Why can't people accept that social security will eventually require benefit cuts or tax increases?

[tnitsuj]

People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Topic Title: Why can't people accept that social security will eventually require benefit cuts or tax increases?

Who won't accept it???

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Topic Title: Why can't people accept that social security will eventually require benefit cuts or tax increases?

Who won't accept it???

Old people or people near retirement.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Why can't people realize that SS was a ponzi scheme to begin with?

 

[Wag]

Older people vote. There's the problem.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Old people or people near retirement.

I would think that's because when you reach age 60 you don't have much working time left to adjust plans - you've been told 'expect X' all along; how are you supposed to revise your plans when the system is changed and you get shafted?

(It DOESN'T MATTER if the system is underfunded; you act on the information you're given; when it changes, and you lose, the logical reaction is to fight the changes.)

We can thank the 1960's politicians who thought 'spend now, pay later' was such a great scheme🙁

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Why can't people realize that SS was a ponzi scheme to begin with?

John Kerry told us that it was fine the way it is. We don't need to worry about it at all. We should just forget about it until it bites us in the butt, then do a rush patch up job on it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Wag
Older people vote. There's the problem.

indeed.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Why can't people realize that SS was a ponzi scheme to begin with?

John Kerry told us that it was fine the way it is. We don't need to worry about it at all. We should just forget about it until it bites us in the butt, then do a rush patch up job on it.

Did he really. That bastage...where did he say that. I would like the qoute please to show to all my friends so they can be doubly glad that Sen. Kerry wasn't elected.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wag
Older people vote. There's the problem.

indeed.

Hmm. . . let's break this down:
1.Either increase tax, or cut benefits.
2. If the group that will be hurt by a policy votes, that policy won't happen.
3. Old people vote
4. Young people don't vote.

I'll leave the rest of the math up to you.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, why can't people accept the idea that taxes need to be raised, anyway, to repay funds borrowed from the trust, and avoid financial disaster in general?

Privatize SS? Yeh, right, that'll take ~$2T to allow the transition, which will come from where, exactly? Borrow it, on top of the already monstrous republican-induced federal debt? Shee-it, Sherlock, debt maintenance on that would likely cost more than just subsidizing SS... Too bad very few folks who lost their shirts in the crash of '29 are still alive to explain just how their retirement funds went down the porcelain bowl...

SS is solvent until ~2042, provided that the govt is able to repay the trust gradually, starting in ~2016. Which is precisely the reason that fiscal responsibility is needed right now, to allow that to happen. Not likely, with Repubs running Congress and GWB in the Oval office...

Their strategy is to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy, spend more on corporate pork, borrow the difference, then welch on SS in order to make ends meet at crunch time. It's a form of looting, the greatest transfer of wealth to the upper class ever conceived.

Not that middle class so-called conservatives care or even see it coming- they've been bought off with a pittance, some pocket change now in return for their retirements down the road...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wag
Older people vote. There's the problem.

indeed.

Hmm. . . let's break this down:
1.Either increase tax, or cut benefits.
2. If the group that will be hurt by a policy votes, that policy won't happen.
3. Old people vote
4. Young people don't vote.

I'll leave the rest of the math up to you.

well you see, young people are very stupid 😉

it's a chicken-and-egg thing, though. many young people don't vote because politicians aren't talking about any of their issues (like SS reform); politicians aren't talking about issues that affect young people because they don't vote; etc.

 

[SuperTool]

I accept that it will require tax increases. 🙂

 

[mwtgg]

I accept that the system is fundamentally flawed and that something needs to get done.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I accept that it will require tax increases. 🙂

Increase the tax those under 25 by %40.
For every 5 more years of age reduce the increase percentage by %5.
Also, remove the ceiling for taxation, but leave in place the cieling for benefits.

ie.
30-> 35
35 -> 30
40 -> 25
45 -> 20
50 -> 15
55-> 10
60 -> 5

One the lower ages will have less income to feel the pain.
Two, the lower ages are less likely to rebel by voting aginst Congress (the record shows they usually do not vote, especially in non presidentail elections).
Three, the lower ages will be the ones to get the most benefit for the system to remain solvent.

The change in the taxation ceiling will also pump more funds into the system by those that are close to utilizing the system.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
People bitch and moan and draw red lines whenever any talk of seriously reforming social security comes up because in the end you are either going to have to cut benefits, raise taxes to cover benefits/reforms such as private savings accounts, or do a combination of both.

Thier is no magic revenue neutral way to fix social security.

Why can't people realize that SS was a ponzi scheme to begin with?

John Kerry told us that it was fine the way it is. We don't need to worry about it at all. We should just forget about it until it bites us in the butt, then do a rush patch up job on it.

:roll: :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, why can't people accept the idea that taxes need to be raised, anyway, to repay funds borrowed from the trust, and avoid financial disaster in general?

Privatize SS? Yeh, right, that'll take ~$2T to allow the transition, which will come from where, exactly? Borrow it, on top of the already monstrous republican-induced federal debt? Shee-it, Sherlock, debt maintenance on that would likely cost more than just subsidizing SS... Too bad very few folks who lost their shirts in the crash of '29 are still alive to explain just how their retirement funds went down the porcelain bowl...

SS is solvent until ~2042, provided that the govt is able to repay the trust gradually, starting in ~2016. Which is precisely the reason that fiscal responsibility is needed right now, to allow that to happen. Not likely, with Repubs running Congress and GWB in the Oval office...

Their strategy is to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy, spend more on corporate pork, borrow the difference, then welch on SS in order to make ends meet at crunch time. It's a form of looting, the greatest transfer of wealth to the upper class ever conceived.

Not that middle class so-called conservatives care or even see it coming- they've been bought off with a pittance, some pocket change now in return for their retirements down the road...

:beer:

 

[dannybin1742]

why not pose this question:

what party caused this problem....you guessed it, the republicans, tax cut, pork barrel, war, that chews through any money built up in a surplus, not to mension, SS was not in hot water until aftera ll this.

nothing in this country is gonna change until people really start hurting, then they will realise whats been going on

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
why not pose this question:

what party caused this problem....you guessed it, the republicans, tax cut, pork barrel, war, that chews through any money built up in a surplus, not to mension, SS was not in hot water until aftera ll this.

nothing in this country is gonna change until people really start hurting, then they will realise whats been going on

Are you kidding me? The system was destined to fail since it was set up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Jhhnn - Taxes don't need raised. What needs to be changed is the scam they claim is "Social Security". I was watching Meet the Depressed this morning and the poor sap who is now the Sen Minority Leader (now that Daschole is gone!😀). He was claiming that everything was fine. So is he right or you? You say taxes need to be raised - he says it's fine as is.
I say it should be scrapped before it totally destroys our system.

I will not accept any tax increases to "save" that failed scam. Period.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
why not pose this question:

what party caused this problem....you guessed it, the republicans, tax cut, pork barrel, war, that chews through any money built up in a surplus, not to mension, SS was not in hot water until aftera ll this.

nothing in this country is gonna change until people really start hurting, then they will realise whats been going on

Are you kidding me? The system was destined to fail since it was set up.

Shhh - some people here don't understand that. Any talk like that will send them into a frenzy trying to defend the wealth transfer.

CsG

 

[LunarRay]

Social Security.... I wonder what that meant back then? Wonder what it means today? I wonder if there is a change in the meaning?
I wonder if the life span increase now enjoyed is the major factor to the cost of the program. If that is the case then the benefits should start at a point close to when the two periods match... expected years of 'social security'. This should not give rise to increased tax to provide benefits but there is another factor. Jobs.... Jobs for those who wish to work until they are 75 or so and for the folks out of work who'd be paying into the fund if they were employed.
It seems to me that we are the government and as such we should do a better job of it. Why are there so many homeless and starving people in this nation. Where is their 'social security'?
We don't live in a Social country economically... we is Capitalists.. survival of the fittest and 'Social Security' is inconsistent with that philosophy... Pure and Simple.. IMO

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Social Security.... I wonder what that meant back then? Wonder what it means today? I wonder if there is a change in the meaning?
I wonder if the life span increase now enjoyed is the major factor to the cost of the program. If that is the case then the benefits should start at a point close to when the two periods match... expected years of 'social security'. This should not give rise to increased tax to provide benefits but there is another factor. Jobs.... Jobs for those who wish to work until they are 75 or so and for the folks out of work who'd be paying into the fund if they were employed.
It seems to me that we are the government and as such we should do a better job of it. Why are there so many homeless and starving people in this nation. Where is their 'social security'?
We don't live in a Social country economically... we is Capitalists.. survival of the fittest and 'Social Security' is inconsistent with that philosophy... Pure and Simple.. IMO

Life expectancy has rising dramatically(65 to 80 or something like that). Why hasn't the collection age risen along with it?

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

From mwtgg-

Are you kidding me? The system was destined to fail since it was set up.

That's not necessarily true, at all. And even if it is, that's no excuse for the looting now going on, is it?

So-called conservatives have predicted doom and gloom for SS from its inception, and it hasn't happened yet. That was 68 years ago....

That's not to say that changes aren't in order, at all, just that current fiscal policy dooms SS more than any other factor...

Given that the world is a lot different today than it was in 1966, there's little reason to believe that it won't be equally different in 2042. There's a great deal of time to think, tweak and refine the system, provided that our Republican friends don't run us all into the poorhouse prior to 2016, which is clearly their intent.

What they're preaching, and what some folks are apparently buying, is a self-fulfilling prophesy. They intend to destroy SS, convince us all that they couldn't stop it, while getting fat off the whole deal in the meanwhile...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Social Security.... I wonder what that meant back then? Wonder what it means today? I wonder if there is a change in the meaning?
I wonder if the life span increase now enjoyed is the major factor to the cost of the program. If that is the case then the benefits should start at a point close to when the two periods match... expected years of 'social security'. This should not give rise to increased tax to provide benefits but there is another factor. Jobs.... Jobs for those who wish to work until they are 75 or so and for the folks out of work who'd be paying into the fund if they were employed.
It seems to me that we are the government and as such we should do a better job of it. Why are there so many homeless and starving people in this nation. Where is their 'social security'?
We don't live in a Social country economically... we is Capitalists.. survival of the fittest and 'Social Security' is inconsistent with that philosophy... Pure and Simple.. IMO

Life expectancy has rising dramatically(65 to 80 or something like that). Why hasn't the collection age risen along with it?

CsG

It should but so should the ability to remain employed to reach that point... don't you think?