Can someone please explain social security to me?

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
It's just another Federal tax/entitlement program -- a.k.a. "Welfare for old people"

1. The Federal Goverment takes your money under the guise of helping you pay into your own retirement plan.

No, the SS tax goes to pay for current retirees. There has been some saving in the programs history, but that is not its goal.

Bullshit. That is how the program works, but that is not how it is/was sold to Joe Public. From the beginning, the pitch for the program has always been that you are paying into your own SS benefits -- hence the annual statement you receive in the mail showing YOUR current benefits calculations.

3. They use the rest of your money to pay for pet projects and other fun-filled spending that they couldn't properly budget for otherwise.

If thats what you call investing in treasury securites, then sure.

Again, bullshit. Beginning about 30 years ago, the Government started borrowing from the SS pot to pay off the deficits -- which itself was a result of irresponsible budgeting and spending.

4. 20-40 years from now, when you are ready to retire, the program may no longer be around, so you may never see a dime of the money you paid into the program in the form of a monthly check; or, they could continue to raise the taxes for SS every few years to compensate for their irresponsible use of your money.

Do you have any proof they are using the money irresponsibly? any reason why i should fear for my future SS income other than ignorant political hacks like yourself?

Proof? In this day and age, who the hell needs more proof that the Government has been completely irresponsible in their borrowing and spending habits? Seriously?

ignorant political hacks like me? When did I say anything in this thread about one particular party or another?!

I'm not in either political party, so I'm no shill; and, you and I probably voted for the same guy last November you twit.

This issue has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the lifesupport being given to this completely fucked up entitlement program.

That's Social Security. It's just another tax, plain and simple. If the Government wanted to be honest about it, they'd simply add it to everyone's annual Federal income tax rates and be done with it -- across the board, including the poor (Can you say "political shitstorm"?). Then, when you retire, by adding up your total lifelong wages listed on every tax return, they could easily compute the amount you should receive in the mail from their "Welfare for Old People Entitlement Program."

everyone knows its a tax. Its not added to federal income tax rates because it only applies to wage income and is very regressive.

The entire tax system is regressive -- SS simply uses a different scale with different rates. They also manage to get away with selling it as something other than what it is because of the screwed up way your money enters and exits the SS coffers.

In reality, it truly is "Welfare for Old People." It's no different than any other taxpayer-funded entitlement program: ie. you give your money to the Government, and they, in turn, hand it back out to other people... and you... someday... maybe... if you're lucky... and you don't die first... or...

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

Social Security and Ponzi schemes operate on the same underlying principles. The only difference are the rules of who pays in and who receives out.

The biggest issue I have with Social Security is guaranteeing benefits that the government knows darn well it cannot guarantee. Same with a Ponzi scheme.

"same underlying principles"? baloney. A ponzi scheme is BASED on fraud since it promises IMPOSSIBlE returns to investors, and gets the money to pay investors based on money from earlier investors. Naturally instead of disclosing that, ponzi schemers instead claim that due to their investing acumen or 'proprietary techniques/programs' that's how they gain their returns. Social security doesn't have that kind of fraud, and for you to suggest that is to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.

As for the second issue, that is neither fraudulent nor ponzi schemes. I'll give a similar and very real scenario: an insurance company sells insurance to buyers promising that it will cover them in certain disaster/worst case scenarios (ie hurricane). Then a lvl 4 hurricane causes massive and unforseen dmg, bankrupting the company because the claims outweigh whatever profits that the company made by selling the insurance.

I bring this up because when social security was conceived, the retirement age and the expected life expectancy was very different in the 1930s then it is today; retirees weren't expected to live on average more than 15 years. Today retirees are expected to not only live longer, but have fewer workers supporting them. And yet, a contract is a contract. Important (demographic) changes are the reason SS is in trouble, not because it is a fraud.

Right and please explain how the first person to get SS payed a total of $24.75 in taxes, yet received almost 1000 times that in benefits. SS has always been a pyramid scheme it was know when the system was started.

Are you trying to prove that you don't know what you're talking about? Social Security payouts are NOT based on a scaling benefit of how many people pay in; furthermore the social security beneficiaries DO NOT recruit people to pay into a scheme...government imposes its tax on every worker.

In contrast, a pyramid scheme recruits people by promising earlier individuals rewards based on the number of people recruited AND the number of people recruited by the next tier of recruited.

*SOCIAL SECURITY DOES NOT WORK LIKE A PYRAMID SCHEME. There's NO scaling benefit or recruitment of other individuals by the beneficiaries.*

The reason why the first beneficiary got an excellent return on SS benefits was because he/she lived longer and wasn't taxed prior to the SS creation. But even if your point was valid, how the hell is that an indication of a pyramid scheme?

:thumbsdown:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
What other variables?

Two examples are taxation of benefits and age benefits begin.

What other indexes?

I don't have time to post specifics, but the are different indexes for 'inflation' to pick from.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
It's just another Federal tax/entitlement program -- a.k.a. "Welfare for old people"

1. The Federal Goverment takes your money under the guise of helping you pay into your own retirement plan.

No, the SS tax goes to pay for current retirees. There has been some saving in the programs history, but that is not its goal.

Bullshit. That is how the program works, but that is not how it is/was sold to Joe Public. From the beginning, the pitch for the program has always been that you are paying into your own SS benefits -- hence the annual statement you receive in the mail showing YOUR current benefits calculations.

do you have anything do back that up, or is this more from your standard pretend history?

3. They use the rest of your money to pay for pet projects and other fun-filled spending that they couldn't properly budget for otherwise.

If thats what you call investing in treasury securites, then sure.

Again, bullshit. Beginning about 30 years ago, the Government started borrowing from the SS pot to pay off the deficits -- which itself was a result of irresponsible budgeting and spending.

No, not bullshit. Fact. After all what do you think buying Treasuries is other than borrowing/lending?

4. 20-40 years from now, when you are ready to retire, the program may no longer be around, so you may never see a dime of the money you paid into the program in the form of a monthly check; or, they could continue to raise the taxes for SS every few years to compensate for their irresponsible use of your money.

Do you have any proof they are using the money irresponsibly? any reason why i should fear for my future SS income other than ignorant political hacks like yourself?

Proof? In this day and age, who the hell needs more proof that the Government has been completely irresponsible in their borrowing and spending habits? Seriously?

ignorant political hacks like me? When did I say anything in this thread about one particular party or another?!

I'm not in either political party, so I'm no shill; and, you and I probably voted for the same guy last November you twit.

This issue has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the lifesupport being given to this completely fucked up entitlement program.

so your argument is that 'its government of course its irresponsible" Very nuanced.

and yes, you are a hack, i don't care (not does it matter) who you voted for.

That's Social Security. It's just another tax, plain and simple. If the Government wanted to be honest about it, they'd simply add it to everyone's annual Federal income tax rates and be done with it -- across the board, including the poor (Can you say "political shitstorm"?). Then, when you retire, by adding up your total lifelong wages listed on every tax return, they could easily compute the amount you should receive in the mail from their "Welfare for Old People Entitlement Program."

everyone knows its a tax. Its not added to federal income tax rates because it only applies to wage income and is very regressive.

The entire tax system is regressive -- SS simply uses a different scale with different rates. They also manage to get away with selling it as something other than what it is because of the screwed up way your money enters and exits the SS coffers.

In reality, it truly is "Welfare for Old People." It's no different than any other taxpayer-funded entitlement program: ie. you give your money to the Government, and they, in turn, hand it back out to other people... and you... someday... maybe... if you're lucky... and you don't die first... or...

no shit. It's just funded differently though an independent taxing administration.

 

[JS80]

If it's really PayGo, then if I opt out, it shouldn't affect the system right? Why don't they allow people to opt out?

 

[biostud]

In Denmark everyone pays for SS and everyone get a minimum amount when they retire, the "poorest" elderly get an extra payment, while those who have a private pension or own a house or car get nothing extra. The system works as long as the amount of money spend on SS does does not tax the people working too much. The problem, economically, is that people tend to live longe and that the elder generation is growing compared to the working force, so that the working force will have to pay more tax to support the growing population of elderly. It has nothing to do with a pyramide scheme as everyone eventually will end up beeing elderly, and everyone have to pay for it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You're mostly right. it won't go bankrupt, though, because taxes will keep going up. SS sure was a sweet ass deal for those who got in on the ground floor.

Man You are not a man of science. DO THE MATH. SS is the highesr tax for middle income . My MOM PAID SS for 40 years. and collected for 3 years. Befor her time ended.

Ya she seen real benefits just like millions of others. Who die at retirement . Than you have people here saying they should stop SS. Thats Fine with Me . But Divide up the MONEY that The US tax payer owes us SS . 10 trillion + . Than give that money to the people according to what they paid in . Than Stop SS tax . THan many retarded people will wake up . ANY Social plan made by government is designed by the rich for the Rich. To STEAL money from LOWER CLASSES .

Stop the Fraud in SS . and it will work just fine . Do background checks on people in SS administration as to how many of there relatives recieved early disabilitity insurance .

I get it . I deserved it but I had to fight for it.HARD . Every doctor Agreed I was threw. None will operate . Yet I was denied time and time . Than when I finely go befor the commety they couldn't even look me in the eyes as they new this was wrong and the did apoligize.

But My Sister inlaw . Claims to have a diesease that can't be proven . But we all know there nothing wrong with her till she is in doctors office . This is simple fraud that can be easily proven . All SS has to do is follow the lieing bitch around for 2 days to know she has committed fraud.

The Mayor of my Town draws WORKERS disabilities SS insurance . He was born with hereditary diesease. HE has NEVER ever PAID into SS. But he gets Full disability pay thats unlawful. I am not a heartless bastard. I understand he needs money to live . But not this way this is wrong . IF SS had to pay every Born broken American Full Disability benefits It would go Broke! SS does not pay these people Full benefits. But in the case of our mayor they made an exception . I know this because I have known him his entire life. He nice guy but Wrong is wrong . NO exceptions . What makes him better than others who share same fate? Stop the Fraud . In my district . THe people who run the local SS adminastration have high number of Family and friends who got early benefits without jumping threw HOOPS. As for my Sister inlaw follow the LIEING BITCH around . ANY moron can see she is very healthy. Than We have illegeals drawing off the system . pure BS. Than we have doctors commiting fraud . Weres the justic . Jail TIME.

SS is great fix the fraud and if the US government would give back the Money they BORROWED from US(SS) . Were in great shape . But now these young people want to shut it down and steal the $$$ we borrowed them . PURE BS . STOP STEALING . PROBLEMS fix themselves . freaken thieves.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You're mostly right. it won't go bankrupt, though, because taxes will keep going up. SS sure was a sweet ass deal for those who got in on the ground floor.

Man You are not a man of science. DO THE MATH. SS is the highesr tax for middle income . My MOM PAID SS for 40 years. and collected for 3 years. Befor her time ended.

Ya she seen real benefits just like millions of others. Who die at retirement . Than you have people here saying they should stop SS. Thats Fine with Me . But Divide up the MONEY that The US tax payer owes us SS . 10 trillion + . Than give that money to the people according to what they paid in . Than Stop SS tax . THan many retarded people will wake up . ANY Social plan made by government is designed by the rich for the Rich. To STEAL money from LOWER CLASSES .

Stop the Fraud in SS . and it will work just fine . Do background checks on people in SS administration as to how many of there relatives recieved early disabilitity insurance .

I get it . I deserved it but I had to fight for it.HARD . Every doctor Agreed I was threw. None will operate . Yet I was denied time and time . Than when I finely go befor the commety they couldn't even look me in the eyes as they new this was wrong and the did apoligize.

But My Sister inlaw . Claims to have a diesease that can't be proven . But we all know there nothing wrong with her till she is in doctors office . This is simple fraud that can be easily proven . All SS has to do is follow the lieing bitch around for 2 days to know she has committed fraud.

The Mayor of my Town draws WORKERS disabilities SS insurance . He was born with hereditary diesease. HE has NEVER ever PAID into SS. But he gets Full disability pay thats unlawful. I am not a heartless bastard. I understand he needs money to live . But not this way this is wrong . IF SS had to pay every Born broken American Full Disability benefits It would go Broke! SS does not pay these people Full benefits. But in the case of our mayor they made an exception . I know this because I have known him his entire life. He nice guy but Wrong is wrong . NO exceptions . What makes him better than others who share same fate? Stop the Fraud . In my district . THe people who run the local SS adminastration have high number of Family and friends who got early benefits without jumping threw HOOPS. As for my Sister inlaw follow the LIEING BITCH around . ANY moron can see she is very healthy. Than We have illegeals drawing off the system . pure BS. Than we have doctors commiting fraud . Weres the justic . Jail TIME.

SS is great fix the fraud and if the US government would give back the Money they BORROWED from US(SS) . Were in great shape . But now these young people want to shut it down and steal the $$$ we borrowed them . PURE BS . STOP STEALING . PROBLEMS fix themselves . freaken thieves.

Wow a Nemesis post where he doesn't blame the jewish bankers who assassinated his mother so they wouldn't have to pay her SS benefits.

 

[Moonbeam]

Social security is having a good underarm deodorant.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyway, SS takes from the least wealthy and gives to the most wealthy, when sorted by age group. it's reverse robinhood.

You're lying, amazingly ignorant, or both.

In fact, the return on "investment" for the poorest workers is the MUCH higher than for the well-off.

The SS formula, starts with the recipient's highest 35-years of indexed earnings subject to the SS tax, and then determines the recipient's average (indexed) monthly earnings (AIME). Given the AIME, the so-called "Primary Insurance Amount" (PIA) benefit amount is computed as 90% of of the AIME below $744 (for 2009), 32% of AIME between $744 and $4483, and 15% of the AIME figure between $4483 and $8900.

Thus, a minimum-wage worker whose average (indexed) earnings were $8000 a year, would receive (at age 65) a monthly benefit of $600, or $7200 a year, a full 90% of their average earnings.

A moderate-earnings worker whose average indexed earnings were $50,000 a year would receive a monthly benefit of $1765, or $21,178 a year, or 42% of their average earnings.

Finally, a worker who earned on average the maximum wage subject to SS tax ($106,800), would receive $30,343 a year, or 28% of their average earnings.

SS payments are HEAVILY skewed in favor of lower-earning workers, and to accomplish this, the highest earners GREATLY subsidize those at the bottom.

So your post is an out-and-out falsehood.

wow, did you completely miss the bolded or what?

edit: i'm running some annuity calculations and i'm not liking what i'm seeing.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
maybe they should tax incomes above $106,000, instead of stopping at that limit, to shore up the trust fund.

Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Social Security is not meant to be a wealth redistribution program, the idea for the most part is to take out what you put in - which is why I'm sure there's the income limit.

I'm sick of the right-wing blind ideology that ignores the needs of society to follow dogma, and turns a blind eye to policies shifting wealth to the top while attacking only others.

The SS cap was fine when there were fewer people who needed it and income was less concentrated. That's changed.

So you're saying this is a failboat. The more people who need SS, the more it will fail? Your solution is to tax more? I love how your solution is tax tat tax. It's not even a longterm solution. Raising the cap as Obama has suggested has been analyzed to show that SS will only live a few years longer because of this.

I'm sick of your attacks on the right-wing because you throw out every single possible desperate partisan attack to save anything the left wing holds praises. Even if it's against what you believe in.

The point of SS was to provide a minimum retirement fund for people. To now tax the hell out of everyone now sounds like wealth redistribution to me. You don't really have to work that to even get SS payments.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: JS80
If it's really PayGo, then if I opt out, it shouldn't affect the system right? Why don't they allow people to opt out?

Because if you could opt out and be the smart guy and put your money somewhere where it'll make more money, then you're cheating the government of money.

See, if you opt out, then people like Craig234 will call this a revenue loss. Remember? Tax cuts = revenue loss. It's a LOSS to big brother. Thus we can't borrow more from the nonexistent SS fund.

It's a sad thing. We must continue to invest our money for a 1% return rate because the people who are terrible at money management can't save for retirement on their own and require the government to do so. Also, the poorest of the poor need a minimum amount of money to survive on. This is why you cannot opt out.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I more point . Almost every Amerocan in a rest home gives that rest home there SS check Along woth all there possions. They have nothing but 4 walls . And Children who could give a rats ass about mom and Dad . Ya A lot of good out there somehere . If someone finds it please Post it . Let all in on Good News.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: JS80
If it's really PayGo, then if I opt out, it shouldn't affect the system right? Why don't they allow people to opt out?

Because if you could opt out and be the smart guy and put your money somewhere where it'll make more money, then you're cheating the government of money.

See, if you opt out, then people like Craig234 will call this a revenue loss. Remember? Tax cuts = revenue loss. It's a LOSS to big brother. Thus we can't borrow more from the nonexistent SS fund.

It's a sad thing. We must continue to invest our money for a 1% return rate because the people who are terrible at money management can't save for retirement on their own and require the government to do so. Also, the poorest of the poor need a minimum amount of money to survive on. This is why you cannot opt out.

Shhhhh. Let Craig234 answer and say I'm a right wing hack fear mongering gun toting southern redneck!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I more point . Almost every Amerocan in a rest home gives that rest home there SS check Along woth all there possions. They have nothing but 4 walls . And Children who could give a rats ass about mom and Dad . Ya A lot of good out there somehere . If someone finds it please Post it . Let all in on Good News.

Why do they keep letting you out of the crazy house?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
maybe they should tax incomes above $106,000, instead of stopping at that limit, to shore up the trust fund.

Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Social Security is not meant to be a wealth redistribution program, the idea for the most part is to take out what you put in - which is why I'm sure there's the income limit.

I'm sick of the right-wing blind ideology that ignores the needs of society to follow dogma, and turns a blind eye to policies shifting wealth to the top while attacking only others.

The SS cap was fine when there were fewer people who needed it and income was less concentrated. That's changed.

So you're saying this is a failboat. The more people who need SS, the more it will fail? Your solution is to tax more? I love how your solution is tax tat tax. It's not even a longterm solution. Raising the cap as Obama has suggested has been analyzed to show that SS will only live a few years longer because of this.

I'm sick of your attacks on the right-wing because you throw out every single possible desperate partisan attack to save anything the left wing holds praises. Even if it's against what you believe in.

The point of SS was to provide a minimum retirement fund for people. To now tax the hell out of everyone now sounds like wealth redistribution to me. You don't really have to work that to even get SS payments.

I don't think you are rational enough for any response to e useful. You can stop reading now, please, I don't want you to read and post more like the above.

I hope no one else has question about that, but in case they do, we have someone who is just making wild attacks based on projecting their own partisan blind following of ideology - it's a waste of time to answer why my support for SS is based on the benefits versus the costs when he's so irrational to make the attack he did that it's for any liberal program; there's no logic to his post, it's simply 'because taxes are bad, any program that needs any taxes is bad' type nonsense. His answer to more needing SS is 'tough, starve'.

He's blindly ideological, which can be seen from his forcing buzzwords like 'wealth redistribution' into the issue.

Not a word about the broader issue of the massive increase of wealth concentration I brought into the discussion earlier, not a word about the elderly's needs.

We have a lot of people in this country who build up a hatred seething - and there are media who whip it up daily - that gets applied to about any 'liberal program'. Even if they benefit, they believe every such program is taking money out of their pocket (from the small amount they have) and giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it, while 'the wealthy' are to be protected at all costs as the generators of wealth who enrich them. It's them and their buddy billionares against the leeches. It's a deluded ideology.

Rational discussion is possible with people who are also trying to answer the question how to address the needs of elders, whether they support or oppose SS.

Rational discussion is lost with those who ignore the needs of elders and froth ideology unconcerned with the elderly about 'if it has taxes they oppose it' and 'redistribution'.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I hope no one else has question about that, but in case they do, we have someone who is just making wild attacks based on projecting their own partisan blind following of ideology - it's a waste of time to answer why my support for SS is based on the benefits versus the costs when he's so irrational to make the attack he did that it's for any liberal program; there's no logic to his post, it's simply 'because taxes are bad, any program that needs any taxes is bad' type nonsense. His answer to more needing SS is 'tough, starve'.

Maybe his point is that any program that requires taxes to be raised every few years, in order to maintain said program's solvency, is bad...? Maybe he sees no end in sight for those tax raises...? Could that be it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Craig234
I hope no one else has question about that, but in case they do, we have someone who is just making wild attacks based on projecting their own partisan blind following of ideology - it's a waste of time to answer why my support for SS is based on the benefits versus the costs when he's so irrational to make the attack he did that it's for any liberal program; there's no logic to his post, it's simply 'because taxes are bad, any program that needs any taxes is bad' type nonsense. His answer to more needing SS is 'tough, starve'.

Maybe his point is that any program that requires taxes to be raised every few years, in order to maintain said program's solvency, is bad...? Maybe he sees no end in sight for those tax raises...? Could that be it?

The only reason for Increases is due to the Demographic Bubble. It's not the Program, it's Demographics.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Guaranteeing an income stream for some basic expenses for elders. Before SS, the elder poverty rate in the US had long been 90% - it was the norm for the old to be in poverty.

I'd like some proof to back up that stat.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Guaranteeing an income stream for some basic expenses for elders. Before SS, the elder poverty rate in the US had long been 90% - it was the norm for the old to be in poverty.

I'd like some proof to back up that stat.

pp. 35/36 (the graph is hard to make out, but it appears conclusive):

http://books.google.es/books?i...MONGST+ELDERLY+US+1930'S&source=bl&ots=h7tXQE-0ZE&sig=NpBZnibD-Bw0FDtOQNxF5Tm1Az8&hl=es&ei=sa2fSojtNInbjQed_NGgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Craig234
I hope no one else has question about that, but in case they do, we have someone who is just making wild attacks based on projecting their own partisan blind following of ideology - it's a waste of time to answer why my support for SS is based on the benefits versus the costs when he's so irrational to make the attack he did that it's for any liberal program; there's no logic to his post, it's simply 'because taxes are bad, any program that needs any taxes is bad' type nonsense. His answer to more needing SS is 'tough, starve'.

Maybe his point is that any program that requires taxes to be raised every few years, in order to maintain said program's solvency, is bad...? Maybe he sees no end in sight for those tax raises...? Could that be it?

The only reason for Increases is due to the Demographic Bubble. It's not the Program, it's Demographics.

So, you foresee an end to the SS tax increases based on the last 60 years worth of regular increases being the result of a "bubble"...? When will the peak of this "bubble" be reached, and just how high are you willing to see the rates go? What SS tax rate would you consider too high?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
What benefits are gained from SS? As in, what kind of things will SS pay for? Being 22, I haven't the slightest clue, and I don't expect SS to pay me any meaningful amount of money when I retire.

Social security uses funds from current workers to pay off current retirees who are owed money. In principle it sounds basically like a pyramid scheme. Use money from current investors (current working force) to pay off previous ones (retirees). Everything is nice until you can't find anymore investors (tax revenue not sufficient). Then you're screwed.

First, how does this sound like a good idea? Obviously back in the 1930's it seemed like a good idea at the time, enough for people to pass it... but for a system that we know is going to go completely bankrupt in the near future, why don't we bother changing it or scrapping it entirely altogether? Yes, I know the elderly have the highest voting rate of any demographic, and that's (partially) why it's still here.

The reason I ask is because I'm deeply concerned about the financial health of our country - congressmen are always looking to add to bills and programs, never take away. How long until we realize that the only real way to become fiscally responsible is to cut the fat and trim down programs across the entire government. Individuals get out of debt only by reducing spending. They don't just magically make significantly more amounts of money that let them easily pay off said debt. We can't just tax our way out of deficit because that completely kills any motivation/momentum for economic growth.

</end rant>

Actually a lot of that isn't true. The primary problem with Social Security is that life expectancies have increased pretty substantially since it was enacted. Eventually we will probably index it to life expectancy in some way and bring it back in to line.

I would challenge your use of the word "Probably." The law has to be changed by people who have to get re-elected every two years and seniors vote ever so much.

 

[her209]

The biggest problem with SS is that the politicians use it as another source of income to fund their pet projects.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: her209
The biggest problem with SS is that the politicians use it as another source of income to fund their pet projects.

Because that's what it is - a tax. Congress can spend it on whatever they want, and that's perfectly legal. You've got no contractual right to getting one dime back.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: her209
The biggest problem with SS is that the politicians use it as another source of income to fund their pet projects.

Because that's what it is - a tax. Congress can spend it on whatever they want, and that's perfectly legal. You've got no contractual right to getting one dime back.

Therein lies my entire problem with SS, as that is not how the program is or was sold to the American people. :|