Ok, your generation is responsible as well. Considering I'm 40 years from retirement, and will likely not see a dime from social security, I have no guilt in letting your generation dangle like you expect mine to.
Ok, your generation is responsible as well. Considering I'm 40 years from retirement, and will likely not see a dime from social security, I have no guilt in letting your generation dangle like you expect mine to.
No one is expecting your generation to dangle. They are expecting you to do what their generation did, pay your share into the system they paid their share into. The baby boomers were told the system was fixed by Reagan/Bush in the early 80s. Now, after they paid the increased SS taxes demanded of them they're told the system is broken?
BS.
The system is fine. Bush and his ilk have hated the idea of Social Security from its inception. And now they're telling your generation the sky is falling when there is no crisis so they can realize their dream of ending Social Security for the approxamitely 76 million baby boomers who paid their share. Why can't your generation see the dishonesty and unfairness of that? They paid for their benefits now they're told by Bush and you that they won't be getting any return on their investment.
If you people get away with this robbery, and I doubt very much you will, I hope the stock market tanks like it did in 2001 when it's your turn to retire.
It would serve you right.
Dont expect the younger generation to open our wallets to fund your retirment, if we are not going to get the same in kind. I have yet to meet someone my age that thinks we will get anything from SS by the time we retire.
My generation opened our wallets to fund the retirement of our parents' generation. We paid thousands of dollars a year in SS tax so our parents, who paid in only pennies, could live the few years they had left in relative comfort and security.
I don't have to worry about anyone funding my retirement. It's already funded.
If your generation lets Bush implement his plan to destroy Social Security you certainly won't get anything by the time you retire. The system is solvent until 2042 or 2052 depending on whose figures you believe. A few minor adjustments and the system will survive the baby boom retirement quite well. The sky is not falling. Bush and his Wall St. buddies just want to get their hands on a piece of the Social Security pie. The $2 trillion surplus that must be looking like salvation to a man who took a surplus and turned it into a record deficit seemingly overnight.
The baby boom generation paid their share. Now it's your turn. Just how do you hold them in contempt when they did their share. Hold your government in contempt. They are the ones who screwed up the system, not the people who funded it.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No, it's not our turn to pass down this ponzi scheme down to our kids and grandkids like you guys did. It's a failed wealth redistribution program that hurts everyone involved.
Just because you opened your wallet and bought into it - doesn't mean we have to.
CsG
I hold the government AND the people that elected it in contempt. The baby boomers certainly aren't free of blame in this.
Like I said, Dont expect me to open my wallet any wider to fund retirees, when I will not be getting anything anything back from SS. Changes need to made to SS to better reflect the current demographics of this country.
The problem is the Baby boomers didn't pay there share, or if they did they rob the bank they kept the money in. The bady boomers promised that the next generation would give them money for 20-30 years. They have no one to blame but themselves if with any luck bush killies SS off.
If you hold the people who elected the government that raised SS taxes but didn't fix the system responsible you can count me out. I didn't vote for Reagan.
And all this is academic to me. I'm already collecting mine. I'm just trying to help you get yours.
And Bush's goal, no matter what the liar tells you, is to make sure that SS surplus goes into the same pockets his irresponsible tax cut went into. Those rich pals of his who don't need it but can't stand the idea that someone might get a dollar before them.
Wrong. We'll have private accounts for our retirement with significantly better returns. There will be actual physical dollar amounts in OUR names in place of a TAX which you somehow think entitles you to something later in life. It's a tax. It's not insurance, it's not yours, and it's certainly not a retirement plan.
If by a few minor tweaks you mean a) cutting benefits, b) increasing taxes, or c) increasing the retirement age, then you're correct. Otherwise I'd love to hear what glorious plan you have for SS.
I hold the idiots who think SS is a retirement system, and continue to push for it to be so, in contempt.
SS is hardly a wealth redistribution program people on SS are one of the richest demographics. I say means test the program cut SS tax and call it reformed. Bush can take those private accounts and shove them.
Originally posted by: BBond
If you hold the people who elected the government that raised SS taxes but didn't fix the system responsible you can count me out. I didn't vote for Reagan.
And all this is academic to me. I'm already collecting mine. I'm just trying to help you get yours.
And Bush's goal, no matter what the liar tells you, is to make sure that SS surplus goes into the same pockets his irresponsible tax cut went into. Those rich pals of his who don't need it but can't stand the idea that someone might get a dollar before them.
I'm sure you voted for at least one legislator involved in the changes
It's sad that everyone defends a government program that, if I formed a private company to do the same thing, I'd get thrown in jail for running a fraud scam.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You mean the socialists vs the rest of us? I agree, it's a fight they see as "us vs their wallets"
CsG
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: BBond
If you hold the people who elected the government that raised SS taxes but didn't fix the system responsible you can count me out. I didn't vote for Reagan.
And all this is academic to me. I'm already collecting mine. I'm just trying to help you get yours.
And Bush's goal, no matter what the liar tells you, is to make sure that SS surplus goes into the same pockets his irresponsible tax cut went into. Those rich pals of his who don't need it but can't stand the idea that someone might get a dollar before them.
I'm sure you voted for at least one legislator involved in the changes
It's sad that everyone defends a government program that, if I formed a private company to do the same thing, I'd get thrown in jail for running a fraud scam.
You mean running a retirement program where people are forced into it and aren't even guaranteed retirement money by any sort of contract would be illegal to do if you were a private corporation? I wonder why that is. I mean if it's okay for the government to do it it should certainly be okay for private companies to do, right?
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: BBond
If you hold the people who elected the government that raised SS taxes but didn't fix the system responsible you can count me out. I didn't vote for Reagan.
And all this is academic to me. I'm already collecting mine. I'm just trying to help you get yours.
And Bush's goal, no matter what the liar tells you, is to make sure that SS surplus goes into the same pockets his irresponsible tax cut went into. Those rich pals of his who don't need it but can't stand the idea that someone might get a dollar before them.
I'm sure you voted for at least one legislator involved in the changes
It's sad that everyone defends a government program that, if I formed a private company to do the same thing, I'd get thrown in jail for running a fraud scam.
You mean running a retirement program where people are forced into it and aren't even guaranteed retirement money by any sort of contract would be illegal to do if you were a private corporation? I wonder why that is. I mean if it's okay for the government to do it it should certainly be okay for private companies to do, right?
I'd get tossed behind bars even if it was a voluntary program.
Your statement was about generations, not socialists. But since you equate Social Security with socialism, a complete fallacy since Social Security is paid for by the people who receive the benefits, and you are vehementally opposed to socialism..
I assume you also oppose publicly funded highways, fire departments, military, food inspectors, farm subsidies, air trafiic controllers, all of which are much more socialist than Social Security.
Or the blue-state-to-red-state federal tax redistribution welfare program -- which is socialism defined.
M-W.com doesn't seem to think so.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I find it funny that those that base their arguments on the stability of the stock market (which has by the way averaged 11% returns over the entire last century) fail to see the fraility of the government. It seems as if all of the anti-privatization folks see a problem with the free enterprise system, yet fail to realize that the most likely system to collapse would be the government. For all of you socialists, the government is not invincible either. It is easy to say that investing in stocks has risk - it does, but long term indications argue that the risk of loss is near zero. Investing (or putting you hope) in the future of government is entirely not stable. Over the last three centuries, we have been attacked multiple times, have fought a civil war, etc... The government made it but there is a significant risk that any of the above can happen again.
There is risk on both ends. Which is more likely? Well, if history is an indicator, problems with the government that could threaten SS benefits are MUCH MORE likely than those in the private sector. To put too much risk in the hands of the government is STUPID AS HELL. Because I can guarantee that if the government collapsed tomorrow, most private and public businesses would still be around. Business is the ultimate for of government.
There is risk on both ends. Which is more likely? Well, if history is an indicator, problems with the government that could threaten SS benefits are MUCH MORE likely than those in the private sector. To put too much risk in the hands of the government is STUPID AS HELL. Because I can guarantee that if the government collapsed tomorrow, most private and public businesses would still be around. Business is the ultimate for of government.
In 2001 people received their SS checks as they watched their personal retirement accounts disappear.
The stock market is more reliable than the government? LOL
There was a civil war and private industry survived - thrived. Part of the nation did not. If the Southerners had SS at that time, do you think they would have gotten a penny of it? All governments have proven to be unstable over the course of decades. What would the retribution be if at some point the US government came out and said - we are refusing payment on all SS claims, we just cannot afford it. There would not be a single thing anyone could do, but accept it as fact.
In my opinion, this is a more likely scenerio than the market reversing a century long trend. Free markets are their own growth engines. Free markets, inspire individulism, free thought, and development. Free markets exist independantly from government and its shortcomings.
You must also remember that in 2001 people recieved their SS checks as the cash flow into the government faltered (actually started with the 2000 Clinton recession) putting more strain on the government. The market (total market) recovered from its technical recession in two months - the government is still trying to catch up. Multiply the effects of the 2001 recession by 10x and you have a market that is down for two years (total market not just stocks) and a government that is reeling for 20 - remember the depression. US business was well on its way after 1930, the government was in the doldrums until 1942. An event like that today would bankrupt SS in a heartbeat. No more warning, nothing, just no more checks. In the mean time, the markets and all investments still hold value. That value begins to grow.
As tax receipts falter, there is no way the government could support the credits into the SS program. They would eat up all 'savings' (which don't exist by the way) immediately and future input into the system would cease. If unemployment ever hits 10% or more in the US, SS is not sustainable for more than a decade at best. It is funded by current workers, if there are not enough there is a net loss in credits. At some point the dam breaks.
In the event of a major collapse I believe you would see those with real world assets and investments riding the storm much better than those that are entirely dependant on the government. Sure you would lose money, but the swell back to the top would easily make it back for you in short order. If the government goes, there is no backup for the dependant. If the market goes, there are always real world assets to invest in - and foreign markets.
In my opinion, this is a more likely scenerio than the market reversing a century long trend. Free markets are their own growth engines. Free markets, inspire individulism, free thought, and development. Free markets exist independantly from government and its shortcomings.
You must also remember that in 2001 people recieved their SS checks as the cash flow into the government faltered (actually started with the 2000 Clinton recession) putting more strain on the government. The market (total market) recovered from its technical recession in two months - the government is still trying to catch up. Multiply the effects of the 2001 recession by 10x and you have a market that is down for two years (total market not just stocks) and a government that is reeling for 20 - remember the depression. US business was well on its way after 1930, the government was in the doldrums until 1942. An event like that today would bankrupt SS in a heartbeat. No more warning, nothing, just no more checks. In the mean time, the markets and all investments still hold value. That value begins to grow.
As tax receipts falter, there is no way the government could support the credits into the SS program. They would eat up all 'savings' (which don't exist by the way) immediately and future input into the system would cease. If unemployment ever hits 10% or more in the US, SS is not sustainable for more than a decade at best. It is funded by current workers, if there are not enough there is a net loss in credits. At some point the dam breaks.
In the event of a major collapse I believe you would see those with real world assets and investments riding the storm much better than those that are entirely dependant on the government. Sure you would lose money, but the swell back to the top would easily make it back for you in short order. If the government goes, there is no backup for the dependant. If the market goes, there are always real world assets to invest in - and foreign markets.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter