? I don't really know what you mean by that, but no one ruins themself unless they do so because of their own free will. How do you know how much money I have? Have you checked my bank account balance? I'm not ungrateful, I am very grateful for everything my parents have given me, I would gladly help them out with their retirement if I could. However, I am not willing to pay for some other person's parents of whom I don't know and have never met.

Fortunately for them, you won't have to rely on your worthless and probably empty promise and live in a hole in the ground somewhere. I don't mind at all that you think and are interested only in yourself. But you are a blind little worthless hypocrite shouting me, me, me, when every dime you make is off the infrastructure provided by me, and him and her. Go live your Utopian self centered lifestyle out in the dessert living on bugs and weeds. We are what we are because we cooperate. It is our communally created wealth that provides the luxury in our society to keel alive worthless drones like you. In a primitive setting your attitude would would land you a rock smashed head. You are a fly that lands on the birthday cake. Too bad you missed the depression. You maybe could have held your parents in your skinny arm and watched them die of hunger unable to do a thing but offer them a piece of your belt.

 

[0roo0roo]

huh? wtf? did they limit the stats to not include the super rich? if they didn't, its quite pointless.

its like when bill gates walks into a coffee shop. the average networth of the people in the coffee shop goes insane, it doesn't mean anythning. statistics and damn lies... after all, the top 1% own as much as the bottom 50%

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certainly some don't need it.

Not according to the gubmint. Benefits are bestowed regardless of income or wealth.

Benefits which are paid out of money taken from each and every worker.You take money from my paycheck every week whether I like it or not,don't come giving me some bull about how it's suddenly "welfare" when it's time for you to start sending me a check.

Btw,SS check amounts are based on little things,like how many years the worker actually worked and how many $ they contributed to the system.Also,every worker is prepaying towards their health insurance via the separate medicare tax.

Your not prepay for anything. You are paying for the goverment to operate and the old peoples accounts. Nothing gets saved. Expecting to get SS tax back is as silly as expecting to get you local sales tax money or federal income tax back.

No it isn't

 

[thebestMAX]

I need it!

I paid in every year of my employment thinking I would never collect anything. I saved, invested, DID WITHOUT TO DO SO and was well set up UNTIL the dot com bubble burst and because of the greed of a few I lost big time. I could have gotten out but I believed in America. Then came 9/11, I still stayed in and believed in America and lost again big time.

Im not crying them blues here. I saved and planned never expecting SS to be anything more than amusement or casino money but now I NEED IT. Could I live without it???? Sure as long as I dont live too long or too well. Lucky for me I am a cautious investor and only invested what I could afford to lose. I lost my cushion but Im not running to others to support me.

Guess there is a difference between people who inherit money, people who work for money and people who live off the first two. Read between the lines.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certainly some don't need it.

Not according to the gubmint. Benefits are bestowed regardless of income or wealth.

Benefits which are paid out of money taken from each and every worker.You take money from my paycheck every week whether I like it or not,don't come giving me some bull about how it's suddenly "welfare" when it's time for you to start sending me a check.

Btw,SS check amounts are based on little things,like how many years the worker actually worked and how many $ they contributed to the system.Also,every worker is prepaying towards their health insurance via the separate medicare tax.

Two common misconceptions about SS:

1. Benefits are given regardless of income or wealth. (hence the subsidization of the wealthiest age group in America)

2. Many retirees on social security pull more out of the system than they ever paid in.

Your FICA payments are not going into some lockbox somewhere that you will get when you retire. Its going into one big giant pool of money and some will pull more out than they put in, others will pull less out.

The younger generation today will pay FAR FAR more into social security than they ever get out. As the baby boomers retire the system is going to put a huge drag on the younger generation. We will have to work much harder just to make ends meet. Anybody who thinks this is fair is the one who is being cruel, not the other way around.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: thebestMAX
I need it!

I paid in every year of my employment thinking I would never collect anything. I saved, invested, DID WITHOUT TO DO SO and was well set up UNTIL the dot com bubble burst and because of the greed of a few I lost big time. I could have gotten out but I believed in America. Then came 9/11, I still stayed in and believed in America and lost again big time.

Im not crying them blues here. I saved and planned never expecting SS to be anything more than amusement or casino money but now I NEED IT. Could I live without it???? Sure as long as I dont live too long or too well. Lucky for me I am a cautious investor and only invested what I could afford to lose. I lost my cushion but Im not running to others to support me.

Guess there is a difference between people who inherit money, people who work for money and people who live off the first two. Read between the lines.

Nothing like that will happen to the assholes posting here, Max. They are immortal in their own minds. Glad you're ok and our wonderful socialist, FDR cared enough about people and the future that you can still get by. Long time no see. Believe in America. Bush will be gone soon.

 

[thebestMAX]

Hi thebestBro,

Thought this would smoke you out.

If Kerry is the choice, Ill keep GWB thanks.

Dont worry about me, Im a survivor, I pass the Bomb test.

BTW, a few years to 65 yet.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
While you are posting "facts", enlighten us with wealth distribution in that age category, and while you are at it health care costs broken down by age.


Edit: Oh, do it for 65+ since they are the ones (mostly) collecting SS.

The government doesn't really care about living costs of younger workers when it collects FICA from them, does it? Working at a fast food place for 6 months I saw my co-workers slave away, barely able to make ends meet all the while paying FICA to the government every 2 weeks.

While we are at it, why don't you post the wealth distribution of the 18-40 year old population and all the costs they have broken down by age.

In case you haven't noticed, 18-40 year olds are generally in better health and are YOUNG. This means they have fewer health issues and are generally more able to work.

You brought this nonsense up. I am starting to think that SS ought to be largely abolished. In place of that, upon reaching the age of 30, people would have to reimburse their parents in full adjusted for inflation for every cent they spent on raising them.

Who is government to decide who is more able to work and who isn't? There are plenty of old people able to work, my role in society is NONE of the government's damn business. Just because I am young and able to work does not automatically make me a provider for the old. Where is my right to choose who I am and what MY role in society is? If I want to provide for the old I'll donate to private charities that give services to old people. You and all the government bureaucrats love to pigeon hole everyone into categories and take from them based on inane and arbitrary criteria. Whether I am 10 years old or a million years old my role in society should be neutral, not subject to judgment by a public entity that is supposed to give me equal protection.

Futhermore, money parents spend on their children is voluntary. They chose to have kids, they chose to pay for their kids, a law forcing people to pay their parents is ludicrious. Social Security on the other hand is involuntary. Corporations are forced to deduct it from their employee's paychecks before they even get their paycheck. The logic of your proposition is invalid.

Edit: Your statements are sounding very familiar: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Sounds good to me.

Here is another saying "Sharper than a serpents tooth is an ungrateful child."

You are a selfish brat. I understand that now. You need your bottom spanked.

People do make the choice to have children. The solution is that anyone who reaches the age of 29 and does not want to pay can opt for physician assisted suicide. After all, no one should force you to live.

I see you for what you are Ebinezer. Your life revolves around your little pile of money. So be it. You aren't going to change anything, and your unreasonableness will exclude you from serious discussion. You are dismissed. Please go count your money.

You correlate wanting to keep one's earnings with greed? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My earnings are my business, not the government's, not yours, not old peoples'. I am my own person, not an employee of the Social Security Administration. Earning for myself is not greed, taking from others arbitrarily IS which is what old people are doing through the corrupt democratic system. How my parents provide for their retirement is their business, or at MOST a family affair, definately not the affair of the federal government's. Futhermore, while greed is an undesireable trait as long as they don't take from others people have a right to be greedy. Laws against greed are laws against freedom. I'm no Ebinezer but you basically just admitted you are a communist.

Oh oh, you called me a communist! Big friggin deal. There are plenty of beds you can hide under if that is your definition of one. Don't look now but we surround you.

Seriously, seek professional help. Your distinct lack of a reasonable perspective suggests a severe personality disorder. You seem to think that keeping all your money at the expense of the lives of others is somehow less than disgusting. Treating elders as scum (which your attitude suggests you like to do) is pathological.

Your whole premise in this thread is ridiculous, since you drew on something completely irrevelent to most of the seniors. Yes some have money, but not everyone can be rich, nor can they plan for all contingencies. Sometimes they ruin themselves to sacrifice for ungrateful internet forum posting brats with more money than sense.

Whatever, but for heavens sake don't have kids and inflict yourself on them.

Not giving someone money is suddenly treating them like scum?! LoL, you are really reaching for straws now. You must be scum because you haven't given every dollar you earn to starving kids in third world countries.

Ruin themselves? I don't really know what you mean by that, but no one ruins themself unless they do so because of their own free will. How do you know how much money I have? Have you checked my bank account balance? I'm not ungrateful, I am very grateful for everything my parents have given me, I would gladly help them out with their retirement if I could. However, I am not willing to pay for some other person's parents of whom I don't know and have never met.

Fortunately for them, you won't have to rely on your worthless and probably empty promise and live in a hole in the ground somewhere. I don't mind at all that you think and are interested only in yourself. But you are a blind little worthless hypocrite shouting me, me, me, when every dime you make is off the infrastructure provided by me, and him and her. Go live your Utopian self centered lifestyle out in the dessert living on bugs and weeds. We are what we are because we cooperate. It is our communally created wealth that provides the luxury in our society to keel alive worthless drones like you. In a primitive setting your attitude would would land you a rock smashed head. You are a fly that lands on the birthday cake. Too bad you missed the depression. You maybe could have held your parents in your skinny arm and watched them die of hunger unable to do a thing but offer them a piece of your belt.

]

You and all the other communists/socialists have a grave misconception. Libertarians like myself do not denounce communities. We believe however, that human interaction is best done voluntarily, not by involuntary government regulation. We are what we are because we cooperate, that is true. We are NOT what we are because of forced government cooperation. When I buy the clothing, food and shelter I am doing so through voluntary action. When the economy sells me my clothing, food and shelter it is also doing so through voluntary action, no government is regulating that such transactions should take place. That is how wealth for the most part has been generated. You don't believe me? Read Murray N. Rothbard's: Man, Economy and State.

This explains graphically what I am talking about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Libertarianism again. Oh man, I found out about that here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certainly some don't need it.

Not according to the gubmint. Benefits are bestowed regardless of income or wealth.

Benefits which are paid out of money taken from each and every worker.You take money from my paycheck every week whether I like it or not,don't come giving me some bull about how it's suddenly "welfare" when it's time for you to start sending me a check.

Btw,SS check amounts are based on little things,like how many years the worker actually worked and how many $ they contributed to the system.Also,every worker is prepaying towards their health insurance via the separate medicare tax.

Two common misconceptions about SS:

1. Benefits are given regardless of income or wealth. (hence the subsidization of the wealthiest age group in America)

2. Many retirees on social security pull more out of the system than they ever paid in.

Your FICA payments are not going into some lockbox somewhere that you will get when you retire. Its going into one big giant pool of money and some will pull more out than they put in, others will pull less out.

The younger generation today will pay FAR FAR more into social security than they ever get out. As the baby boomers retire the system is going to put a huge drag on the younger generation. We will have to work much harder just to make ends meet. Anybody who thinks this is fair is the one who is being cruel, not the other way around.

Well you guys better get busy and start having more kids to pay for your SS

 

[ElFenix]

DAMNIT STOP WITH THE FSCKING NESTED QUOTES!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
huh? wtf? did they limit the stats to not include the super rich? if they didn't, its quite pointless.

its like when bill gates walks into a coffee shop. the average networth of the people in the coffee shop goes insane, it doesn't mean anythning. statistics and damn lies... after all, the top 1% own as much as the bottom 50%

Not only that, but those statistics are for those 50+, not 65+.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
huh? wtf? did they limit the stats to not include the super rich? if they didn't, its quite pointless.

its like when bill gates walks into a coffee shop. the average networth of the people in the coffee shop goes insane, it doesn't mean anythning. statistics and damn lies... after all, the top 1% own as much as the bottom 50%

Not only that, but those statistics are for those 50+, not 65+.

That's because during my prime working years (mine and others my age) I will be paying into social security and supporting people who are 50+ today. The 65+ group is going to die before my working years are over although I will be supporting them for awhile as well.

 

[classy]

Umm SS is for folks beyond 65. That age group is what is called the prime of life. All kids are grown and homes are usually paid for. Your post is far misleading.