Social Security

[desura]

That's been your effort all along, hasn't it? To drag in fringe issues?

SS is a cornerstone of the Democratic Agenda. That message was loud & clear throughout the election. We'd never put up a presidential candidate who said otherwise. The notion is ridiculous.

Trump's transition team has been known to say otherwise, however.

Well, I'm still shocked by the loss. I hadn't paid enough attention to developments on the right these past few years. There is a lot of anger over the gay marriage decision, which is completely unnecessary, and which very likely was the margin.

 

[Jhhnn]

Only some people are really living longer; the poor and lower middle class' life expectancy is about the same as decades ago, while wealthier folk's lifespan has significantly increased. So raising the retirement age is punitive, doesn't make sense.

But unlike a lot of liberals, I'm sure there's a better way to increase the return on SS both for solvency's sake and just for common sense reasons, which would mean developing a better financial product than the special issue treasury bonds used to fund SS, which return 2-3%, while historically you get 2-3 times that amount invested in equity markets. But it doesn't have to be gambled entirely in equity markets, it could be very well balanced risk-wise just like any good ETF-based robo account out there.

SS is just part of a solid retirement. Few seniors have large portfolios. They depend on returns to help pay expenses. When returns go to hell, they draw on the principal out of necessity, a killer when prices are down. When the markets get well, their nest eggs are smaller & therefore earn less. That won't happen with SS.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, I'm still shocked by the loss. I hadn't paid enough attention to developments on the right these past few years. There is a lot of anger over the gay marriage decision, which is completely unnecessary, and which very likely was the margin.

Bullshit.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

It's just your pet issue, apparently. The only way it has anything to do with SS is survivor benefits.

 

[desura]

Bullshit.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

It's just your pet issue, apparently. The only way it has anything to do with SS is survivor benefits.

37% is a lot of people. Millions of people. This is about messaging and emphasis.

 

[senseamp]

You can rationalize it anyway you want, GOP doesn't care. If someone is stupid enough to vote for them, they deserve to lose their Social Security, and will.

 

[bshole]

You can rationalize it anyway you want, GOP doesn't care. If someone is stupid enough to vote for them, they deserve to lose their Social Security, and will.

Maybe so but what about all the others affected by it who did not vote for them? No empathy for them? Are we to have old people dying in the street? Are we giving up the mantle of a 1st world nation?

 

[Jaskalas]

You say SS is outmoded & I point out that it's working as intended.

Invoking your desire for a unicorn doesn't change that

Reorganizing 65% of the current budget into a Universal Basic Income is not unicorns.
The current model as some private pension is antiquated.
You can address automation, unemployment, and stimulus in one fell swoop.

The inevitability will become more plainly obvious each passing year. You cannot stop this, but through delay you can hurt many people.
Just like Trump's regression can hurt people. We need to skip the BS and move forward.

 

[sportage]

SS "could" be the major source of income for allowing simple living, and where most senior folks could survive on.
Except, it seems that republicans will forever insist on screwing up government programs and safety nets to prove their claim that government just doesn't work.
Government could and can work if only congress would get their greedy little fingers out of the way and allow it to work.

So they say SS wasn't meant as the sole source of income?
Well, for many it is exactly that.
Especially in todays world where corporate greed has taken away all the pension plans, and most companies offer nothing at all in its place.
Nothing other than the hit and miss of the stock market, where the company takes none of the risk and the employee burden with all of the risk.

There is a lot about SS that people should realize.
For instance, whenever you see some senior citizen working that fast food take-out window, or greeting you when entering Walmart, there is something you should know about that poor soul.
Most likely that person was once married and that couple had been doing just fine on the two husband and wife SS checks coming into the household.
True, maybe they could not take cruises to Spain or drive the latest model car, but grandma and gramps got by pretty well.
And they could live together in their paid-off home, or apartment, or rental unit just fine indeed.

However, should one of the two die not only would the surviving spouse lose their partners future monthly SS income, the government will also come in and deduct any current monthly SS payment already deposited into the deceased account for the current month of death.
So not only will grandma or grandpa (the surviving spouse) lose all future SS income resulting from their dearly departed, the federal government will also step in and take back that very last SS check for the current month.
Oh, however the government will grant the survivor a one time burial expense check for $256.
That being one plans to bury their loved one in a hole in the back yard.
That $256 just might pay for purchasing the shovel.

The next time you see some elderly senior citizen greeting at Walmart, or handing fries out of some drive-thru window, you can bet they were recently widowed by the death of their spouse. With also having lost their dearly departed monthly SS income resulting in household income to be cut in half.
And thus their need for a job at the age of 75+.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
And the damn congress could fix this should ever they stop feathering their own nest and instead begin serving those they were elected to serve.
And quit this hell bent mindset for eliminating the benefit as the only means for fixing the benefit.

And least we have the Donald Trump's, who get away with paying absolutely no tax at all.
So THIS is what the people put in office?

 

[fskimospy]

37% is a lot of people. Millions of people. This is about messaging and emphasis.

Yes but if more people support it than oppose it being on the other side of the issue probably LOSES you votes. Being on the right side of same sex marriage is not only the smart move morally but the smart move politically.

 

[desura]

Yes but if more people support it than oppose it being on the other side of the issue probably LOSES you votes. Being on the right side of same sex marriage is not only the smart move morally but the smart move politically.

She likely would have gotten their votes anyways without having to do all of those shoutouts. Really, alienating those 37 percent cost her more votes than ignoring the soft majority. She should have been running the entire time on how a Trump win would mean the GOP rich person's budget gets free reign. She should have hammered it in every speech. Nope. Her heart isn't there. She's rich enough SS is peanuts to her.

She probably would have cut SS anyways.

 

[fskimospy]

She likely would have gotten their votes anyways without having to do all of those shoutouts. Really, alienating those 37 percent cost her more votes than ignoring the soft majority. She should have been running the entire time on how a Trump win would mean the GOP rich person's budget gets free reign. She should have hammered it in every speech. Nope. Her heart isn't there. She's rich enough SS is peanuts to her.

She probably would have cut SS anyways.

By your logic wouldn't the 37 percent not have been voting for her anyway? Why one and not the other? You can't just make things up.

As for what she should have done, if you go look a thing her speeches she constantly did what you just asked and talked about how this meant the rich person's agenda would be enacted. The media ignored it and only covered the 'Trump is mentally ill' angle because it played better.

 

[desura]

By your logic wouldn't the 37 percent not have been voting for her anyway? Why one and not the other? You can't just make things up.

As for what she should have done, if you go look a thing her speeches she constantly did what you just asked and talked about how this meant the rich person's agenda would be enacted. The media ignored it and only covered the 'Trump is mentally ill' angle because it played better.

No. Her social liberalism hardened opposition among social conservatives. As I said, the social liberal vote is a soft preference. The social conservative vote is likely harder.

I watched her debates and speeches. What stood out was the social liberalism. The main impression I got was social liberalism and identity politics. This was the choice she made to emphasize those elements.

 

[fskimospy]

No. Her social liberalism hardened opposition among social conservatives. As I said, the social liberal vote is a soft preference. The social conservative vote is likely harder.

Can you provide literally any empirical basis for this whatsoever that shows persuadable voters made their choice based on social conservatism?

I watched her debates and speeches. What stood out was the social liberalism. The main impression I got was social liberalism and identity politics. This was the choice she made to emphasize those elements.

If you watched the debates and her speeches then you would know she constantly, -constantly- mentioned exactly what you said she should. I could supply you with nearly endless quotes of her pushing the economic case on a daily basis for almost a year.

 

[desura]

Can you provide literally any empirical basis for this whatsoever that shows persuadable voters made their choice based on social conservatism?



If you watched the debates and her speeches then you would know she constantly, -constantly- mentioned exactly what you said she should. I could supply you with nearly endless quotes of her pushing the economic case on a daily basis for almost a year.

https://www.thenation.com/article/e...hite-evangelicals-voted-for-donald-trump-why/

One out of four Trump voters had Supreme Court in mind.

 

[brycejones]

Can you provide literally any empirical basis for this whatsoever that shows persuadable voters made their choice based on social conservatism?



If you watched the debates and her speeches then you would know she constantly, -constantly- mentioned exactly what you said she should. I could supply you with nearly endless quotes of her pushing the economic case on a daily basis for almost a year.

I'm wondering if this is some sort of early buyer's remorse kicking in. "I could have voted for Hillary but she only cared about the gays and never talked about jobs so I couldn't. Only Trump had a plan to MAGA so I was stuck voting for him."

While ignoring which candidate actually had policy positions available to be reviewed and was specific about what she would try to do if elected.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.thenation.com/article/e...hite-evangelicals-voted-for-donald-trump-why/

One out of four Trump voters had Supreme Court in mind.

Ah yes, the well known persuadeable and reliable democratic voters known as White Evangelicals.

You're proving my point.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm wondering if this is some sort of early buyer's remorse kicking in. "I could have voted for Hillary but she only cared about the gays and never talked about jobs so I couldn't. Only Trump had a plan to MAGA so I was stuck voting for him."

While ignoring which candidate actually had policy positions available to be reviewed and was specific about what she would try to do if elected.

I have no idea if he voted for Trump or not, but I've always found people tend to think a candidate would have won if the candidate mirrored their preferences.

 

[desura]

I'm wondering if this is some sort of early buyer's remorse kicking in. "I could have voted for Hillary but she only cared about the gays and never talked about jobs so I couldn't. Only Trump had a plan to MAGA so I was stuck voting for him."

While ignoring which candidate actually had policy positions available to be reviewed and was specific about what she would try to do if elected.

I didn't vote for Trump.

 

[child of wonder]

Nobody in this thread has suggested means testing for SS. I do not support it.

No but politicians on both sides of the aisle have suggested or supported either means testing or reductions in benefits for higher income earners or those with large amounts of savings.

Bloat is bullshit

Bloat in the context of further expanding benefits and the ever increasing number of people on Social Security Disability.

That part about employers paying in 6.2% on earnings above the cap is incorrect.

You're right. Employer contributions are capped at the same income as employee contributions. I was thinking Medicare tax. My mistake.

Higher payouts for high earners is entirely doable, as well.

Is it? Even if it was, I'd prefer to keep more of my own money and invest it for my own retirement rather than relying on the government to take care of me when I retire. The risk of shenanigans is too high when politicians say "give me your money now and someday many years from now we'll give it back to you."

Income share has shifted to the top, putting a greater share of income above the 90th percentile cap thus starving SS of funds. See table 5-

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update | Tax Foundation

Only 32% of national income was above the cap in 1980. Today it's 46%. SS needs that 14% difference or more if it is to survive.

Maybe some sort of compromise can be worked out, like changing Social Security tax to 2.2% tax on all income, no caps, and 4% on income up to the current cap. Allow individuals to opt out of the 4% tax and then restrict them to means testing when they retire. Should they end up poor in old age and need Social Security they'll only receive the minimum payout.

Just throwing ideas at the wall, but personally I'd rather have more of my own money in my pocket, invest it for my own retirement, and not receive Social Security at all. Obviously this isn't an option for everyone.

 

[senseamp]

Maybe so but what about all the others affected by it who did not vote for them? No empathy for them? Are we to have old people dying in the street? Are we giving up the mantle of a 1st world nation?

GOP has no empathy for the poor or the sick. And what does 1st world mean now? A country with tens of millions of people without health coverage that is OK with it because it saves some rich folks on taxes? That's a banana republic, not 1st world.

 

[senseamp]

I am OK with means testing, but only if SS is renamed "Senior Welfare Program" so the Trump Trash receiving it knows their place.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reorganizing 65% of the current budget into a Universal Basic Income is not unicorns.
The current model as some private pension is antiquated.
You can address automation, unemployment, and stimulus in one fell swoop.

The inevitability will become more plainly obvious each passing year. You cannot stop this, but through delay you can hurt many people.
Just like Trump's regression can hurt people. We need to skip the BS and move forward.

And you'll get that past the current congress how, exactly?

 

[JSt0rm]

If I pay into this thing and they break it I think we will see a lot of class action lawsuits for triple damages from the government for all the money paid into ss tax.

 

[IronWing]

If I pay into this thing and they break it I think we will see a lot of class action lawsuits for triple damages from the government for all the money paid into ss tax.

Nope. That's already been to the Supremes and back. The govmint can screw you out of every last dime of SS without legal recourse. Political recourse is a different story.

 

[JSt0rm]

Nope. That's already been to the Supremes and back. The govmint can screw you out of every last dime of SS without legal recourse. Political recourse is a different story.

show me