• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Expand Social Security

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This article, The sharing economy will screw us all ? and it?s retirement we have to be really worried about - Salon.com , is a bit long but worth reading. It makes pretty good argument for expanding Social Security because Social Security is the only reliable retirement funding Americans have.

first off it is a salon article.
so I take what it says with a grain of salt.

secondly no SS isn't the only reliable retirement fund. in fact it is not that reliable at all.
so expanding it would only chasten the death of the program that it is already on.

Currently according to the SSN trustee's the SS fund has enough money to pay full benefits
till 2036. the disability fund is in way worse shape saying it will run out of money this year.

the SS system was setup to die a horrible death anyway.
no Ponzi scheme ever works.
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
first off it is a salon article.
so I take what it says with a grain of salt.

It's your choice but if you're implying it's unreliable you're wrong.


secondly no SS isn't the only reliable retirement fund. in fact it is not that reliable at all.
so expanding it would only chasten the death of the program that it is already on.

Wrong on both counts. The article explains why. The alternatives are shown to be unreliable.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
39,417
Reaction score
7,875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
first off it is a salon article.
so I take what it says with a grain of salt.

secondly no SS isn't the only reliable retirement fund. in fact it is not that reliable at all.
What???? Where do you come-up with this?

SS is one the most reliable retirement funds available!

so expanding it would only chasten the death of the program that it is already on.
Currently according to the SSN trustee's the SS fund has enough money to pay full benefits
till 2036. the disability fund is in way worse shape saying it will run out of money this year.
This has been threatened and fostered upon us by anti-SS lobbyists ever since I can remember; and it's B.S. It hasn't happened yet, and I've been around quite a few decades.

I don't know if it should be expanded - but if it is, then it gets funded, like any other program. There's no death sentence here, but the Wall Street lobbyists would like you to think so because the want their greedy hands on this money!

the SS system was setup to die a horrible death anyway.
no Ponzi scheme ever works.
Designed to die? Cites, please.

And Ponzi scheme? You're or playing fast & lose with definitions! It's not that at all!
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's your choice but if you're implying it's unreliable you're wrong.
Wrong on both counts. The article explains why. The alternatives are shown to be unreliable.

no it is unreliable because it is the same nonsense we keep hearing constantly. so that is why it is wrong.
yep in 2008 most retirement account took a hit. in fact most people did lost a chunk.

however the next few years after that at least my account has doubled since or more.
so why did they leave that out of the article I have to ask?

if they are being so honest in their discussion.

some people saw a -28 to -35% in 2008, however the next few years it came back more than that amount
easily unless you moved your money.

so no they are not being honest in their discussions.

I know in 2009 my mutual fund jumped 50%.
the year after that it jumped another 35% or more basically wiping out any of the losses that I took
in 2008. it went like that for a lot of folks.

mutual funds and retirement accounts are long term investments. we don't worry about temporary ups and downs in the market, but
the long term averages.

you keep your money invested in large growth cap mutual funds over the course of the years they will earn you an average of 12%.
my so called SS isn't earning my anything it is going to someone else.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What???? Where do you come-up with this?

SS is one the most reliable retirement funds available!

yes that is why it is going to run out of money in 2035 because it is so reliable.
do you actually read any information before you jump to conclusions?

This has been threatened and fostered upon us by anti-SS lobbyists ever since I can remember; and it's B.S. It hasn't happened yet, and I've been around quite a few decades.

So you are saying that the trustees that manage the SS funds are lying? what information do you have to support this?
because they are the ones saying it.

I don't know if it should be expanded - but if it is, then it gets funded, like any other program. There's no death sentence here, but the Wall Street lobbyists would like you to think so because the want their greedy hands on this money!

how do you propose we provide more funds? more taxes? hit more hard working people in their pocket so they
can give their money to someone else. frankly I am tired of handing my money over to other people to spend.

Designed to die? Cites, please.
And Ponzi scheme? You're or playing fast & lose with definitions! It's not that at all!

you need to look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme then.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources.

that is social security in a nutshell.

it promises retirement benefits by way of new workers.
while it might invest those funds the bulk of the funding comes from SS payroll tax on workers who they in turn promise
returns with other workers.

when the SS first started there were 36 workers to every person that pulled from the account.
now it is down to like 2 workers for every 1 person.

pretty soon the baby boomers are going to retire. that is going to put a whole new stress on the system.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is another that is a little better.

Better individual planning and self control.
In the solid middle and upper incomes, and in times of economic stability and prosperity, I agree to a point. But investing a 401K in the market has it's risks (remember 2008/9?), and even low yield bonds have their risks. Alternatively, hoarding cash or money market accounts or CDs will cause a loss or future value principle due to inflation. So, there's really no more secure guarantor than the U.S. government. In times of disaster the government is always the last to fall, and if it does everything else has already been lost!

But self-saving doesn't work in well in the lower incomes due to their lack of disposable income to squirrel away. The SS pay-off for these folks for their limited pay-in will generally be better than what they could do on their own. And yes, the higher wage earners do pick-up part of the tab for the lower wage crowd. SS is a tax based revenue system.
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
no it is unreliable because it is the same nonsense we keep hearing constantly. so that is why it is wrong.
yep in 2008 most retirement account took a hit. in fact most people did lost a chunk.

however the next few years after that at least my account has doubled since or more.
so why did they leave that out of the article I have to ask?

if they are being so honest in their discussion.

some people saw a -28 to -35% in 2008, however the next few years it came back more than that amount
easily unless you moved your money.

so no they are not being honest in their discussions.

I know in 2009 my mutual fund jumped 50%.
the year after that it jumped another 35% or more basically wiping out any of the losses that I took
in 2008. it went like that for a lot of folks.

mutual funds and retirement accounts are long term investments. we don't worry about temporary ups and downs in the market, but
the long term averages.

you keep your money invested in large growth cap mutual funds over the course of the years they will earn you an average of 12%.
my so called SS isn't earning my anything it is going to someone else.

That kind of volatility is the problem. Markets are unreliable. If market value increases, OK. If it doesn't, then what? How do retirees fund their retirement?
 

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
657
Location
Shady Dale, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Seniors that are living only on Social Security are people who failed to plan. They are people who did not have the discipline to save money through their working lifetime. Social Security is Supplemental Income, it is not meant to be the entire retirement. I have no sympathy for them. None. If they have spent decades not willing to help themselves, why is it my responsibility to fix it for them now? Where's the lesson for those coming up if we pick these people up and carry them now? Seniors that only have Social Security will simply have to work more years and make decisions to live more frugally.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That kind of volatility is the problem. Markets are unreliable. If market value increases, OK. If it doesn't, then what? How do retirees fund their retirement?

in retirement accounts you don't look at the short term up and downs. you look at overall growth.
so even after 2008 I still managed 12%+ ROI.

that is more than I am getting from SS which I am getting nothing for anything that the government takes.

you are confusing retirement investing with stock trading.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seniors that are living only on Social Security are people who failed to plan. They are people who did not have the discipline to save money through their working lifetime. Social Security is Supplemental Income, it is not meant to be the entire retirement. I have no sympathy for them. None. If they have spent decades not willing to help themselves, why is it my responsibility to fix it for them now? Where's the lesson for those coming up if we pick these people up and carry them now? Seniors that only have Social Security will simply have to work more years and make decisions to live more frugally.

My dad finally retired. He had a small pension that is being given.
he has a 401k that was being rolled. he has SS now coming in.

with all those things prepped he is making more money than when he was working.
if he had just SS then he wouldn't have made it I don't think.
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
in retirement accounts you don't look at the short term up and downs. you look at overall growth.
so even after 2008 I still managed 12%+ ROI.

that is more than I am getting from SS which I am getting nothing for anything that the government takes.

you are confusing retirement investing with stock trading.

There's no difference. All investments are subject to market risk.
 

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
657
Location
Shady Dale, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
My dad finally retired. He had a small pension that is being given.
he has a 401k that was being rolled. he has SS now coming in.

with all those things prepped he is making more money than when he was working.
if he had just SS then he wouldn't have made it I don't think.

If a persons has planned for retirement, they will need less income to make it. You plan to have your house paid for, your cars paid for, and no major bills in retirement. You choose to retire somewhere that has low taxes or preplan how you will pay for that. And yes, you save money during your working life. When we decide that the government is going to fix the bad decisions of those that failed to save, we are telling those that did plan, scrimp, and save that their doing the right thing doesn't matter because the government will carry those that didn't. It's like giving a trophy for last place, or a professor giving everyone the same grade regardless of effort.

He who fails to plan, plans to fail.
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
My dad finally retired. He had a small pension that is being given.
he has a 401k that was being rolled. he has SS now coming in.

with all those things prepped he is making more money than when he was working.
if he had just SS then he wouldn't have made it I don't think.

Good for him but most retirees aren't that fortunate. Pensions are rare and they haven't been able to put enough into their tax-preferenced investments. They have to rely on SS to a far greater extent than ever was intended. That's why we have to expand it. They just don't have enough to retire decently.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There's no difference. All investments are subject to market risk.

nope in stock trading you are worried about short term ups and down.
retirement investing it is getting the best return on your money before you
need to pull it out.

if you don't want to invest and save your money that is fine. SS should not be expanded just because
you were not smart enough to plan ahead.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,502
Reaction score
56,779
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This article, The sharing economy will screw us all ? and it?s retirement we have to be really worried about - Salon.com , is a bit long but worth reading. It makes pretty good argument for expanding Social Security because Social Security is the only reliable retirement funding Americans have.

but that's socialism. if enough old people are starving, the market will find a way to feed them and make a tidy profit while doing so. socialism kills. starvation and homelessness are market forces.


/sarc
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Seniors that are living only on Social Security are people who failed to plan. They are people who did not have the discipline to save money through their working lifetime. ...

They may not have had enough income to save. Every dollar they earned might have gone to current expense. What about them?
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good for him but most retirees aren't that fortunate. Pensions are rare and they haven't been able to put enough into their tax-preferenced investments. They have to rely on SS to a far greater extent than ever was intended. That's why we have to expand it. They just don't have enough to retire decently.

then they should have saved and invested instead of blowing their money on things they really didn't need.
you can either plan and invest and save now or you can attempt to live on what piddly amount
SS says you can have hoping that they don't cut their distribution because they ran out of money.
 

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
657
Location
Shady Dale, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
They may not have had enough income to save. Every dollar they earned might have gone to current expense. What about them?

That is what we call an EXCUSE. The left is full of them. If they did not have enough income to save, who is at fault for that? The individual is. It's that simple. If you make $100 you save $10. If you make $1000, you save $100. You set a percentage and you save it. Or you vote Democrat and hope that the state will carry you. If every dollar they earned went to expenses, they had two choices all those years. Reduce expenses or make more revenue. Again, I have no sympathy for those that utterly failed to plan.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,502
Reaction score
56,779
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

ah, Mr. Dickens. how apt you were.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
yes that is why it is going to run out of money in 2035 because it is so reliable.
do you actually read any information before you jump to conclusions?



So you are saying that the trustees that manage the SS funds are lying? what information do you have to support this?
because they are the ones saying it.
I haven't seen you provide any cites in support of your assertion, but right now everyone is receiving their checks, and they have been for nearly a century! I don'y believe it's my job to prove your assertions of eminent failure. If you believe this is all going to come crashing down, please provide reliable cites and I'll be happy to look at them and comment.

But please keep in my mind changes in funding levels does not imply "the end of the system"!

And in all fairness I must let you know that due to Mother's day festivities beginning here, my responses today might be minimal or non-existent.

how do you propose we provide more funds? more taxes? hit more hard working people in their pocket so they
can give their money to someone else. frankly I am tired of handing my money over to other people to spend.
If indeed, the system is due to need funding - and indeed it may, then gets funded like any other program. It's a fair point those in the middle incomes pay the brunt of this, and I'd have no problems removing the current taxable income level limit ($118K). It's my understanding that this alone would balance the federal budget and erase the deficit. Actually, I'm all for closing most of the high-income revenue loopholes to give the middle-class the break they need and deserve!

you need to look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme then.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources.

that is social security in a nutshell.

it promises retirement benefits by way of new workers.
while it might invest those funds the bulk of the funding comes from SS payroll tax on workers who they in turn promise
returns with other workers.

when the SS first started there were 36 workers to every person that pulled from the account.
now it is down to like 2 workers for every 1 person.

pretty soon the baby boomers are going to retire. that is going to put a whole new stress on the system.
No, I still very much disagree!

There is a difference between insurance and Ponzi. And SS is insurance. Like any insurance, the premiums vary with payout. If/when the boomers are gone and the millennials start collecting, the financing pendulum may indeed swing the other way (or not, depending on the factors).

Now, if we'd like to start working on fraud, I'm all for it! I suspect we can eliminate a fair amount of those on disability from my anecdotal experience, but I don't have time to look for cites right now.
 

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
then they should have saved and invested instead of blowing their money on things they really didn't need.
you can either plan and invest and save now or you can attempt to live on what piddly amount
SS says you can have hoping that they don't cut their distribution because they ran out of money.

That answer is not acceptable. Morality demands we care for the poor and those in desperate situations.
 
Top Bottom